A new study has found that most people who are injured while riding bikes in the United States were not wearing a cycle helmet at the time of the incident, and that people who were wearing one were less likely to die from their injuries.
Published in the journal Brain Injury, the study analysed data relating to 76,032 cycling injuries between 2002 and 2012 from the National Trauma Data Bank.
They found that only one in five adults (22 per cent) and one in eight children (12 per cent) were recorded as wearing a helmet when they were injured.
Women (28 per cent) were more likely then men (21 per cent) to have been wearing a helmet, and white cyclists (27 per cent) than black or Hispanic riders (6 and 8 per cent respectively).
Helmet wearers were 44 per cent less likely to die from their injuries than people who did not wear one, and the study also found that their injuries were less severe and that they spent less time in intensive care and were released from hospital sooner.
Co-author Shahrzad Bazargan-Hejazi of the Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science and David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA told Reuters: “Non-users of the bike helmet are more likely to be less educated or aware of the protective nature of the helmet; to be risk-takers and have a perception that they can handle risky road situations; and consider wearing helmet not a practical thing to do, or not a cool thing to do. Affordability is also a factor for people from lower socioeconomic status.”
The study called for greater efforts to be made to encourage people to wear helmets while cycling, and Bazargan-Hejazi added: “Once on the road we do not have much control over the road condition or the environment, which can be the cause of all sort of accidents.
“However, we have relative control over our behaviour and action. We can use safety gears to protect ourselves against uncontrollable road conditions and environment, and bike helmet is one of those useful protective gears.”
In the US, 21 states have statewide helmet laws, in all cases applying only to younger cyclists (typically, under-16s).
The helmet debate invokes passions on both sides, and while there are regular calls to make cycle helmets mandatory for all riders, cycling campaigners point out that introducing such legislation discourages people from cycling and thereby has a more negative effect on public health overall.
Other studies have also shown that motorists tend to give more space when overtaking to cyclists who are not wearing helmets, meaning that those who do wear one may be at greater risk of being involved in a collision in the first place.
Cycling advocate Chris Boardman has also said that helmets “are not even in the top 10 of things you need to do to keep cycling safe” and that the focus on the issue not only distracts from areas such as putting safe infrastructure in place, but also actively discourages people from cycling since it reinforces the misconception that cycling is inherently dangerous.




















72 thoughts on “Study claims cyclists wearing helmets less likely to die from injuries”
Hmmm.
Hmmm.
I’m curious about the relationship between the ratio of helmet wearers (vs helmet non-wearers) in the wider population compared to this study as there is an element of self-selection here. Riders that are sensible/lucky enough to not be injured are not represented in this study (as are non-head injuries).
Graphs. More graphs are needed.
Someone needs to compare and
Someone needs to compare and contrast the effect sizes on injuries and KSIs of
a) wearing a helmet
b) living somewhere with proper cycling infrastructure
Helmet debates – the dead cat of road safety debates
And yet 300,000 people die
And yet 300,000 people die each year in the US from not riding a bike… or walking.
My two observations from
My two observations from their text:
1. Anybody citing Thompson, Rivara & Thompson is struggling to justify their point
2. They state 21% of males reporting a head injury were wearing a helmet. Also 22% of males wear a helmet. So the proportion of males with a head injury is essentially the same as those wearing a helmet. So wearing one isnt reducing the likelihood then?
I quickly lost the will to delve deeper.
RichK wrote:
Completely concur. The simple test for the validity of cycle helmet research is infallible; if they quote Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, it isn’t.
burtthebike wrote:
RichK wrote:
Conveniently overlooking the fact that they found that: “Helmet wearers were 44 per cent less likely to die from their injuries than people who did not wear one, and the study also found that their injuries were less severe and that they spent less time in intensive care and were released from hospital sooner.”
If you fall off and bump your noggin, you’re likely to sustain injury, but the finding of this fairly extensive study is that that injury will be, on average, less severe if you’re wearing a helmet.
Something to consider, I’ve tied you to a chair and I’m going to drop a lump of kerbstone on your head (I don’t know why, just a psychopath I guess) that weighs about ten lbs from a height of eight feet. That roughly simulates the effect of falling off your bike at a standstill (maybe you forgot to clip out or something). Now, I’m giving you a free choice as to whether or not to put on a cycle helmet before I d rop it. Will you take it? No “this study says XYZ” or debate about compulsory helmets (which I oppose), just will you wear the helmet or not in that scenario, yes or no?
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
How about a counter-proposal.
