Do you think bicycle riders should wear helments?
What Do you think? You chose. Should all bicycle riders and even skateboards, roller blades and all the others? Lets start a debate by you Voting now! 
Yes they should
Side Score: 106
|
 |
No they shouldnt
Side Score: 148
|
|
|
|
|
The point is that people that have studied the issue, very often conclude that the protective effect of the helmets modelled after those used by racing cyclist, do not help very much, except to prevent rashes on the top third of the head. If you read the references pointed to by posters here you can see references to lots of studies and reviews of studies. Those studies and reviews support the view that helmet efficiency is limited. Nobody on the "Aye -side" has provided any references to studies concluding otherwise. As for the "A helmet saved my life" argument, have a look here : www.cyclehelmets.org/1019.html as a starter. I know that this information can seem counter-intuitive. I myself had to delwe into the material with an open but sceptical mind for half a year before I became more or less convinced that focusing on helmets is doing cycling and public health a great disservice. I am glad to see that you are opposed to compulsion. The problem is though, that there is a very slippery slope in this. As soon as helmet wearing has passed, say 70% we will see greatly increased pressure for banning cycling without helmets. This is in fact the professed goal in some jurisdictions. [ Paraphrase : As soon as we get higher wearing rats we will ban cycling without helmets." ] Also the more people were helmets the easier it will be to "blame the victim" in collisions with cars. "Ah . He was not wearing a helmet, so we will forget about the driver being drunk, speeding, texting (on a mobile phone) while driving etc, and reduce the compensation to the cyclist for negligence" In fact this is already happening. All because of a terrible misunderstanding about who is responsible for the hurt , and about the "magical powers" of helmets. Side: No they shouldnt
3
points
No number of statistics matter. The point is that helmets can help prevent some injuries, right? That alone should make people want to wear them. Besides, isn't it better safe than sorry? As far as I know, helmets don't harm people and they take only 2 seconds out of your life to put on and snap shut. ""blame the victim" in collisions with cars....." Although people will say "Oh, he wasn't wearing a helmet and it could have saved his life. Yada yada yada...", this does not mean they will ignore the fact that the driver was "being drunk, speeding, texting". I mean, there are organizations against drunk driving (like MADD) and there are laws against all three, not to mention various school assemblies to warn against them as well. Side: Yes they should
6
points
My 9 year old grandson was hit by a car this week while riding his bike! My daughter ALWAYS makes him wear his helmet and he hates it because none of the other kids have to. Scientific evidence be damned this time because he was hit head on by an idiot driver...his helmet saved his life! What would have been a tragedy turned out to be a blessing as he escaped unscathed but hysterical as the woman simply drove off! Side: Yes they should
Kuklapolitan, I find your point "scientific evidence be dammed" more than a little troubling. It's important to have a proper understanding at just what a helmet can and cannot do. It's important to understand a bicycle helmet is meant to mitigate injury from a simple fall and not to protect in impacts with motor vehicles. If you want to understand more about what a helmet can or cannot do, please read the link. It is written by the director of the UK's premier helmet testing facility. In my Province, which has an all ages mandatory helmet law, cyclists continue to die at the same as they did before everybody started to wear helmets, only now, they continue to die with helmets on. The fact that your grandson survived his collision is hardly attributable to the helmet he wore. Cyclists most often survive such collisions even while not wearing helmets. They often die in them wearing helmets too. Take the time to try to understand why this is so. Side: No they shouldnt
2
points
I truly understand your point BfromBC and agree with it altogether. I am not arguing the stats on this one. I simply told a true story as it pertained to the opening of this debate. Yet, I must also believe that in a minor accident which, upon further information accumulated, that his helmet may have protected him from a bit of side damage when he fell to the ground after landing on his feet! He did hit his head yet there was no injury at that site, He was lucky BFBC. Sometimes no matter what precautions one takes it doesn't seem to matter. Side: Yes they should
3
points
Just a footnote to really answer your question fully. I think all cyclists, skateboarders, etc should wear a helmet but I do not think it should be mandatory. The thing is that it can't hurt to wear one and it may just save slight head trauma when worn. Of course we all know that speed has an impact and how you're hit has an impact on the final result. I've seen people simply walk away from these types of accidents but I've also seen people die when they are hit "just right." It may, as David says, give a false sense of security but it really can't hurt to wear one. Side: Yes they should
