I was hoping for a witty argument, but rather was left thinking for real? Decline in cycling due to helmet campaigning... Oh the connections one can weave. Unfortunately a 3/4 ton suv with a driver on a blackberry is not much of a match for an average human powering a bicycle. I'll take a helmet, fear or no fear.

What has stopped me from cycling into work in London is getting bounced across the road 200 yards from my home by a 4X4/SUV and permanently separating my shoulder (collar bone and shoulder blade are now distant cousins rather than close friends). What's more, my head would have followed my shoulder into the tarmac had I not been wearing a helmet. I'll be wearing one in future....

Thanks for that. Great example of how advertising can promote fear or freedom. Besides - he's right, bike helmets are designed to protect the top of the scull most bike related head injuries happen to the front or side.

Nicely presented and some good arguments. But you could also bike with No helmet like this one:

Visit HÖVDING

While I feel that he's on the right path, I think maybe the issue is that cycling (at least in the U.S.) has become more sport than utility. I've always felt that if I can't hop off my bike and feel comfortable dining in a restaurant with what I'm wearing then I shouldn't be riding- but out here (LA) I'm in a very small minority. Most opt for the 'superhero' gear and do their best to break land speed records (or subtly ignore traffic laws).

While that's all fine and good, I also think that it serves to further remove the bicycle from conveyance and moves it closer to 'toy' status. The helmet might just be the tip of the iceberg with regards to the larger perception and accessibility issues.

Oh Mr. Bogusky.
Borrowing a page from Rocky and Bullwinkle, perhaps we should re-title this piece "Adventures in Misleading Headlines" OR "How I learned to use statistics without context to support my conclusion"

To whit, The point I believe the presenter had intended to make was not "don't wear helmets" but rather "don't promote helmets as they have the follow on effect of causing people to view cycling as inherently dangerous" Rather a different thing. Further how in the world can the presenter make a statement that "Never before have we lived lives so safe and so free of danger as we do right now" and then go on to point out that "1.2 million people a year are killed in car accidents"

I believe he is conflating life expectancy with safety and this is a fallacy. As more and more people worldwide begin driving and moreover, begin driving farther, auto fatalities will continue to rise. Cars are safer than they've ever been but they've NEVER been "safe" Life expectancy however, has a hell of a lot more to do with Nutrition, sanitation, and immunization and presumably he knows this.

Also, I don't want to toss the number he quoted regarding "helmet wearers being 17% more likely to sustain a head injury" out of hand but without context, it means nothing. Is this based on an actual study or is it based on numbers of reported head injuries in cyclists or what? Citation needed!

Further, the use of a Reductio Ad Absurdum argument regarding pedestrians and motorists wearing helmets to increase safety is intellectually dishonest at best and a "Three Card Monty" style trick at worst. The conflation of "safety studies" in the scientific community at large that he cites is also a little sleight of hand. While there are studies that suggest that a helmet will be no more likely to keep you from having a crash and may in fact encourage more aggressive riding habits due to an inflated sense of safety; to suggest that a cyclist is better off being in a crash without a helmet is not what the VAST bulk of research shows. We could make an argument that due to the added mass of a helmet that it increases impact forces at a rate greater than it absorbs and distributes them (Assuming we are discussing a modern Bicycle helmet and not some 1970's hunk of plastic or worse yet a "hairnet-style"). But I have yet to see a study that supports that conclusion.

To sum up, is the presenter correct that advertising helmets decreases cycling and is therefore a sum negative on safety and societal cost? YES. Does that mean he is telling you to ride without a helmet? NO.

Thanks Alex, you're the bees knees.

I had a drum teacher back in the day who never rode with a helmet. Poor fellow had a bike accident, after that he could no longer teach nor bike. Do the little things you need to so you can continue to do the things you love, methinks.

I consider myself a fairly competent cyclist, with about 8,000+ km of commuting over the past year (summer and winter). But as I write this, I'm sitting with a broken collarbone and cracked rib from a fall while riding a bicycle. My head hit the pavement hard enough to leave three significant breaks in my helmet. Without the helmet, i would have had three significant breaks in my skull. There is no way that I'm riding without a helmet.

I wish the conspiracy theory stuff could be left out of this debate.

Personally, I rode for more than thirty years sans helmet and--luckily--never needed one. I have witnessed minor crashes that would have resulted in major head injuries had the cyclist not been wearing a helmet.

I happen live in a region--British Columbia--that requires cyclists to wear helmets by law. I've seen anti-helmet websites misrepresent statistics from this province to advance their beliefs.

The fact is that we have the highest bicycle usage in the country ... which has everything to do with climate and very little to do with helmet laws. Certainly, the introduction of those laws had zero effect on my cycling and I'm not sure it has deterred anyone who wants to cycle--going on the streams of bicycle traffic on local roads and trails.

Haha love the google ad for bicycle helmets below the video..