4 ms·
As a frequent cyclist who chooses whether to wear my helmet depending on the type of ride I'm going on, I am so damn tired of people always dragging out the sam
by sebular 11y ago
As a frequent cyclist who chooses whether to wear my helmet depending on the type of ride I'm going on, I am so damn tired of people always dragging out the same old tired arguments about bike helmets. All you have to do is say the word "bicycle" and otherwise rational people suddenly turn into overprotective suburban soccer moms. The way people talk about helmets, you'd think the average person knows at least five people who've died because they fell off a bicycle and their skulls exploded.
Here are some facts:
In 2013, 32,719 people were killed in road accidents.
Also in 2013, 4,735 pedestrians were killed. The leading cause of injury to pedestrians is tripping and falling, but by far the leading cause of death is being hit by a car.
For cyclists in 2013, 743 were killed. The leading cause of cyclist deaths is, again, being hit by a car.
At this point, even though these numbers show that bicycle deaths account for only .02% of deaths in the US each year (which completely disqualifies cycling accidents from being anywhere close to a health epidemic) people will inevitably point out that not many people ride bicycles, so that 743 is actually quite a large number. Of course cars kill 20 times as many pedestrians as they do cyclists, because there are so many pedestrians, and so few cyclists, right?
While there's nothing wrong with that statement, the fallacy is in thinking that you can just extrapolate from there with simple multiplication. Cycling accounts for approximately 1% of all trips taken in the US. So the logic is that if cycling accounted for 100% of all trips, instead of 32,719 we'd have 74,300 people dying in road accidents! Terrifying!
Except it doesn't work that way. Remember that the leading cause of death to both pedestrians and cyclists alike is cars. So if 100% of road traffic were cyclists, there wouldn't be any cars to kill anyone.
Now is a good time to bring up The Netherlands, a country where cycling accounts for 27% of all trips, and in cities (where accidents of all types are much more likely) that number rises to more like 50%. Even worse, practically nobody wears bike helmets there! So clearly, their hospitals must be overflowing with people suffering from exploded skulls. One can only imagine the carnage on their streets... because it doesn't exist. In 2013, 184 cyclists died in The Netherlands, which is .001% of their population. Our 743 account for .0002% of our population, but if you multiply that by 27 (1% vs. 27% of all trips taken) you get .006%, which is 6 times as many deaths per capita.
In other words, it's much safer to be a cyclist in a country where nobody wears a helmet but everybody bikes, than it is to be a cyclist in a country where virtually nobody does it, but at least you have a piece of styrofoam strapped to your head.
Why? Because when more people bike, we build more infrastructure to support bikes. Drivers become more aware of bikes, and instead of just gnashing their teeth and dangerously swerving around them, they're familiar with how bikes move through traffic and see them as just another part of driving on a road. Cyclists are more visible, motorists are more prepared, and everybody gets along better. And bikeshare programs are exactly the kind of thing to promote more people riding bikes.
But wait, we still haven't trotted out everyone's favorite last-ditch argument when all else fails! "No matter what you say about big-picture statistics, you'd still be safer wearing a helmet."
Yes. This is true. Adding more shock absorption to the human skull can protect the brain from traumatic injury. In fact, it's so true that it applies to virtually every human activity. So let's really follow through, and make it mandatory to wear a helmet while driving or riding in an automobile. Let's make it mandatory for pedestrians to wear helmets. Why stop there? Let's make it mandatory to wear full body armor any time you leave the house, and let's make it illegal to sell or build anything with sharp corners. Let's spend our entire lives suspended in smooth carbon fiber tanks full of Jell-O, so that nothing is a danger to our well-being until a heart attack ends it all!
Incidentally, heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US, is a real health epidemic, and is preventable by putting your butt in a bike seat and riding a few miles every day.
Sources:
http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...
https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/traffic-fatalities-decreased-significantly-in-2013/ https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2014/04/25/traffic-fatali...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands
http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/why-dutch-dont-wear-helmets.html http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/why-dutch-dont-wear-helmets....
- Kluny 11y agoGreat reply, should make it a blog post and link to it every chance you get.
- tomkinstinch 11y agoRisk of death is a only one metric for evaluating helmet use, and it's arguably a poor one since it is relatively uncommon (partly thanks to medical intervention). In addition to death, bicycle accidents can also cause varying degrees of physical and mental debilitation. One of the most important things to examine in the discussion of helmet use is the risk of traumatic brain injury (TBI). Helmets do help there, significantly [1]. From the cited article: "[...] One third of the cyclists who are admitted to hospital with serious injury after a traffic crash are diagnosed with head/brain injury. Approximately three-quarters of these cyclists sustain this head/brain injury in crashes not involving a motor vehicle. As many as nine out of ten young children who sustain head/brain injury, do so in crashes not involving a motor vehicle. In the majority of cases these are bicycle-only crashes. Research has shown that a bicycle helmet provides protection against serious head and brain injury. The most recent estimate (Elvik, 2011) indicates that the risk of head injuries is 1.72 times higher for cyclists not wearing a helmet than it is for cyclists who do wear a helmet, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.33-2.22. For brain injury the risk seems to be 2.13 times higher, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.33-3.45. [...]" There are many other studies, with the overwhelming majority pointing to helmets being significantly protective against TBIs: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=bicycle+helmet+traumatic+brain+injury http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=bicycle+helmet+trau... If you're going to be hit by a truck, there's only so much you can do. In the more likely scenario where you're falling to the ground and will hit your head, a helmet will most likely help your outcome. I for one don't want to live with a debilitating and irreversible brain injury, so I always cycle with a helmet. 1. https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Bicycle_helmets.pdf https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Bicycle_helmets...
- sebular 11y agoSo you've provided a more thorough version of the "No matter what you say about big-picture statistics, you'd still be safer wearing a helmet" argument. I don't have any problem with you choosing to wear a helmet because you want to avoid TBI, but unless you're also wearing a helmet every time you get in a car, you're behaving irrationally. Also, here's another study and some choice quotes: "Use of a helmet was only associated with a 10% decreased risk of severe injury, a difference which was not statistically significant." "Patients with neck injuries were much more likely to be severly injured (OR=4.09) and hospitalized (OR=2.56) than were patients without neck injuries. They were also 15 times more likely to die than those without neck injuries [...] There was no association of neck injury with helmet use, either in the entire group of patients with neck injury (OR=0.9, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.4, adjusted for age)" "Males were 2.4 times more likely, those hit by motor vehicles 14.1 times more likely, and those traveling at self reported speeds > 15 mph, 2.6 times more likely to be killed." 1. http://bmj-injuryprev.highwire.org/content/3/2/110.full.pdf http://bmj-injuryprev.highwire.org/content/3/2/110.full.pdf The point is that when you're cycling or doing any activity, you expose yourself to a combination of risks. I've never argued that helmet use isn't a valid way to decrease certain risks (I wear mine daily when commuting in traffic, and sometimes when hitting the bike path out of the city I leave it at home), but it's detrimental that we focus on that as the only cause of risk, because it causes people to ignore everything else. People like telling other people to wear helmets because it's an easy solution. But it only (kind of) solves one problem, and even worse, it's used as a scapegoat, a means to blame the victim. A woman gets flattened into 2 dimensions by a tractor trailer while riding her bike, but what's this? She wasn't wearing her helmet?? Come on people, wear your helmet! It's as if we were to address the entire issue of auto safety with "wear a seatbelt!" and considered the matter closed even if a kid who's never driven before is going 100mph through a residential neighborhood with his eyes closed.