Saved by a helmet ? Possibly, but not very likely. See the article "A helmet saved my life" as a starter. Also, see the paragraph in the commentary on the article "Promoting safe cycling and helmet use" referring to liners in helmets probably being too stiff to offer adequate protection in a crash : "The BMA [British Medical Assoc.] describes how helmets are intended to work. This is not, however, necessarily the reality. The senior engineer of Bell Sports, the leading helmet manufacturer [18], and the Australian Federal Transport Bureau [19], have commented that the foam in helmets may be too stiff so that it does not crush as designed." I have seen and read about people without helmets not hurting their heads in accidents, while sustaining minor or more serious injuries to legs and arms. It _can_ hurt to wear a helmet : o Risk compensation by cyclist o Risk compensation by car drivers o "Helps" convey the false message that cycling is dangerous, and thus discourgae cycling for safety concious people, especially mothers regarding their kids. o A helmeted head is larger, hotter and l little bit heavier and means for instance that built in reflexes to bend the neck when falling on the back might not be sufficient to avoid a helmet smashing into the ground. o False stories about being saved by the helmet propagate, wetting the slippery slope to compulsion o Increased size and non-slick surface of helmet might mean increased chances of neck injuries. o Increased size and non-slick surface of helmet might mean increased chances of rotational injuries on the brain tissue. Side: No they shouldnt
but one must acknowledge that pedestrians are hurt and die from head injury at no lesser rate than cyclists. (http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/ Wouldn't it be logical to ask pedestrians to wear helmets as we ask cyclists to? If we do not, isn't that illogical? Side: No they shouldnt
7
points
5
points
Analysis of the effect of seat belt legislation showed, to everyone's great surprise, that the laws had no overall effect, but that there was in some cases a significant shift from driver injuries to pedestrian and cyclist injuries. Side: No they shouldnt
4
points
Nicoleacola, you cite an injury to a car user, so I assume you wear a helmet when taking a trip by car. Car occupants suffer head trauma in far greater numbers than cyclists. Our heads are exposed to risk virtually anytime so should we wear helmets for all moving activities? Side: No they shouldnt
Sassybaby, you might want to know the tests cycling helmets go through mean they should provide some protection from a simple fall (provided the cyclist lands on the top of his/her head). They cannot provide protection from being "run over". In virtually every case of death to a cyclist, a motor vehicle was involved and in every area that has imposed upon cyclists to wear helmets, the deaths from being run over have not changed in spite of helmets being worn. In some cases injuries and deaths to cyclists have dropped after implementation of mandatory helmet laws, but the reasons shown for this is a simple reduction of people cycling (because they do not want to wear helmets) and/or a historic trend of fewer traffic incidents through better enforcement of traffic law and improved road design that has preceded helmet use Side: No they shouldnt
According to bhsi.org, 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every year. Of those, about 67,000 have head injuries. There would be 67,000 less people visiting emergency rooms if they simply put a helmet on their head. They are inexpensive as well, so I do not see how bicycle riders should not wear helmets. Side: Yes they should
Wow, I was right. Common sense is under rated. "I guess I can risk being in a lot of pain, so that I don't have to wear this dorky helmet." In most cases it's not a matter of life and death but come on. I think people just don't like doing what they are told to do. Side: common sence
4
points
1. You're right. People don't like being told what to do. Go talk to Russians, Czechs, Hungarians, Poles, Lithuanians, etc. It took them over 70 years to get rid of people who told them what to do. 2. There's a simple concept called "risk assessment". You are at risk of a lot of pain all of your life. Risk should be assessed objectively to determine if abnormal measures (like wearing of protective headgear) is warranted. I would guess you have never objectively measured your risk in performing tasks or activities that we perform daily in our lives. Perhaps you should, since cycling is lower risk than the sum of all lifetime risks. Source: http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/ Your so-called common sense is trumped by the facts. Side: No they shouldnt
