5 ms·

When I was a kid: I rode a bike without a helmet I played outside, by my self, and would sometimes go MILES from my house. We did stupid stuff, with fire, fi

When I was a kid: I rode a bike without a helmet I played outside, by my self, and would sometimes go MILES from my house. We did stupid stuff, with fire, fireworks and the like. My parents left me home alone after school, I was a latch key kid. Today, the police would bring my kids home and I would get a visit from CPS for any of these things. Welcome to having children in the new millennium.

pigpaws 10y ago
I was told that it 'takes a village' to tell you that you're not being a good parent... Apparently someone without skin in the game can do it better.
mlvljr 10y ago
We all did that (I -- in the USSR and even much more dangerous post-USSR of the 90s, btw.) :)
facepalm 10y ago
Survivor bias, although I don't actually recall many kids who didn't make it.
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
I do think kids should be allowed to roam, but as a cyclist I'm not convinced that being allowed to ride without a helmet is a crucial formative experience. It's not a trade-off, it's just irresponsible.
- mmariani 10y ago
  As a road cyclist I say sure, it's not sane to ride at an average of 40kph (25mph) without a helmet. However, as a commuter cyclist I say nonsense! Where I live almost everybody 8 to 80 years old rides without a helmet -- just little kids do because they're still learning -- for a simple reason, no one rides faster than 20kph. Cycling should be about being free and having fun. A helmet sends the opposite message which is not good when you want people to cycle instead of driving their lives away.
  - superuser2 10y ago
    A car door opening in your path is a car door opening in your path at any speed.
    - Balgair 10y ago
      And the odds of this happening are....? Maybe we should stick kids in suits of armor Faraday cages too, just in case lightning strikes.
      - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
        > And the odds of this happening are....? About 50% of all New York bike accidents, according to the article Jean_Claude linked. > Maybe we should stick kids in suits of armor Faraday cages too, just in case lightning strikes. I'm just baffled by all the people who think putting a helmet on is onerous and restrictive and destroys the experience of cycling. Why?
    - mmariani 10y ago
      A helmet won't make any difference when riding a bike into a hunk of steel; you will get badly hurt or killed depending on your speed. In that case your only defense is to ride as far away as possible of car doors, don't count on the person getting out the car looking in the mirror before opening the door. Focus your attention on what's happening in front of you, and enjoy your ride.
      - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
        > A helmet won't make any difference when riding a bike into a hunk of steel; you will get badly hurt or killed depending on your speed. That's a straw man. Helmet advocates do not imagine them as some sort of invincible armor. They obviously will not keep you from being injured in a serious accident. What they do is reduce your chance of being killed. The large majority of fatal bicycle accidents involve head injuries. (One source: http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/ http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts...) I would rather be in traction than dead. I agree that children cannot be wrapped in cotton wool; they should be allowed to roam without supervision and make their own mistakes, even if that does slightly increase their risk of injury or death. But getting a bike helmet for your kid does not restrict their mobility or their ability to learn. It has no downsides, only upsides. You've made the choice not to wear a helmet; if you ride safely, in a safe area, the extra risk is probably quite small, and if you believe it's a fair trade-off for a little extra comfort, that's your prerogative as an adult. But don't pretend that wanting to feel the wind in your hair is taking a moral stand.
r00fus 10y ago
Your anecdote doesn't correct for survivor bias.
- geoelectric 10y ago
  All my friends did that too. It was the norm in the 80s when I was growing up. To my recollection, any deaths or serious injuries from it were somewhere between rare and non-existent. That's not survivor bias. I have no doubt that a study would find there were more then than there are now, but things don't exist in isolation. We make trades for everything. For example, we've traded relatively rare (and usually treatable) skin cancer for more widespread sunlight deprivation and Vitamin D deficiency that's implicated in a number of different conditions. I don't think this was a good trade, personally. In this case we've traded our kids' childhoods and parents' exercise of discretion--this is part of their life cycle too, keep in mind--for what I'm quite convinced is a minimal increase in safety. Mandatory bicycle helmets? Sure, if it stopped there. But we've gotten way more paranoid than that. I don't think that's a good trade either.

pigpaws 10y ago

I was told that it 'takes a village' to tell you that you're not being a good parent... Apparently someone without skin in the game can do it better.

mlvljr 10y ago

We all did that (I -- in the USSR and even much more dangerous post-USSR of the 90s, btw.) :)

facepalm 10y ago

Survivor bias, although I don't actually recall many kids who didn't make it.

