Or just wear a helmet that will actually protect you, i.e. a full face motorcycle helmet. Don't want to wear one when cycling, thought not...
I realise I am going to sound like a complete moron when I change my mind as my son gets further into teenagerhood but it seems a bit like some here would be best trying to build a bit or resilience to peer pressure into their kids.
Interestingly I think some of the reason parents are generally so keen to make their kids wear helmets is peer pressure from other parents. Having seen how badly some of the helmets are fitted/adjusted it can't be the actual safety of their children so I suspect subconsciously they don't want to be seen as the parent that didn't care.
I think my daughter is one of the people that I know of any age who is least susceptible to peer pressure. That doesn't mean she still doesn't have views on fashion/style, inconvenience, sweatiness etc. Bear in mind that as your son ages - he'll actually be part of the problem even if you've made him peer-pressure proof - he'll be one of the peers, and one of the people that influences others about what riding a bike entails - its not great for anyone if the image of that is polystyrene heads, lycra and wizzing around.
Or just wear a helmet that will actually protect you, i.e. a full face motorcycle helmet.
see - back to the moto vs downhill helmet argument.
A moto helmet designed to save you from a ~60mph smash will necessarily be stronger/more rigid than one designed to crush in a ~20mph crash. If you are only going to be crashing at ~20mph, then that lovely motocross helmet interior is effectivley an immovable object for you to bash your skull into - amittedly with a bit of internal soft padding and some abrasion protection.
A downhill helmet may crush/deform under that 20mph crash but might absorb more energy.
There was a lovely researched PB article on this. Most of the comments were from people who were going to continue to wear a moto helmet, because it "feels safer"/more robust. [facepalm emoji]
And I've made the subsequent argument, that for my, (and a lot of people's) skill level, bike park blues and reds, and the occasional mince down a techy black - I'm better served with an Enduro full face for the same reason, I'm riding within its intended parameters.
We all have to make our own risk/benefit assessments, but also worth taking a look at some datasets that help with that decision making in the absence of Convert's discussion around having the same crash with/without a helmet. Also useful in the discussion of the continuum between A = OK and B= dead.
Am i going to continue to wear a helment even for quick journeys - Yes. My lad and all his mates wear helmets anyway. He refuses to wear a scuba tank - just in case - when he walks by the river tho, but the armbands should suffice. Interestingly for u18s cricket, and school ski trips, helmet wearing is mandatory.
Some data (IANA statistician or AE doc)
"Conclusions: Bicycle helmet use was associated with reduced odds of head injury, serious head injury, facial injury and fatal head injury. The reduction was greater for serious or fatal head injury. Neck injury was rare and not associated with helmet use. These results support the use of strategies to increase the uptake of bicycle helmets as part of a comprehensive cycling safety plan"
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/1/278/2617198
" A multivariable logistic regression model showed that helmeted bicyclists were 72% less likely to sustain TBI compared with un-helmeted bicyclists (Adjusted Odds Ratio 0.28, 95% CI 0.12-0.61)"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26254573/
"While the results do not show an overall decrease in head injuries, they do reveal a decrease in the severity of head injuries, as well as bicycle-related fatalities, suggesting that the helmet legislation was effective in reducing severe disability and death, contributing to injury prevention in Seattle and King County"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27119320/
The one and only thing that sticks with me from a speed awareness course a few years ago is how the human body (and skull particularly) has evolved to provide protection to the brain. Apparently the skull is the right density and thickness to protect the brain during a collision with something hard at speeds of about 20mph, which is about as fast as a person can run.
I wouldn't want to suggest that some of the information on your speed awareness course may have been slightly exaggerated or poorly thought through but:
1. Very few humans can run at 20mph at all, and certainly not enough to think evolution made our skulls to cope with colliding at 20mph.
2. There doesn't seem to be an obvious correlation between thickness of the skull and the speed of an animal from what I can see - although if you were designing brain protection I'm not sure thickness or skull density rather than shape etc would be your preferred features.
3. Even if we have evolved to survive hitting hard objects at 20mph, anyone who has done it will know its usually not trivial. At the very least you are likely to be momentarily incapacitated and your run slowed down considerably for several minutes - whatever you were running away from is likely to catch you! You may even feel ill for hours or a few days - affecting your ability to forage/hunt and thus your long-term survival prospects.
4. If skull thickness was related to running speed I don't think we can say the skull evolved to protect the runner any more than the body evolved to limit the speed of the runner to those the skull was suited for.
5. Realistically most humans would run at 13-14 mph at the fastest (that's still a serious sprint for most people), especially across "wild terrain" rather than a well-finished running track.
5. As it happens that's also the sort of speed that most casual cyclists would ride at going reasonably quickly on a ride to the shops / school etc. They can go faster but would be exerting themselves. So its likely exactly the sort of speed that an unhelmeted cyclist might be doing!
You are of course 100% right that a helmet might reduce severity of injury, that's not the messaging of fear that people spread about helmets. Gloves, kneepads etc all do the same thing but we don't see OMG my son wants to cycle to school without kneepads on, or I watched an old lady riding without gloves threads.
Interestingly for u18s cricket, and school ski trips, helmet wearing is mandatory.
I'm a cricketer since childhood and a skier since adulthood.
Cricket helmets are compulsory for all U18s in both U18 games, and senior games. I think this started a few years above me. There seems to be a bit of a random split between those who embraced their freedom at 18 and are calling for a cap after a few overs, and those who have never batted without one. The older players (as in, old enough to have grown up without even the option) seem to be wearing helmets more and more. Helmets are getting better, but I think the growing prescence of the sweep and ramp shots in limited over cricket are more responsible for the change.
