There is a balance between annoyance and utility. I personally have no problem wearing a belt for the entire flight, including while sleeping. But I'm not to dismayed by those who leave it off, walk around the cabin, go hang out near the cocktail lounge in business class, etc...
Your skull is vulnerable to impacts at speeds that are relatively low compared to full-speed cycling.
On a few occasions I've witnessed a cyclist panic and wobble after being passed far too closely by a car traveling far too fast for such a manoeuvre. This has caused such cyclists to wobble, inadvertently clip the curb and mount the pavement, fall off sideways and subsequently strike their head on a nearby wall whilst falling.
The resulting injury can be very harmful.
Another example of slow-speed head injury: off-road biking down a very steep incline with a loose surface. I've seen people fall and tumble at almost stationary speeds.
And, pretty much 100% of the time I go snowboarding, I wear a helmet.
What I'm trying to surface (apparently poorly) is that life, to some degree, is about managing risks. And we often respond carte blanche scenarios with exactly the same response, regardless of whether it's proportionally required.
Cycling - on road, moving fast, around anything else moving fast, at all treacherous conditions - sure, yes wear a helmet. But, casual cycling on a nice day, protected path - probably not required.
Another area of proportional risk response - portable devices on planes. At one time, end of the world if you had one on during takeout (seriously, other passengers would freak out if they thought yours was on) - and then, all of a sudden - every airport/airline in the United States lets you read your kindle, play games on your phone. People realized their responses were not proportionate to the risk.
No, bicycling is fairly high-risk in general, like skiing, or any other sport that involves a human body travelling faster than the average set of legs can walk it around. Even just going around the block a few times there's always the chance of some random events leading to an unfortunate encounter with a tree.
Of course, it's not skydiving either. And life is a series of risks, I'm not saying don't do it.
So yes you should wear a helmet while biking, but we should not make it mandatory.
In other counter-intuitive statistics about biking, passing at the red light is good for you.
"Rafi, how many of your friends have died in motorcycle accidents?"
"Pfft, nine. Buy NONE of them were from head trauma, they all died from massive spinal trauma."
Be honest... are you just playing the reference game, or do I need to be really worried?
Having personally done a header over the handlebars onto my helmet, resulting in a dented helmet and an un-dented head: yes, I'd recommend it.
> anyone riding a bicycle,
> even if they aren't going at
> high-speed on road, should
> wear a helmet "just in case"
I'm probably heavily influenced by the fact that I live in one of these places (where helmets are a legal requirement).
All I could think while reading this is "yes, you definitely should always wear a helmet!!"
I recall seeing studies showing that helmet-laws generally coincided with low use of bicycles. Places where cycling is extremely common (like Denmark and Holland) never seem to have them, and it's uncommon to see cyclists using them unless they're doing something particularly dangerous (riding in traffic, off-road, etc).
I think the cost of wearing an aircraft seatbelt while you happen to be seated is rather lower than the cost of having to wear a bicycle helmet, though.
Mandatory helmets protect cyclists from injury - but make cycling less popular. Fewer people cycling means they get less exercise and increase other health risks. On average it's a health benefit to cycle without a helmet, compared to driving - and of course people are still welcome to add helmets if they don't mind them.
It's actually the reason why I don't use the bike share program, even though I have a station right next to my apartment building. I could ride it to/from the train station or the grocery store, but I'm paranoid about not wearing a helmet, and hauling the bulky thing around all day is a massive inconvenience.
I can't imagine fashion sense is much of a reason, that seems like a strawman argument commonly conjured up by helmet laws advocates.
Well, they do. Better to be a goober with an unfractured skull, though.
Regarding helmet hair, I had a colleague who had the most amazing hair spikes (think coffee cup sized), who would very carefully put a cycle helmet on every day before cycling home.
Kinetic energy is also the reason why the flight attendants try to lock as much as possible of the loose items to the overhead bins or under the chairs.
Speed only makes a difference if your head hits something whilst moving at that speed. Or you can just fall off at a walking pace, and the acceleration between the top of your head to the ground is enough to kill you. Happened to a guy on the local trail a few years ago, as happens elsewhere as well.
I don't think one needs to be confined to the seat for the whole flight duration, but when sitting down, there is no good reason not to wear a belt either.
I kind of want the helmet-in-public fashion trend to kick in.
Hotter in summer, but they look cooler. ;-)
FWIW, I thought it was weird at first having to wear a helmet. I'm from the UK. Now, though, it just seems bizarre that I wouldn't. It's my skull! My brain is in there. It only takes one idiot, and knocking my head off concrete from 6ft up at even 10km/h sounds like a terrible idea. Anything that cushions the blow, even if that blow is unlikely, now seems like the most obvious idea in the world.