6 ms·

Should bike helmets be compulsory? Lessons from Seattle and Amsterdam

18 points by chowyuncat 11y ago

parennoob 11y ago
Bike helmets should be compulsory only if - Having a five-point harness for every car is compulsory (alright, I'll admit this is somewhat overkill and rhetorical) - Cars are certified yearly as being road safe (not the case in all states in the US, but I think this is the case in the EU) - Drunk driving has extremely severe penalties (10+ years in prison) beginning with the first offence. The motorist is driving a much more dangerous vehicle capable of causing serious injuries to themselves and other parties. Let us all behave in a responsible manner.
- Pxtl 11y ago
  Exactly. If being at-fault in a severe traffic accident cost you driving rights long-term, then I'd be understanding that we're taking safety seriously. Until then, talk of mandatory helmet laws is just trying to get the cyclists off the road. /wears a helmet when cycling.
- hueving 11y ago
  I don't follow your logic. Safety on modern cars is taken pretty seriously. I don't think many people die in cars today in 10 mph wrecks, but that's plenty fast enough to die on a bike going head-first into the ground.
  - parennoob 11y ago
    > Safety on modern cars is taken pretty seriously. Yes, at the time of manufacture. How about maintenance? If your car has severe mechanical problems, you are endangering everyone around you (and of course yourself as well). > I don't think many people die in cars today in 10 mph wrecks Not that many cars go 10mph. Why should it be some kind of benchmark for car safety? Freeway speed limits are usually between 55 and 70mph, and are violated with a level of casualness that varies by state.
  - Pxtl 11y ago
    Safety on modern cars is taken pretty seriously by regulators, but not by law enforcement. If you kill somebody when you're behind the wheel, and you were sober? You'll usually get dinged with "failure to yield", which basically means "there was an accident and it was your fault because your car was where it was when it had no right to be". Like turning when the intersection isn't clear or something. That comes with a $500 fine. A $500 for taking a life by negligence. Yeah, besides airbags and seat-belts, we collectively don't give a crap about vehicular safety.
- disordinary 11y ago
  As said above helmet usage is compulsory in NZ (As is yearly warrant of fitness for cars younger than 10 years old and six monthly check-up for cars over 10 years old). The five point harness is not the same thing though as you aren't harnessed to a bike. Compulsory seatbelt wearing and air bags are more apt, and these things are currently in place. One thing that is interesting is that compulsory wearing of helmets has not decreased fatalities to any great extent. But if I ever have an accident I am sure glad that I wear one.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > One thing that is interesting is that compulsory wearing of helmets has not decreased fatalities to any great extent. I don't think that's the point: I don't think most bike fatalities are from the kinds of injuries that helmets mitigate. I think the point of helmets is reducing the incidence and severity of a certain class of non-fatal injuries that are experienced without them.
    - disordinary 11y ago
      Exactly, if you get hit by a truck a helmet isn't going to do much, but if you go over the bonnet of a car that pulls out without looking then it might mean the difference between a few scrapes and a long stint in hospital.
  - parennoob 11y ago
    > As said above helmet usage is compulsory in NZ (As is yearly warrant of fitness for cars younger than 10 years old and six monthly check-up for cars over 10 years old). Yes, this sounds pretty good. I think the situation on car safety is much better in the EU and other countries compared to the US. > But if I ever have an accident I am sure glad that I wear one. As will I. I do wear a bike helmet a lot. What pisses me off is that I can be fined $100+ for not wearing it when the guy next to me with a car that seems to be running on coal and two tires with questionable pressure goes scot free.
    - disordinary 11y ago
- anon4327733 11y ago
  You going to give a cost benefit analysis of any of these? I don't see any reason to see a better cost-benefit than wearing a biking helmet.
- fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
  >Drunk driving has extremely severe penalties (10+ years in prison) beginning with the first offence. Maybe you haven't noticed, but at some point, a meaner nastier criminal justice system does little or no additional good at the expense of harming innocent people. That point's long been passed with DUI laws, and people still do it.
  - handedness 11y ago
