6 ms·

Typical bicyle helmets don't help much with a face-first landing on the tarmac, your chin takes most of the pounding. I can confidently say that from repeated .

by mafribe 10y ago

Typical bicyle helmets don't help much with a face-first landing on the tarmac, your chin takes most of the pounding. I can confidently say that from repeated ... 'experiments'. In contrast, a motorcyle helmet that also wraps around the chin would be of great use in most bicycle accidents. 185 cyclists died A more interesting statistic would be: how many of those deaths would have been prevented by a bicycle helmet?

deanclatworthy 10y ago
That depends entirely on how you fall off your bike, which depends on your speed and numerous other factors. The problem here is that it's pretty hard to tell after the fact whether a death would have been prevented by a helmet. We can guess, speculate but it's hard to measure the exact forces exerted - and also how someone's biological material will react to that (the brain). In all my reading around this issue, those that don't want to wear helmets don't tend to wear them for fashion reasons, and interpret the stats they read to insinuate that helmets don't save lives. They don't like how it looks, feels, or that they will be teased for wearing one. I'd rather live to see the next day than care about what a helmet looks like. And one other point to end on, it's not just deaths we're talking about here. Many people have suffered brain injuries from the impact of falling off their bike. Imagine there was something you could put on your head that would prevent that impact.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  > I'd rather live to see the next day than care about what a helmet looks like. Do you wear one while walking? Or hiking? There's also an increased risk of brain injury from these activities. Most people I know don't wear one, because the combination of the discomfort, hassle, inconvenience and appearance aren't worth the perceived low increased risk of cycling compared to, for example, walking.
  - grogenaut 10y ago
    I wear one when rock climbing, kayaking, snowboarding, skiing, motorcycle, bicycle, skateboard, football, etc. Pretty much any time I go over 8mph. I even considered one in aussie rules football but they were hard to find in the states. I found that helmets for winter sports are better than hats. They don't soak up sweat like a hat does so do better in cold and are better vented than a hat as well. They also really help with the trees. It's also interesting that they used to be "nerdy" on ski slopes in the US, then several major states required everyone under 18 to wear them. Now 80% (feels like) of kids wear them all the time, so you actually look wierd if you don't wear a helmet. I definitely wear them on bikes and have needed them (and bounced off of them) many times. I tend to tuck when I go off the bike so I bounce the back of my helmet. There's a heart warming sensation of relief when you hear that hollow thunk sound of the helmet taking the blow on the pavement, tree, hardpack, rock, etc, with no bad effects on you. Also on my commute I tend to hit 45 mph multiple times in the first 2 miles (I drop 500 ft in 2 miles and I feel it's safer to do 35 like the cars on the nicely paved winding suburban road than to sit in the bike lane). Finally... I made this guy (who hates helmets) put one on after the kite pulled him up into the goal posts on a previous run. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PGKG5ZFMQg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PGKG5ZFMQg He thanked me a year later.
    - ricardobeat 10y ago
      That's a completely different situation than the average Dutch cyclist faces. First, there are no hills to be seen, so not that easy to pick up speed. Especially on a city bike which is 99% of the fleet. It's unusual to even reach 20km/h. People carry their shopping, kids, furniture and pets in them. They cycle in whatever they are wearing - suits, skirts, jeans, whatever; the fact you can just hop on a bike without having to gear up makes it much more attractive to everyday life. There was also this study from a university in Utrecht showing that [in the Netherlands] cyclists wearing helmets are more careless and cause more accidents, nullifying any safety benefit...
      - grogenaut 10y ago
        I'm not talking about Dutchland, I'm talking about where I ride. :)
  - ekidd 10y ago
