Cyclists reasons for not wearing helmets?

August 17, 2006 11:30 AM

Why are cyclists so scratchy about being asked why they don't wear cycle helmets?

OK, I'm on a bit of a personal crusade concerning cycle helmets.

I live in Bristol UK which is a cycling city. A great deal of people don't wear cycle helmets, some of these people happen to be my friends.

My problem with my friends not wearing helmets is that I have already lost one friend to a cycle accident. When I was younger he got hit by a car without a helmet on, and to this day is still in a coma.

When I ask my friends or indeed any cyclist why they don't wear a helmet, they always react as if I've asked them a dirty question. They treat the whole topic as a joke, and seem to find it impossible to answer it seriously. The best answer I can get is that "they[cycle helmets] look silly".

I started counting recently to see what percentage of people in my city wear helmets and I have to say that it is under 50%. This % will of course change the more cyclists I see so it's certainly not final, but still kind of disturbing.

If you are a cyclist who does not wear a helmet what is your reason? The only one I could ever imagine is that you can't afford one.

My strongest concern for people who don't wear helmets is not actually them, but all the people who care about them. Aren't they concerned about how it would make their families and friends if that person were killed because they weren't wearing a helmet?

I'm not looking for a discussion on whether helmets work or not, or comments from car drivers who always like to chip in with their comments on cyclists as they love to do.

So *why* are cyclists so defensive about not wearing helmets, what is it that makes them turn it into a joke and refuse to take it seriously?

posted by thelost to travel & transportation (79 comments total)

Because they know there's no logical justification for not wearing them. But they don't like the look/feel/hassle. It's cognative dissonance.
posted by GuyZero at 11:34 AM on August 17, 2006

Ask people why they smoke and you'll probably get the same reaction. People take risks when they think the pay-off (feeling good now, not having nasty sweaty hair, not having to lug a helmet around; getting a nicotine buzz) is greater than the potential harm (death due to this direct cause). Just because their risk assessment doesn't match your own does not mean they're bad, or stupid, or in need of lectures.
posted by occhiblu at 11:35 AM on August 17, 2006 [2 favorites]

Because they know it is stupid, careless and dangerous. By turning it into a joke, they are just deflecting it. From my experience, you just keep nagging them, making fun of them and reminding them, and eventually they will start wearing a helmet just to get you to shut up. It also helps, however macabre this seems, for a mutual friend to get a head injury - that usually gets peoples' attentions.
posted by jmgorman at 11:36 AM on August 17, 2006

"don't truth me, unk ..."
posted by paradroid at 11:36 AM on August 17, 2006

Sounds like the folks you're asking about why they don't wear a helmet know that there's really no good reason not to wear a helmet. Thus, they become defensive when trying to come up with a rationale for it.

Full disclosure: I am a cyclist and always wear a helmet.
posted by Durhey at 11:37 AM on August 17, 2006

Oh, and depending on your relationship to your friends and your income, you could just start buying people helmets that don't suck. That was my wife's tactic for getting me to wear mine.
posted by jmgorman at 11:38 AM on August 17, 2006

See also: Helmets cramp my style

I never wore a helmet as a kid. When I started commuting in traffic I started wearing one, figuring the more I ride the higher the probability of me being in an accident sometime. I do find them annoying/uncomfortable and they are not exactly flattering, but it's hard to argue with math.
posted by mikepop at 11:49 AM on August 17, 2006

I do not wear a helmet. I do not appreciate being asked repeatedly why I do not wear a helmet. I am a free person willing to make whatever decision I think I want and to have people repeatedly ask me is down right annoying. I already have one mother and a wife who can ask me themselves. I do not ask people why they drive without a seatbelt (I wear one), nor do I ask why they are underdressed on a cold day. When I go to a bad part of town I do not wear my Kevlar vest everytime either.

I am not even sure that wearing a helmet improves my safety on the margins much. It might make me a better looking corpse.

The reason I do not wear one is because I do not feel like it.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 11:52 AM on August 17, 2006 [1 favorite]

Personally, pain to constantly put on/take off, pain to find a place to put it when you're done with it, likes the feeling of wind in hair, and, yes, thinks that it really does look kind of dumb. If you stop to talk to someone, are they talking to a person sitting on a bike, or a person in the middle of an athletic activity? Different atmosphere, more casual. I am a person who happens to be riding a bike, not a cyclist in spandex. The accoutrements make you less approachable; "Oh, am I taking you away from your ride? I'm sorry you had to take your helmet off to walk with me."

Also, newsflash, not everyone is totally afraid of a remote chance of dying. (See: suicide bombers.) If those I love can not deal with my choices to take risks as I see fit, that is their problem, not mine.
posted by trevyn at 11:54 AM on August 17, 2006 [2 favorites]

I'm a recreational & transportational cyclist, and almost always wear a helmet. I didn't always, and I'm not condemnatory of those who don't.

The fact is, helmets don't do much to improve your odds--by some percentage, but not a large one (and as I understand it, motorists and pedestrians would improve their odds equally if they wore bike helmets). People who regard helmets as magic crowns that change them from being unsafe to safe are placing themselves at greater risk than people who know helmets make only an incremental difference and ride intelligently.

Often when non-helmet-wearers are asked "why don't you wear a helmet?" there is an accusatory undertone to the question—as in "why are such an idiot?". People don't generally like being accused of being idiots, and perhaps that puts them on the defensive.
posted by adamrice at 11:54 AM on August 17, 2006 [1 favorite]

I don't wear a helmet on the way back from the barber, cause I don't like the itchy hair bits getting stuck in there. Other reasons could include not wanting helmet hair (which I suffer from daily, as I'm a cycling commuter as well), or various other things.
Good question!
posted by hoborg at 11:55 AM on August 17, 2006

I always wear a helmet now, and bike about 100 miles/week, but I didn't when I was college-age.. I've found lately, at least around here where biking is a big f'in deal, the only people that don't wear them are the weekend warriors (i.e. the not serious but not casual riders). I can only guess that they aren't comfortable doing so for whatever reasons listed above.