I’ll tie you to the same chair, but rather than dropping a kerbstone, I’ll be swinging it around a bit. However, if you’re wearing a helmet then I’ll be aiming to go closer to your head than if you’re not. Would you rather trust my judgement of distance or the protective effect of the helmet?
[/quote]
Crikey, the helmet use debate really is as toxic as vaccines and climate change now. It seems that people see themselves as “pro” or “anti” and refuse to look at any evidence to the contrary – look at the example on this thread where someone has refused to read the rest of the paper because it included a reference they object to in the introduction.
To further the analogy where we are tying people in chairs, the best thing to do is not to sit around and imagine in our heads whether swinging people around or dropping kerbs results in more injuries, but to look at ooh, lets say 70,000 cases where people have been injured whilst strapped in chairs and see what factors were independently associated with fewer/less severe injuries.
We all know about risk compensation and yes it is a real effect, but it is still entirely possible that wearing a helmet results in less severe inuries overall.
As a general plea, is it possible to limit discussion on this thread to ACTUAL CRITICISM OF THE PAPER?
As a starter for 10, of course this is a retrospective observational study so at best all it can demostrate is correlation, not causation. It is entrely possible that those choosing to wear helmets in this study were naturally better/more cautious/less frequent riders than those not wearing helmets. The problem is that unless you were to prospectively randomise people to enforced helmet (or not) use, this bias is impossible to eradicate, so we are left with having to perform this type of study. Are there any such in the literature with a similar sample size that show an opposite effect? If not, why not?
stomec wrote:
I found this Danish study: https://videnskab.dk/kultur-samfund/cykelhjelme-er-ikke-sa-effektive-som-vi-tror
hawkinspeter wrote:
That study said,
“I Danmark har det flere gange været foreslået at gøre hjelmene lovpligtige, ligesom i Australien.
Resultatet af den australske lov er dog ifølge Rune Elvik langt fra entydige:
»Man skulle tro, at den øgede brug af hjelme som følge af lovgivning ville medføre et mindre antal hovedskader, men de studier, der er lavet, viser ingen klar tendens. I et af studierne finder man endda, at hovedskader blandt fodgængere er gået lige så meget ned i perioden, som for cyklister. Så der ligger en stor opgave i at gennemgå de studier og prøve at lave en generel konklusion.«
Den australske lovgivning har været meget kontroversiel, og Rune Elviks analyse har da også vakt interesse i Australien:
»Jeg er blevet kontaktet af folk fra Australien, hvor der nærmest hersker en krig om spørgsmålet. Det bliver selvfølgelig også diskuteret lidt i Europa; særligt i Danmark og Holland, hvor der er organisationer, der modsætter sig lovgivning om hjelme. De læser nok mit arbejde som et indlæg mod hjelme, og det kan man muligvis også godt gøre, men min hovedinteresse har først og fremmest været spørgsmålene om metoden.”
So that’s that settled, then!
hawkinspeter wrote:
Or there is the Australian and New Zealand whole population data over a period of twenty five years, so rather more conclusive than a clearly biased study.
burtthebike wrote:
Yep, demographic changes in both cases – we can perhaps conclude that, somewhat unsurprisingly, those may lead to differences in injury rates, severities, survivabilities and so on.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Thanks. From what I can see clicking through to the paper linked in mthe article, this is an amended re-analysis of an older meta analysis trying to account for a lot of different potential bias.
They concluded that wearing a helmet resulted in a 33% reduction in head injury.
Not sure this goes against the original paper cited here?
stomec wrote:
I was thinking of this section (translated):
However, according to Rune Elvik, if you take a closer look at the individual injuries, there are indications that the helmets protect better against the more serious injuries than against the less serious injuries:
“Compared to head injuries, there is still a clear reduction in injuries when wearing a helmet. But if you look at neck and neck injuries, for example, all studies suggest an increased risk of injury when riding a helmet. “
Wear the helmet and look away! There is some indication that the bicycle helmet causes us to take more chances in the street. This could possibly explain that increased use of a helmet has not automatically caused fewer injuries to cyclists. (Photo: Colourbox)
“But it should be said here that the neck injuries are probably not as serious as the head injuries, but rather are minor injuries in the style of whipping,” says Rune Elvik.
Australian researcher and bicycle activist William Curnow in the journal Accident Analysis & Prevention has repeatedly pointed out that helmets may increase the risk of a particular type of brain injury where the brain rotates inside the skull, but according to Rune Elvik, there is far no agreement as to whether is the case.
