7 ms·

> "When you are not in The Netherlands you should most definitely wear a helmet no matter what kind of bike." Why? It's actually not statistically safer.

cowsandmilk 10y ago
so that if you are in an accident, the reaction of everyone else isn't "he should have been wearing a helmet".
tinco 10y ago
* Citation needed
- mpweiher 10y ago
  http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bicycle+helmets+not+safer&l=1 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bicycle+helmets+not+safer&l=1
  - tinco 10y ago
    So you're going with "a neurosurgeon said", "motorists between Bristol and Salisbury drive closer to people with helmets" and a TedX talk that cites "some research shows". Solid citation.
- ralfn 10y ago
  That is true for the original statement (that helmets provide safety on a bike) as well. I mean, you would expect some improvement, but (as a Dutch citizen), i expect it to prevent harm in the same way wearing helmet during sex would prevent harm. In general: if you taking those kind of risks (as a car, as a bike, etc.) that people on a bike need a helmet, you don't belong in traffic here. The effect on mentality may be as important, if not more important. Also, interesting to realize, if car and a bike have an accident, by law, it is automatically the fault of the car, no matter what. Even if the person on the bike is drunk, driving in the wrong direction, etc. So, although bikers are betting their life going out, cars are betting their wealth, money and freedom. It turns out, instead of focusing on 'who is at fault' and 'who is right', it is much safer to focus on 'lets make sure we don't hit each other' and turn accidents into a mutually-assured-destruction kind of deal. This way, every actor in traffic has a natural tendency to compensates for mistakes of the other actors. And this attitude is the one that prevents most accidents.
  - wobbleblob 10y ago
    > if car and a bike have an accident, by law, it is automatically the fault of the car, no matter what. Even if the person on the bike is drunk, driving in the wrong direction, etc. Both drivers and cyclists seem to believe this, but it is an exaggeration. The law says a court may decide to hold your (mandatory) liability insurance liable for some of the damage 'without having to prove your guilt'. It does not say you get the blame no matter what the pedestrian or cyclist does. At the same time, you can still sue the cyclist or pedestrian for damage to your car. http://www.anwb.nl/juridisch-advies/aanrijding-en-dan/aansprakelijkheid/voetganger-of-fietser http://www.anwb.nl/juridisch-advies/aanrijding-en-dan/aanspr...
    - ralfn 10y ago
      >Both drivers and cyclists seem to believe this, but it is an exaggeration. I wonder how much safer this misbelief is making us though.
      - qb45 10y ago
        Well, it certainly makes for some people saying that bikes should be heavy so as to be better at ramming into cars. I have mixed feelings about your attitude to say the least.
  - jandrese 10y ago
    > Also, interesting to realize, if car and a bike have an accident, by law, it is automatically the fault of the car, no matter what. Even if the person on the bike is drunk, driving in the wrong direction, etc. Isn't this because the motorist has insurance while a bike rider does not? I've never seen cyclist insurance, although maybe the Dutch have it? There's no point trying to get blood from a stone by assigning blame to the uninsured party.
- mcv 10y ago
  http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html https://www.cnet.com/news/brain-surgeon-theres-no-point-wearing-cycle-helmets/ https://www.cnet.com/news/brain-surgeon-theres-no-point-wear... But more relevant to the Dutch situation: https://vvn.nl/dossier/fietshelm https://vvn.nl/dossier/fietshelm http://www.fietsersbond.nl/de-feiten/verkeer-en-veiligheid/fietshelmen#.V_ua64XntN4 http://www.fietsersbond.nl/de-feiten/verkeer-en-veiligheid/f... The main takeaway is that nobody in Netherland wants helmets to be mandatory. The positive effects of a helmet are insufficiently proven, and the negative effects of making helmets mandatory seem not worth the risk. Some organizations do recommend helmets for children between 10 and 14, which seems to be the group that's most likely to benefit from them.
jgraham 10y ago
That is very unclear. Some studies suggest it isn't, but a recent metastudy reached very different conclusions [1]: > Bicycle helmet use was associated with reduced odds of head injury, serious head injury, facial injury and fatal head injury. The reduction was greater for serious or fatal head injury. Neck injury was rare and not associated with helmet use. [1] http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/09/06/ije.dyw153.abstract http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/09/06/ije.d...
