KCMBC General forum

It's been more than 3 months since friends had to help me limp my way home after a mountain bike accident at Swope Park ended with me going head first into a large oak tree. I was wearing a high quality helmet and it did it's job well, meaning it compressed and cracked in several spots while dissipating the energy that would otherwise have gone uninterrupted to my skull. The accident resulted in a minor concussion, but I was able to get back on the bike and ride away. Pretty sure there would not have been any riding away without the helmet to cushion the blow.

Perhaps riding without a helmet should be encouraged. Such an approach should help supply more transplant organs for those who need them (from the brain-dead former cyclists).

I will not ride nor recommend anyone ride without a Helmet. The risks are just not worth it. I personally had a wipe out due to wet leaves on the path and my helmet took a nasty dent and I escaped with just scrapes.

I witnessed a wreck 30yds in front of me at Tour de Bier. Stopping to help, the first thing one of the shaken-up and beat-up riders finally said after a few minutes was "man I'm glad I have my helmet on- I really hit my head hard." It didn't appear cracked, but was clearly scratched and dented.

A scientific study might be needed to see if there is harm caused when you wear a helmet (other driver/rider aggressiveness, reduced hearing/vision, etc.), but you can't argue the protection offered to the head at common biking speeds.

Seriously? While I’m open for debate on just about anything, I can’t believe this subject is even worth consideration. First, will helmets protect a rider in every situation? Absolutely not. Will a helmet prevent concussions? No, but neither will American football helmets. Should the NFL consider making helmets optional?

If you review every kind of safety equipment modern society has adopted, none, absolutely none, will protect people in every situation but the statistics far outweigh any consideration for dismissing such equipment. Such equipment becomes a balancing act between protection and interference in the activity. If not, we’d all look like the Michelin man.

All one has to do to close this discussion is watch NBC Sports broadcasts of pro cycling races or search cycling races on YouTube. In almost every race there are crashes with rider’s heads bouncing off the pavement. One video I found on YouTube shows a motorcycle rear ending a group of cyclists during an event. Yes, they get bloody, they may get a concussion, but their brains are still contained in their skulls.

I know I can sometimes be a bit abrupt, but as far as I’m concerned, anyone who wants to ride without a helmet is free to do so, just not with the club. I have no desire to shovel their brains off the pavement and don’t know first aid for serious head trauma. They can ride on their own. Most of us like to partake in libations but would you go out for an evening for drinks with someone who drinks irresponsibly? I wouldn’t. Neither should we have to deal with irresponsible cyclists.

My advice to anyone with friends who don’t want to wear a helmet is what I often ask friends of mine who participate in unreasonably dangerous behaviors. Ask them what kind of flowers they like. If the ask why, tell them, “I want to send ones you like to the funeral home.”

Please don’t misunderstand my response here. i’m not trying to be a jerk. I say all this with genuine concern and love for everyone, especially my fellow cyclists who have to deal with far too many other dangers to add head exposure to the mix.

KCMBC has a policy that requires helmets for all riders on all rides. If a rider chooses to register for and ride one of our rides without a helmet, that is their choice. They do so at their own risk and against the advise and recommendation of the Club, its' officers and representatives.

Last year Bicycling magazine had an article on just this subject: http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html

There are now helmets out that provide more protection against concussions. They are referred to as MIPS helmets. The problem is that they run upwards of $100 and most cyclists don't want to spend that much money on helmets.

I have had a couple of crashes where I was very glad to have a helmet on and my next helmet purchase will be a MIPS certified helmet. Bicycling magazine did a story about these a few month ago. You may want to check them out.

I agree that seeing parents riding with no helmets while the kids are helmeted makes me cringe. You can't teach common sense.

How is this an "argument?" It's a safety feature. As an adult, you may choose to be less safe. For those opposed to wearing helmets or just indifferent about it, ask yourself this: Would I insist that my kids or grandkids wear a helmet when cycling? If so then why? Does the helmet suddenly become a valid feature when you want to protect someone else's brain? I see it all the time, parents & kids out cycling - the dad with no helmet, the kids with helmets. So I guess it's cool for the kids to live full lives with brain-damaged parents or worse, dead parents??? I have witnessed low speed group rides with wheel bumping that resulted in crashes, damaged helmets and head injuries that would have been much worse with out the helmet. I've seen cyclist simply fail to come unclipped in time and fall over!.. thank God they were wearing a helmet then.

I like my brain so as for me and mine, it's a helmet every time!! :-)

I have seen the results of several "hitting the ground while riding a bike at speeds of less than 5 mph". The helmets have been shattered. I don't want to think about the damage to an unprotected skull. The current helmets will not prevent a concussion but they do protect against breakage and abrasions. I think that is a good thing. Someday we will have helmets that help with concussions, but not now. I wouldn't think of riding even around the block without my helmut on.

I've seen these articles the past year or so, and I don't disagree with the premise that our helmets could be much improved for better protection. But speaking both as an avid individual rider and the club president, I am a huge proponent of helmets. They may not save you every time (not even seat belts save you every time in a car accident) but from a "just makes sense" standpoint, and your experience at 30mph, and from my other friends' experiences with spills, and my own spill last year...helmets are 100% worth wearing. I don't leave home without mine.

http://www.cnet.com/news/brain-surgeon-theres-no-point-wearing-cycle-helmets/

I've seen other articles recently (like this one at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/sunday-review/to-encourage-biking-cities-forget-about-helmets.html ) that argue that the benefits of cycling outweigh the benefits of wearing helmet (that is, if your significant other will ride, but only if s/he doesn't have to wear a helmet, then let'm ride without the helmet). And then there's this one at http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html?cm_mmc=Twitter-_-Bicycling-_-Content-Story-_-senseless which make the case that nearly all of the cycle helmets sold in the US today are completely, or nearly completely, ineffective against concussion.

I'm personally torn on the issue; in 2009, I dumped my bike at ~30mph, and I know for a fact that my shattered helmet saved my life.

To my knowledge, all of the local rides require helmet use. In spite of my own experience on the matter, I'll ask anyway: Is it time to revisit that policy?