The elite bikers (rightfully) wear ridiculous helmets that cost as much as the family bikers' bikes, and the families wear the cheapest helmets possible. Both make sense to me, since the price of a helmet usually does mean something in terms of comfort. So.. whoever above said that buying a good helmet is the key to wearing one regularly has a good point. I hated wearing the two-sizes-fit-all clunky ugly cheapo helmets that I could afford on a student budget, so thats' what I didn't wear one then.
posted by kcm at 11:56 AM on August 17, 2006

Because it's like asking, "Why are you stupid?"
posted by pracowity at 12:02 PM on August 17, 2006

"Why are cyclists so scratchy about being asked why they don't wear cycle helmets?"

Because you're probably the 1000th person to have asked them the question. People grow tired of repeating themselves.
posted by majick at 12:08 PM on August 17, 2006

I am, genuinely, curious as to the cites for saying that bike helmets are only marginally effective. Looking through the immediately available stats it looks like the estimated preventative numbers are between 45%-88%. So, not trying to be preachy by any means, if you don't want to wear a helmet don't wear a helmet, it's your head. But I am curious and would like to see where it says helmets are minimally effective.
posted by edgeways at 12:10 PM on August 17, 2006

Reason 1: I don't wear a helmet because I've never found one that fitted properly. I had the same problem when I was younger and in need of a riding helmet.

What get's me is why cyclists have a reason to endanger themselves on UK roads. I know Bristol is a cycle friendly city, but a cyclist got killed there only the other week. UK roads are horrendous, no one gives a crap about cyclists. Cyclists who use the roads, why don't they wear full body armour? I was walking past a cyclist the other day, admiring his bike. He was using the road properly, but there were so many drivers giving him jip.

I was talking to an American cyclist recently. He'd been all round Europe, mostly by road. In his opinion, British roads were by far the worst.

I try to avoid riding on all but the quietist roads. I have no issues about using the pavement.

Rant over.

Reason 2: I feel they hinder my peripheral vision. I'd rather see what's coming up behind me, rather than the edge of a helmet.

Reason 3: I wear strapless clips. My feet come out of these quite easily. Therefore I'm less likely to land on my head.
posted by popcassady at 12:15 PM on August 17, 2006

adamrice: The fact is, helmets don't do much to improve your odds...

This is a gross distortion of the facts. It may be true that helmets don't improve your chances by a huge amount if you're hit by a car or something, but there's a nontrivial percentage of accidents that would be massively debilitating or fatal without a helmet that are made not especially serious with one. Even a low speed fall can kill you if you're not wearing a helmet, with one on, the same fall would be nothing more than moderately embarrassing.

on preview: what edgeways said.
posted by dseaton at 12:15 PM on August 17, 2006

I'm not looking for a discussion on whether helmets work or not...

OK. Good to know.

With that established, are you asking a serious question? People do lots of things that are unwise or dangerous. You're confronting friends and strangers, uninvited, about a personal decision that's none of your business. Do you seriously have trouble understanding why they bristle?

Maybe you're sincerely interested in their reasoning. But if a guy walked up to me and asked, "How come you're not wearing a helmet?", I'd interpret that as equivalent to approaching a smoker and asking, "Don't you know that's bad for you?" Even if your motives are neutral, the action is so inherently loaded that I doubt there's any way you can approach people like you're describing without provoking this result.
posted by cribcage at 12:16 PM on August 17, 2006 [1 favorite]

I know this is stupid, but I just started wearing a helmet after my daughter was born.

Why didn't I wear a helmet prior to this? Because they made me look like a mushroom-headed dork. My question has always been: why won't the manufactuers make safe helmets that don't make average non-extreme cyclists look stupid?
posted by Kickstart70 at 12:16 PM on August 17, 2006

You answered your own question when you asked it:

Why are cyclists so scratchy about being asked why they don't wear cycle helmets? OK, I'm on a bit of a personal crusade concerning cycle helmets.

They know you're on a crusade and they're not getting sucked in to a conversation about your agenda on your terms. It has nothing to do with helmets, although I'm sure they probably don't find the subject that interesting -- it's that they know you're not just asking to be conversational.
posted by mendel at 12:17 PM on August 17, 2006 [3 favorites]

If you are a cyclist who does not wear a helmet what is your reason?

Thre are about 500.000 bikers in my city (I don't think I've ever seen one wearning a helmet) and only 250 bikers killed in accidents in 2002. I can't find any newer statistics but the number has been declining for years so I assume it's even less now.
Most of them were killed not by cars but by trams (which I always carefully look out for).
I thus consider the risk of getting into an accident that is actually dangerous for me (I regularly crash into tourists who don't understand the concept of a bike lane but I doubt a helmet would help me with that) so low, that it doesn't justify spending money, carrying a helmet around with me for most of the day and, yes, looking stupid.


Aren't they concerned about how it would make their families and friends if that person were killed because they weren't wearing a helmet?

This sounds a bit patronizing, although you probably don't intend it to. Maybe they would react less defensively if you phrased your concerns differently?
posted by snownoid at 12:24 PM on August 17, 2006

I'm a cyclist and ride one of my five bikes pretty much everywhere.

I wear my helmet about 90% of the time, but (for example) I rode around on my fixed gear last night in Denver for about six or seven hours without it. reason being that it was a costumed cruiser ride and the helmet theme was simply inappropriate.

somedays it's just too bloody hot. or else I'm in street clothes on my way to the local boozer / cafe / whatever.