It’s also interesting how the protective effect of helmets appears to have diminished over time which the article supposes is to do with risk compensation.
hawkinspeter wrote:
It’s also interesting how the protective effect of helmets appears to have diminished over time which the article supposes is to do with risk compensation.— stomec
I think this proves why Google translate versions of wan pages analysing scientific papers are generally not regarded as reliable sources of data!
Nice squirrel pictures though…
stomec wrote:
Or we could look at head injury rates in countries where helmet use is not the norm (like Netherlands and head injury rates where helmet use is mandatory and conclude that helmets are harmful, or more correctly the influence of helmets is just noise compared to the real issues that are not being debated.
Or we could look at all head injuries reporting in hospital and identify what activity was being undertaken, and then perhaps we can push for mandatory helmets in cars, on the stairs and Iin the shower.
Roubaixcobbles wrote:
Eight feet!? Are you simulating penny-farthing riders?
They say themselves that
They say themselves that those who don’t wear a helmet are more likely to be risk takers. This implies to me that the populations they study are not putting themselves into equivalent situations, and will likely receive a different variety of injuries. This study seems to be closer to the correlative “x gives you cancer” headlines which link people whose lifestyle includes x (as well as y and z), and increased cancer risks. Better studies with matched populations and controls are difficult to do!
The answer to this type of study always seems to be “there’s not much in it”, I wear a helmet for the vast majority of my riding, but am very much against compulsion to do so.
We need a venn diagram. One
We need a venn diagram. One that also includes squirrels cycling and wearing helmets.
Rick_Rude wrote:
I tried to chase a squirrel named Vern on my bike the other day. I’ve got no idea how he could reach the pedals.
hawkinspeter wrote:
How is it that that every subject descends into some sort of sciurine debate?
Michael Scott wrote:
Descends or ascends?
It seems to be the time of
It seems to be the time of the squirrel, I see many more at this time of year, with them becoming even more active and seemingly throwing themselves under my wheels as October and November approach. I’m seeing a lot more of the poor unfortunate ones on the roads too.
There was an explosion in the number of pheasants last month, who seem to like to foolishly run in front of the bicycle for far longer than would seem sensible, before moving off in a sideways direction and relief for all.
Lot of Red Kites out there too. Magnificent creatures.
ktache wrote:
I’ve also noticed that they seem to weigh a lot more at this time of year. As a comparison, I selected three squirrels and put the youngest one onto some rabbit fur lined scales – it weighed more or less half a pound. The next one was a bit older and I weighed it using some dog fur scales and it was about one pound. The last one I popped onto some hippo-skin lined scales and it was one and a half pounds.
This proves that the squirrel on the hippopotamus is equal to the sum of the squirrels on the other two hides.
hawkinspeter wrote:
The real question as I see it is whether a squirrel on a bicycle wearing a helmet is more likely to be able to outrun the (Yorkshire) whippet pursuing it than the squirrel on a bicycle not wearing a helmet. From my observations, whether a squirrel is or is not wearing a cycle helmet is unlikely to give it any protection should it be unfortunate enough to be caught by a (Yorskhire) whippet.
🙂
OldRidgeback wrote:
Can’t they just be friends?
hawkinspeter wrote:
In the case of my whippet, absolutely not. He views (grey) squirrels as a menace to respectable society.
OldRidgeback wrote:
.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Look at those big staring eyes, sharp teeth and menacing sneer. Perhaps you can understand why my whippet sees this as prey to be pursued at high velocity.
OldRidgeback wrote:
I once tried to feed a digestive biscuit to a grey squirrel in a local park. I held it out, the squirrel came closer. It gently took hold of my fingers with its cute little hands, then sank its ratty yellow little teeth into them – I dropped the biscuit, which it then grabbed and with which it ran away (cackling, I’m sure…).
Squirrels! I hates ’em! I hates ’em all!
brooksby wrote:
.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Yes! Even that one!
brooksby wrote:
.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Is that like how to prove that witches are made of wood?

ktache wrote:
I have yet to see a paper describing the friction coefficient of a squirrel and I feel science is poorer for it
Apparently loving an
Apparently loving an Australian is controversial, so Rune Elvis* hit them with a sporgsmalet.
*Other Nordic tribute acts are available.
(Danish is not my first language)
Looking at the data it seems
Looking at the data it seems that there was no significant difference in injury severity between helmet wearers and non helemet wearers but there was a difference in both hospital and ICU Length of Stay and mortality.
Helmet wearers spent less time in ICU, less time in hospital and were less likely to die as a result of their injuries.
