The only safety equipment most cyclists have is a PBR holder. Obey the rules of the road and wear a helmet. Hipsters give responsible cyclists a bad reputation.

Wear a helmet? Do you seriously contend that a bit of candy shell over meringue is a safety benefit?

There is a reason that the CTC (the largest cycling organization in the world that I'm aware of), does not endorse mandatory helmet laws or helmets in general really.

i.e. That is, the discouragement to cycling that helmets indubitably provide far outweigh any putative safety benefits. The discouragement is important since there is documented evidence that fewer cyclists being on the road *does* decrease cycling safety. Contrariwise there is no decent proof that cycle helmets improve safety individually or collectively.

Safety in Numbers

zuvembi - that's a load of crap. I've personally had cycling accidents where a helmet has avoided serious head injuries - the helmet has shattered, and my skull hasn't. So speaking from experience, I would not consider cycling without one.

eh, bicycle helmets are overrated. Best to ride with your wits and avoid cars than to rely on a helmet to save your carcass.

Ditto Anon #1. Follow the rules of the road. I've nearly killed uncountable hoards of idiots who run stop signs and stop lights, or turn in front of traffic without signaling.
Also lol@PBR holders.

and that's cool. I own a helmet and I sometimes wear it (bike touring, mountain biking). I just prefer to ride without it most of the time (commuting). What can I say? I like living dangerously.

When I lived in the East Village, I was in a cab that very nearly killed Michael Musto. The cab sped up to make a light while Musto entered the intersection a little early. Despite the very close shave, he seemed unfazed. I guess you'd get used to it.

YES! Wear a helmet!

1)More cyclists on the road are probably a good thing.

2) It is a non sequitur to argue that helmets are bad unless you have very firm evidence that they discourage cycling so much as to overcome the benefits of a helmet.

3) Support for mandatory helmet laws is very different from the efficacy of wearing a helmet.

4) It is always better to cite peer reviewed scientific research such as this, this, or this really authoritative analysis rather than rely on the prognostications of people not involved in accident prevention science.

5) Even arguments that current helmets are not ideal are non sequiturs unless significant evidence shows that they are less safe than no helmet or that there is a better alternative.

Now as to the rest of the video BRAVO. It is a wonderful way to travel in urban areas (I have commuted for a long time in both Chicago and Providence by bike). Making US cities more friendly to bicyclists is a WONDERFUL idea. I was happy that he promoted safe bike riding (stopping at red lights, obeying stop signs, signaling to others). My only other small beef is DON'T RIDE YOUR BIKE THROUGH "piles of snow" AS HE SAYS. This is just absurd. If it is icy, snowy, there is poor visibility, just take public transit. Bicycles are (perhaps sadly) not designed the way cars are to handle in adverse conditions. If it is a bad day to be driving it is a really stupid day to ride your bike to work. Otherwise ride your bike as much as you can handle. For any trip in an urban area under 5 miles its just a no brainer.

I live in a country (australia) where helmets are manditory & feel this law should be otherwise.. because..

1) short term bike hire schemes will never work because they require the user to BYO helmet, which kind of kills the awesome convenience behind the concept.

2) non-manditory helmets will encourage the local council to provide safer bike baths & infrastructure as well as encouraging automobile drivers to become more aware of cyclists around them.

Personally I wear a helmet 80% of the time.. however, if i'm going just down the road to the shops, or for a nice safe sunday ride on a bikepath, then i will opt out..

Xeni you are very wise and give a good response here. I'm a city cyclist and have had a few helmets save me from grave injury. Recently, a pro racer from my area crashed and survived a helmet cracking head blow on the road. Helmets don't make the situation worse and serve only to make the outcome of a fall or crash better. The human skull is 1/8" thick and we only have one to last us. Helmetless cyclists are like motorists not wearing seatbelts. You rock.

Thank your for being inordinately sensible... and YES FOR THE LOVE OF GOD YES you moronic hipsters in Providence PUT A LIGHT ON YOUR BIKE. No one can see you on your $800 fixie that is painted jet black while you are wearing a navy blue hoodie at 11pm and you are drunkenly swerving around parked cars. (this may sound overly specific but I see it at least twice a week and mostly on weekends which makes me equate these *synonym for anus in the plural* with drunk drivers... at least they aren't much of a danger to me when I am driving)

What are you, helmetbaggers?

'Flat skullers' is more descriptive.

"More bicyclists for safety!" is a cute slogan, but just like so many other things, I'd rather do what I can to look out for myself (i.e. wear a helmet) than bank my safety on the actions of others (i.e. more people riding bikes).

