Heavily (but necessarily) summarised quote in the subject, but here's an interesting piece on bike helmets:
https://ecf.com/what-we-do/road-safety/ecf-position-helmets
I bet these reports don't consider mountain biking accidents though, which are more frequent.
It won't be inteseting.
Just make your own mind up using common sense.
TurnerGuy
Member
I bet these reports don’t consider mountain biking accidents though, which are more frequent.
Actually they will do as they look at hospital admissions for casualties - but MTBing is a very small part of cycling europe wide.
Just make your own mind up using common sense.
Yeah! Haven't you heard that we've had enough of experts? You can prove anything with facts.
geex
It won’t be inteseting.
Just make your own mind up using common sense.
My lordy. Apart from the spelling of 'interesting', I totally agree with geex.
and will now let this uninteresting thread run it's course.
Its really important to differentiate between what happens to individuals and to populations. The effects are very different.
I'm pretty sure that if I fall off my bike for what ever reason and hit my head on a rock/kerb/other hard object, it will hurt more if I am not wearing a helmet.
That'll do for me.
Definitely doesn’t apply to the protection full face provides to your teeth when hitting rock gardens, wet off camber roots or misjudging the height of tree branches...
Mandatory helmets for pedestrians.
ads that might be so - but in some types of collisions helmet wearing makes outcomes worse. ( high speed oblique impacts)
here’s an interesting piece on bike helmets
It wasn't interesting. Can I have my money back?
🙂
13 posts so far (not including this one), 4 of them by TJ. Who would've seen that coming?
EDIT: 14 - 5 now
TJ - I'm sure you're right, you've certainly done more research than I have, but i've had a fair few crashes on (or off!) bikes and I'm happy that wearing a helmet helped prevent any further injury and will continue wearing one during certain types of cycling.
Do I think they should be mandatory? **** no!
Mashr - that gets another 🙂
Actually they will do as they look at hospital admissions for casualties – but MTBing is a very small part of cycling europe wide.
precisely - so the stats for whether a helmet is beneficial whilst mtbing are lost within a sea of stats from accidents sustained on the road.
Pull out just the mtb stats and I bet the results would look very different.
I’m pretty sure that if I fall off my bike for what ever reason and hit my head on a rock/kerb/other hard object, it will hurt more if I am not wearing a helmet.
That’ll do for me.
And if you trip over when walking it is somehow different? This is why, as Geex says, we just need to make up our own minds.
I think most of us are aware they offer limited protection but most still choose to take it up despite the lack of compullsion "just in case"...
You might call that individuals making informed choices rather than believeing all the hype...
The arguments against helmet compulsion are pretty well established now, and there's not much real appetite to impose it beyond the odd shouty DM reading Mondeo man...
TBH it's not really cycling forums where these dull, stat-fest studies need to be linked now, it's in the comments on the next click bait piece the DM/Sun/Express run about cyclists without Lids and hi-viz...
Just make your own mind up using common sense.
Isnt the point of the article that we should be free to decide. Bit like all the times I get abuse for not using poorly designed cycle lanes the weight of society seems against choice.
This hoary old chestnut again! I'll bite. Modern MIPS helmets reduce the dangers of rotational force injuries, which weakens the "oblique impact" injuries argument. As a pedestrian I don't think I've ever fallen and bashed my head in the way that I've done when coming off a bike (road or mountain and more often than I care to dwell on) at speed and onto a hard, unforgiving surface. \even when drunk. For sure, if I find myself under the wheels of an HGV (yet to happen, but can't rule it out) a helmet probably isn't going to be much good (deliberate understatement), but then what is? Undoubtedly if you're cycling much above walking pace, fall off and hit your head on something hard, you're going to be better off with a helmet on 99% of the time. Should they be mandatory? Of course not! For all the reasons previously listed, but if you're riding on a busy road, or anywhere off-road, or in wet or icy conditions, imho you'd be an idiot not to wear one.
And finally, because it still amuses me, the story of a very right-on ex-colleague (new job, he's still very much alive) who we'll call Andy (for 'tis his name) who took every opportunity to announce how he would never succumb to pressure from the man to wear a helmet (personal freedom and that) and then turned up to work one Monday morning with a massive scar on his hairline (many stitches). Turned out he'd knocked himself out cycling under a bridge on the canal towpath. Not surprisingly there were quite a few helpful colleagues happy to point out that "If he'd been wearing a helmet.."