    Which, given how many repeat DUI offenders there are, is great justification for long prison sentences. If a person can't be trusted to put either the bottle or the keys down, then they need to be restrained. I'd rather find a cheaper way than prison, but it's insanity that you can drive drunk and receive a punishment that serves as almost no disincentive to continue to do it.
    - nsxwolf 11y ago
      Most of my friends would be in prison under your idea, and their children would have grown up without their parents, and I fail to see how the world would have been better off that way. Oh sure, they MIGHT have killed someone because they were a little bit over an arbitrary and always decreasing blood alcohol limit, but they didn't, so I'm not sure what a 10 year prison sentence would accomplish. I suppose at some point you can create such massive penalties for every possible misdeed that people become too terrified to leave their homes, but I don't want to live in that world.
      - handedness 11y ago
        Most of your friends have children, then drink and drive? And "my idea" is what's wrong here? I don't even know where to begin...
        nsxwolf 11y ago
        Look around you next time you're out at a restaurant. See all the beers and glasses of wine? You think they all took Uber or have a designated driver? Everyone drinks and drives. That's not even illegal. But it's not that hard to take one sip too many and break the law. Seriously, get off your high horse. There are over a million DUI arrests per year in the US. That's just the tiny percentage they catch!
- Johnny555 11y ago
  I'd add "Mandatory and significant jail time for leaving the scene of an accident". A local lawyer just got off with a 30 day sentence after he hit a cyclist and drove off because he claimed he thought he hit a deer or rock. And this was after he admitted that he just came back from a function where he was drinking. The prosecutor was looking for a felony hit-and-run, the judge reduced it to a misdemeanor because "This could have happened to anyone." So, the moral of the story is -- if you hit someone while drunk, don't stop, just drive home and sober up, then claim you thought you hit a deer. http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-attorney-who-killed-bicyclist-in-hit-and-run-6562312.php http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-attorney-who-killed-...
disordinary 11y ago
It's been compulsory in New Zealand since the late 80's or early 90's. I'm sure initially people felt like dorks but after 20+ years its normal. People will get over it.
- tobltobs 11y ago
  Where is the argument? Reading the comments on HN becomes worse every day. People just writing some stuff to prove, I don't know, that they are very cool or extremely liberal or whatever.
  - disordinary 11y ago
    The argument that people won't wear a helmet because of a fashion statement? It's not in the article - but its a fact that kids for instance won't wear helmets because of pair pressure. The same as people used to not wear seatbelts before they were compulsory.
    - tobltobs 11y ago
      Ever been to NZ?
      - disordinary 11y ago
        Kind of where I live.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
- roel_v 11y ago
  ... Are you using New Zealand as an example of how to effectively enable cycling? Are we talking about New Zealand the island east of Australia, or another one?
  - disordinary 11y ago
paulddraper 11y ago
Surprisingly, there are very few studies on the actual effectiveness of bicycle helmets. Lots of times, articles will just say "X% of people that are injured aren't wearing a helmet". Which of course is next to worthless.
- roel_v 11y ago
  And most studies that have been done, are done by people from the medical field, who are at best only qualified to comment on a slight portion of the issue. Their conclusion is always 'if you fall sideways on a curb without a helmet, you'll be dead' (duh), but then the dangerous part is where they conclude 'so we need to wear helmets always, and make them compulsory'.
  - Pxtl 11y ago
    That argument could apply to pedestrians as well. We don't make Grandma wear a helmet the day she's issued a walker.
- DannoHung 11y ago
  There are plenty of studies, the problem with them is that there are arguments made constantly that despite the efficacy of helmets in reducing the severity of head trauma, something about the helmets somehow makes them more dangerous. I think my favorite stupid argument though is that it increases the size of the rider's head, which increases the likelihood of ground collision in an accident. As though it's so easy to stop yourself from falling as long as there aren't two inches of material strapped on your noggin. The basic fact is that if you do have a head injury on a bike, a helmet is likely to reduce the severity of it. Everything else is an unquantifiable argument about human behavior.
  - snogglethorpe 11y ago