PhasmaFelis 10y ago

I do think kids should be allowed to roam, but as a cyclist I'm not convinced that being allowed to ride without a helmet is a crucial formative experience. It's not a trade-off, it's just irresponsible.

mmariani 10y ago
As a road cyclist I say sure, it's not sane to ride at an average of 40kph (25mph) without a helmet. However, as a commuter cyclist I say nonsense! Where I live almost everybody 8 to 80 years old rides without a helmet -- just little kids do because they're still learning -- for a simple reason, no one rides faster than 20kph. Cycling should be about being free and having fun. A helmet sends the opposite message which is not good when you want people to cycle instead of driving their lives away.
- superuser2 10y ago
  A car door opening in your path is a car door opening in your path at any speed.
  - Balgair 10y ago
    And the odds of this happening are....? Maybe we should stick kids in suits of armor Faraday cages too, just in case lightning strikes.
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      > And the odds of this happening are....? About 50% of all New York bike accidents, according to the article Jean_Claude linked. > Maybe we should stick kids in suits of armor Faraday cages too, just in case lightning strikes. I'm just baffled by all the people who think putting a helmet on is onerous and restrictive and destroys the experience of cycling. Why?
  - mmariani 10y ago
    A helmet won't make any difference when riding a bike into a hunk of steel; you will get badly hurt or killed depending on your speed. In that case your only defense is to ride as far away as possible of car doors, don't count on the person getting out the car looking in the mirror before opening the door. Focus your attention on what's happening in front of you, and enjoy your ride.
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      > A helmet won't make any difference when riding a bike into a hunk of steel; you will get badly hurt or killed depending on your speed. That's a straw man. Helmet advocates do not imagine them as some sort of invincible armor. They obviously will not keep you from being injured in a serious accident. What they do is reduce your chance of being killed. The large majority of fatal bicycle accidents involve head injuries. (One source: http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts-figures/ http://www.rospa.com/road-safety/advice/pedal-cyclists/facts...) I would rather be in traction than dead. I agree that children cannot be wrapped in cotton wool; they should be allowed to roam without supervision and make their own mistakes, even if that does slightly increase their risk of injury or death. But getting a bike helmet for your kid does not restrict their mobility or their ability to learn. It has no downsides, only upsides. You've made the choice not to wear a helmet; if you ride safely, in a safe area, the extra risk is probably quite small, and if you believe it's a fair trade-off for a little extra comfort, that's your prerogative as an adult. But don't pretend that wanting to feel the wind in your hair is taking a moral stand.

r00fus 10y ago

Your anecdote doesn't correct for survivor bias.

geoelectric 10y ago
All my friends did that too. It was the norm in the 80s when I was growing up. To my recollection, any deaths or serious injuries from it were somewhere between rare and non-existent. That's not survivor bias. I have no doubt that a study would find there were more then than there are now, but things don't exist in isolation. We make trades for everything. For example, we've traded relatively rare (and usually treatable) skin cancer for more widespread sunlight deprivation and Vitamin D deficiency that's implicated in a number of different conditions. I don't think this was a good trade, personally. In this case we've traded our kids' childhoods and parents' exercise of discretion--this is part of their life cycle too, keep in mind--for what I'm quite convinced is a minimal increase in safety. Mandatory bicycle helmets? Sure, if it stopped there. But we've gotten way more paranoid than that. I don't think that's a good trade either.