I wear a helmet (after a silly off in Wales could have been fatal) and if I'm guiding or riding with a group where I have any responsibility then I insist every one wears one.
If I see folk riding without one it's up the them but a give a little hope that no harm come from not wearing one.
And yes TJ is correct about individuals and populations.
Don't need to share it with DM/Sun/Express comments, just need to make sure those in power are aware of it.
Will I wear a helmet MTBing? Pretty much yes except in exceptional circumstances. Sometimes full face.
Will I always wear a helmet to the shop/pub? Nope, it's a bit of a pain.
Do I crash a lot on the road? No, but of 2 times I hit my head, one was against a pedestrian's head.
Individual choice isn't it? Off road perhaps a case, along with knee pads, hip protectors, etc. On road, depends on your riding style. If you crash regularly maybe wear one. On road, aside from minor bruises I've never injured myself in 40 years of touring and commuting. No head injuries.
Another stat - the London Bike Hire scheme, used by riders of mixed abilities in a busy city had it's first fatality after 34 million miles were clocked up. General cycling isn't really that dangerous. I don't wear a helmet for other safe activities.
https://understandinguncertainty.org/fatality-risk-boris-bikes
And if you trip over when walking it is somehow different? This is why, as Geex says, we just need to make up our own minds.
Which i have. I'm not telling any one else they should wear one....
this old chestnut, personally i wouldn't ride with people who don't wear helmets. its all personal choice.
when you go to A&E and mention bicycle/ being knocked of a bike, every admin / nurse / doctor / consultant you meet will ask you the same question 'were you wearing a helmet'
hence with all these studies and papers saying helmets dont make a difference
it seems a strange question to ask
stupid is as stupid does.. not to judge $;0)
The report they referenced (Elvik2011) is interesting because the detail is often more interesting that the summary. It concludes that there is absolutely no doubt that helmets reduce the severity of head injuries. However for other sorts of injuries it really isn't clear that helmets help. You combine that with a change in the population who would cycle if you make it a legal requirement then yes it is possible there is no net protective effect. However, for those of us who aren't put off cycling by wearing a helmet it is quite clear that wearing a helmet is safer
Still, as with others here, I don't always wear a helmet when skooting around town. I always wear one when riding off-road
We4aring a helmet only reduces minor injuries - not major ones. Major ones can be made worse also helmets can create risk factors that increase your chance of crashing
Well I would have been deaded only a week back had I not been wearing my helmet. Simple easy innocuous little ride. That is enough reason for me to wear one always.
No cycle helemt will turn a life threatening injury into no injury - they are simply incapable of this. the forces involved are too big.
when you go to A&E and mention bicycle/ being knocked of a bike, every admin / nurse / doctor / consultant you meet will ask you the same question ‘were you wearing a helmet’
hence with all these studies and papers saying helmets dont make a difference
it seems a strange question to ask
Do they? I can't remember the last time I was asked. (Minor Injuries Unit for a shoulder injury recently, foot injury, gash in hip, broken wrist, broken thumb and others at various times over the last twenty five years.)
I do remember being asked how I did the injury - can't remember which one - and replying 'mountain biking', at which the nurse said 'motor biking' and walked away. I wonder how many injuries are filed under the wrong activity.
We4aring a helmet only reduces minor injuries
Nowt wrong with that, though there's a few folk wouldn't consider dental reconstruction to be that minor.
No cycle helemt will turn a life threatening injury into no injury – they are simply incapable of this. the forces involved are too big.
You can't say that. All it takes is a badly placed object or certain amount of force in a specific place or an edge case, and a helmet would turn a life threating injury into no injury. Prove me otherwise.
It's an odd perspective to have.. but maybe Helmets are just a 'marekting' campaing to drive sales.
Do you drive a car without airbags or seatbelts too?
Do you not wear gloves/respirators when dealing with hazardouse substances?
[strong]tjagain[/strong] wrote:
No cycle helemt will turn a life threatening injury into no injury – they are simply incapable of this. the forces involved are too big.
Not ture. I firmly believe I could have died the other week, simply due to the impact sustained on a sharp edge rock (enough to give me compression pain in back and shoulders and completely crack my helmet through), compounded with the fact I was well off any sort of beaten track, hidden from view in a gulley, and no-one would have had any idea that I was riding there.