Let's be totally up front with the facts, shall we? The scientific and medical evidence in favor of bicycle helmets as a safety device is unequivocal.
- Overwhelmingly the greatest cause of morbidity and mortality to bicyclists is traumatic head injury.
- The use of a bicycle helmet significantly reduces both the occurrence and severity of traumatic head injuries, and significantly reduces the frequency of head injury-related mortality in bicycle accidents.
- There is consistently a significant reduction in mortality of bicycle accident and morbidity of bicycle-related traumatic head injury in communities where helmet laws are enacted. And this is especially true for juveniles.

A quick search of PubMed reveals dozens of studies conducted the world over that arrive at the same conclusions. Failure to wear a bicycle helmet is not only dangerous, but also cavalier towards the safety of others (especially children) who could be influenced by your good example.

This is funny because the last time I visited NYC, I rode in a taxi and saw Musto riding bike, against traffic, and talking on his cell.

Protip: Safety gear is ALWAYS cheaper then a skin graft.

Anyone arguing against wearing a helmet is simply insane and vain in the brain! Oh snap! I said that!

Seriously, any of you folks ever ride in the streets of NYC?

That said, I have seen Michael Musto ride around NYC and it's great. Reminds me of what NYC used to be.

Xeni,
what were you thinking? Cycling discussions on BB instantly derail into helmet-wars. I don't know why that is, but it seems particular to BB.

I wear a helmet when I ride, but I'd rather make condescending remarks about people who weave in front of other cyclists while talking on cell phones than about people who don't wear helmets.

I am 100% certain that I would be either seriously brain damaged, or dead were it not for bike helmets. I had one mountain bike crash, and 2 while road biking in a pack which most definitely saved my skull. The helmets were destroyed, and I was perfectly fine, not even a scratch on my head. I had injuries on other parts of my body, and some nasty road rash, but the helmet did its job, and took the impact.

And also of note and complete relevance to this article, I was almost run over by Musto on his bike, near Union Square a few months back while I was heading to Strand bookstore. It totally wasn't his fault though. I was jaywalking, and he came flying by. I was pissed that I almost got hit, and then I was like "Hey, that was Michael Musto".

Musto is EVERYWHERE!

Brainologist, everything you just said would also be true if you substituted "car" for "bicycle". Head injury is the most common cause of mortality of vehicle occupants in car crashes. Helmets would significantly reduce the frequency and severity of head injuries among car occupants. There /would be/ a reduction in death from car crashes if a helmet law for car riders had ever been enacted, and this would be /especially true/ for juvenile because they crash a lot.

Therefore, all people in a moving car should be encourage (or hell, required) to wear a helmet.

Does it still make sense to you?

Everybody blaggs on about helmets, but putting lights on your bicycle will do more to reduce your chance of getting seriously injured or killed than a helmet would. Start whinging about helmets once most people use lights.

A helmet didn't keep me from dislocating my shoulder when doored. It didn't protect my scaphoid from getting broken in half when I got right hooked. But I like my brains where they are, thank you, and never ride without one.

I may look like a dork riding across L.A. with my big ass crash helmet, side mirror and lights, but for my exoskeleton it's the only way to ride.

[He] has been riding a bike in New York City for more than 25 years, long before it was fashionable or we had bike lanes and cycletracks.

There were no bike lanes in NYC 25 years ago? I started biking in NYC before then and I could have sworn there were bike lanes even in those days. Not many as now, of course, but there were some.

I learned what a zygomatic arch is after my stem cracked off my bike. I hit the raised edge of the curb with the side of my face. Broke my helmet and my cheeck bone (zygomatic arch.) It probably could have been worse. I got up on my feet and was able to walk away from it. I always wear a helmet. The trick is to buy the helmet that looks cool. Then you'll wear it.

Helmets are nowhere near as effective as some of you seem to think. The evidence to support them is not anything like as clear-cut as your anecdotal commonsense leads you to believe.

I have no beef with people wearing them if they choose but don't look down your noses at those of us who choose to make an informed decision not to bother with them.

The Wikipedia article has quite a good summary of the pros and cons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet

Notwithstanding all the rehashed arguments about bicycle safety, what I'm really interested into is to see Xeni's spiky hair going through the holes in her helmet. LOL

I've never used my helmet, but I always wear it.

No helmet? CHECK
No light? CHECK
No reflector? CHECK
Wearing Black? NO (but it is daytime, let's check back after dark)

All we need is the self righteous indignation and he's the perfect cyclist.