Background: I am a 38 year old woman, a licenced cycling coach, bike racer and experienced former courier who has used a bicycle as a livelihood, hobby, and primary mode of transporation for going on twenty years now. at all times in competition, I wear a helmet, as it is strictly enforced, and I neither resent nor oppose that rule in the slightest. I also always wear a helmet whilst coaching and require my clients to do so as well (as an example, for liability reasons, bla bla bla...). I always, ALWAYS wear a helmet riding offroad because, omg, it's just stupid not to!

I have been hit by cars twice, shattered my lid both times, and have had several good pileups in competition that would have likely ended very badly had I not been wearing one.

the answer for the times I do not wear my helmet? thelost: please don't take this answer personally, as it is a bit of a vent for me. mind you, I'm responding as an American who lives in an increasingly Big-Brother-esque mandated-litigated-snoopy-britches new-law-every-minute, disclaimers-on-everything, intrusive society:

because it's not breaking any laws, it's my own goddamned life and my own goddamned business, and you can take your 'personal crusade' and stick it... well, you know

with all due respect: I am not your friend, and you have no right, nor do I appreciate, you projecting your personal guilt, angst and baggage about your friend's situation onto me.

I hope this was helpful and taken not as being snarky, but as it truly is: my personal freedom.
posted by lonefrontranger at 12:26 PM on August 17, 2006 [4 favorites]

But I am curious and would like to see where it says helmets are minimally effective.
posted by edgeways

I'd like to see that, too.

My Aunt was in a cycling accident about twenty years ago. Her helmet was totally mangled but her head was not. She was laid up for a few weeks but she lived. If she hadn't been wearing her helmet she would've smashed her head open and could have easily died.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:28 PM on August 17, 2006

My wife and I both have really nice helmets we never wear. Well, we wore them the day we bought them, but never again.

The reasons aren't really all that good: They're itchy, sweaty, and the feel funny. They keep the wind from blowing our hair around. Do I know that's totally stupid? Sure.

But the more people that ask us about it, especially those who don't know us, the more I don't want to be one of the douchebags that wears a helmet and elbow pads to ride to the end of the driveway.

It should be noted that our bikes are vintage, very slow, and we ride (gasp!) on the sidewalk. Which makes us double jerks, but probably a little safer than we would be if we rode in traffic. In that case, I'd probably wear the helmet.

Never wore a helmet when I was a kid, and as much as I know it's the smart thing to do, I probably won't much now. My answer when people comment? Sorry about your friend/mother/child who got in an accident without a helmet, but MYOB, thx.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 12:37 PM on August 17, 2006

I am curious, how many of the anti-helmet people are opposed to seatbelt laws?
posted by ozomatli at 12:37 PM on August 17, 2006

Because [tiny price] * [large payoff] * [tiny odds] is hard to compute. Casios make their money off of that equation.
posted by gmarceau at 12:39 PM on August 17, 2006 [4 favorites]

When I was a teenager, I didn't wear a helmet for most bike rides, because I thought they looked stupid (and I wanted to look cool), and because my parents tried to make me (and I don't react well to being made to do things, especially when nagging is involved). At some point I examined my motivations a bit more rationally and realized they were idiotic. However, I doubt that anyone on a "crusade" would have convinced me to then, for the same reason my parents were unsuccesful. I do recommend you don't nag your friends.

Ask people why they smoke and you'll probably get the same reaction.

I'm not so sure about this. It seems that most of the people I know who smoke are constantly trying to quit, and if asked, would give some answer that boiled down to "quitting is very hard" -- actually a pretty good answer in some ways.
posted by advil at 12:40 PM on August 17, 2006

Why are cyclists so scratchy about being asked why they don't wear cycle helmets?

Because nobody wants to be preached to by the converted, no matter how well-reasoned and passionate your faith may be. See also: people asking if you've accepted Jesus into your life; if you know smoking will kill you; if you know how many calories are in that double order of lasagne; if you know what that chicken went through to end up on your plate; if you know how many children were paid 4 cents to make your name-brand tennis shoes; etc., etc., etc..
posted by headspace at 12:41 PM on August 17, 2006 [2 favorites]

Question for the non-helmet folks: "Have you signed your organ donor card?"
posted by Marky at 12:42 PM on August 17, 2006

No one likes people to tell them what to do, even if it is in thier best interest. Smart politicians know this.
posted by ozomatli at 12:43 PM on August 17, 2006

I do always wear a seatbelt. I guess that's sort of incongruous, isn't it...

And I don't smoke, keep fit and we try (the best a coupla 30-something DINKs can) to eat healthy.

I also have signed my organ donor card. Marky, you may have my spleen.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 12:49 PM on August 17, 2006

My guess is that people who know someone who has been injured because of not wearing a helmet, or protected because they were are more likely to wear helmets themselves. I almost always wear one after seeing my mom's friend take a spill over her handlebars in front of our house. Her daughter, who was riding in the child seat, dropped something that got stuck between the spokes and stopped the bike dead.

So maybe the prevalence of bike injuries isn't high enough to provide everyone with cautionary examples like this?

On the rare occasions when I don't wear my helmet, it's mostly for the reason others have mentioned: they're uncomfortable.
posted by MsMolly at 12:54 PM on August 17, 2006

I understand the 'it's my life and it's my choice' arguments. If you're familiar with the risks of not wearing a helmet, and you choose not to, then that's your choice to make.

I would suggest, though, that if like Kickstart70 you have dependents, then it's not just your head, it's not just your life and it's not just your choice.

And yes, getting preached at and told what to do (especially by strangers) sucks. I think that's the answer to your question, thelost. I'd say that when it comes to random cyclists, keep your mouth shut. Friends and loved ones, keep nudging them gently. No lectures, but let them know you'd miss them if they were gone.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:54 PM on August 17, 2006

It's actually a complicated issue, and the intuitive response, that helmets are great, and that only dummies don't wear them, doesn't really do it justice.

