The bicycle helmets are almost just made by styrofoam and many people use it instead of motorcycle helmet with full protect and plastic,metal parts.the truck can easily crush it and almost helmet are useless,but when we crash the head to the road,a good helmet will slide out and absorb the force that can help us from being broken the skull while a foam helmet just brake out or transmit the energy to our head and spinal.

  • A rare downvote from me for a practically incomprehensible question that also fails to take into account the fact that safety can never be absolute – Chris H Sep 2 '17 at 10:06
  • 1
    I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you @Lan, the helmets are certainly not useless and serve their purpose just right. I've had my life saved by one, so I can't be in for the radical skeptics. – Dan Sep 2 '17 at 11:26
  • 1
    VTC as unclear:discussion has made the actual question less, not more, clear. – Chris H Sep 2 '17 at 13:51
  • 1
    @Lan... I have helmets thank you. And I speak English. – paparazzo Sep 2 '17 at 15:29
  • 1
    Is this a question or an argument? – Adam Rice Sep 2 '17 at 23:20

Wearing a bicycle helmet is safer than not wearing one. Bear in mind that a helmet that has been "crashed" needs to be replaced. Its ability to absorb/diffuse energy after having been landed on will be degraded.


Personally I never wear a cycle helmet because I find them uncomfortable and I feel that they do impair my ability to be aware of the environment around me. Nonetheless, it is obvious to me that I am putting myself at risk of death or serious injury in certain types of accident where a helmet-wearing cyclist will walk away virtually unscathed.

I know someone who DID have their head run over by a truck whilst wearing a helmet – after much medical care they were fully rehabilitated. I doubt I would have survived the same accident. I expect my organs might have been useful (maybe not the corneas!).

The only way this question can really be answered is with statistics, not opinions. Per 100 cyclists, how many were killed/hospitalised BEFORE helmets became the norm, and how many now? Even then, there are many, many complications, including, but not limited to 1) quantity/type of traffic on the roads 2) quality of brakes on bikes 3) design of road vehicles 4) road design/construction standards 5) type of riding being done 6) age/fitness demographic of typical riders 7) relative availability of cycle paths.

With every type of safety improvement, there are some losers and there are more winners. I know someone who swears that his life was saved by NOT wearing a seat-belt. A steel beam went through the windscreen and through his seat. Luckily he wasn’t in it at the time because he’d been thrown sideways across the passenger seat since he wasn’t retrained by the seat-belt. You’ll always hear these kind of stories, but only the numbers can really tell us whether seat-belts are a POSITIVE or a NEGATIVE overall, and that’s a no-brainer (no pun intended).

  • 1
    Sampling bias also affects ability to assess real world effectiveness. You crash and hit your head, the helmet does it's job, you don't feel you need to go to the hospital - does this get reported? No. You only tend to see extreme cases in the hospital. These are not necessarily representative. – Rider_X Sep 5 '17 at 20:42
  • @Rider_X That's another very good point. – Lefty Sep 6 '17 at 7:55

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.