    I wear a helmet for bicycling, in-line skating, snowboarding and whitewater kayaking. In the case of the first three sports, the helmet has saved me from nasty head hits: - Two over-the-handlebars crashes on my bike at relatively low speed (one when mountain biking). - A low tree limb and several backwards falls when inline skating. - Countless backwards falls when learning to snowboard. For whitewater kayaking, a helmet is effectively mandatory because head strikes against underwater rocks may knock you unconscious in rapids (and because very few groups will paddle with somebody lacking standard safety gear). I once saw a guy paddling in a hockey mask with a cage, which is non-standard for whitewater kayaking. I later learned he had bounced that face cage off an underwater rock once. As for cars, well, I once hit my head against the door frame in a car accident (no side air bags in that vehicle) and ended up needing to work half time for over 6 months. Even minor concussions can be no fun at all. Happily I made a full recovery. I like my helmets. I earn my living using my brain, and I intend to strictly minimize the risk of future concussions.
    - dalke 10y ago
      Do you wear a helmet when going for a run? What about going for a walk? Most Dutch riders are cycling slower than a running pace. I noticed that you categorized bicycling as a sport. For most Dutch people, bicycling is not a sport but a form of transportation. Commuting by car is a form of transportation, just like Formula 1 is a sport form which uses cars. The safety requirements are quite different between those two, just like they are different between those who mountain bike as a sport and those who use a city bicycle to get groceries.
      - tripzilch 10y ago
        > Most Dutch riders are cycling slower than a running pace. Just to confirm, this is absolutely true. When running, I overtake bicyclists all the time. Especially uphill :) (by which I mean traffic overpass, not actual hills of course :p) Personally I go a bit faster on my bike, but not much. 15 km/h (9.3mph) usually, and if I go much faster than that, I find that it does indeed get a lot more dangerous! Amazing, right? So, I don't do that. Just another clever Dutch workaround, I guess :-P
    - 10y ago
- unicornporn 10y ago
  Wearing a helmet is of course never a bad thing. But studies has also shown (on mobile, can't find now) that people see helmets as really cumbersome, and that many of the potential cyclists chose another mode of transporation if they have to use a helmet. Seems strange to me, I ride with a helmet every day. But each to his/her own. You should take a look at this: http://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720762/stop-forcing-people-to-wear-bike-helmets http://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720762/stop-forcing-people-to-... And this: […] In contrast, despite increases to at least 75% helmet wearing, the proportion of head injuries in cyclists admitted or treated at hospital declined by an average of only 13%. The percentage of cyclists with head injuries after collisions with motor vehicles in Victoria declined by more, but the proportion of head injured pedestrians also declined; the two followed a very similar trend. These trends may have been caused by major road safety initiatives introduced at the same time as the helmet law and directed at both speeding and drink-driving. The initiatives seem to have been remarkably effective in reducing road trauma for all road users, perhaps affecting the proportions of victims suffering head injuries as well as total injuries. The benefits of cycling, even without a helmet, have been estimated to outweigh the hazards by a factor of 20 to 1 (Hillman 1993; Cycle helmets—the case for and against. Policy Studies Institute, London). Consequently, a helmet law, whose most notable effect was to reduce cycling, may have generated a net loss of health benefits to the nation. Despite the risk of dying from head injury per hour being similar for unhelmeted cyclists and motor vehicle occupants, cyclists alone have been required to wear head protection. Helmets for motor vehicle occupants are now being marketed and a mandatory helmet law for these road users has the potential to save 17 times as many people from death by head injury as a helmet law for cyclists without the adverse effects of discouraging a healthy and pollution free mode of transport.[1] [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001457596000164 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/00014575960...
eridius 10y ago
There are plenty of ways to have an accident that don't involve face-planting. The one time I flew over my handlebars, I landed on my left shoulder (breaking my collarbone), and my helmet probably prevented me from getting a concussion when the side of my head bounced off the road.
- Lio 10y ago
  Bike helmets are designed to protect against skull fractures, they don't protect against concussion. For concussion you'd probably want something which is able to decelerate the brain inside the skull gently like an airbag.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    Sure they protect against concussion. They don't prevent all concussions, but a helmet clearly diminishes the impact which causes concussion.
javier2 10y ago