This could be due to demographics, these were markedly different between helmet wearers and non helmet wearers.
Alternatively wearing a helmet may have a protective effect against life threatening injuries.
Rich_cb wrote:
Rich, much as I love your helmet loving, this study already tells you that those wearing helmets were more affluent. Being America they got better care ergo better results…
alansmurphy wrote:
Firstly, I acknowledged the demographic difference as a potential confounding factor.
The non-helmet wearers however, had longer “Length of Stay” in both hospital and ICU.
Their care would almost certainly have cost more as a result. ICU is at least $2000/day.
Emergency care is not based on insurance.
That’s part of the catch-22 of American Healthcare. The non-insured can’t get timely treatment for their ailments so they end up presenting as emergencies, they then have very expensive emergency care which they cannot afford so they defualt on the bill and insurance premiums for everybody else rise to cover the default.
This makes insurance even less affordable so more people can’t get timely care and present as emergencies. Etc etc.
Oh, here we go again.
Oh, here we go again.
The only things to conclude are; 1. Not everyone in the US dies from gun shot injuries. 2. Helmet privilege is a thing.
I guess if 76K cases over 10 years isn’t statistical enough for you then all data is anecdotal. Just let them be. I have a feeling nothing here is going to change. We will see again in 5 weeks.
Organon wrote:
It is far too easy to get the results you want by selecting the evidence that shows what you want, and this is a meta-analysis, not original research, so all you have to do is pick the right papers. As pointed out by myself and others, this study cites Thompson, Rivara and Thompson (TRT) whose research has been described by one academic as a case study in how not to do research. TRT are notorious for their totally unscientific, biased approach.
Take the paper quoted in this research, the Cochrane report by TRT. Now, Cochrane reports, because of their scientific rigor, were looked on as the gold standard for research. Cochrane reviews have very strict rules; the authors must be neutral and the studies they look at must be wide ranging. TRT are the world’s biggest helmet zealots and they selected mostly their own papers and excluded anything which might prove them wrong. Cochrane reports are now seriously devalued.
Anyone using this Cochrane report to support their case is clearly biased and unscientific.
The study mentioned in this
The study mentioned in this article is not a meta analysis.
It is original retrospective research.
The citiation is just acknowledging previous research. It is standard practice when writing research papers to cite existing evidence in the field.
It doesn’t affect the validity of the citing paper in the slightest.
Rich_cb wrote:
Fair point, not a meta analysis in the strict sense, but still open to manipulation by selecting previous research which shows what you want, and anyone who cites previous research must be saying that it is relevant, scientific and reliable. As I’ve pointed out the Cochrane review by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson was a travesty, ignoring every criterion for such reports, and if you cite it, you are at best demonstrating your ignorance, and at worst demonstrating your bias. I’m afraid if you cite blatantly biased research it really does affect the validity of your own research.
burtthebike wrote:
Not a meta-analysis in any sense. They are not selecting previous research. They are analysing pre-existing data.
“Data from the 2002–2012 National Trauma Data Bank were used, including all trauma bicycle riders involved in bicycle-related accidents whose primary reason for the hospital or Intensive Care Unit stay was head or neck injury.”
They looked at all cyclists suffering a traumatic head or neck injury over a decade. That seems pretty thorough and not at all selective.
A citation is not an endorsement, it is simply a presentation of the existing evidence. You can’t dismiss an entire paper because the researchers cited something you don’t like in their introduction. That has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the research.
Rich_cb wrote:
Fair point, not a meta analysis in the strict sense, but still open to manipulation by selecting previous research which shows what you want, and anyone who cites previous research must be saying that it is relevant, scientific and reliable. As I’ve pointed out the Cochrane review by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson was a travesty, ignoring every criterion for such reports, and if you cite it, you are at best demonstrating your ignorance, and at worst demonstrating your bias. I’m afraid if you cite blatantly biased research it really does affect the validity of your own research.
— Rich_cb Not a meta-analysis in any sense. They are not selecting previous research. They are analysing pre-existing data. “Data from the 2002–2012 National Trauma Data Bank were used, including all trauma bicycle riders involved in bicycle-related accidents whose primary reason for the hospital or Intensive Care Unit stay was head or neck injury.” They looked at all cyclists suffering a traumatic head or neck injury over a decade. That seems pretty thorough and not at all selective. A citation is not an endorsement, it is simply a presentation of the existing evidence. You can’t dismiss an entire paper because the researchers cited something you don’t like in their introduction. That has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the research.— burtthebike
I’m sorry, but anyone citing Thompson, Rivara and Thompson must be biased, unless they are tearing it to shreds of course. Citing biased, unscientific, discredited research which broke every rule of Cochrane Reviews seriously damages your credibility.
burtthebike wrote:
The citation has no impact on the findings whatsoever.