People always say "why don't we wear a helmet to walk" when these threads come up, but you only have to watch bike "crash" videos for 30 sec on you-tube to see two major kinesiological differences between falling off a bike, and falling when walking, namely:
1) "Going over the bars" is a common accident, and means you are likely to land less obliquely to the ground, because you go up and over the (tall) front wheel. Stumble when walking and your instinctive reaction is to try to get your feet back under your body (ie put in a quick stride), meaning even if you fall, assuming you are not infirm or elderly , chances are you go down with a lower vertical velocity and a larger horizontal one.
and
2) Most people who cycle aren't experienced Mountain bikers who have learnt (often the hard way) how to 'bail' and to bail early. Watch the videos of people falling off bikes, especially on road bikes, and they pretty much never let go of the bars, meaning the first thing that hits the ground is unlikely to be hands /arms, but head / face.
Here's a load of people hitting the ground head/face first, despite still death gripping the bars:
Why then do the actual science and research say that walking is as dangerous for head injury as cycling ( per mile)
In other news: Bike helmet discussions summarised... Indicate no detectable change in opinion of participants about bike helmets.
🙂
I am still waiting for someone to suggest trying hitting me with a baseball bat helmeted and unhelmeted - usually have that by now
I am not anti helmet. I am pro INFORMED choice and against helmet promotion let alone compulsion.
Where do they get the data they use in these studies? If it's based on A&E visits, then it's obviously flawed as not many of us who've totalled helmets, and walked away relatively unharmed, don't tend to go to hospital, so will be missing from these statistics. I'm neither pro, nor anti on the compulsion front btw.
Read them? I can point you in the direction of multiple studies and analysis of these studies.
Its one of the flaws with the data. We only have those injured either helmeted or unhelmeted so what we do not know is are unhelmeted folk less likely to have accidents - seems some data points this way and also as you point out - we don't have a comparison between crashers unhelmeted and helmeted who crash but are uninjured - again some data suggests helmets make hitting your head more common Certainly minotrr injuries appear to be more common without helmets but major injuries - no proper data on that at all that I have seen and some studies have seen 30% of all accidents a helmet makes it worse.
the other major flaw in most of the data is it uses very broad definitions for head injury and assumes that minor and major head injuries have the same sort of causes - this is not so.
So yes - data is flawed and inconsistent. Most of the research is of a pretty poor standard and much of it ( from both sides) done on the basis of making the data fit the hypothesis
While I don't understand why people wouldn't wear a bike helmet, I respect their decision not to. However, I do think they reduce the severity of head traumas (or probability of doing yourself some serious damage) and probably help the A and E staff have to deal with less serious injuries. This is based on 20 years of MTB, and falls and hitting my head several times to the point of cracking through the helmet. There's no way I wouldn't have had a skull fracture without a helmet on.
To the argument "well, why don't you wear a helmet walking down the street in case you fall and hit your head?". Maybe because walking generally isn't perceived (by me) as an inherently dangerous activity (unlike MTB), and in my 42 years, I've never tripped in the street and banged my head. If I was falling and hitting my head a lot, then a) I would consider wearing a helmet, and b) I'd be more worried about the pathology that's causing it!
Both my brother and I would very likely not be here now if it weren't for a decent helmet, I for one wont be leaving mine at home anytime soon
There is an argument about their use on the road. Properly protective helmets are going to be way too heavy and uncomfortable for us to wear (ever tried a motorbike helmet on which is only a compromise) so if you get ****ted by a car at speed and bounce off the road its value is probably limited to making it easier for the emergency services to scoop up your brain.
However I have a nice scar when I went out to test some gear tweaks and slid out on some roots. A helmet would have probably saved me from that.
There is also the question whether it would lessen the chances of concussion which can be really weird.
On the flipside there are a couple of studies which seem to indicate drivers are less cautious passing someone wearing a helmet.
By default I will keep to wearing a helmet (after the embarrassing incident in A&E where I went "no I wasnt wearing a helmet since I was just checking some gear tweaking") but I wouldnt treat it as a saviour and likewise I wouldnt want it as law.
Although that said I would want it as a law if you have it with you then wear it. What is it with people who have one dangling from their bars?
Why then do the actual science and research say that walking is as dangerous for head injury as cycling ( per mile)
Drunk people
Elderly people
People cycle further than they walk
EDIT just noticed who the OP is quoting. Might as well cite ‘cyclehelmets.org’ as an unbiased authority.