    The main thing is that it's not just a medical issue, so citing medical studies isn't sufficient. Even if wearing a helmet decreases your injuries 100% of the time (and there are a few counterexamples to that), if a helmet law causes more deaths overall, it's still a bad law. The main negative effect of helmet laws that I've seen cited is that they reduce the popularity of cycling as a transportation mode, and that can have extremely negative effects on public health (due to increased driving, reduced physical activity, and indirectly as a general damper on pro-cycling sentiment and infrastructure changes). [I think Australia's helmet law is one of the main examples people talk about.]
theophrastus 11y ago
Many times I've seen Seattle compared to Amsterdam, particularly on the topic of bikes. One simple distinction between the two most often overlooked is topography. Amsterdam is flat; it's proudly engineered out of the lowlands, and it has canals to prove its level. Seattle is quite hilly, and has a major freeway and an interstate which run through its middle, both overburdened with traffic. Consequently one is nigh perfect for the bicyclist, and the other is at best a significant challenge.
- bch 11y ago
  > has a major freeway and an interstate which run through its middle... I'm not sure what this means... are you talking I5 and 99 ? There are underpasses and overpasses for those.
  - theophrastus 11y ago
    Of course there are limited means to get around, over, and under, those very large sources and attractors of car traffic; in a notably limited space. So attempting coexistence between those and bicyclists is a challenge. That was my only (apparently) poorly expressed point.
- roel_v 11y ago
  Please state how any of this relates to the effectiveness of helmets, and the trade-off between a reduction of the magnitude you're claiming and the reduction in overall bike usage.
  - theophrastus 11y ago
    Cars and hills and bicyclists, and a history which doesn't include bicycles and cars in close proximity. You see no distinctions between the two cities as regards bicycle safety, and bicycle safety equipment, as a result of this?
    - roel_v 11y ago
      So your point is that Amsterdam is already more safe to ride a bike in, so wearing a helmet doesn't add safety anymore, whereas in Seattle it does? I mean if this is really what you're claiming, then I hope I don't have to spell out the flaws in that argument.
breadbox 11y ago
This argument is remarkably familiar; it's basically the same (on both sides) when the motorcycle helmet laws were being argued in the 1980s. It's easy to forget that people actually argued that motorcyclists might be safer without helmets, but they did.
- sixQuarks 11y ago
  In what ways is it safer to ride a motorcycle without a helmet?
  - samatman 11y ago
    It's easier to see what's going on around you, and you can hear better. I don't consider this worth the risk of head injury personally, but the difference is there, and it's noticeable, particularly vision.
    - oldmanjay 11y ago
      It's also somewhat less tiring to eschew the helmet, but I similarly always wear the helmet anyway.
  - jasonjei 11y ago
    Never, even at low speeds (this applies for cyclists, too). But apparently the argument is that motorcycle riders will approach their riding with more caution. To a certain degree, I will agree (when I wear less gear and no leathers, I ride with paranoia set to 80%, and assume the car behind me is going to drive with the intent of attaching me to the front bumper).
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - nsxwolf 11y ago
exabrial 11y ago
It's actually the same question as should marijuana be legalized
sparkzilla 11y ago
While I'm not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories, I've always thought that bicycle helmet laws and related press were pushed by helmet manufacturers.
dmm 11y ago
People fall and hit their heads and die walking and running all the time. Why not make pedestrians wear helmets? Or how about you stop using the law (violence) to protect people from themselves. EDIT: Laws like this are also a great excuse for police to harass people. We don't need more of these.
raykaye47 11y ago
I say no fines for not wearing a helmet. It is only an excuse for local law enforcement to make more $$.
eximius 11y ago
I think you should wear a helmet, but I think it is ridiculous for the government to require you to wear one. Same with seatbelts, frankly.
- stvswn 11y ago
  Agreed, I just finished writing the same thing in many more words before seeing the point had been made.
teddyh 11y ago
As I understand it, making helmets compulsory makes people use their bikes less, making them get less exercise, shortening their lives more than they would have saved (statistically) by wearing a helmet.
stvswn 11y ago
