I don't think they are mandatory in nyc but it's dangerous for even experienced bikers, so good for them to be smart about it.

I mean you don't really survive even the first impact and sometimes when you think you do, an hour later you don't: http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/18/brain.injury/ (aka "talk and die")

for the city bike helmets are snake oil, especially on those town bikes where you don't flip. it's almost like wearing a helmet to walk your dog. unless you wear a downhill one, then grab the full armor too and pick up a fight with drivers.

in other words: the kinds of injuries an average helmet from the market would protect in some low margin of cases - probably won't happen. in the ones you fear the most - won't help you anyway.

I've been cycling almost daily for all of my life and only once had an accident where I hit my head, back when I was 6.

Disclaimer: I live in the Netherlands, bikes are everywhere.

The main difference is that here, you have experienced cyclists (you learn to walk, then you learn to ride a bicycle), dedicated bicycle lanes, and car drivers that know there's cyclists around and look out for them.

As for helmets or not, it's very much a factor of speed, risk of accidents, and the nature of the accident. Hit your head at a high enough speed (iirc, anywhere above 30 KM/h) and you'll get a concussion, even with a helmet. Maybe no cranial fracture, but still. Helmet won't protect you from breaking your neck or getting run over by a semi either.

tl;dr, I don't wear a helmet, I don't need to, and I live in a country where cyclists are common. You do see people wearing helmets, but they're usually children in busy cities or speed cyclists. Sometimes both.

It's true, one very rarely meets people who have suffered serious head injuries without a helmet. You will never talk to a cyclist with that kind of serious story.

It's a sampling problem: you only talk to cyclists. The head-injury cases who didn't wear helmets are injured or dead, and correspondingly no longer cyclists.

If you lived in NYC you would wear a helmet. Or should. And I would say NYC has more experienced cyclists than the Netherlands, considering what New Yorkers have to put up with. The dangers of NYC cycling is the density of things that can hurt you moving around you.

NYC has a population 10.40 times larger than the largest city in Netherlands (Amsterdam), with a density that is 7.85 times greater.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam

FWIW, I had two bike crashes in the span of one week where I hit my head. They were both in races though. However, I was going more than 30km/h, and I got zero concussions. I am glad I was wearing them.

Did the helmets break?

They were both visibly compressed and/or cracked.

Are you sure? I have about one accident per year when using my bike a lot in an urban area (20km/d). Only luck prevented me from landing on my head - if I had, I am pretty sure the helm would have been pretty helpful. Plus, a good helm is available for as little as 15USD. Considering the cost of falling on my head, that appears to be a good deal.

btw: In my last accident in a urban setting, I came down 3-4m away from my bike. And it did not involve any car, just me poorly performing an emergency break at about 20-25 km/h

Most people who claim that bike helmets aren't particularly useful in an urban setting usually say they aren't particularly useful below 20 km/h or in collisions with cars. Above 20 km/h helmets are useful.

Sounds like junk science to me. Just cribbing from Wolfram here:

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=gravitational+potential... ...energy of 75kg at 1.5m = 1.10 kJ

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=kinetic+energy+of+75kg+... ...at 20kmph = 1.15 kJ

That is to say, your head is likely to experience roughly the same force when riding head-first into a brick wall at 20kmph as falling head-first onto pavement from a high seated position, but one of these can happen at any speed.

I think the point is that below 20km/h is a speed that evolution has experience with. At those sorts of speeds your instincts are going to do a lot to protect your head: throwing your arms up, for example. The arms might break, but your head will be somewhat shielded.

There is no surer way to troll a thread on bicycling, than to bring up the subject of bike helmets. Perhaps, with some restraint, this one won't be derailed...

It's kind of annoying. It would be one thing if people said "I'm willing to throw caution to the wind." It's another when they try to rationalize it with nonsense.

Skipping the helmet is in the same class of activity as skipping the seat belt. If you drive/bike under the right conditions in a variety of respects which are otherwise safe, you can easily luck out and avoid injury. If you want to argue that you have the right to endanger your own life like that, you have an argument.

But if you tell yourself it isn't actually a risk (for most people, one of the top risks you're exposing yourself to) then you're probably delusional. And people always get annoyed when you deconstruct their delusions. :P

That's NOT what I meant with restraint :)

This happened to me, wearing a full-face (motorbike like) helmet.

http://imgur.com/a/UgGTI

I also got hit by a car a couple of months ago.

You couldn't pay me enough to ride a bike without a helmet.