Any statistics on the efficacy of e-bike helmets? I'm willing to assert that there must have been an increase in people falling off while cycling quickly uphill.
They portray bicycle helmets as offering far more protection than they do. Bicycle helmets are only designed to withstand minor knocks and bumps, not being hit by motor vehicles; see more here
Will have a look at the publications they are quoting, but this is already a stupid statement on the part of the ECF. Helmets protect against pretty major blows to the head, but of course they don't protect your skull being crushed under an articulated lorry or a penetration injury by a sharp object. Motorbike helmets are a bit better in that regard.
Anyway that's what happens when non-scientists interpret journal entries.
so if you get ****ted by a car at speed and bounce off the road its value is probably limited to making it easier for the emergency services to scoop up your brain.
Again, if you watch videos of pedestrians or cyclist getting hit by cars - they more often than not hit the windscreen then get thrown down the road. Those are all events that even a basic EPS helmet is fairly good at keeping your skull intact. It's when you go underneath a car that you are ****ed.
Rayban - I suggest you do read up on the various papers on this
A cycle helmet cannot dissipate/ absorb the amount of energy involved hitting a car at 30 MPH. Only a few % of it., Its not what they are designed for at all and will make little difference. they are designed for a fall at zero mph to the ground from riding position and thats also what they are tested for
Cyclehelmets.org needs a large pinch of salt but has a lot of good links. also check out the BMJ reviews and the cochrane review - but that needs to be read alongside the critiques of it.
A cycle helmet cannot dissipate/ absorb the amount of energy involved hitting a car at 30 MPH. Only a few % of it., Its not what they are designed for at all and will make little difference. they are designed for a fall at zero mph to the ground from riding position and thats also what they are tested for
You are right.
They test them at 15 mph direct on into a solid block of metal or a pointed bit of immovable kerb. Where many of the helmets around now are reducing imparted G forces by 100g more than the test requirements.
So that is in no way, going to help if you bang your head at an oblique angle into thin crushable metal or a windscreen travelling at 30mph - or bounce it off the road after decelerating in the air.
Because all car crashes are completely equivalent to a flying anvil launched at 30mph hitting you in the head.
Last time I checked, one Cochrane review supported the use of a helmet when getting hit by a car.
and the other was on the fence about compulsory use but still supported the use of them
All in jest TJ - but I'm not convinced yet by your side.
I don't have a "side" apart from looking for the truth. too many myths out there. too much rubbish in the research
Y9u need to read the critiques of those involved in that cochrane review. Some very poor "science" that does not come anywhere meeting standards yo and I would like to see.
What are the 3 things Valid, robust, reliable - something like that. Those conclusions are none of the above.
Science is always improving and as you know full well TJ it's often wrong! Opinion and truth is made to be challenged hey?
This planet would be a lot better if more people were that inquisitive.
Its just a shame that politicians etc base their positions on such poor research.
the second one you quote is so obviously wrong. I know of two large studies that showed helmet compulsion reduced the amount cycled a lot - and no alteration in serious injuries per mile cycled ( compared to pedestrians - other changes in motoring law in aus had major road safety impact at the time)
Thompson and Riviera made their names in cycle helmet "research" that is very badly flawed and have spent 20 years desperately trying to show it was valid despite the flaws. They are at that old trick of adjusting the data to fit the hypothesis. No one else has every been able to show reductions in head injuries anywhere near what they claimed
did yo read the bad science link? Its good.
Ben Goldacre?
TJ I'll have a read of the papers in more depth, but you are doing yourself a disservice by criticising them on the basis that someone else got different results.
Give me something more substantial to have a think about, methodological or statistical problems in the papers etc.
Yes - Goldacre
the point was that they got a result so out of line with every other study that is makes it questionable
Methodological flaws in their original research its riddled with them. also in their statistical analysis an academic statistician said they used the wrong methods that caused a huge bump in positive results - I don't know enough stats to have a view myself - but I'd rather trust a well respected statistician than medical researchers on stats methods There are good critiques available. IIRC referenced on the BMJ site.
as I said - interested in discussing this further lets do it by PM
they haven't seperated out falls from getting hit by a car.
if you're hit by a car, you are ****ed either way, this is skewing the data
Interesting debate, and LOLs at those who have an opinion based on an anecdote or just nonsense, but by God they are right!...and aren't interested is listening to any other view/fact/evidence.
