I cannot see why any cyclist would NOT want to wear a helmet - unless they are an idiot

I've had enough accidents over the years whilst wearing helmets (which have destroyed or severly damaged the helmet) to know why I wear a helmet

its not exactly rocket science that putting something between your head and ground is going to help in a crash, rather than just hitting your head on the ground directly....

Oh God, not this argument again...

Even more lives would be saved if pedestrians and drivers were wearing helmets.

Please wear a helmet, wearing one has saved my life not once but twice.

Freedom of choice, but personally I wear one and am glad I am still about to do so after a serious crash. Whether they work in a collision with a vehicle though is always going to be an issue, because even motorcyclists die from head injuries and there helmets are far superior in levels of protection than a cycle helmet.

They should be compulsory why anyone would ride without one still surprises me to this day as item is for your own protection.

For those questioning why anyone wouldn't wear one, the main argument (backed by evidence) is that it appears wearing one makes you more likely to be in an accident, and the single best way to survive an accident is to not be in one.

Not arguing for or against, but at least we know what we're arguing over. For the record, I wear a helmet.

I agree that "why anyone would ride without one still surprises me" but I disagree that therefore "they should be compulsory".

Of course helmets are generally helpful, but at the same time will not help in all circumstances. However, everywhere that has made them compulsory has seen a decrease in the number of people cycling, which causes far greater health problems (not so dramatic, but equally devastating).

I'm in the camp of always wearing a helmet and lightly recommending that other people do so, but am completely against mandatory helmet use.

"as drivers tend to give riders wearing protection less room"

Oh my god... pull the other one! What a total crock. Most motorists don't give ANY assesment of a person on a bike BEYOND the fact that there is someone on a bike. I don't give a cyclist any more or less room in my car based on the level of protection they're wearing!!

Had this argument till I'm blue in the face with my flatmate. It almost feels like it gets down to 'cutting your nose off to spite your face' - the argument being "I'm entitled to choose, therefore because *you* nag me about it so much, I'm not going to wear one". Suit yourself.

The common ground for arguments against wearing one seem to be the suggestion that any accident will only ever potentially be caused by the cyclist being negligent - therefore if the cyclist is attentive / alert and road-wise, no accident will ever happen! So what about the guy who jumps the red light in a car? What if you hit a pot-hole you simply didn't see?! Why would you *not* want to improve your chances of avoiding a serious head injury for the sake of making a stand about freedom of choice?

Lunacy frankly. I'd love someone to point me at some coherant arguments against wearing one.

I see the usual "wearing a helmet saved my life" claims have been made ... Can I ask if those making the statement have repeated the accident without a helmet and are now posting to Bike Rader from the afterlife, or are they just make claims for which they have no actual evidence for?

Based on head injury statistics, it would seem that there's an even better argument for wearing a helmet around the house and in cars.

+1 Chris+W

I usually wear a helmet but i don't think making it mandatory is a good move.

Interesting to note that "No evidence has been found to suggest an increased risk of rotational head injury with a helmet compared to without a helmet." This was precisely what was found by a fairly recent australian study (sadly can't find the link - help anyone?). One can only assume that they have either not looked at this evidence or have come to a different conclusion following the analysis.

Encouraging universal helmet use by cyclists is akin to tackling knife crime by making everyone wear a stab-proof vest.

If I know I am going to be involved in a road accident I would probably opt to be wearing a helmet but attention should be focused on making the road conditions safer and the driver behaviour safer.

Everyone wants to be right!

I wear a helmet off road, because I'm likely to be pushing the limits sometimes, so there's a much higher risk of a crash. A crash off road is often likely to be less serious, as there is actually softer stuff to land on. On the road there's very rarely a soft landing. But like I say, I wear one off road because any crash could possibly cause serious damage, and they're more likely.

If I'm on the road, however, I don't bother. I'm always on a MTB on the roads, don't own a road bike. As far as I'm concerned, there's no reason for me to come off due to rider error on the roads. And if a car runs me over a piece of polystyrene's hardly going to help.

This whole debate kind of distracts from the important point that if you are alert and you know where the traffic is, why would you let anyone knock you off? People always come out with the "you never know what other road users will do" quote. Well you won't if you're not looking, or you're expecting them all to be obeying the highway code. If you're always assessing what drivers could do, and you keep an eye on the driver not just the vehicle, you can see what they might do in advance. So, yes, theoretically if I fall off on the road I might hurt myself, but there's no need. Calling people who don't wear helmets idiots is a bit strong. In my opinion, you need to rethink if you are relying on just a helmet to protect you. Prevention & cure & all that.

And for the record, I've ridden off-road for 20 years and had enough offs, but never even slightly damaged a helmet. Obviously there's always a 1st time, but I don't put it just down to luck, there's nearly always stuff you can do to minimise damage even in the process of a crash.

So, wear a helmet out of choice, but don't make it compulsory. More people than you'd think die from slipping over on foot, so logically pedestrians should wear helmets as well! And there's got to be a case for drivers wearing them, it would cut down injuries by a certain amount. If not, rally drivers wouldn't bother.

I wouldn't get on a motorbike without one, simply because of the speed. But on the road on a bicycle, how fast are you really going to crash at without being in a race?

I think we should wear a helmet, I've cracked one once and my head hurt but no other damage, my biggest gripe is that the CTC who say they want it to be the persons decision however I get the feeling they are slanting towards not wearing one, which I think is wrong.

Oh and for all those who say we need to educate drivers before we make people wear helmets, it only takes one idiot driver!