I wear a helmet, because I want my daughter to wear a helmet when she rides and so I set a good example. But I have no idea why anyone believes it's appropriate to make a law about this. Risky behavior that puts others at risk is fair game -- you can't speed in your car, for instance. But to have another adult forcibly stop me, scold me, and fine me if I don't want to put a piece of plastic on my head? That's insane. Same goes for motorcycle helmet laws, seatbelt laws, and drug laws. With that in mind, the premise of the article is flawed. I do not care which policy "saves more lives." I don't care which is safer. If I see another adult riding around without a helmet, the thought doesn't occur to me "Oh no! How unsafe! Won't someone compel him to protect himself?" So should I accept the same sentiment applied to everyone collectively? (And if someone wants to argue that my getting injured imposes a cost on society, blah blah blah ... we're just not going to agree about the responsibilities of the individual to the collective and the role of government therein)
- lazyant 11y ago
  The argument is that if you get severely injured the tax payers get stuck with the bill (US may be different) so other people are affected; I'm in favour of compulsory motorcycle helmets and seat belts, if you want to opt out fine, but pay a higher insurance premium.
  - stvswn 11y ago
    I know that's the argument, but I disagree with the premise -- you're essentially saying that it's valid for the government to enforce healthy decisions when it wants to limit the chances of a future payout. This would mean that the government can use its status as the "insurer" (in the sense that it operates the safety net) and the "enforcer" (in the sense that it alone can use force to compel you against your will) in complementary ways. Why not make a law that I can't have junk food? Or that I must exercise? Obesity has a cost on society as well, no?
    - lazyant 11y ago
      You do have a point but unlike eating junk food, having a seatbelt on is a binary and can be detected without much argument.
alistairSH 11y ago
The type of cycling in Amsterdam is certainly different than what I see here in DC. In Amsterdam, most bikes are the classic "Dutch" style utility bike - slow, stable, and easy to step down/off the bike. Here in DC, cyclists are almost universally on some variant of the "10 speed" - most with drop bars, higher COG, and higher average speeds. As a cyclist myself, I ride with or without helmet based on conditions. On my road bike or mountain bike? Helmet, always - I've had enough concussions to know I don't want another. My cruiser - usually no helmet, but it's use is almost exclusively below 10mph and on a bike trail, not roads.
- revelation 11y ago
  Some of that is just the preference of the demographics likely to bike, but in urban cycling with cars particularly, speed equals safety. Hence why female riders bear the brunt of harassment such as close overtakes. Much healthier to be able to be assertive and occasionally accelerate away.
bendoit 11y ago
There's been fairly interesting data piling up about mandatory helmet laws. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/business/a-bicycling-mystery-head-injuries-piling-up.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/business/a-bicycling-myste... > The number of head injuries has increased 10 percent since 1991, even as bicycle helmet use has risen sharply, according to figures compiled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But given that ridership has declined over the same period, the rate of head injuries per active cyclist has increased 51 percent just as bicycle helmets have become widespread. ... > Many specialists in risk analysis argue that something else is in play. They believe that the increased use of bike helmets may have had an unintended consequence: riders may feel an inflated sense of security and take more risks. Cars are more reckless around bicyclists and drive closer to them when they see they are wearing a helmet: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10bike.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10bike.html We also see here that bicycles are the lowest risk of head injury while traveling streets and sidewalks: http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets Turns out you're much more likely to suffer a head injury in a car, or walking than on a bicycle. Should helmets be mandated for driving and walking? Evidence suggests it would make more sense for those activities. Wearing helmets increases the likelihood of neck injuries: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457500000488 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457500... Feds had to stop claiming bike helmets prevent 85% of head injuries (a commonly cited statistic) after their statistical analysis was found to be bogus: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19036/feds-will-stop-hyping-effectiveness-of-bike-helmets/ http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19036/feds-will-sto...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