This is a decent summary of the evidence and research. Remember effects with individuals and across populations are different. Read in conjunction with the Bad science link I linked to erlier gives a decent background to understand the issues.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaigning/views-and-briefings/cycle-helmets
I wonder how many people that smashed their helmet but had no injuries reported this? Precisely none I imagine, myself included. I can't help but think that if my helmet is smashed and broken, I would have been in a bit of a state if the impact would have been directly on my unprotected head.
There is no way statistical evidence from A&E is ever going to tell us enough. Combine that evidence with some more detailed information about accident modes, some dummy testing and computer modelling and I think there is scope for actually learning something. But all that would be expensive.
Greyspoke - there is actually quite a lot of data collected like you mention,. Its pretty poor quality stuff in the main but some shows up interesting results. Like the dutch study ( IIRC) that instead of dropping headforms in helmets from a low height ( as in helmet testing) tried to replicate serious accidents in real life situations using a complete body dummy. This is the one that showed in 30% of accidents helmets made things worse from a serious injury point of view ( no one disputes helmets work for minor injuries)
A cycle helmet cannot dissipate/ absorb the amount of energy involved hitting a car at 30 MPH. Only a few % of it.
Came back to have a nose and just seen this.
I got hit by a car years ago, 40mph limit road, side on hit, car didn't have a chance to brake. I flew up in the air. Who knows what speed my head came down and connected with the front pillar, then back of the head onto the tarmac. My Giro Supermoto helmet was split down the middle. Whatever % of energy that dissipated, I'm ****ing thankful for. If anyone thinks you'd better off not wearing a helmet in that scenario, well, they've clearly already had the brain injuries. It's not even a point I'm prepared to discuss.
Missing the point Dez
Dear Mods
Can we please have a "Helmetgate" sticky next to the sticky "E-bikes OMG!" thread?
cynic-al
Missing the point Dez
Yeah, I think it was more like curved metal.
Compulsory helmets are a terrible idea. But I suspect helmets help in many bike crashes, even when hit by a car. I don’t hold much hope for collisions with trucks and buses - the near vertical fronts make for far more serious impacts with humans. Modern cars are designed to send humans up and over.
As I think I have pointed out on here before, helmets and other hard armour do not work primarily by dissipating energy themselves. They work by helping the body dissipate the energy better, ie without causing local catastrophic damage. To put it another way, in his collision with the car, Dez's bonce and neck dissipated most of the energy whereas without a helmet more of that energy would have been dissipated within a smaller area of his skull, with the possibility of greater local head damage. So when pushed to the limit, in the ideal scenario, a helmet gives you a really sore neck but an intact skull and no brain damage whereas without one you might have had both the latter. Problem is, outside that scenario, you might be trading a more serious and unrecoverable neck injury for a less serious and recoverable head injury, or a brain injury caused by rotation of the skull that would not have happened without a helmet. So for big impacts there is an element of hobson's choice about it.
From the paper cited "Do bicycle helmets reduce the risk of injury to the head, face
or neck? With respect to head injury, the answer is clearly yes"
Anecdote is not evidence, but in my case hitting the road at >30mph (avoiding a careless right turning car) resulted in a loss of part of one ear (degloved) and concussion. Without a helmet I would have lost a significant part of my scalp and probably broken my skull. The helmet didn't protect my ear.
Actually they will do as they look at hospital admissions for casualties – but MTBing is a very small part of cycling europe wide.
My big smash (concussion, broken back) is categorised as 'pedal cycle accident'. Only if they read the notes they might see mountain bike mentioned. A lesser one I had says "fell off mountain bike in Wales" (BPW stack, broke fingers 😁).
None of my crashes had cracked the helmet, although the big one there were enough marks on it that I decided to bin it. Visible damage doesn't mean it's not damaged inside the poly.
Seen a few where helmet is smashed but they walked away with no head damage.
Same old though. Helmets do/don't save lives, can't tell unless you repeat the exact same accident with same conditions, same bike & person and even down to what the person was thinking and how they react at the time, with and without a helmet.
Do they reduce the severity of damage? Most likely. Surface damage noticeably reduced or none where it's obvious without a helmet there'd be some or worse. Though in my concussion case there's a question whether helmet reduced or or made that worse (pre-MIPS, but that would have made no difference as not a rotational injury, and I argue that many MTB accidents are not that kind anyway).