I think the more interesting stats would be in the are of non-fatal injuries. If you die, the hit was probably pretty hard, but there are loads more people getting injured but not life-threatening. Breaking boths legs and a concussion would not be part of that stat.
ptaipale 10y ago
>A more interesting statistic would be: how many of those deaths would have been prevented by a bicycle helmet? If we assume that this Canadian study would apply as such to Netherlands: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2012/10/15/cmaj.120988.full.pdf http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2012/10/15/cmaj.120988.full... the figure would be (71/129)×185×(100-65)% = 35 of these people would have not have been killed. Of course, the figures are probably not quite right for Netherlands. For instance, in Canada a majority of bicycle fatalities involve another vehicle, whereas where I live (Finland), this is not true because we have separate bike/pedestrian paths in many places. Like the Netherlands. This actually increases the effectiveness of helmets, because fewer of the accidents are about being crushed by a big vehicle, and more of them are falls. And the physics of falling off your bike are not that different and the ground is about as hard in Canada as in Netherlands.
- ralfn 10y ago
  >And the physics of falling off your bike are not that different and the ground is about as hard in Canada as in Netherlands. You would think that would be true, but no. 1. The ground in Holland is flat. 2. The bike is heavy. 3. The bike is the type where you are sitting up (not leaning forward like a race bike). So, when a dutch person bikes they are going no faster than 15 km/h. When they stretch their legs they are standing still. When they fall to the side they generally fall into grass or sidewalks (which are thin stones on top of moisty earth), that can actually absorb quite a lot of energy/momentum.
  - kutkloon7 10y ago
    A guy I saw a few days ago got one of those heavy chain-type locks in his frontwheel while riding his bike a few days ago. Of course, his bike stopped instantly. He was carrying a painting, so driving with one hand. Amazingly, he didn't even fall to the ground. It really takes a lot of effort to land on the top of your head; I imagine that being hit or run over by a car causes way, way more serious accidents.
    - ralfn 10y ago
rwmj 10y ago
A more interesting statistic is: How many more people would have died through pollution / heart disease if everyone drove cars instead of cycling?
- NetStrikeForce 10y ago
  But wearing helmet doesn't cause more pollution, so I guess that statistic is very good for a different discussion :-)
  - rwmj 10y ago
    You are partly wrong. Encouraging (or even worse, enforcing) cycle helmets is known to reduce the number of people cycling. Since they presumably still need to get around, they're going to use other forms of transport, some of which add pollution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet_laws#Effects_on_the_amount_of_cycling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet_laws#Effects_on...
    - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
      Well, no. I'm not wrong: Using helmets does not increase pollution. Forcing helmets onto people seems to increase pollution (by the reduced use of cycling), so the problem in fact should be: A lack of proper health and safety education leads (indirectly?) to more pollution. That's why I think that statistic is very good for a different discussion - I don't think it should belong into "Should people wear helmets while cycling?", it belongs into "Should we force people to wear helmets while cycling?". The answer to those two questions could be YES and NO without being contradictory really.
      - ptaipale 10y ago
        At least in [0], the reduced use of cycling was only an issue for teenagers. Children and adults cycled more after mandatory helmet law; people who most fiercely oppose putting protective gear on their head seem to be 12-17 years old. I'm not really saying that helmets should be mandatory, but the attitudes and arguments remind me a lot about the time when mandatory seatbelt laws were coming to force. People will be trapped in burning cars and sink in vehicles and can't get out, and it will mess up the cothes, etc. [0] Effects of the compulsory bicycle helmet wearing law in victoria during its first three years, Cameron, Newstead, Vulcan, Finch / http://114.111.144.247/Presto/content/GetDoc.axd?ctID=MjE1ZTI4YzctZjc1YS00MzQ4LTkyY2UtMDJmNTgxYjg2ZDA5&rID=NjA5NA==&pID=MTQ3Ng==&attchmnt=VHJ1ZQ== http://114.111.144.247/Presto/content/GetDoc.axd?ctID=MjE1ZT...
Kim_Bruning 10y ago
That's frankly not a lot of cyclists, compared to the number of bicyclists and the number of trips made. An even more interesting statistic is how many of those deaths would have been prevented by even better bicycle infrastructure. That's one statistic dutch counties often scrutinize closely, IIRC.