18 points by chowyuncat 11y ago

Bike helmets should be compulsory only if - Having a five-point harness for every car is compulsory (alright, I'll admit this is somewhat overkill and rhetorical) - Cars are certified yearly as being road safe (not the case in all states in the US, but I think this is the case in the EU) - Drunk driving has extremely severe penalties (10+ years in prison) beginning with the first offence. The motorist is driving a much more dangerous vehicle capable of causing serious injuries to themselves and other parties. Let us all behave in a responsible manner.

Pxtl 11y ago
Exactly. If being at-fault in a severe traffic accident cost you driving rights long-term, then I'd be understanding that we're taking safety seriously. Until then, talk of mandatory helmet laws is just trying to get the cyclists off the road. /wears a helmet when cycling.
hueving 11y ago
I don't follow your logic. Safety on modern cars is taken pretty seriously. I don't think many people die in cars today in 10 mph wrecks, but that's plenty fast enough to die on a bike going head-first into the ground.
- parennoob 11y ago
  > Safety on modern cars is taken pretty seriously. Yes, at the time of manufacture. How about maintenance? If your car has severe mechanical problems, you are endangering everyone around you (and of course yourself as well). > I don't think many people die in cars today in 10 mph wrecks Not that many cars go 10mph. Why should it be some kind of benchmark for car safety? Freeway speed limits are usually between 55 and 70mph, and are violated with a level of casualness that varies by state.
- Pxtl 11y ago
  Safety on modern cars is taken pretty seriously by regulators, but not by law enforcement. If you kill somebody when you're behind the wheel, and you were sober? You'll usually get dinged with "failure to yield", which basically means "there was an accident and it was your fault because your car was where it was when it had no right to be". Like turning when the intersection isn't clear or something. That comes with a $500 fine. A $500 for taking a life by negligence. Yeah, besides airbags and seat-belts, we collectively don't give a crap about vehicular safety.
disordinary 11y ago
As said above helmet usage is compulsory in NZ (As is yearly warrant of fitness for cars younger than 10 years old and six monthly check-up for cars over 10 years old). The five point harness is not the same thing though as you aren't harnessed to a bike. Compulsory seatbelt wearing and air bags are more apt, and these things are currently in place. One thing that is interesting is that compulsory wearing of helmets has not decreased fatalities to any great extent. But if I ever have an accident I am sure glad that I wear one.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > One thing that is interesting is that compulsory wearing of helmets has not decreased fatalities to any great extent. I don't think that's the point: I don't think most bike fatalities are from the kinds of injuries that helmets mitigate. I think the point of helmets is reducing the incidence and severity of a certain class of non-fatal injuries that are experienced without them.
  - disordinary 11y ago
    Exactly, if you get hit by a truck a helmet isn't going to do much, but if you go over the bonnet of a car that pulls out without looking then it might mean the difference between a few scrapes and a long stint in hospital.
- parennoob 11y ago
  > As said above helmet usage is compulsory in NZ (As is yearly warrant of fitness for cars younger than 10 years old and six monthly check-up for cars over 10 years old). Yes, this sounds pretty good. I think the situation on car safety is much better in the EU and other countries compared to the US. > But if I ever have an accident I am sure glad that I wear one. As will I. I do wear a bike helmet a lot. What pisses me off is that I can be fined $100+ for not wearing it when the guy next to me with a car that seems to be running on coal and two tires with questionable pressure goes scot free.
  - disordinary 11y ago
anon4327733 11y ago
You going to give a cost benefit analysis of any of these? I don't see any reason to see a better cost-benefit than wearing a biking helmet.
fnordfnordfnord 11y ago
>Drunk driving has extremely severe penalties (10+ years in prison) beginning with the first offence. Maybe you haven't noticed, but at some point, a meaner nastier criminal justice system does little or no additional good at the expense of harming innocent people. That point's long been passed with DUI laws, and people still do it.
- handedness 11y ago
  Which, given how many repeat DUI offenders there are, is great justification for long prison sentences. If a person can't be trusted to put either the bottle or the keys down, then they need to be restrained. I'd rather find a cheaper way than prison, but it's insanity that you can drive drunk and receive a punishment that serves as almost no disincentive to continue to do it.
  - nsxwolf 11y ago
    Most of my friends would be in prison under your idea, and their children would have grown up without their parents, and I fail to see how the world would have been better off that way. Oh sure, they MIGHT have killed someone because they were a little bit over an arbitrary and always decreasing blood alcohol limit, but they didn't, so I'm not sure what a 10 year prison sentence would accomplish. I suppose at some point you can create such massive penalties for every possible misdeed that people become too terrified to leave their homes, but I don't want to live in that world.
    - handedness 11y ago
      Most of your friends have children, then drink and drive? And "my idea" is what's wrong here? I don't even know where to begin...
      - nsxwolf 11y ago
        Look around you next time you're out at a restaurant. See all the beers and glasses of wine? You think they all took Uber or have a designated driver? Everyone drinks and drives. That's not even illegal. But it's not that hard to take one sip too many and break the law. Seriously, get off your high horse. There are over a million DUI arrests per year in the US. That's just the tiny percentage they catch!
Johnny555 11y ago
I'd add "Mandatory and significant jail time for leaving the scene of an accident". A local lawyer just got off with a 30 day sentence after he hit a cyclist and drove off because he claimed he thought he hit a deer or rock. And this was after he admitted that he just came back from a function where he was drinking. The prosecutor was looking for a felony hit-and-run, the judge reduced it to a misdemeanor because "This could have happened to anyone." So, the moral of the story is -- if you hit someone while drunk, don't stop, just drive home and sober up, then claim you thought you hit a deer. http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-attorney-who-killed-bicyclist-in-hit-and-run-6562312.php http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/S-F-attorney-who-killed-...