No. When I ascend to the throne, they'll be no bikes, nor hansom cabs.

I thought the argument against helmets was that those who do not wear helmets look more vulnerable, and as such drivers give those cyclists much more space.

The idea is that the helmet makes you more likely to be hit, though if you are hit a helmet makes you safer.

The confusion comes from the fact that many studies assume that the accident will happen regardless of whether or not the helmet is being worn.

This one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17728326 was link to above, and seems to just look at head injuries, and assumes that changing trends are due to helmet use. It does seem to me that one can say helmets are safer for children, and for adults, I think it can be read two ways.

But then of course there is risk. What we need is a nice info graphic showing the risk of cycling with/without a helmet compared to crossing the street, or smoking a cigarette or drinking until you can't see anymore...

Cyclists wearing helmets are passed more closely than cyclists not wearing helmets. Cars passing too close is the most likely thing to cause an accident. It's likely this is a result of drivers take less care (or more risks) while passing, as the cyclist is "protected".
(The best thing to do to stop cars passing so close is ride further out in the road.)

If a helmet breaks in an accident it didn't do much. Snapping polystyrene doesn't take much force, crushing it does.

I hope all the people arguing for compulsory use of bicycle helmets wear helmets while driving or walking (both higher-risk activities), wear steel-capped boots, don't take baths, live in single-storey homes, etc etc.

Sorry Xeni I don't agree. I crashed on a tram line in July 2009 and broke my right humerus. In the preceding four years I cycled 13000 km to and from work. Thats a pretty good record but when I crash I want to be as protected as I can. This is the first time I have broken a bone and I am glad it wasn't in my head.

I live work without an arm but not without a head. I only have one of those.

So... how does what you're saying in any way not agree with Xeni's comment? Did you misread it?

Anyway, I agree that only vain or lazy fools don't wear helmets. They then cherry-pick over the huge amount of data on helmet safety and find the scant pieces here and there that suggest that wearing a helmet is pointless, all to keep themselves delusional so that they don't have to start wearing them.

I don't, however, agree with mandatory helmet laws for adults (and neither is anyone else in this thread, by the sound of it). For children under 16, maybe.

@SamSam, it's not as simple as that - the evidence is definitely not overwhelming for the efficacy of helmets on cyclists.

Some of the evidence indicates that helmets are harmful, although this is not overwhelming either. On balance I suspect they are a distraction.

I ride in full plate mail.

Helmets are great, lights are even better.

But as a grown-up i find it odd to be told what to do for my own safety. I can decide that for myself (long libertarian tradition here in the UK).

Motorists said similar things about seat belts when they became compulsory. The evidence for those is a lot more certain, though.

I wish there were more helmets out there for those of us who commute and ride casually. The helmet I currently have makes me look like I'm riding in the Tour de France and the only other ones I can seem to find make me look like Tony Hawk.... Where are the crafty, steampunky, ANSII compliant helmet builders out there??

If wearing a helmet was a serious hassle, or they were expensive and needed to be replaced every week, then I probably wouldn't wear one. But as it is, my helmet budget for my entire urban biking career (about 6 years now) is $40, and really, I've never felt it to be much trouble at all - a helmet is a heck of a lot more comfortable than a backpack or messenger bag on a hot day! And yet, it seems that those whining about helmets are among the least likely to use panniers...

Why make a fuss, really? I think the issues of bad driving/riding habits, lights, and poorly-thought-out city infrastructure are far more important.

Why would he need lights in the daytime?

Symbiote,

Cars at intersections and cars pulling out of driveways are far more likely to cause a crash than a passing vehicle being too close.

When a car passes you on a bike, the driver has almost always seen you, and thus is trying not to hit you. The real danger is from drivers who don't see you - that happens at intersections and driveways.

You're right though, that "own the road" is the best advice for making passing cars give you room.

I'm skeptical of the study that claimed that passing cars give less room to helmeted cyclists. For obvious reasons, it's wasn't a double-blind study, and the rider in the study was the researcher himself. There's was way too much room for the researcher to influence the data.

Top safety rules for cyclists:

(1) Bike with the traffic, not against it.
(2) Stay off the sidewalks.
(3) Be visible.
(4) Wear a helmet.

I happened to forget my helmet walking out of my office two nights ago, and wound up riding helmetless for the first time in months through NYC - coincidentally, on perhaps the nicest day of the year so far.

I can't believe how much I prefer riding without a helmet. Maybe it's because I didn't have a helmet at all until I was 25. But I'm pretty sure my two little kids are better off that I reduce my odds of brain injury on my daily commute with that ugly yellow thing. Maybe it's time for a sexier helmet.