I think the people in communist countries would rather live in the U.S. and wear a dorky looking helmet. It's not like anyone has to ride a bike. You have the freedom to walk or drive, anywhere you want. Regardless of the science of helmet protection the point is that while yes we are free but we have laws to help us have better lives. Side: Yes they should
As to the universal value of common sense, here are some is some other common sense knowledge ( of old): o The earth is flat as a pancake o The sun travels over the sky. Possibly circling the earth o Bloodletting is one of the best treatments there are, for a host of illnesses o If you get sick, or if natural catastrophes happen, it must be because of a sin the individual or the society committed on some level Side: No they shouldnt
Although this sounds very compelling, how cars give more space to helmet-less riders, there could be bias in the study. For starters, only one bicycle rider participated and he used one bicycle. Perhaps, people would have reacted differently if there were a different person or bicycle. Also, I don't think the experiment was large enough. They should have had many cyclists on the roads in various bicycles, wearing helmets or not, male and female, during different weather conditions, and on different types of roads. I know it's a lot, but every aspect has to be taken into account. Perhaps the drivers who passed him the first time all had bias toward drifting farther away. Also, it never mentions if there were cars in the other lane of oncoming traffic, thus prohibiting the drivers from moving too far. I took a stats course this year and now I look at every experiment and study this way. -_- But you have to admit there was a huge possibility for error/bias/etc. :) Side: Yes they should
3
points
There are other ways and better of achieving safety objectives. Reduced speed of cars. Improved education for cyclists and car drivers, both in courses and using awareness campaigns etc. More cyclists on the streets has also generally improved road safety ( in towns and cities at least ) Side: No they shouldnt
2
points
Well, yeah, bicyclers should where helmets. It's really common since. http://www.youtube.com/ Side: common sence
Pro racing lasted about one hundred years without riders wearing helmets and they crashed quite often and survived without them. There was much noise made about Andre Kivalev but almost no one mentions Manuel Sonora or Fujinawa, Reinhart, Hailey and Lemire. All of these racers died with helmets on. I think people are projecting their fears into these situations and helmet manufacturers are exploiting those fears to gather a tidy profit Side: No they shouldnt
1
point
yes bicycle riders should wear helmets . A saying goes 'prevention is better than cure'. The debate owner feels the same after he falls from his bicycle.And in this modern world with to much of busy riders its easy to get injuries. Cut 'should' and add 'are' and Iam sure within a short span of time this debate arises Side: Yes they should
0
points
|
There is no evidence that shows cycling results in more injuries to the head than any other activity or that wearing helmets while cycling leads to any fewer injuries to cyclists than had been the case when helmets were not worn. Some riders may wish to wear helmets because they feel they are taking greater risks than other cyclists, but these riders would do well to understand the limitations of the protection they're wearing. It's common to believe a helmet will provide more protection than they are designed to give and it's not uncommon to find a helmeted cyclist seriously injured because the impact the cyclist has had is far beyond the helmets modest, protective abilities. Side: No they shouldnt
There is no evidence that shows cycling results in more injuries to the head than any other activity Sometimes a study isn't really needed. I'd be pretty sure that cycling results in more head injuries than say yoga or playing poker. If your on the road, getting hit by a car or coming off your bike is a risk, which makes a cyclist a head injury risk...seems pretty simple to me. There is no evidence that shows hat wearing helmets while cycling leads to any fewer injuries to cyclists than had been the case when helmets were not worn. What negative impact do they have? If you're 'unsure' of their effectiveness doesn't it still make sense to wear them just incase. I don't understand why anyone would be so anti-helmet wearing. It's common to believe a helmet will provide more protection than they are designed to give and it's not uncommon to find a helmeted cyclist seriously injured because the impact the cyclist has had is far beyond the helmets modest, protective abilities. It's anecdotal to say that because someone wore a helmet but suffered an injury people shouldn't wear them. Regardless of how much protection they provide, if it is better than your bare skull hitting concrete then why not give yourself that advantage? Side: Yes they should
5
points
Cycling is not dangerous, and helmets do not appear to change that. No cyclist population in the world shows a correlation between helmet use and cyclist head injury rates. Whether individual cyclists choose to wear a helmet on any given ride can safely be left to them, but the evidence shows that at the aggregate level it has no effect either way. Side: No they shouldnt