There's lots of data to suggest that wearing a helmet doesn't decrease your chances of getting injured. And in fact, in any given area, when bicyclists are required by law to wear helmets, there are lots of interesting consequences: since helmets are hot and uncomfortable, many people stop riding their bikes altogether, which actually increases the injury rate per cyclist. It turns out that for cyclists, there are safety in numbers. When the number of cyclists decreases, a greater percentage of the remaining cyclists get hurt.

My source for the above is Do enforced bicycle helmet laws improve public health? (PDF), which I found on Mike Dahmus's blog. Austin, which is where Mike and I live, is currently considering reinstating a helmet law.

To more directly answer one of your questions -- "If you are a cyclist who does not wear a helmet what is your reason?" -- because wearing a helmet is a pain in the ass, makes we want to ride my bike less, and doesn't make me any safer.
posted by medpt at 12:59 PM on August 17, 2006 [1 favorite]

Because I'm just going for a ride. I'm not racing, I'm not commuting on busy streets, I'm not bouncing down mountainsides, and if I have to outfit myself in a lot of cumbersome equipment or special gear then I'm just not going to bother.

We can't be protected from everything. A helmet may provide extra protection in your car - racers wear them and those crashtest dummies are always cracking their heads, even with airbags - but I'm not going to bother wearing one there either unless I'm forced to, and I don't see anyone else wearing them either. A toddler is going to fall and bump their heads many more times in a summer than I'm potentially going to do on my bike, and even though people have their children much more on tethers now than when any of us grew up, we still aren't putting helmets on them as soon as they awake.

All that said, I fully agree that wearing a helmet is an intelligent personal choice, and I'm not pointing and laughing at anyone for doing so.
posted by TimTypeZed at 12:59 PM on August 17, 2006

Why are cyclists so scratchy about being asked why they don't wear cycle helmets?

Because helmets are scratchy. Seriously.

99% of the time it's a comfort/style issue. Sure, lots of people use the whole "don't tread on me" reasoning, or say helmets don't help much, or it affects their hearing, or engage in some complex risk vs. reward calculation, but at the end of the day it's very likely because helmets are uncomfortable and generally kinda dorky. Are these good reasons? No, maybe not, but nevertheless I occasionally ride without one, and aside from the whole slight risk of severe head injury thing, it's great.

If it's any consolation, a good friend of mine (and a way better biker than I) finally decided to buy a helmet because she was tired of people asking her why she rode without one. I think if you really want to have an effect on people, the best way is to ask very simply why they don't wear a helmet, and leave it at that. Eliminate any opportunity for them to attack your motives for asking and let them focus on the question itself.
posted by chrominance at 12:59 PM on August 17, 2006

Everyone wants to be their own boss, everyone wants to feel good, and everyone wants to look cool. Part of healthy self-esteem.

Deep down inside though, no one thinks they're going to be a statistic, it's always gonna be the other guy.

You'll never win any points arguing against the first three. Your only hope of making any "headway" is focussing on the last.

To answer though, think about why people with families and friends - who would mourn their deaths - purposely risk death to any degree at all, why do they jump out of airplanes, why do they bungee-jump, why do they smoke, why do they fail to exercise, why do they drive cars with brake problems, why do they not always look both ways before crossing the street?
posted by scheptech at 1:01 PM on August 17, 2006

There's a widely quoted study that shows that 85% of all bike accidents involve head trauma, and helmets reduce risk of brain injury by 88% in those cases. That sounds pretty compelling, but the study is also widely disputed.

But there are two ways to look at risk here:
1. What is my risk of getting into an accident;
2. Once I get into an accident, what are my odds of coming out OK?

Helmet supporters are focusing on the second, and I suspect they have an unstated bias that "you're going to get into an accident, probably sooner rather than later." Helmet skeptics are probably focusing on the former (if they've thought it out) and reason "my odds of getting into an accident are one incident per 50,000 miles, so I'm probably good for the next 10 years."

The skeptics may also be reacting negatively to the unstated assumption that "cycling is dangerous." I know i have a negative reaction to that position. People say "you might get hit by a car!" I say, "well, that makes the car dangerous then, right?"
posted by adamrice at 1:10 PM on August 17, 2006 [1 favorite]

I think, as others have noted, it's a combination of being asked many times, and knowing there's no answer that will satisfy the asker.

I commute via bike 11 miles pretty much every day, and I always wear a helmet. The funny situation I'm in now is with my 2-year old; I'd never lecture another adult in person on the use of a personal safety device, but she's (thankfully) so ingrained on using her helmet on her tricycle that when she sees someone riding without one, she yells at the top of her lungs: "Look Daddy! He needs a helmet! He's being silly! [my alternate for her to "stupid"]

The fact is, helmets don't do much to improve your odds--by some percentage, but not a large one (and as I understand it, motorists and pedestrians would improve their odds equally if they wore bike helmets).

I am, genuinely, curious as to the cites for saying that bike helmets are only marginally effective. Looking through the immediately available stats it looks like the estimated preventative numbers are between 45%-88%.

I think it's how you interpret the numbers as you apply them to yourself (duh) - The worst accident I've had on a bike was hitting a small hole on a (thankfully empty) city street at about 25mph just as I was shifting my hands on the bars. I went over the bars, took most of the skin off both forearms from wrist to elbow, and nearly tore my left rotator cuff, resulting in twelve weeks of rather painful physical therapy and a shoulder that's still tender (in certain motions) 3 years later.

My head never hit the ground. But if it had, it's very likely that looking like a mummy for 2 months and spending an hour each morning hoisting a weight and having my arm manipulated would have been the least of my worries. I guess my point is that, however more likely it is to break bones and take off some skin, your head is, well.... your head. And every percentage point of improvement is that much more critical. Seems to me spending just $30 - $60 to reduce the chance of a serious injury by even a very small percentage point is certainly money well spent.