disordinary 11y ago

It's been compulsory in New Zealand since the late 80's or early 90's. I'm sure initially people felt like dorks but after 20+ years its normal. People will get over it.

tobltobs 11y ago
Where is the argument? Reading the comments on HN becomes worse every day. People just writing some stuff to prove, I don't know, that they are very cool or extremely liberal or whatever.
- disordinary 11y ago
  The argument that people won't wear a helmet because of a fashion statement? It's not in the article - but its a fact that kids for instance won't wear helmets because of pair pressure. The same as people used to not wear seatbelts before they were compulsory.
  - tobltobs 11y ago
    Ever been to NZ?
    - disordinary 11y ago
      Kind of where I live.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
roel_v 11y ago
... Are you using New Zealand as an example of how to effectively enable cycling? Are we talking about New Zealand the island east of Australia, or another one?
- disordinary 11y ago

paulddraper 11y ago

Surprisingly, there are very few studies on the actual effectiveness of bicycle helmets. Lots of times, articles will just say "X% of people that are injured aren't wearing a helmet". Which of course is next to worthless.

roel_v 11y ago
And most studies that have been done, are done by people from the medical field, who are at best only qualified to comment on a slight portion of the issue. Their conclusion is always 'if you fall sideways on a curb without a helmet, you'll be dead' (duh), but then the dangerous part is where they conclude 'so we need to wear helmets always, and make them compulsory'.
- Pxtl 11y ago
  That argument could apply to pedestrians as well. We don't make Grandma wear a helmet the day she's issued a walker.
DannoHung 11y ago
There are plenty of studies, the problem with them is that there are arguments made constantly that despite the efficacy of helmets in reducing the severity of head trauma, something about the helmets somehow makes them more dangerous. I think my favorite stupid argument though is that it increases the size of the rider's head, which increases the likelihood of ground collision in an accident. As though it's so easy to stop yourself from falling as long as there aren't two inches of material strapped on your noggin. The basic fact is that if you do have a head injury on a bike, a helmet is likely to reduce the severity of it. Everything else is an unquantifiable argument about human behavior.
- snogglethorpe 11y ago
  The main thing is that it's not just a medical issue, so citing medical studies isn't sufficient. Even if wearing a helmet decreases your injuries 100% of the time (and there are a few counterexamples to that), if a helmet law causes more deaths overall, it's still a bad law. The main negative effect of helmet laws that I've seen cited is that they reduce the popularity of cycling as a transportation mode, and that can have extremely negative effects on public health (due to increased driving, reduced physical activity, and indirectly as a general damper on pro-cycling sentiment and infrastructure changes). [I think Australia's helmet law is one of the main examples people talk about.]

