"""What you are posturing is comparing folks who ride at a much slower speed, as in single speed, spring saddled bicycles for commuting versus those who ride at faster speeds for sport/recreation. Much like racecar driving, whom do wear helmets, to commuters who don’t, the second cyclist group (which include Dutch and Chinese recreational sport cyclists) is in a much higher risk category for incurring head injury.""

I think you comments point up a big part of why helmets are so popular, and why ""enthusiast"" cyclists support them so avidly -- helmets are a sign that we are serious about the sport, that we know what we are doing, and that we go fast. They're an affirmation that we're special compared to those other cyclists.

That said, it's very funny that on the one hand we have the avid-pro-helmet crowd pointing out the dangers of cars, but then when the example of commuters in other places riding safely is raised, the discussion then becomes ""oh, the're slow so that's different."" Sure it's different, but *if* cars are a big reason you wear a helmet, I don't think the difference between 12mph and 18mph matters very much.

But you're right -- it's probably the case that in racing or in fast group riding we're more likely to have some sort of accident on our own (w/o involvement of cars). I don't have concrete info on that, but you and I are in agreement on it, so let's accept it.

I don't, however, accept that there is any high chance of death in those no-car-involvement accidents. If you think there is, I'd like to see some evidence of it. I would speculate that those sorts of accidents involve relatively small injuries, like cuts to the head and maybe concusions. But it's not dramatic enough to some people to say ""Always wear a helmet -- it'll save you from a cut on your head."" Instead we hear nonsense like ""helmets saved my life four times."" Pure baloney.

And, if you really are putting the focus on the type of accidents seem more likely to affect ""enthusist"" cyclists and not all cyclists, it seems to me that a much better focus for safety would be our own skills and judgement. Those accidents are in our own hands.

I know people who *practice* not falling on a bike -- working regularly on skills and drills to stay upright. Do you? I'm not saying you should or must, but if you don't can I pour the type of scorn on you that you seem to pour on people who don't believe helmets are critical?
"

"""As for head impact while cycling, I'd much rather be wearing a helmet than be without one when that happens.""

What about a head impact when doing something other than cycling?"

"""If you wear one most of the time is that through choice or because you are required to?""

Was by choice when I was young and that sadly became a habit. I believed that helmets were vital to safety when I started riding.

But over the years I read more and thought more critically about it and now I wear one less and less. But still a lot -- old habits die hard, plus it's required in racing and required by law in Rockland County and in the Palisades Interstate Park System, where I ride a fair bit. But just riding around town I wear one less and less. And less and less in city park.

""Most of us would recover from rash or broken bones but a head injury, that could keep you off the bike for good.""

Could? Yes, and there are surely broken bones that could keep someone off a bike for good and surely also head injuries from which one could recover. But we seem quite willing to risk serious injury to spine and legs, right?

My ""argument"" is that we hear too much hyperbole about helmets and people make inane conclusions about their effectiveness. That's my main point. I don't accept hyperbolic speculation and I have to laugh at silly absolutes like ""never wear a helmet.""

I haven't stated it previously, but I feel these over-the-top statements are profoundly anti-cycling. They suggest the activity is so dangerous it requires exceptional protection.

So if people want to wear helmets, wear them. I do a lot of the time. But please don't make overally strong statements about their effectiveness in preventing severe injury or death. The evidence simple isn't there.

And moreover, there are lots of things in life that are incrementally as dangerous as not wearing a bike helmet compared to wearing a bike helmet. Do you ride in teh back of a cab w/o airbags? Even with seatbelts, you could die. So what? Do you think it's rational to say ""never get in a car w/o airbags""? Or never get in a car w/o a helmet. Most of us would agree that if you're in a car hit from the side, you could die w/o a helmet.

Frankly, I think it's irrational to insist on a helmet on the bike but not in a car. Especially not in a car w/o airbags front and side."