Regarding helmet wars. . . Amiga or ST, that'sthe last time I cared about this sort of nonsense. Live your own life, and live with your own consequences.

Cycling around Manhattan is a fun and efficient way to get around. It requires some skill, but it's not that hard to acquire.

NYC drivers are actually pretty bike aware. They certainly have better situational awareness than Long Island drivers. Yes, NYC drivers are agressive, but they're predictably aggressive.

The challenges are more along the lines of getting doored by people (particularly by double-parked taxis) and jay walkers. Now, a jay walker doesn't way 3500 lbs, but they're the definition of unpredictable.

bleh to all the anti- helmet arguments (I've made some of them in my time) just ask yourself one simple question: Would my life improve with brain damage? If the answer is 'no' then you should wear a helmet. The possible consequences of not wearing one are far greater than the consequences of wearing one.

There are a couple of questions to be asked and answered here:

(1) How big is the risk of an accident in the first place?

(2) Does a rather flimsy helmet really reduce the damage in such an accident in a measureable way.

Before even thinking about (2), (1) should be explored and answered.

As fas as I know the risk of riding a bike and having an accident is abut as risky as taking a shower and falling, taking the stairs and falling, and the like. I won't even go in washing your windows, the number one reason of domestic falls.

If someone claims that his or her decision on using a bicycle helmet is based on probability of injury, I expect him or her to wear a helmet during all these activities.

#44 says: Would my life improve with brain damage? If the answer is 'no' then you should wear a helmet.

Using your logic:
Would your life improve if you were dead? If the answer is 'no' then you should not step foot in an automobile.

I can not believe he had to pay $75 for that used bike! What a rip off.

what about the pollution from bus/trucks/auto-s ?
not a scientist , but it may be ironic if all these "healthy" bikers find out their lungs are similar to the occasional smoker.

Exactly peterbruells. Wearing a helmet may make you safer, but so would wearing one while walking or even driving for that matter. Why don't all the helmet lovers wear one during those activities?

"...his share of bikes stolen...use a cheap used one"

where do you think the cheap & used bike market gets its supply?!?!

I don't care how dorky I look, I wouldn't think of hitting the streets of Boston without my helmet. Get a comfortable one and you will forget you're even wearing it.

http://www.ghostbikes.org/

I always wear a helmet (unlike some would-be organ donors in this thread), but there's no question that they inevitably make the coolest, chicest person look like a complete and utter dork.

Maybe I should just go with that . . . buy me some flood-length cords or cargo pants, "sensible" shoes and sweat socks, maybe something in gingham. With the helmet, it'd be a real ensemble.

Molly NYC, isn't that very uncomfortable? And I mean, what you do during sex and taking a shower is obviously only for you and your partners to decide, but are helmet even allowed on planes?

I wear a helmet for exactly the reasons you make. However, I don't think it should be called a safety device. Helmets are damage limitation devices. My helmet doesn't make me any safer, it can't magically deflect badly driven cars. But it can reduce the damage any one of those badly driven cars has the potential to cause. So I'll wear it and ride as safely as I can and make a lot of noise about solving the real problem- poorly trained, arrogant, ignorant or inattentive drivers.

OMG!!! I signed on to say the same thing?!?!?!?! I thought, Mr. Musto, I love you. Please put on a helmet.

I saw a hipster chick riding through Ft. Greene, Brooklyn (hipster trustafarian central) with NO helmet and and headphones ON!!!!! I wanted to stop the car and kill her with my bare hands but then realized I would deprive her of the opportunity to win the Darwin award. No helmet is one thing, but headphones WTF?

why not wear one of those godawful steampunk mask/helmets, and be safe and edgy groovin' at the same time?
love the post about Musto riding against traffic and on his cell, I totally believe it!!

The British government commissioned one of the top transport research companies in the world to review all evidence to determine the efficacy of cycle helmets. This research through the transport research laboratory (TRL) was overseen by a panel of pro and anti helmet lobbyests including the CTC. TRL investigated any documentation submitted to them and reviewed all the major well designed peer reviewed studies. The CTC were involved in all aspects of the research which concluded that helmets are effective are preventing injury and would have prevented 10 to 16% of the deaths taken from Police statistics. You are also wrong - the CTC do recognise that helmets reduce the severity of an injury from a cycling accident. Regrettably a light fall from a bicycle can result in damage to the brain with severe consequences for the cyclists future quality of life; something people should remember - a helmet reduces the impact and thereby reduces the severity of head injury. Children in particular should be encouraged to wear helmets because their judgemental skills and physical stature are maturing and therefore are more prone to accident and injury. The CTC believe that adults should be able to choose to wear a helmet and not be required to do so under law. Zuvembi, the evidence in support of helmet usage is credible and soundly researched. And that is probably why so much misinformation is used to discredit it - for what purpose I have not got the faintest idea. I agree with Anon #3 - you speak crap!