Skiing - when I started, helmets were for kids, and the snowpark. It got to the point where it seemed to be just me and the french instructors, so I bought one.
Still occasionally have a bobblehat day which is so much more comfortable and is really easy for your friends to spot you, but usually anticipated risk is assessed.
Susepic
Follow the link i put up to a good summary of the data. Remember the secondary effect. Protection from injury is modest and risks are low
Make helmets compulsory and you might save 2 lives of cyclists. However 60 more people die of diseases of inactivity.
Accidents become more common
Car driving and walking both have similar rates of head injuries. Why not helmets for them
Its a very complex issue not as simplistic as you make out.
Follow my link and have a read.
Follow my link and have a read.
Your link has some good info. But.....looking at this from a neutral's standpoint your link's summary does not withstand academic analysis. The organisation has a view point. The linked research is not (and was never intended to be) a balanced summary but rather evidence gathered specifically to support the self same view point. I'm not saying it's wrong or contrived but you couldn't possibly read that and only that and come to a reasoned opinion.
I'm sure you know this.
Not at all. I dont accept that. That is whete the data leads if you view it impartially.
Its not intended to be academic but a lay persons summary from a a cycling point of view. Its from one of the main cycling organisations.
All the data given contains links to source if you want acedemic rigour.
Well as good as any of the science is. Most if it is pretty poor. Go read the chochrane review for a laugh. The data the pro helmet claims are made from is laughably poorly collected and is now 30 odd years old iirc.
Ah yes. The links susepic provided go to some of the laughably poor stuff from 30 years ago
its not great for anyone if the image of that is polystyrene heads, lycra and wizzing around.
Well it's ok for those that want to do that! I don't think people should avoid wearing a helmet because they are worried about making others scared of cycling.
As a paramedic of many (many) years I have seen lots of cyclists that have both worn helmets and those that haven’t and I for one wear a helmet for any ride that involves sharing the road with cars.
Obviously this is only anecdotal evidence but most of the people with helmets went home in a better condition than those that weren’t.
But as a teenager I didn’t wear one (the 80s were a wild place) very often and am still alive. Although the one time I hit a parked car at 30+mph and woke up in hospital after being picked up from quite a bit further down the road I was wearing one and I don’t have (hopefully) brain damage.
I've smashed more helmets riding road bikes than MTB's - car driver's fault on the road bike though. As a minimum they save you from nasty gravel rash - your skin isn't very thick on your noggin.
It was quite handy having a helmet when I got my spine broken - they were more interested in my head until I said, look at the helmet, not a mark, it's my spine !
Even motorbike helmets aren't perfect. Two lads ragging it past our road on illegal dirt bikes came a croper last night - hit a car, one receiving serious head injuries. Local fcebook page was completely mad - 'oh they are wonderful lads', blooming arguement about helets kicked up. They were still riding illegal bikes at speed up and down the road, and had been seen doing it all night. Serious enough injuries for the air ambulance to turn up.
Fortunately they are OK and will recover, but I hope the cops throw the book at them. 25 and 21 isn't kids.
In answer to the original question I never insited on junior wearing a helmet when utility cycling. I did however insist on a reflective vest which he could stuff in his pocket. Primary safety I reckon is more important than secondary. He makes his own choices now and rides around Berlin without a helmet. There's the risk compensation factor with kids too, give them a helmet and body amour and they are definitely faster when racing downhill.
One of our MTB club managed a glorious faceplant recently. Five minutes unconscious, then delerious and carted off in the ambulance. Recovering now but with nightmares and strange things going on in his head. Not a mark on the correctly worn helmet which did absolutely nothing to protect him.
On the other hand I probably owe my life to a caving helmet having fallen 9m head first, the helmet scalped me but did an excellent job of absorbing the impact.
It all depends how you fall.
I’ve smashed more helmets riding road bikes than MTB’s – car driver’s fault on the road bike though.
Along the lines of what I said. My worst accidents were on the road getting hit by cars not falling off when riding off road or on a BMX. This is the opposite of what a lot of people are saying where they don't wear a helmet to go to the shops but do wear one when riding off road.
What I have taken from my experience is that I ride on the road as little as possible which is easy where I live.
Along the lines of what I said. My worst accidents were on the road getting hit by cars not falling off when riding off road or on a BMX. This is the opposite of what a lot of people are saying where they don’t wear a helmet to go to the shops but do wear one when riding off road.
For me this is the problem with even discussing helmets. It seems to absolutely dominate the debate about bicycle safety and yet it is probably the least important aspect, coming somewhere after whether you should have one reflector on each wheel or two but probably before the question of whether carrying a lucky rabbit's foot makes any difference.
The question is not, should I wear a helmet because cars keep crashing into people. The question is, why the **** do cars keep crashing into people?
I'm as bad as anyone else for contributing to these discussions. However, if I and others didn't then the tone would probably be the same as it was a few years ago where not wearing a helmet was a clear sign you were a reckless idiot and not forcing your kids to wear a helmet was a clear sign that someone should call child services.
Three pages into a debate about both helmets AND kids and it's still quite civilised with no nuclear hot takes.
I think that's progress. Now we just have to convince the non-bike riding population.
The question is not, should I wear a helmet because cars keep crashing into people. The question is, why the **** do cars keep crashing into people?
I 100% agree, but I always wear a helmet (unless I forget, which is rare but does happen, if I am out to mtb, I'll go back or a group road ride I'll go back, other times I might not, this happens once or twice a year). My son uses a helmet pretty much all the time. Although we are going away camping and in that no car environment I would be happy him knocking about the campsite without one.