It seems to be that you’re desperately trying to find a reason to ignore those findings.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’m sorry, but anyone citing Thompson, Rivara and Thompson must be biased, unless they are tearing it to shreds of course. Citing biased, unscientific research which broke every rule of Cochrane Reviews seriously damages your credibility.
— Rich_cb The citation has no impact on the findings whatsoever. It seems to be that you’re desperately trying to find a reason to ignore those findings.— burtthebike
What I’m saying is that if you use discredited, biased, unscientific research to bolster your case, how good is your case?
burtthebike wrote:
The citation was in the Introduction Burt. It wasn’t used to bolster anything, merely to give some background to the subject matter. It has zero impact on the actual research.
Do you have any criticism of the actual research?
Rich_cb wrote:
— Rich_cb The citation was in the Introduction Burt. It wasn’t used to bolster anything, merely to give some background to the subject matter. It has zero impact on the actual research. Do you have any criticism of the actual research?— burtthebike
Yes. That it uses discredited, unscientific, biased research to bolster its case; sorry, I thought I’d made that clear. Anyone who references discredited, unscientific, biased research in support of their case, doesn’t have a case. That’s why the Thompson, Rivara and Thompson test is so definitive. Quote them and you lose all credibility.
It would be like publishing a paper about truth and honesty and referencing Donald Trump and Boris Johnson.
burtthebike wrote:
So that’s a no then.
You have no criticism of the actual research but you don’t like a reference in the introduction so you’re refusing to accept the findings.
I believe this is a simple case of cognitive dissonance on your part.
Rich_cb wrote:
Yes. That it uses discredited, unscientific, biased research to bolster its case; sorry, I thought I’d made that clear. Anyone who references discredited, unscientific, biased research in support of their case, doesn’t have a case. That’s why the Thompson, Rivara and Thompson test is so definitive. Quote them and you lose all credibility.
It would be like publishing a paper about truth and honesty and referencing Donald Trump and Boris Johnson.
— Rich_cb So that’s a no then. You have no criticism of the actual research but you don’t like a reference in the introduction so you’re refusing to accept the findings. I believe this is a simple case of cognitive dissonance on your part.— burtthebike
You are perfectly free to believe what you like, and the same goes for me. If you want your research to be taken seriously, you don’t reference the worst Cochrane Review ever, which broke a number of the Cochrane Review’s own rules, making it totally invalid. If you do, you are either blissfully ignorant of the subject or biased, and your own research highly suspect.
burtthebike wrote:
You’ve made it perfectly clear on this thread and multiple others that you don’t have the faintest clue about research.
Claiming that research is invalidated by a reference in the introduction just makes your ignorance even more apparent.
Rich_cb wrote:
You are perfectly free to believe what you like, and the same goes for me. If you want your research to be taken seriously, you don’t reference the worst Cochrane Review ever, which broke a number of the Cochrane Review’s own rules, making it totally invalid. If you do, you are either blissfully ignorant of the subject or biased, and your own research highly suspect.
— Rich_cb You’ve made it perfectly clear on this thread and multiple others that you don’t have the faintest clue about research. Claiming that research is invalidated by a reference in the introduction just makes your ignorance even more apparent.— burtthebike
Research , that’s a real thing is it? I always think that in most cases of “research” whoever does the “research “usually puts the stats in the favour of the agenda they are pushing.
In all my years riding all over the world “ my research “ I’ve never worn a helmet , thats been my choice . I asses my skill as a bike rider and the fact i have a lot of hair and it gets fucking hot and uncomfortable. Not had one crash . Never fell off, alp d huez ,col d madone etc etc san remo , Barcelona, Lucca ,all over the fucking place going up and down mountains with ax lightness brakes I should add ( they are light but don’t work so well) So if you think you are going to die if you don’t wear a helmet then you shouldn’t be riding a bike .if I do die one day in a bike crash at least my hair will look nice
its time people stopped telling other people what to do . I’ve never crashed why the fuck should I wear a helmet ,I know how to ride a bike , I know how to weigh up the risks . Simple as that . It’s not fucking rocket science it’s common sense . I was in Nice going down a col ,this Pro BMC rider went flying past,,,,,,no way with my brakes I could keep up with him descending , if I wanted to die I would have tried but I don’t . Common sense
i tell you a lot of accidents occur because people take a chance ,do something stupid like go up the inside of a big fucking lorry . I’ve stopped countless fellow bike riders “idiots” from doing that. I’m a fucking hero , cheers . If I get killed on my next bike road blame this post and feel free to cheers . Booooom I’m outta the roooom .