by mafribe 10y ago

deanclatworthy 10y ago

That depends entirely on how you fall off your bike, which depends on your speed and numerous other factors. The problem here is that it's pretty hard to tell after the fact whether a death would have been prevented by a helmet. We can guess, speculate but it's hard to measure the exact forces exerted - and also how someone's biological material will react to that (the brain). In all my reading around this issue, those that don't want to wear helmets don't tend to wear them for fashion reasons, and interpret the stats they read to insinuate that helmets don't save lives. They don't like how it looks, feels, or that they will be teased for wearing one. I'd rather live to see the next day than care about what a helmet looks like. And one other point to end on, it's not just deaths we're talking about here. Many people have suffered brain injuries from the impact of falling off their bike. Imagine there was something you could put on your head that would prevent that impact.

Symbiote 10y ago
> I'd rather live to see the next day than care about what a helmet looks like. Do you wear one while walking? Or hiking? There's also an increased risk of brain injury from these activities. Most people I know don't wear one, because the combination of the discomfort, hassle, inconvenience and appearance aren't worth the perceived low increased risk of cycling compared to, for example, walking.
- grogenaut 10y ago
  I wear one when rock climbing, kayaking, snowboarding, skiing, motorcycle, bicycle, skateboard, football, etc. Pretty much any time I go over 8mph. I even considered one in aussie rules football but they were hard to find in the states. I found that helmets for winter sports are better than hats. They don't soak up sweat like a hat does so do better in cold and are better vented than a hat as well. They also really help with the trees. It's also interesting that they used to be "nerdy" on ski slopes in the US, then several major states required everyone under 18 to wear them. Now 80% (feels like) of kids wear them all the time, so you actually look wierd if you don't wear a helmet. I definitely wear them on bikes and have needed them (and bounced off of them) many times. I tend to tuck when I go off the bike so I bounce the back of my helmet. There's a heart warming sensation of relief when you hear that hollow thunk sound of the helmet taking the blow on the pavement, tree, hardpack, rock, etc, with no bad effects on you. Also on my commute I tend to hit 45 mph multiple times in the first 2 miles (I drop 500 ft in 2 miles and I feel it's safer to do 35 like the cars on the nicely paved winding suburban road than to sit in the bike lane). Finally... I made this guy (who hates helmets) put one on after the kite pulled him up into the goal posts on a previous run. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PGKG5ZFMQg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PGKG5ZFMQg He thanked me a year later.
  - ricardobeat 10y ago
    That's a completely different situation than the average Dutch cyclist faces. First, there are no hills to be seen, so not that easy to pick up speed. Especially on a city bike which is 99% of the fleet. It's unusual to even reach 20km/h. People carry their shopping, kids, furniture and pets in them. They cycle in whatever they are wearing - suits, skirts, jeans, whatever; the fact you can just hop on a bike without having to gear up makes it much more attractive to everyday life. There was also this study from a university in Utrecht showing that [in the Netherlands] cyclists wearing helmets are more careless and cause more accidents, nullifying any safety benefit...
    - grogenaut 10y ago
      I'm not talking about Dutchland, I'm talking about where I ride. :)
- ekidd 10y ago
  I wear a helmet for bicycling, in-line skating, snowboarding and whitewater kayaking. In the case of the first three sports, the helmet has saved me from nasty head hits: - Two over-the-handlebars crashes on my bike at relatively low speed (one when mountain biking). - A low tree limb and several backwards falls when inline skating. - Countless backwards falls when learning to snowboard. For whitewater kayaking, a helmet is effectively mandatory because head strikes against underwater rocks may knock you unconscious in rapids (and because very few groups will paddle with somebody lacking standard safety gear). I once saw a guy paddling in a hockey mask with a cage, which is non-standard for whitewater kayaking. I later learned he had bounced that face cage off an underwater rock once. As for cars, well, I once hit my head against the door frame in a car accident (no side air bags in that vehicle) and ended up needing to work half time for over 6 months. Even minor concussions can be no fun at all. Happily I made a full recovery. I like my helmets. I earn my living using my brain, and I intend to strictly minimize the risk of future concussions.