Of course it still makes sense to me, and I like where your ideas are headed! Point me to your petition, and I'll gladly add my name.

(no pun intended on "headed" back there. ahem.)

@zuvembi, I suggest you re-read the CTC position on helmets here: http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5339 They state that they dispute the %10-%16 figures.

I like this:

In reality, the risks of cycling are low – you are more likely to be killed in a mile of walking than a mile of cycling (DfT, 2009), whilst the risk of injury per hour are as likely when cycling as they are gardening (Powell KE et al, 1998).

So make sure all you walkers and gardeners get your helmets on eh?

Thanks mentsaortae for your comment. The policy of the CTC is to support the wearing of cycle helmets. The link you provided does not alter that position, it merely raises issues which were outside the terms of reference for the report which concludes very clearly that cycle helmets are effective. Readers of this blog can download a copy for yourself free at this link: http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_the_potential_for_cycle_helmets_to_prevent_injury_a_review_of_the_evidence.htm . I restate that the CTC were represented by Roger Geffen on the panel that oversaw the report. Throughout the whole process Mr Geffen and Mr John Franklin (I believe an advisor to the CTC) were able to have considered any and all documents that they felt had a bearing on the matter. And they did. Clearly there are aspects of the report which do not support either Mr Geffen or Mr Franklin's perspectives. The report was undertaken by a highly professional and competent team of specialist researchers in the transport field. The CTC are very welcome to dispute any figure they like, but they had the opportunity to provide evidence which dispelled those findings. Can I make this comment - why should wearing a helmet make cyclists more likely to be involved in a crash over say wearing day glow jackets? The notion wearing a helmet makes you more at risk of an accident is completely preposterous, as is the notion that wearing a seat belt makes you drive badly. This sort of convoluted thinking is precisely why your further point is entirely laughable.

For those people who are looking for an argument not to wear a helmet you will find support in the number of deaths. The benefit of the helmet is that it reduces the severity of an injury and is therefore very practical when you realise that you can suffer brain injury from a simple fall. Humans walk naturally, riding a bicycle is a learnt complex skill.

We all love science right??
1. Take two people, one with helmet on and one without.
2. Find suitable imovable object(brick wall or STEEL telegraph poles are perfect for this)
3. Get the two people to lower their heads and run at imovable object as fast as they can....

Two accidents myself as a cyclist which invovled alot of air time apiece and resulted in head first landings'Air Corps private Phill reporting for duty Sir'

Bottom line is I'd be dead and im not and fixie girls think they look hotter w/out helmets...Do what you want but dont scream too much to the Paremedics if you dont do anything to look after yourself.

18 mile a day in Central London and I love it.

An awful lot has been written here about rider safety, how about a few words about pedestrian safety. As someone who walks everyday in Manhattan, I have to report that bicyclists are almost as great a threat as taxi drivers.

I have been hit twice in the last five years by bikers, both times speeding the wrong way around a blind corner. I've lost count of the almost daily near misses.

You guys need to obey the law. Try at least pausing at a red light for a start. Until you educate and control yourselves you will not have the support of this pedestrian.

amen. I would wear full body armor if they made it. it doesn't take a study to find out that protective gear is safer than no protective gear.

The cab is supposed to yield in that case. They never do, though.

Long-time cyclist agrees with you 100%, donniebnyc.
I'm getting sick of watching cyclists be total freakin' jerks in this city. I was in Prospect Park this weekend... the light turned red, I was the only bike out of about 10 that stopped for it, with more than one pedestrian with a STROLLER trying to cross. The bikes were even yelling at the pedestrians to "watch out." I'm about to become a bike-courtesy activist. Whatever that is.

@damocles: "The benefit of the helmet is that it reduces the severity of an injury and is therefore very practical when you realise that you can suffer brain injury from a simple fall."

Something that could happen when walking which as I already pointed out is a more dangerous activity per mile than cycling - do you also advocate walkers should wear helmets at all times? If not, why not?

You write as if it there is overwhelmingly conclusive evidence that helmets are hugely effective which is just not the case. At best they provide a small improvement in safety, small enough that I'm prepared to take the risk to do without in the same way that I am when I go for walk.