I don't buy this. People don't realize how complicated real accidents are, so they say things like "helmets won't help if you're hit by a semi, so they're useless". Well, the first part is true. If you're hit by a semi, you're probably dead no matter what. On the other hand, if you swerve to avoid a semi and fall and tumble a bit, then hit your head on a curb, you'd rather have a helmet.

Real world traffic accidents don't usually happen because one thing goes wrong. They happen because several things go wrong at the same time.

Helmets aren't a perfect solution, but they compensate to some degree for the fragile (and unpredictably so) nature of the head.

To me, an avid cyclist for more than 15 years, helmets are less about protection from a car and more about protection from bike failure or small obstacles on the road. It doesn't take a very large rock to cause your bike to crash, especially road bikes with skinny wheels. A low impact crash like that is where a helmet could truly save you from concussions or worse.

Can you back that up with some statistics?

these debates have been going for years, some arguments and counter-arguments f.ex. here http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/bicycle-hel... and here http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/cycle-helmets-offer-little-... including the overall impact on cycling culture (notice how in the most bike-oriented countries in europe people don't give a crap).

if people buy the fact that helmets will help them a bit when a car hits them at 60km/h, why don't they wear it when crossing the street by foot.

Because I honestly have no idea how many times I've crossed the street, but I've never been hit.

Just a fortnight ago, a driver undertook (should not in highway code) a right turning van (UK) entering a bus lane during restricted hours (must not in highway code) and directly pulled in to my immediate path (must not in highway code). I had to take some avoiding action, it was a choice between his van, or trying to squeeze to the left of him between the pavement. I choose the pavement. I hit the ground with a total speed of at most 4mph. My rucksack hit the ground first, this is what happened to my phone: http://imgur.com/a1jqN9T.JPG . Keep in mind this nokia had happily survived worse injuries. Hell see their youtube channel for the stress tests. The point is the angle of the accident and force I had were a perfect storm, my dlock moved and smashed everything, my washkit was demolished, even the metal anti-perspirant can was crushed.

The driver didn't even stop.

I am not an unsafe cyclist, I follow the rules of the highway code, I'm head to toe in good commuting clothing, my idea of a bank holiday is 200 miles of cycling on the continent or wales. I never have headphones in, always wear corrective vision sports glasses, I have an advanced driving license, rather than just the standard british one, I also have a pilots license. I have good spatial awareness and do not take unnecessary risks. In the last 4 years, I have been knocked off 3 times. I have bailed off (ie jumped voluntarily because I can't stop to avoid hitting someone) 5 times, once, cutting up my face rather badly, ruining the helmet completely, I've no idea what would have happened if I wasn't wearing it. Same goes with my shorts, 15mph on tarmac is not good.

I have also had to crash into a very kind mans car, because someone "couldn't see me", they then left the scene of the accident, the police didn't do anything as I only had a partial number plate.

When I cycle in London, and I'm doing 30 miles a day, I'll wear a helmet, I'll consider anyone who has headphones in which is sadly now a common site, a complete idiot (its illegal in some countries, but not UK).

I have also first responded to two accidents involving bikes.

So lets re-cap. Amount of times spent walking the streets, lots. Amount of accidents, 0. Amount of time spent cycling, lots. Amount of accidents, too many.

No. I saw three people riding these this morning on my 4 block walk to work and none of them were wearing a helmet. I have a personal rule though to always wear a helmet when riding a bike. On my monitor with the browser maximized, the bottom line of this page: http://citibikenyc.com/riding-tips says "Citi Bike encourages you to wear a helmet and never ever text while riding!" They also sent me a coupon for $10 off a helmet at local bike shops.

Helmets aren't mandatory. Bike bells are.

This is true. Per NYC DOT: "No person shall operate a bicycle unless it is equipped with a bell or other device capable of giving a signal audible for a distance of at least one hundred feet, except that a bicycle shall not be equipped with nor shall any person use upon a bicycle any siren or whistle."

There are no helmet rules listed that apply to anyone over fourteen.

Source: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/bicyclerules_engli...

> There are no helmet rules listed that apply to anyone over fourteen.

This is untrue; commercial cyclists must wear a helmet (see 412(p)(4)(v))

Fair enough. They also are supposed to wear retroreflective jackets that identify them and their employer.

Bike helmets are not required for adults.

I usually wear one when biking in Manhattan, but I rode Citibike today and went helmetless.

This is probably statistically whack, but I "feel" safer riding Citibike without the helmet, mostly because I can go a lot faster on my road bike.

I remember reading about a study (can't dig it up now) that said that drivers drive on average 1 meter closer to cyclists who are wearing helmets vs. those without. Maybe that's why you feel safer.

And some evangelizing against helmet laws: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2008/08/helmets-or-health.html