5
points
Countries with the lowest helmet wearing rates have the most cyclists and the lowest fatality and injury rates per km cycled - see http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ Given that it's much safer to cycle in countries with low helmet wearing, what sense does it make to encourage cyclists to wear helmets? Side: No they shouldnt
4
points
Helmet laws have stopped a lot of people cycling and have done nothing for head injury rates, see Robinson DL. No clear evidence from countries that have enforced the wearing of helmets. BMJ 2006;332: 722-5. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/ Side: No they shouldnt
4
points
There is much evidence to show helmet laws have been a failure where they've been introduced, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand. See sites of the Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation at http://www.cyclehelmets.org and the Vehicular Cyclist at http://www.vehicularcyclist.com Side: No they shouldnt
Bicycle users should not wear helmets if they wear them for the wrong reasons. o If they think helmets will protect them like magic hats, then they are likely to take more chances o If they wear helmets because they think it would be "madness" to cycle without one, then they probably have an exaggerated view of the dangers of cycling. ( In addition to the inflated opinion on the efficiency of helmets. ) See the sites referred to above. Side: No they shouldnt
Yes I would consider giving people the advice to wear a helmet if there was very good evidence that it would be beneficial overall to the individual cyclists. But there is not. I and many others that have read up on helmets, say that if it makes it more likely that you cycle, and you feel comfortable with the helmet, by all means wear it. You should take great care not to trust the helmet with your life, though. It will not save you. As for general advice "to society" on helmets, that will bring into the equation several other factors like: o Would general usage of helmets be beneficial on a societal level ? o Would not general helmet usage for cyclists but not for car-drivers or joggers or people walking stairs or drinking give a false signal about where dangers lie ? o Could it not be that focussing on helmets would to a large extent detract from other measures and behavioural change and awareness building ( not least among motorists ) that are way more powerful in improving crash statistics. o One of the best ways to improve safety and health s cycling. Cyclist live longer and become healthier than those that do not. For many, helmets or a push to wear them detracts from the desire or convenience or freedom or fun of one of the most healthy activities you can undertake. o On a closely related note : One of the best proven ways to reduce casualties in city traffic is to get people out of their cars and onto bikes. The more bikes, the more drivers become aware of them. And lets not forget that much less danger stems from a cyclist than from a car driver. All statistics attest to that fact, as well as elementary physics. Side: No they shouldnt
Helmets give a false sense of safety. The human skull is naturally far more effective in protecting the brain. Any impact hard enough to cause serious damage to a head, is strong enough to make the helmet useless anyway... The types of injury a helmet is effective for are superficial, sure a bloody head sucks, but we're made to take more than that. I think that if someone doesn't want to wear a helmet, they shouldn't have to. I mean really, back off big bro. Side: No they shouldnt
3
points
As a New Zealand cyclist and scientist who has watched and studied the effect of the mandatory law in New Zealand the answer can be nothing but that such laws are a terrible idea. The law in NZ, as in other places they have been tried, is a total health and safety disaster. While we could spend time discussing the reasons behind this that is quite an involved debate, so let's just summarize: the laws have failed and nobody has come up with anyway to make them work. We still have a law in NZ not because it works, even Government officials responsible for it will off the record (and even occasionally on) admit the failure, but because those same Government officials currently deem the political cost of admitting the failure as too high. Some indicate that in future maybe it will go, when the political cost is deemed low enough. Meanwhile of course the NZ public continue to suffer from its failure (it is as I said a health and safety disaster), but it does allow other countries such as Norway to look at our failure (they decided we increased risk by 14%) and decide not to impose such a disaster on their population, i.e. we abuse our cyclists (especially the kids) so you don't have to. Strange, unjustifiable, but true :-( Side: No they shouldnt