And a note to anyone riding without - I, this very morning, got my new helmet in the mail from Nashbar, and I have to say the difference between it and my 3-year old Giro is night and day. Helmets have gotten lighter, more comfortable, and (thanks to the filter down from skating and other "X-sport" fashions) more stylish in a pretty short time. If you've rejected a helmet at sometime in the past for those reasons, at least take a look at some of the newer products out there. Your head's worth it - really.

On preview:

It should be noted that our bikes are vintage, very slow, and we ride (gasp!) on the sidewalk. Which makes us double jerks, but probably a little safer than we would be if we rode in traffic. In that case, I'd probably wear the helmet.

It certainly depends on where you live, but the sidewalk is often the most dangerous place for a bike, in addition to being illegal in many areas. And if someone (not meaning to call you out specifically) hit me or my child on the sidewalk, they'd need more than a helmet after the beatdown (Sorry - I live in a city, and sidewalk cycling really, really, really pisses me off - your area may be a lot less dense). But honest, I'll stop lecturing.
posted by jalexei at 1:10 PM on August 17, 2006

I raced for years when I was younger...at the time helmets weren't required and I didn't wear one. Went off the road once and was knocked out cold. Didn't wear one after that either.
I have two kids now and started communiting pretty seriously...and never considered NOT wearing a helmet. Too much to lose now. Conversely, I ride like a demon in traffic...because I know the knoggin is covered.
posted by badkarmaboy at 1:12 PM on August 17, 2006

I remember reading an article about cycling in Holland, which said that no one wears helmets. The reason the author gave is that for a Dutch cyclist to wear a helmet is an admission that roads belong to cars and that they are taking a risk by sharing space with them. It's accepting defeat. I doubt that's the real reason, which probably has something to do with cycle paths, but I like it.

I don't wear a helmet, I have cycled in Bristol, and if you confronted me about it I'd probably try and turn it into a joke because I couldn't care less what you think and I'm not interested in having an argument about it. Good luck with that crusade though!
posted by caek at 1:17 PM on August 17, 2006

Those avoiding helmets because they're terrible-looking might do well to check out skateboard helmets, many of which conform to the CPSC bicycle helmet standard.
posted by jtron at 1:19 PM on August 17, 2006

Hey! I also live in Bristol. I would just look at our road safety culture. Not everyone waits for the green man to change to cross the road, people break the speed limit if they think no one is watching, walk down the middle of the street at night if it's empty, and yes, some cyclists don't wear helmets. Bristolians tend to have a way of working around the traffic in order to save time and effort - I've always thought that's our nature. I know that in 22 years I've only been hit by a car once, and that wasn't exactly a serious accident (he clipped me as I crossed the road in front of him, doh).
posted by saturnine at 1:21 PM on August 17, 2006

what headspace said.

Most days I ride to work (~6 miles roundtrip). I have mostly stopped wearing a helmet because they aren't comfortable. I can't feel the wind and fog in my hair, which is the principal pleasure of riding. I can't listen to music. (Yes, music's illegal, but that's a stupid blanket law that shouldn't apply in all circumstances.) When it's been a choice of having to wear a helmet or not riding, I've chosen not to ride.

Also, the threat of death doesn't work for me. One of the many joys of not breeding is the ability to take life-threatening risks guilt-free. You'll have to work the quadriplegic angle instead.
posted by small_ruminant at 1:23 PM on August 17, 2006

Well, I usually do wear a helmet when cycling, but it's easy enough to imagine why some people would not take the question seriously. Just imagine how you'd feel if someone asked why you don't wear a helmet for walking. I imagine they'd then start talking about people who tripped over a curb while walking without a helmet, and quoting statistics about how much safer it is to wear a walking helmet.

The level of perceived danger that makes one think wearing a helmet is advisable depends both on knowledge of the actual level of risk, and degree of risk aversion; both of those vary widely among the people who ride bicycles.
posted by sfenders at 1:23 PM on August 17, 2006 [1 favorite]

My mom always told me not to run with scissors or play with fire. Now I run around with flaming scissors, suck on that authoritarian overloards! Chicks love the dangerous guy!
posted by ozomatli at 1:32 PM on August 17, 2006 [3 favorites]

Because they don't want to argue about why they aren't wearing a helmet. Especially with someone who doesn't bike. Especially especially when that person is admittedly on a personal crusade.
posted by desuetude at 1:43 PM on August 17, 2006

</small? Disclaimer: Not a cyclist.
posted by desuetude at 1:44 PM on August 17, 2006

Wear one or don't wear one. Who gives a rat's ass? Personally I do wear mine, all the time, despite the stats that say you are more likely to sustain a head injury in the shower than on a bike.
posted by fixedgear at 1:44 PM on August 17, 2006

Er. Totally scrambled that before hitting post. You get what I mean.
posted by desuetude at 1:44 PM on August 17, 2006

what is it that makes them turn it into a joke and refuse to take it seriously?

Turning it into a joke is often a polite person's way of telling you to take your intrusive, condescending questions and shove them where the sun don't shine.
Honestly, people aren't wearing helmets for two reason, either they forgot them (which you'll know if they have a helment next time) or they chose not to.
Either way, it's none of your business.

jalexei: but she's (thankfully) so ingrained on using her helmet on her tricycle

On a tricycle!? Really?
posted by madajb at 1:48 PM on August 17, 2006

Jalexi - I should have clarified that we ride on the sidewalks when we're on a busy traffic street. But our bikes don't go that much faster than pedestrians, so we can pretty much stop on a dime. I do understand why it probably would be a good idea not to ride at great speed on a busy sidewalk.