theophrastus 11y ago

Many times I've seen Seattle compared to Amsterdam, particularly on the topic of bikes. One simple distinction between the two most often overlooked is topography. Amsterdam is flat; it's proudly engineered out of the lowlands, and it has canals to prove its level. Seattle is quite hilly, and has a major freeway and an interstate which run through its middle, both overburdened with traffic. Consequently one is nigh perfect for the bicyclist, and the other is at best a significant challenge.

bch 11y ago
> has a major freeway and an interstate which run through its middle... I'm not sure what this means... are you talking I5 and 99 ? There are underpasses and overpasses for those.
- theophrastus 11y ago
  Of course there are limited means to get around, over, and under, those very large sources and attractors of car traffic; in a notably limited space. So attempting coexistence between those and bicyclists is a challenge. That was my only (apparently) poorly expressed point.
roel_v 11y ago
Please state how any of this relates to the effectiveness of helmets, and the trade-off between a reduction of the magnitude you're claiming and the reduction in overall bike usage.
- theophrastus 11y ago
  Cars and hills and bicyclists, and a history which doesn't include bicycles and cars in close proximity. You see no distinctions between the two cities as regards bicycle safety, and bicycle safety equipment, as a result of this?
  - roel_v 11y ago
    So your point is that Amsterdam is already more safe to ride a bike in, so wearing a helmet doesn't add safety anymore, whereas in Seattle it does? I mean if this is really what you're claiming, then I hope I don't have to spell out the flaws in that argument.

breadbox 11y ago

This argument is remarkably familiar; it's basically the same (on both sides) when the motorcycle helmet laws were being argued in the 1980s. It's easy to forget that people actually argued that motorcyclists might be safer without helmets, but they did.

sixQuarks 11y ago
In what ways is it safer to ride a motorcycle without a helmet?
- samatman 11y ago
  It's easier to see what's going on around you, and you can hear better. I don't consider this worth the risk of head injury personally, but the difference is there, and it's noticeable, particularly vision.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    It's also somewhat less tiring to eschew the helmet, but I similarly always wear the helmet anyway.
- jasonjei 11y ago
  Never, even at low speeds (this applies for cyclists, too). But apparently the argument is that motorcycle riders will approach their riding with more caution. To a certain degree, I will agree (when I wear less gear and no leathers, I ride with paranoia set to 80%, and assume the car behind me is going to drive with the intent of attaching me to the front bumper).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- nsxwolf 11y ago

exabrial 11y ago

It's actually the same question as should marijuana be legalized

sparkzilla 11y ago

While I'm not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories, I've always thought that bicycle helmet laws and related press were pushed by helmet manufacturers.

dmm 11y ago

People fall and hit their heads and die walking and running all the time. Why not make pedestrians wear helmets? Or how about you stop using the law (violence) to protect people from themselves. EDIT: Laws like this are also a great excuse for police to harass people. We don't need more of these.

raykaye47 11y ago

I say no fines for not wearing a helmet. It is only an excuse for local law enforcement to make more $$.

eximius 11y ago

I think you should wear a helmet, but I think it is ridiculous for the government to require you to wear one. Same with seatbelts, frankly.

stvswn 11y ago
Agreed, I just finished writing the same thing in many more words before seeing the point had been made.