Helmets should be optional, many feel that they dont want to wear a helmet and so there shoudnt be a rule to force them, those who do wear a helmet often have a misconception over the level of protection they will provide, overall the helmet will protect your head if you fall off, but in a crash with a car the helmet will often crumple, unless it is a full head one. It should be down to the individual as not wearing a helmet wont place anyone else in danger unlike not wearing a seat belt as you could be in the back and hit the front seat where someone is sat. Side: No they shouldnt
We've a few places where helmets have been made compulsory, so the easy way to see if it's actually worth doing is look there to see what has actually happened in those places, rather than assume what might happen elsewhere. And what we see is no cost benefit and no reduction in serious injury rates for cyclists but a reduction in cycle numbers (which suggests more polluting, congesting journeys in lieu). That's what actually happens, so voting yes, however well meaning, is a public health own-goal. We need to stop assuming what we want to happen and would be nice if it did happen, and look at what does happen. And the real-world record of cycle helmets for road-going cyclists getting from A to B is they are no real help, but do put people off a remarkably healthy way to get around. Side: No they shouldnt
2
points
but the question is, is the protection provided substantial enough to provide meaningful protection? If helmets only prevent provide minimal protection against superficial injury, in events that are a rare occurrence, is it worth spending $50 (or more) for an item that costs less than $5 to produce? Side: No they shouldnt
Bicycle helmets and motorcycle helmets are not directly comparable. But they too have their flaws. A new model has developed that is designed to reduce the risk of rotational injuries to the brain. Cycling and travel by motorcycle are not comparable either. Side: No they shouldnt
I live in California and I'm pretty much in accordance with the current laws. If you're under 18, helmets are required. For everyone else, it's up to you, but you still need a full set of reflectors set in every direction, and headlights that shine 300ft in front of you, and taillights. I know because I've been harassed enough by police for not having but one tail light... no reflectors or headlights, and I almost always do my long rides (~40-50mi) at night. I've wrecked only a few times out of the hundreds of miles I've ridden, and it was usually when I was doing around 12mph or less, and every time I just flew off of the bike, did a roll, and jumped back on to make sure nothing was broken on the bike... and I'd ride away. Scrapped arms, tore up jeans, maybe a shoe would come untied, but I've never been in a predicament where my head was at risk of being injured at all. Don't get me wrong though, I think that helmets are imperative in certain situations, but most people (that I know) don't put themselves at risk enough to say that they should all wear helmets. Side: No they shouldnt
1
point
1
point
Nobody is telling you or anybody else to stop wearing a helmet. :-) That is not what the question is about. It is about whether helmet wearing should be generally advised, on the grounds of the supposed (and discredited) efficiency of "normal" helmets in reducing serious injury. And it could also be interpreted as a question on whether people should be forced to wear helmets. The way the discussion is going however, it is natural to discuss whether helmets statistically offer any protection that warrants the focus and attention helmet wearing receives. I repeat : Nobody here has been telling people to stop wearing helmets. However the false reasons that have been given for the so called necessity of helmets is being pointed out. Side: No they shouldnt
1
point
1
point
No. I don't think a helmet is really necessary. People are way too concerned. It's like they tell their kids, "Make sure you wear your inch thick piece of foam padding in case a semi nails you at 70 mph." I really doubt that most people wear helmets anyway... Side: No they shouldnt
1
point
i long board ever summer... i was hit by a car once not very hard but enough for me to be sent home and sleep off the pain. i was not wearing a helmet at the time. cause its really unlikely for me to just fall over. walking i should wear a helmet cause I'm a clumsy beast. but I'm still against helmets. the reasons for helmets are cause they protect you hair and brain. in some cases helmets are more harmful then useful. saying its saves lives is like me throwing thousands of floating in the ocean and saying eh I'm saving lives here when a person falls in the water and cant swim they can grab a floaty. well chances are 100% of those floaties aren't going to be by him when he falls. so he drowns. we have the capability to make the helmets safer but if you look at a cheap low profile biking helmet it does nothing but choke you. if helmets where free then encourage them but there not and they ain't changing anytime soon so why bother if your only going to go from a to b and use your brain to safe your brain you'll avoid almost all potential accidents. Side: No they shouldnt
1
point
|