With my fingers, the helmet didn't prevent that. Numpty was the cause 😁 (can argue helmet makes you over confident). Though at the time I was feeling relieved I'd worn the full face as it took a bash on the chin and I got no face damage.
As I think I have pointed out on here before, helmets and other hard armour do not work primarily by dissipating energy themselves. They work by helping the body dissipate the energy better, ie without causing local catastrophic damage
Radiologist said something like this to me. The helmet effectively sent the compression wave down the spine instead of into the head. Result was broken back due to the helmet. That's just a theory of a radiologist though.
Better off without the helmet then? Could have been the compression was localised in the neck and end up paralysed, instead of lesser compression fractures lower down.
No cycle helemt will turn a life threatening injury into no injury – they are simply incapable of this. the forces involved are too big.
A friend popped a front tyre on a descent and speared off into a tree at probably 20 mph. He cracked his helmet, but walked away with a sore neck and shoulder. I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't have fractured his skull if he wasn't wearing a helmet. Not saying helmets should be compulsory, but just that claims that they are completely ineffective seem pretty hard to take seriously.
It probably(?) applies more to a MTB point of view than road, but I fail to see how any kind of stats can include accidents which didn't end up reported/hospitalised.
If you fall off on a trail and can walk/stagger/ride away, no-one else will ever know.
What proportion of those unreported, hit on the head but walked away, falls involved wearing a helmet?
dead Kenny - could also have been a focal brain injury or worse a diffuse brain injury without the hat. You might just have smeared your scalp over rocks but not had any serious brain or spinal injury, just a scalping. You just don't really know.
Which possibility do you choose? We don't know the odds even to orders of magnitude
Hols - thats not what I said - not that they are ineffective but that the limits of their effectiveness are much lower than many think. 20 mph is a lot less energy than 30+ anyway If he would have had life-threatening injuries without the hat its highly unlikely he walks away with none with it.
@tjagain - I'd prefer to be able to answer the hospital porters when they ask "were you wearing a helmet?" on the way to the CT scan, and anyway resting on the helmet made it much more comfortable when I was lying face down in the road waiting for the ambulance.
having smashed my head into tarmac both with and without a helmet on, and still living with the after effects of the later 20yrs on, I know which I'd choose...
The OOH Major Trauma team at the hospital where I work have a collection of spectacularly exploded bicycle helmets in their office, both road and MTB. If anyone comments on them, they are quick to point out that the people whose heads they cut them from are still alive and mobile. The helmets generally look like they’ve been hit hard with hammers or in one case that was totally split, an axe. The ‘road’ ones look like they’ve been offered to a grinding wheel and held there.
As lots of people above, it’s not something that should be mandatory any more than hi vis should, but there are very good cases to choose to wear a helmet. They aren’t magical forcefields and especially if badly fitted can cause injuries themselves but I’d always choose to wear one I trusted.
One side of the "augment" that isn't really often discussed are the reasons to NOT wear a helmet.
From a purely MTB perspective can't particularly see any valid reason not to wear a helmet most of the time. In the grand scheme of things, a helmet is not that expensive (esp. compared to the £5k gnarpoon you're riding... ), is no longer seen as any kind of "social slur" (when was the last time you heard anyone see someone in a bike helmet and say "ooh, look at that muppet in that helmet"??), and these days doesn't particularly come with any significant downsides (they are no longer heavy, too hot, or uncomfortable)
Outside of MTBing, where we deliberately take on rough terrain and the incumbent risks that come hand in hand with that activity, well, that's a whole different game. Social cycling, ie riding to work or to the shops to get a sandwich, well, perhaps yes, a helmet does bring some minor inconveniences, and that's perhaps why some studies have shown that being required to wear one reduces participation in that sort of activity?
Just make your own mind up using common sense.
Where does this common sense come from, if not from these studies?
If I were to go from my own experience, then I have never personally known anyone suffer a head injury from riding a bike.
People always say “why don’t we wear a helmet to walk” when these threads come up, but you only have to watch bike “crash” videos...
You're posting videos that mostly contain a form of cycling at a fairly extreme end of the spectrum, where people are pushing the limits of their ability for thrills. Not all cycling poses this level of risk. Much the same as we wear helmets when motor racing, but not on the drive to work. Same activity. Different level of risk.
Mountain Biking excepted and maybe fast roadieing cycling isnt dangerous. Dutch cyclists rarely use helmets and rarely get injured. Helmets are a red herring for most cyclists...not me though I need one!