Plus we live in a southwestern city where most of the proles are in their air-conditioned cars, so there's not a lot of sidewalk culture!

I'm totally going to admit something terrible here: Our helmets are really modern and fancy-looking. They just don't match our 30-year-old bikes. It ruins the effect! Sometimes we take them along in the baskets though, just in case we feel like joining a bike race or something...
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 1:52 PM on August 17, 2006

I live in a city where cyclist must wear helmets by law. I have seen many people pulled over by cops for not wearing a helmet. They are required to dismount and walk their bike to wherever they are going in such an event. The argument always is of course, that we have a Right to take a risk if we want to. However North Americans are infamous for insisting that others are responsible for our well-being when something bad happens. (How about a hot cup of coffee from McDonalds anyone?) I can't pull numbers on exactly how effective helmets are, but my municipality has deemed them required by law, and if they offer some protection to my noggin, I'm cool with that. A cyclist on the road doesn't have the benifit of being wrapped in a metal box. Heck, even once hitting a tree as a child, I was thankful for my helmet.
posted by billy_the_punk at 1:53 PM on August 17, 2006

Short answer: Because I'm an adult and I don't want to. And it's rude of you to hassle me about it.

Long answer: Seriously, it drives me mad to have people tell me what to do or how to live my life. As long as I'm not endangering anyone else, why is it any business of yours?

I'm sure the joking answers is your friends' way of politely telling you to go hang.

There are many things out there that people do that I think are blindingly stupid, but I don't ask them about why. I assume they are adults and respect that if they want to, then it's none of my damn business.

I get that you're concerned about their safety and their lives. I also get that you're concerned about how their loss would affect their loved ones. But you know what? So is the Jehovah's Witness down the street. So are all the fundamentalist Christians who want to ban evolution in the schools and so forth. They are just concerned about our souls, and how our damnation will effect us and those who love us. Doesn't give them any more right to hassle me about my beliefs than any body else.

And for the record, I smoke because I want to. I drink because I want to, I eat red meat because I like it, I don't have kids because I don't want them, and I wear my seatbelt because I don't want to deal with the hassle of a ticket. Although I really resent being forced to do so. I don't have a death wish, I just think that life is for living. Not being afraid of every little thing that could go wrong.
posted by teleri025 at 1:59 PM on August 17, 2006 [3 favorites]

Nobody will get down this far (because so many of my brethern are so long winded), but I have a good reason -- I've been in several accidents while riding my bicycle, and my head wasn't involved -- hands, knees, hips and shoulders are what end up hitting the pavement.

Unfortunately my workplace requires a helmet inside the security perimeter, so I was forced to buy one which I must wear when commuting to/from work.

scratchy?
posted by Rash at 2:11 PM on August 17, 2006

jalexei: but she's (thankfully) so ingrained on using her helmet on her tricycle

On a tricycle!? Really?

Well, the trike I'm less worried about, but usually when we're out she's splitting time between that and our 4-year old neighbors' scooter that she's a lot less stable on. Mainly though, she wanted to be like Dad (pride filter wells up)*. She sees her bike as equivalent to mine, and since I wear a helmet, yada yada - Plus it's really cute with rabbits on it.

*(Four days a week I walk her (along with my bike) to daycare then hop on and ride to work - hence she sees me off the bike more than on - sometimes when we're in the driveway she'll start walking her bike around and proclaim that she's "riding to work")

Please note that despite my tone, I fully support everyone's right to do as they please in this regard, just wanted to share some of my thoughts - and apologies for all the chat filter!
posted by jalexei at 2:20 PM on August 17, 2006

Plus it's really cute with rabbits on it.

Which brings me to the other problem with helmets.
The kids get all the cool designs.

I mean, adult helmets look like they are designed by some guy who wears spandex and cycling shoes to bed.
Where are my adult-sized superman/daisy/rainbow/whatever helmets? I'd be much more inclined to wear one if it looked like that.
Or a glow-in-the-dark one. I always wanted a glow-in-the-dark one!
posted by madajb at 2:29 PM on August 17, 2006

I've always wanted wings (like mercury's).
posted by small_ruminant at 2:46 PM on August 17, 2006

posted by fixedgear at 3:09 PM on August 17, 2006

posted by fixedgear at 3:10 PM on August 17, 2006

Ask people why they smoke and you'll probably get the same reaction.

I'm not so sure about this. It seems that most of the people I know who smoke are constantly trying to quit, and if asked, would give some answer that boiled down to "quitting is very hard" -- actually a pretty good answer in some ways.

A better question would be why did they start. Usually it's to look cool. Why do some eschew helmets, same concern.
posted by scheptech at 3:47 PM on August 17, 2006

No, I meant more what someone else got at above: Why do people eat fatty foods, when heart disease is the number one killer? Why do they drive, when car accidents are so deadly and common? Why do they drink more than the permitted one glass of wine a day?

We do tons of "dangerous" things, sometimes with good reason, sometimes not. Unless someone's choices are directly affecting you, it's not really your place to question them. (At least, not face-to-face. Arguing policy is one thing. Going up to individuals is another.)
posted by occhiblu at 3:59 PM on August 17, 2006

I am, genuinely, curious as to the cites for saying that bike helmets are only marginally effective. Looking through the immediately available stats it looks like the estimated preventative numbers are between 45%-88%.

I recently found cyclehelmets.org which references several studies that question the effectiveness of bicycle helmets.

In particular, the 88% effectiveness figure that is often quoted seems to come from a study with a questionable sample population. This article also talks about the study; see the "Research Results" section.
posted by Lirp at 4:34 PM on August 17, 2006 [1 favorite]

Another regular cyclist from Bristol.