teddyh 11y ago

As I understand it, making helmets compulsory makes people use their bikes less, making them get less exercise, shortening their lives more than they would have saved (statistically) by wearing a helmet.

stvswn 11y ago

I wear a helmet, because I want my daughter to wear a helmet when she rides and so I set a good example. But I have no idea why anyone believes it's appropriate to make a law about this. Risky behavior that puts others at risk is fair game -- you can't speed in your car, for instance. But to have another adult forcibly stop me, scold me, and fine me if I don't want to put a piece of plastic on my head? That's insane. Same goes for motorcycle helmet laws, seatbelt laws, and drug laws. With that in mind, the premise of the article is flawed. I do not care which policy "saves more lives." I don't care which is safer. If I see another adult riding around without a helmet, the thought doesn't occur to me "Oh no! How unsafe! Won't someone compel him to protect himself?" So should I accept the same sentiment applied to everyone collectively? (And if someone wants to argue that my getting injured imposes a cost on society, blah blah blah ... we're just not going to agree about the responsibilities of the individual to the collective and the role of government therein)

lazyant 11y ago
The argument is that if you get severely injured the tax payers get stuck with the bill (US may be different) so other people are affected; I'm in favour of compulsory motorcycle helmets and seat belts, if you want to opt out fine, but pay a higher insurance premium.
- stvswn 11y ago
  I know that's the argument, but I disagree with the premise -- you're essentially saying that it's valid for the government to enforce healthy decisions when it wants to limit the chances of a future payout. This would mean that the government can use its status as the "insurer" (in the sense that it operates the safety net) and the "enforcer" (in the sense that it alone can use force to compel you against your will) in complementary ways. Why not make a law that I can't have junk food? Or that I must exercise? Obesity has a cost on society as well, no?
  - lazyant 11y ago
    You do have a point but unlike eating junk food, having a seatbelt on is a binary and can be detected without much argument.

alistairSH 11y ago

The type of cycling in Amsterdam is certainly different than what I see here in DC. In Amsterdam, most bikes are the classic "Dutch" style utility bike - slow, stable, and easy to step down/off the bike. Here in DC, cyclists are almost universally on some variant of the "10 speed" - most with drop bars, higher COG, and higher average speeds. As a cyclist myself, I ride with or without helmet based on conditions. On my road bike or mountain bike? Helmet, always - I've had enough concussions to know I don't want another. My cruiser - usually no helmet, but it's use is almost exclusively below 10mph and on a bike trail, not roads.

revelation 11y ago
Some of that is just the preference of the demographics likely to bike, but in urban cycling with cars particularly, speed equals safety. Hence why female riders bear the brunt of harassment such as close overtakes. Much healthier to be able to be assertive and occasionally accelerate away.

bendoit 11y ago

There's been fairly interesting data piling up about mandatory helmet laws. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/business/a-bicycling-mystery-head-injuries-piling-up.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/business/a-bicycling-myste... > The number of head injuries has increased 10 percent since 1991, even as bicycle helmet use has risen sharply, according to figures compiled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But given that ridership has declined over the same period, the rate of head injuries per active cyclist has increased 51 percent just as bicycle helmets have become widespread. ... > Many specialists in risk analysis argue that something else is in play. They believe that the increased use of bike helmets may have had an unintended consequence: riders may feel an inflated sense of security and take more risks. Cars are more reckless around bicyclists and drive closer to them when they see they are wearing a helmet: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10bike.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10bike.html We also see here that bicycles are the lowest risk of head injury while traveling streets and sidewalks: http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets Turns out you're much more likely to suffer a head injury in a car, or walking than on a bicycle. Should helmets be mandated for driving and walking? Evidence suggests it would make more sense for those activities. Wearing helmets increases the likelihood of neck injuries: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457500000488 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457500... Feds had to stop claiming bike helmets prevent 85% of head injuries (a commonly cited statistic) after their statistical analysis was found to be bogus: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19036/feds-will-stop-hyping-effectiveness-of-bike-helmets/ http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19036/feds-will-sto...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]