  - dalke 10y ago
    Do you wear a helmet when going for a run? What about going for a walk? Most Dutch riders are cycling slower than a running pace. I noticed that you categorized bicycling as a sport. For most Dutch people, bicycling is not a sport but a form of transportation. Commuting by car is a form of transportation, just like Formula 1 is a sport form which uses cars. The safety requirements are quite different between those two, just like they are different between those who mountain bike as a sport and those who use a city bicycle to get groceries.
    - tripzilch 10y ago
      > Most Dutch riders are cycling slower than a running pace. Just to confirm, this is absolutely true. When running, I overtake bicyclists all the time. Especially uphill :) (by which I mean traffic overpass, not actual hills of course :p) Personally I go a bit faster on my bike, but not much. 15 km/h (9.3mph) usually, and if I go much faster than that, I find that it does indeed get a lot more dangerous! Amazing, right? So, I don't do that. Just another clever Dutch workaround, I guess :-P
  - 10y ago
unicornporn 10y ago
Wearing a helmet is of course never a bad thing. But studies has also shown (on mobile, can't find now) that people see helmets as really cumbersome, and that many of the potential cyclists chose another mode of transporation if they have to use a helmet. Seems strange to me, I ride with a helmet every day. But each to his/her own. You should take a look at this: http://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720762/stop-forcing-people-to-wear-bike-helmets http://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720762/stop-forcing-people-to-... And this: […] In contrast, despite increases to at least 75% helmet wearing, the proportion of head injuries in cyclists admitted or treated at hospital declined by an average of only 13%. The percentage of cyclists with head injuries after collisions with motor vehicles in Victoria declined by more, but the proportion of head injured pedestrians also declined; the two followed a very similar trend. These trends may have been caused by major road safety initiatives introduced at the same time as the helmet law and directed at both speeding and drink-driving. The initiatives seem to have been remarkably effective in reducing road trauma for all road users, perhaps affecting the proportions of victims suffering head injuries as well as total injuries. The benefits of cycling, even without a helmet, have been estimated to outweigh the hazards by a factor of 20 to 1 (Hillman 1993; Cycle helmets—the case for and against. Policy Studies Institute, London). Consequently, a helmet law, whose most notable effect was to reduce cycling, may have generated a net loss of health benefits to the nation. Despite the risk of dying from head injury per hour being similar for unhelmeted cyclists and motor vehicle occupants, cyclists alone have been required to wear head protection. Helmets for motor vehicle occupants are now being marketed and a mandatory helmet law for these road users has the potential to save 17 times as many people from death by head injury as a helmet law for cyclists without the adverse effects of discouraging a healthy and pollution free mode of transport.[1] [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001457596000164 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/00014575960...

eridius 10y ago

There are plenty of ways to have an accident that don't involve face-planting. The one time I flew over my handlebars, I landed on my left shoulder (breaking my collarbone), and my helmet probably prevented me from getting a concussion when the side of my head bounced off the road.

Lio 10y ago
Bike helmets are designed to protect against skull fractures, they don't protect against concussion. For concussion you'd probably want something which is able to decelerate the brain inside the skull gently like an airbag.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Sure they protect against concussion. They don't prevent all concussions, but a helmet clearly diminishes the impact which causes concussion.

javier2 10y ago

I think the more interesting stats would be in the are of non-fatal injuries. If you die, the hit was probably pretty hard, but there are loads more people getting injured but not life-threatening. Breaking boths legs and a concussion would not be part of that stat.