I think it comes down to the classic small-risk-but-high-danger vs. inconvenience balance. One example - at junctions, car A will often pull out in front of car B because car B is signaling that it will turn and so it's safe for car A to go. Except there is a small and real risk that car B won't turn, and car A will be hit. Almost everyone pulls out, but if they didn't, accidents would be reduced.

I don't wear a helmet because it would be a major inconvenience for me, and I just think it's not worth it.
posted by spark at 4:39 PM on August 17, 2006

* Cycling is far less dangerous than most non-cyclists believe and people in general are usually very poor at judging risk objectively.
* Cycle helmets are ineffective in crashes with fast moving metal objects.
* Cycle helmets may increase the chance of rotational head injuries by increasing effective head size.
* Cycle helmets are only designed to withstand impacts at less than around 12 mph (depending on which standard one studies).
* Cycle helmets put the emphasis on victim protection, rather than tackling the real issue, which is inattentive motorists.
* By strongly promoting cycle helmets, safety groups de-emphasize more effective measures for reducing cyclist injury: Educating cyclists about better road discipline and * Effective Cycling programs.
* Where cycle helmets are heavily promoted, or even mandatory, surveys show that the overall amount of cycling is reduced.
* Cycle helmets suggest and re-enforce a message to non-cyclists that cycling is inherently a dangerous activity, which dissuades others from cycling.
* Cycle helmets are innefective in all but the most trivial crashes. If someone claims "my helmet saved my life", unless they've had exactly the same crash unhelmeted, they've no way of knowing.
* Cyclists are safest where there is a large cycling population while cycle helmets dissuade people from cycling, increasing danger for all cyclists in a locality.

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with them, but these are some of the arguments I've heard against helmets. The most measured presentation can be found at the already mentioned cyclehelmets.org. Go to most cycling forums online and you'll find these and more - to the extent that many cycling forum members refuse to participate in discussions about helmets, because the subject has been beaten to death so many times. Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken so long to reach AskMeFi.
posted by normy at 6:09 PM on August 17, 2006

I've been a cycle messenger, I've cycle-toured in 19 countries, I used to time-trial, I've commuted by bicycle for many years and the only crashes I've had have been trivial scrapes. This is not unusual among many similarly experienced cyclists.

I always wear a helmet and have since the early 90s. Not because I'm completely convinced they're the most effective safety measure, but because I got so tired of explaining to well-meaning but uninformed people that helmets aren't the magic talisman many safety campaigners appear to believe they are.

The single most effective safety measure a cyclist can take is to educate themselves about safe road cycling behavior. Yet safety campaigns scream in unison "GET A HELMET!" as the very first item at the top of any 'advice' to cyclists. Promoting Effective Cycling or Cycleraft might save many more lives, however.
posted by normy at 6:48 PM on August 17, 2006

The people who push for helmet use seem to be the same people who think sidewalk cycling is bad. However, I'm certain that sidewalk cycling is sometimes the safe choice - for example, when climbing a steep hill on a very busy street.
posted by Chuckles at 7:18 PM on August 17, 2006

Go to the Netherlands, everyone is on a bike and no one wears a helmet.

I ride around Manhattan on my bike and it would never even occur to me to wear a helmet... WTF? A helmet to ride a fucking bicycle? When did this start to happen?

I don't wear a helmet because helmets are for coddled safetyoid warm soymilk slipper-wearing cocoon people from the United States. You people are freaks. Please be aware, when biking abroad, everyone will think you are a retard if you use a helmet.
posted by Meatbomb at 7:48 PM on August 17, 2006

I guess I have to throw my hat (ahem) into the ring here. I live in austin as well and I would be pissed if our personal-crusading helmet law proponent (former mayor and coma victim Bruce Todd) succeeds. I don't wear a helmet and I don't own a car and I bike virtually everywhere I go. I don't wear a helmet because:
1. It is a pain in the ass to lock up and worry about being stolen or trying to carry around with me everywhere (though it does something to explain why I am so sweaty all the time)
2. It obstructs my peripheral vision and generally disrupts my concentration and awareness which I believe is the Number One bicycle safety precaution. It is the onus of both cyclists and motorists to be aware of their surroundings.

Those are really the main reasons. Biking is somewhat unfashionable to begin with, so I don't buy that "i'll look like a dork" argument. I agree with the above poster that education about safe cycling is essential for motorists (who are required to learn about this to receive their licenses but are rarely tested on it) and cyclists.

And my personal rant is against sidewalk bikers. Riding on the sidewalk is probably the most dangerous thing a biker can do aside from riding on the interstate. Riding on the sidewalk reinforces ignorant motorists' ideas that bikes belong on the sidewalk. This allows them to be more casual in their attention to bikers. Motorists need to expect bicyclists in the road. Bikers should not be shy when it comes to asserting their rights to use the road. Riding down the middle of a lane of traffic may piss off the driver behind you but you will become Much more visible and the driver will thus be Much more aware of cyclists. This is fun to explain to people in cars next to you at red lights.

addendum: riding in the road means that you are subject to the rules of the road, ie dont coast through red lights, cut through parking lots, ride between lanes of traffic, etc. share the road.
posted by headless at 7:56 PM on August 17, 2006

Because they are adults and can make their own decisions, even if those decisions can be harmful.
posted by Violet Hour at 8:20 PM on August 17, 2006

It should be noted that our bikes are vintage, very slow, and we ride (gasp!) on the sidewalk. Which makes us double jerks, but probably a little safer than we would be if we rode in traffic. In that case, I'd probably wear the helmet.

This is moronic. Headless put it best above me. A lane on the road is your right as a cyclist. Use it. Don't use the goddamn sidewalk and give all of us law-abiding cyclists a bad name.
posted by The Michael The at 8:20 PM on August 17, 2006

...which is why I acknowledged that we're double jerks for doing it. So basically, uhhh, shove it.
posted by M.C. Lo-Carb! at 9:51 PM on August 17, 2006

I'd love to hear a response from the pro-helmet folks to two points:

1. The criticisms of the 85% study raised here, particularly the claim that "large increases in helmet wearing resulted in no noticeable decreases in the percentages of injured cyclists with [head injuries]."

