Talk:Bicycle helmet

‎Dan Eisenberg reinserts unreliable sources
‎Dan Eisenberg says I should go to the talk page. I already gave my reasons in the edit summary. But here goes, again. ‎Dan Eisenberg has reinserted 2 sources at the head of the sections. Both sources quote Malcolm Wardlaw whose views against helmets are a matter of public record. Wardlaw is a lobbyist for his POV. Wardlaw is not a reliable source of scientific information. Kelly222 (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This material doesn't belong for reasons given in my edit summaries  . I'm surprised sources in this article aren't held to WP:MEDRS standards. Pinging  (though I hate to add to his burden these days). EEng 01:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This paper is not pubmed indexed. Which makes it a little suspect. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks guys for your work. I'm happy to delete the section "comparison to other modes of transport" as you've done; it was always an unencylopedic attempt by the anti-helmet brigade to muddy the waters. Kelly222 (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Good point. In this topic, we need to consider the motivation behind “studies”. Often, there is a hidden agenda.
 * For example, many helmet studies have been funded by helmet manufacturers, or by governments trying to defend compulsory helmet legislation. Such studies have been shown to exaggerate the benefits of helmets.
 * In this article, the study quoted as evidence in the “Injury Reduction” section, is a meta analysis that attempts to replicate another meta-analysis done by bicycle helmet advocates, funded by the Australian government. Those helmet advocates have been on public record to defend the Australian helmet law for years.
 * Should such a biased study be included in this article? Harvey4931 (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Political page...
I want to note that this page is an absolute mess. From the outset, it has been (re?)written by someone opposed to (mandatory use of) cycle helmets.

It's apparently 'within the scope of WikiProject Cycling'- a group I imagine must be dominated by cyclists who imagine that suggested use of cycle helmets is a conspiracy by car drivers - alluded to in the article ('[the debate has been influenced by] differing assumptions and interests of various parties').

There are flags for unverified assertions that are now 10 years old.

- Can this page not be reviewed by medical experts? Is there a medical equivalent to 'WikiProject Cycling'?

- Were helmets really designed to 'attenuate impacts from falls' ('falls' seems oddly specific... is an impact only attenuated if I have fallen off my bike?). Were they not just designed to protect against impacts?

- Indeed, further to the above, the article itself goes on to state the following under 'Design intentions and standards'- 'The standards are intended to reduce acceleration to (and within) the head due to impact, as a stiff liner made of expanded polystyrene is crushed against the head.' (no mention of falls here).

- One model by De Jong is leant on heavily re: mandatory helmets versus broader health benefits of cycling. Then 'some researchers' have 'suggested' that mandatory helmets would reduce number of cyclists. This is very thin gruel and extremely imbalanced within the article.

I could go on for much longer, but my assertion is that this is a heavily partisan page making a political topic of a functional item. I think an experienced and impartial editor needs to review it. I would suggest as a start that the page is refocussed on functional matters. Perhaps then the points debating efficacy of helmets can be moved to their own page, or a page on cycling safety. 2A01:4B00:9E35:DE00:3C30:AE48:1F0D:ACC0 (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * One additional point that made me laugh and despair in equal measure...
 * The part of the article that details 'supporters' of compulsion or strong promotion of cycle helmets starts with a paragraph that seeks to pour cold water over why anyone could possibly support such measures:
 * "Received opinion in some[vague] English-speaking countries is that bicycle helmets are useful and that every cyclist should wear one; helmets had become a ' "Mom and apple pie" issue' in the United States by 1991 according to the League of American Bicyclists. Significant helmet promotion preceded epidemiological studies evaluating the effectiveness of bicycle helmets in bicycle crashes."
 * By contrast, the 'opponents' section starts with 'data'.
 * Again, this is an appallingly unbalanced article. Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral and disapassionate viewpoint with appropriate balance at the least. This is activism. 2A01:4B00:9E35:DE00:3C30:AE48:1F0D:ACC0 (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 2A01:4B00:9E35:DE00:3C30:AE48:1F0D:ACC0, I agree that this is an appallingly unbalanced article, but disagree totally with your conclusion. Countless studies have shown the tremendous benefits of cycling to health. Decreases in death from all sources is tremendous when cycling increases. Mandatory helmet laws have caused a tremendous decrease in the amount of cycling, especially among women, thus directly causing many more people to needlessly die of heart disease, cancer, etc, than the meager few whose lives might have been saved by wearing a helmet. It has also been shown in many studies that cyclists wearing helmets tend to undertake more dangerous activities. While it is true that if you place a skull in a helmet and hit it with a hammer, it's less likely to be damaged, it is also true that if you take a body and exercise it, it is more likely to be healthy, and that if forced to wear a helmet, it is less likely to be exercised. This information has been mostly purged from the article by political zealots who want to force their shallow view on others, disregarding all the science that has shown time again that helmet laws save a very few lives at the cost of many, many more. — Jacona (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A lot of what you say is based on huge assumptions:
 * - That mandatory helmets would actually have a significant impact on uptake of cycling (a former editor of this article has failed to demonstrate that it would)
 * - That those who would not take up cycling due to mandatory helmets are likely to cycle at least averagely well (this is not actually supported by data - in fact, the opposite is suggested)
 * - That those who are considering cycling but are dissuaded by mandatory helmets are at significant risk of ill-health if they don't take up cycling (I would suspect they would actually be above average in terms of their health, given they are more disposed to physical activity)
 * Regarding your assertion about helmet-wearers undertaking more risky activity, I read only earlier today, from an authoritative source, that the opposite is true. Hopefully I can find it and will share if so.
 * It's clear from your tone on this that you are very worked up on this subject - you seem to have an axe to grind about those who present substantiation to the contrary.
 * I am confident that any objective review of this article would conclude it has not been written from a neutral perspective but has been tweaked at every opportunity to net out in favour of an anti-helmet approach. Ojwm (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * My assumptions are easily sourced. And if it appears from my tone that I am "worked up" and "have an axe to grind", re-read your previous comments and consider your tone. Read sources on cycling and health, helmet laws and health, and you should find a great deal of evidence to support both points of view. It is obvious that if you place a head into a specific sort of accident, that head comes out better if a helmet is on it. It's also obvious that the body beneath the head is in far better shape cycling - even without the helmet - when cycling than when not. The negative impact on health of the helmet-shamers should not be ignored. Jacona (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary subsection on counterfeit helmets
The subsection on warnings re: counterfeit helmets in the history section is very short and seems unnecessary as it covers risks associated with purchasing any safety equipment in general; remove?

Also somewhat surprised by the use of TWO separate history sections, could use some cleanup... Myoglobin (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)