I think they should be free!

This is a wee bit like the Global Warming debate going on at the moment. There are people with invested intrests that quote evidence to support their own viewpoint.

If we think about it rationally, on the balance of probability, it is safer to wear a helmet than not. The CTC has such an invested interest and thier "official standpoint" on the issue is biast. Also, the demograpic in the CTC could be described as old n grumpy..... although I couldn't possibly agree or disagree with such a statement!

@Palmersperry.

I crashed at around 35mph and rolled repeatedly on tarmac, I was hit by 3 other riders and suffered a dislocated shoulder, severe road rash from my chest to my knees and a fork leg went through my left leg at the knee. My helmet was smashed to bits, the only thing holding it together was the webbing straps and it had signs of impacts on the front, side and back. It took me around 4 years to recover physically, but mentally I am 100% fine and suffered no head trauma except a tiny cut just above my eye, which was caused by my sunglasses....

I think it should be the riders choice. Its up to you if you think it will or wil not help in an accident - you take the risk, its the same with most things in life its your choice.

I wear a helment and always have, i have only ever had one acident that involved a car and I am very alert cyclist, i seen the car coming I seen the car slow down but he obviously descide he could nip out in front of me at the round about in time, but did not make it and fit me full on, on the left side.

so "switchback18" I totally disagree with your statements, and you never know what a driver or other road users ( i have had an incident witha cyclist) will do, as some do some really odd things.

I suspect if i was not wearing my helmet I would either be dead or have brain damage of some sort, as the damage to my helmet was pretty bad and a dent that size in my scull would have caused some serious damage.

Saying that my main injury from the accident was having my half ear stiched back on, that i think wa smainly due to the strap on the helmet and the direction was sliding along the ground.

Oh and I cycle on a very dual carrige way through the city and 98% of drivers give me plenty space, so not sure about the wearining a helmet puts you more at risk argument, you get the odd few that dont, but they may have reasons for that??

>>Oh my god... pull the other one! What a total crock. Most motorists don't give ANY assesment of a person on a bike BEYOND the fact that there is someone on a bike. I don't give a cyclist any more or less room in my car based on the level of protection they're wearing!!

Actually there is some evidence that it's not a "total crock":

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html

Admittedly it's a bit fluffy but I wouldn't be so quick to write it off. Don't assume that you are representative of others either- I assume you don't, say, overtake just to turn left immediately either, but we all know plenty of people do.

Ah yes, good old Dr Walker's oft-cited report that motorists give the helmetless riders more room. Anyone wishing to use this in an argument might want to read his methodology, which involved one rider (him) on one type of bike, in one place (Bath).

His conclusion that that drivers give the most room to helmetless female riders was based on evidence gathered while he rode around in a blonde wig.

I'm aware of his methodology- like I said, "some evidence", and "it's a bit fluffy". He's just reporting what he observed.

Hang on a moment folks...

Has anyone wondered why the CTC, the UKs biggest pro-cycling organisation is questioning the use of helmets. Don't you think they would advocate compulsory helmet use if it really helped. It's not like they have a commercial interest.

Common sense, like urban myths, sometimes cloud reality...

Even more lives would be saved if all people were wearing life vests while swimming ;)

I guarantee if you asked any of the riders in the pro peloton whether they wanted to go back to being helmetless your answer would be 'no chance'. They know.

Its time that CTC got off the fence and started promoting safer cycling instead of dithering about trying to keep everyone happy including the reactionaries who must realise by now that helmets help to reduce injuries in many accidents.

when I was 13, I was the victim of a "hit and run" involving a motorist

motorist was speeding on a country lane, ran straight into the back of me (I was on my Dad's Peugeot MTB) and I was thrown about 20 feet forward, and hit the edge of a stone-edged kerb with my fibreglass skateboard helmet (I was into skateboarding and bikes in a big way)

the helmet was split down the middle, and the foam interior was trashed, I had a HELL of a head ache for several days after being checked out for concussion and kept over night in hospital

I have NO doubt that without a helmet, I would have died in that accident

if wearing helmets means less people cycle then good....I would rather have less cyclists than more dead or brain damaged cyclists

if you need convincing that a helmet works, think about the numbers of people killed or brain damaged from simply falling over / being assaulted in the street and hitting their head on something hard like a kerb edge or piece of street furniture

I think in a low speed impact, helmets do the job there designed for. Protecting the head against serious injury. At higher speeds other things come into play. After witnessing a low speed crash where a man went over the bars whilst not wearing a helmet confirmed this. Even at a low speed, his head hitting the kerb caused a very nasty head wound. This wouldn't have been the case had he been wearing a helmet.

The cause of the said crash? His carrier bag hanging off of his handlebars getting caught in between his forks and wheel.

1. I've helped evac someone out the brecon beacons who faceplanted on the loose bit of the descent to Brecon; even with the helmet he was unconscious;

if the had not had a good pair of oakley's he'd have taken more damage. Therefore: let's make sunglasses compulsory too. Or full face.

And body armour, let's think how much body armour can help too. Right now whenever there is an RTC involving a cyclist, the papers always say whether or not the cyclist had a helmet on, maybe a few years time it will be whether they had body armour

Alternatively, we do something about what causes the injuries, the deaths. Lorries with blind spots, speeding cars.

sweetslice- I guarantee if you asked any of the riders in the pro peloton whether they wanted to go back to being helmetless your answer would be 'no chance'. They know."

I bet if you asked them when they were climbing mt. Ventoux 100% would throw them into the crowd and continue without.