ptaipale 10y ago

>A more interesting statistic would be: how many of those deaths would have been prevented by a bicycle helmet? If we assume that this Canadian study would apply as such to Netherlands: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2012/10/15/cmaj.120988.full.pdf http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2012/10/15/cmaj.120988.full... the figure would be (71/129)×185×(100-65)% = 35 of these people would have not have been killed. Of course, the figures are probably not quite right for Netherlands. For instance, in Canada a majority of bicycle fatalities involve another vehicle, whereas where I live (Finland), this is not true because we have separate bike/pedestrian paths in many places. Like the Netherlands. This actually increases the effectiveness of helmets, because fewer of the accidents are about being crushed by a big vehicle, and more of them are falls. And the physics of falling off your bike are not that different and the ground is about as hard in Canada as in Netherlands.

ralfn 10y ago
>And the physics of falling off your bike are not that different and the ground is about as hard in Canada as in Netherlands. You would think that would be true, but no. 1. The ground in Holland is flat. 2. The bike is heavy. 3. The bike is the type where you are sitting up (not leaning forward like a race bike). So, when a dutch person bikes they are going no faster than 15 km/h. When they stretch their legs they are standing still. When they fall to the side they generally fall into grass or sidewalks (which are thin stones on top of moisty earth), that can actually absorb quite a lot of energy/momentum.
- kutkloon7 10y ago
  A guy I saw a few days ago got one of those heavy chain-type locks in his frontwheel while riding his bike a few days ago. Of course, his bike stopped instantly. He was carrying a painting, so driving with one hand. Amazingly, he didn't even fall to the ground. It really takes a lot of effort to land on the top of your head; I imagine that being hit or run over by a car causes way, way more serious accidents.
  - ralfn 10y ago

rwmj 10y ago

A more interesting statistic is: How many more people would have died through pollution / heart disease if everyone drove cars instead of cycling?

NetStrikeForce 10y ago
But wearing helmet doesn't cause more pollution, so I guess that statistic is very good for a different discussion :-)
- rwmj 10y ago
  You are partly wrong. Encouraging (or even worse, enforcing) cycle helmets is known to reduce the number of people cycling. Since they presumably still need to get around, they're going to use other forms of transport, some of which add pollution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet_laws#Effects_on_the_amount_of_cycling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet_laws#Effects_on...
  - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
    Well, no. I'm not wrong: Using helmets does not increase pollution. Forcing helmets onto people seems to increase pollution (by the reduced use of cycling), so the problem in fact should be: A lack of proper health and safety education leads (indirectly?) to more pollution. That's why I think that statistic is very good for a different discussion - I don't think it should belong into "Should people wear helmets while cycling?", it belongs into "Should we force people to wear helmets while cycling?". The answer to those two questions could be YES and NO without being contradictory really.
    - ptaipale 10y ago
      At least in [0], the reduced use of cycling was only an issue for teenagers. Children and adults cycled more after mandatory helmet law; people who most fiercely oppose putting protective gear on their head seem to be 12-17 years old. I'm not really saying that helmets should be mandatory, but the attitudes and arguments remind me a lot about the time when mandatory seatbelt laws were coming to force. People will be trapped in burning cars and sink in vehicles and can't get out, and it will mess up the cothes, etc. [0] Effects of the compulsory bicycle helmet wearing law in victoria during its first three years, Cameron, Newstead, Vulcan, Finch / http://114.111.144.247/Presto/content/GetDoc.axd?ctID=MjE1ZTI4YzctZjc1YS00MzQ4LTkyY2UtMDJmNTgxYjg2ZDA5&rID=NjA5NA==&pID=MTQ3Ng==&attchmnt=VHJ1ZQ== http://114.111.144.247/Presto/content/GetDoc.axd?ctID=MjE1ZT...

Kim_Bruning 10y ago

That's frankly not a lot of cyclists, compared to the number of bicyclists and the number of trips made. An even more interesting statistic is how many of those deaths would have been prevented by even better bicycle infrastructure. That's one statistic dutch counties often scrutinize closely, IIRC.