Xena wrote:
“Up the inside of a big fucking lorry” does tend to be where they put the cycle lanes, unfortunately…
Xena wrote:
hmm.
Xena wrote:
Do you think that excessive and irrelevant swearing somehow strengthens your argument?
Xena wrote:
Its time people stopped making hippocritical statements.
burtthebike wrote:
You have said it repeatedly on this thread.
Repetition does not bolster the quality of your argument.
Sniffer wrote:
I’m sorry, but anyone citing Thompson, Rivara and Thompson must be biased, unless they are tearing it to shreds of course. Citing biased, unscientific research which broke every rule of Cochrane Reviews seriously damages your credibility.
— Sniffer The citation has no impact on the findings whatsoever. It seems to be that you’re desperately trying to find a reason to ignore those findings.— burtthebike
What I’m saying is that if you use discredited, biased, unscientific research to bolster your case, how good is your case?
— Rich_cb You have said it repeatedly on this thread. Repetition does not bolster the quality of your argument.— burtthebike
Repetition of a logical position doesn’t devalue it, but it reflects rather more on the people who need to have it repeated multiple times before they understand it.
Anyone who uncritically references TRT to support their case, especially the diabolical Cochrane Review, is either extraordinarily ignorant of the subject or biased, and that must make their conclusions suspect. References are added to enhance credibility, not destroy it.
This shouldn’t be
This shouldn’t be controversial. Nobody argues that sometimes cyclists bang their heads… and who would argue that a helmet is likely to reduce the severity of some head injuries if you bang your head? So surprise surprise – studying cyclists who bang their heads with and without helmets shows that helmets reduce the severity of injuries overall. Basically the authors of the studies have critiqued the effectivenss of current helmet designs.
Whether the risks of head injury justify wearing a helmet is another issue becase how often cyclists bang their heads is beyond the scope of the study.
P3t3 wrote:
The controversy is in what the studies are inevitably used for, or the interpretation of the data, not the data itself. We have had this kind of statistical study used to justify the mandatory helmet laws in Australia. We’ve had those laws for 27 years, it matters not one iota if there’s one study or a hundred that says that helmets help or not. It’s not going to be repealed any time soon. What the data should be used for is to determine how much they help, what they won’t help, and if any of it can be improved.
But this is where we have problems – once we acknowledge the limitations of helmets, then we have to move on to safer environment and behavioural changes. And that means changes for drivers instead of all the onus on riders. So the helmet debate never progresses. And as a result, neither do the other things that contribute to safety.
Oh great; a helmet thread!!!
Oh great; a helmet thread!!!
Rapha Nadal wrote:
You’re late!
Looks like there were some off-topic remarks, but I think we’ve steered it back on track.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Apologies. I tend to stay away as if I wanted to listen to an echo chamber I’d just shout whilst going through a tunnel.
I fell off a skateboard.
I fell off a skateboard. Speed wobbles was my last memory of event. I had been holding onto a cars rear bumper.
No helmet, a growth greater than the size of a tennis ball. Unconscious 4 hours. Body cuts minimal. Just +1 towards pros of using a helmet; the artificial skull would’ve taken the impact.
I broke both my lower left leg bones skating another time but my head was okay and I wasn’t wearing a helmet. 🙂
Helmets are comfortable nowadays. No real point in not wearing 1 if 1 is laying around IMHO.
Boatsie wrote:
Or you could, you know, not hold on to a car bumper!!
What speed was it anyhow ?
The sooner this place is
The sooner this place is rebranded “helmet-debate.cc” ft. “Near Miss Magazine” the better.
A pull-out squirrel poster wouldn’t go amiss mind…
“Logical” arguments aside,
“Logical” arguments aside, personal experience makes me agree with the “reduction in injury/death” view, both as a witness to someone else’s accident, and being involved in one.
I suspect James Cracknell, among others, would also agree.
RMurphy195 wrote:
Perhaps not if the helmet company isn’t paying him anymore.
If we haven’t had enough
If we haven’t had enough squirrels…now you bring in Hippos.
BudgieBike wrote:
And he’s critical of them, but they’ve never given me any problems. In fact, I think I can say without fear of contradicion, they are some of the best drivers on the road.