2. The question of helmet use among auto drivers. Do you feel automobile drivers and passengers are being "stupid" by not wearing helmets?

FWIW, I commute to work by bike and do not like wearing a helmet, for the same reasons as M.C. Lo-Carb! and his wife. I understand there's a risk, but consider it acceptable, and would definitely not waste time on someone I didn't know who was on a crusade to change my mind.
posted by mediareport at 9:51 PM on August 17, 2006

Look at the accident statistics: if you think cyclists should wear cycle helmets when cyclist then you ought to think that car drivers should be wearing crash helmets when driving. Do you think car drivers should always wear a crash helmet? If not, why not? Now apply the same arguments to cycling...

There's also the thorny issue of risk compensation. Even worse, there's the thornier issue of risk compensation by other road users: There's some evidence for instance that drivers overtake cyclists wearing helmets with less space to spare than non-helmet wearing cyclists. These secondary effects of helmet wearing might explain why the oft claimed injury reducing effects of cycle helmets don't actually make any difference to the accident statistics.

(There's also the fact that cycle helmets are almost completely useless in a accident at traffic speeds: compare and contrast the KE of your head at 12mph {the usual limit for cycle helmet effectiveness} and at 30mph. Subtract the 12mph KE from the 30mph KE and you'll see why the cycle helmet doesn't make a lot of difference to the impact.)
posted by pharm at 12:51 AM on August 18, 2006

Oh yeah, and for those of you who doubt, here's risk compensation in action :)
posted by pharm at 12:56 AM on August 18, 2006

Look at the accident statistics: if you think cyclists should wear cycle helmets when cyclist then you ought to think that car drivers should be wearing crash helmets when driving. Do you think car drivers should always wear a crash helmet? If not, why not? Now apply the same arguments to cycling...

When I'm in my car, I'm more visible, belted in, surrounded by a significant amount of steel and aluminum, with a phalanx of airbags ready to deploy if I hit something, operating on a surface designed for my specific vehicle. I don't see how the arguments are equivalent.

And even if I gain nothing at higher speeds with a helmet, I don't see it as a reason not to wear one. I once (embarrassingly) fell over while stopped at an intersection when I couldn't unclip and led with my head into a sign post, marking up my helmet. Pretty minor, but scratching my helmet was preferable to scratching the side of my head.

There's also the thorny issue of risk compensation. Even worse, there's the thornier issue of risk compensation by other road users: There's some evidence for instance that drivers overtake cyclists wearing helmets with less space to spare than non-helmet wearing cyclists.

As noted by others, the helmet as a safety item is really only the zenith of a much broader pyramid. My actions on a bike do far more to form an opinion of me (and influence the behavior of those around me) than my head gear. I stay alert, I always assume I'm not seen when I'm assessing traffic patterns, I use hand signals, stop at stop signs and red lights, don't go the wrong way on one-way streets, wear lights at night, and try, whenever possible, to give a quick wave of thanks to a car or pedestrian that yields to me.

In 13 years of nearly daily cycling in and around Boston, I have never once (to my knowledge) been honked at, yelled at, flipped off, or not been given enough room while being passed. Whether that's due to or in spite of wearing a helmet, I think I'll hold on to mine.
posted by jalexei at 8:51 AM on August 18, 2006

"I'm certain that sidewalk cycling is sometimes the safe choice "

What is your basis for that certainty? Your gut? That may work on the Colbert Report, but not around here.

I can imagine very specific circumstances under which sidewalk cycling might be safer than street cycling. But a serious underlying problem here is that people are bad at estimating risks on bikes. They are extremely concerned about what John Forester calls the "overtaking" collision, where a car hits you as it passes you (this fear is also used to justify counterflow riding). This is actually an uncommon type of accident. They are less concerned about cars pulling out of driveways or turning to/from side roads, and these are relatively common types of accident, and exactly the kind of situations where sidewalk-riding increases your risk.
posted by adamrice at 9:30 AM on August 18, 2006

Walking: no helmet.
Driving: no helmet.
Golfing: no helmet.
Snowboarding: helmet.
Motorcycling: helmet.
Skydiving: helmet.

Bicycling: no helmet. So far.

Why? I grew up on bikes and before bicycle helmets, so it has never felt weird to me to ride without one. We all draw the line somewhere, and while some of us draw it on one side of biking, I've historically drawn it on the other.

Having since taken up motorcycling (with helmet), I might reconsider a bike helmet if I went back to pedaling. Complaints in this thread about peripheral vision and heat seem silly to me. There's very little loss of peripheral vision even in a heavy motorcycle helmet. I can't imagine a bicycle lid obstructing anything at all, and some of them appear to be made more of ventilation holes than of helmet.

I don't think I could make myself wear one of those modern jobs that look like a gooey alien embryo perched on one's head, but would go for something simple and classic.

While I support the personal liberty of choosing our hazards, I have to admit to some conflicted feelings about the choices I and others make. Some people probably squint at me thinking "why skydive... why ride a motorcycle..." and I can offer a litany of reasons why. But every day as I ride in helmet, armored jacket, gloves & boots, I see couples on Harleys doing 75mph in heavy traffic, not only helmetless but in shorts and flip-flops, and I squint and wonder why...

Seems it's all about where you draw the line. What appears to one person as suicidal stupidity can be another's life-affirming thrill.
posted by Tubes at 10:38 AM on August 18, 2006

If someone asks me why I don't wear a helmet, I ask them if they're offering to buy me one that looks good enough to wear. Guess what happens after that?
posted by smorange at 2:51 PM on August 18, 2006