- kristofferR 10y ago
  Sorry, I should have been more clear. That helmets protect the head in a crash pretty obvious, and that metastudy seems to confirm it. What I had in mind was that helmet users tend to risk-compensate, taking more risks in traffic.
  - nbouscal 10y ago
    In the majority of cases, risk compensation leads to a decrease in expected benefit of legislation, but does not eliminate the benefit. (At least, that's the message I came away with from reading Foolproof.)
  - walshemj 10y ago
    is there any real evidence to back this up - they used to say the same/similar things about seatbelts.
auxym 10y ago
Here are two credible reviews / meta-analyses stating the contrary, that is, that bicycle helmet use or legislation does, statistically, reduce head injuries. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457500000488 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457500... http://www.cochrane.org/CD005401/INJ_bicycle-helmet-legislation-for-the-uptake-of-helmet-use-and-prevention-of-head-injuries http://www.cochrane.org/CD005401/INJ_bicycle-helmet-legislat... That said, despite personally wearing a helmet on my daily commute, I don't support legislation. I unfortunately don't have sources on hand, but I firmly believe that spending public dollars on bike infrastructure and better legislation for bicycle/car interaction would yield better safety improvements for cyclists AND increase cycling uptake.
- baddox 10y ago
  Use or legislation of helmets while driving a car and walking would also almost certainly reduce head injuries. It's far from a sufficient argument for legislation.
  - henryaj 10y ago
    > Use or legislation of helmets while driving a car would almost certainly reduce head injuries Hence the legal requirement to wear seatbelts.
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    Head injuries in car accidents are very uncommon, and the same with pedestrians. Pedestrians aren't likely to hit their heads on concrete at speeds well beyond that which the human body was designed for. Car accident victims don't have hard surfaces to hit their heads on in cars, and instead get other injuries. That's why seat belts are required by law in most jurisdictions, and also why airbags are mandated in all new vehicles. Are you trying to argue against seat belts and airbags now? Are you going to claim that you're safer being thrown clear?
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  I always wore a helmet when I cycle commuted, so I think I mostly agree, but I will point out that my major objection to legislation is on the grounds that it would deter cycling, and therefore be a net negative for health overall, and that one of the most important factors for cycle safety is the number of cyclists, so anything that puts people off cycling creates a negative re-inforcement that makes everyone still cycling less safe, and every new cyclist makes everyone safer. At least one of your studies notes that it doesn't cover that argument: > None of the included studies measured actual bicycle use so it was not possible to evaluate the claim that fewer individuals were cycling due to the implementation of the helmet laws. Although the results of the review support bicycle helmet legislation for reducing head injuries, the evidence is currently insufficient to either support or negate the claims of bicycle helmet opponents that helmet laws may discourage cycling.
saiya-jin 10y ago
Anecdotal evidence - i never wore helmet when growing up, nobody did. once had an accident on small bmx bike when I fell head first on tarmac, but didn't land on head and apart from scratches and being shaken all good (if parents only knew...). few years ago decided to buy new cross country (ie all-rounder) one, lightweight and blazing fast for what it is. Decided to go for a helmet for the first time. After 2 weeks, had a head-first fall because of my GF stopped on some narrow forest path uphill, behind the corner and I hit brakes full power when I saw her with no place to avoid. I miss few seconds of memories, just waking up laying in the grass, picking my head from sharp pointy stone sticking out of the ground - helmet hit it in forehead area. Have I not worn it, it's more probable than not I would die there, I was still badly shaken from impact force on my head, and I was driving slowly when it happened (10-15 kmh). Fiancee works on emergency, the stuff she sees daily makes her wear helmet too. Link all articles you want, we're keeping our helmets where they are, on our heads, thank you.
- lucb1e 10y ago
  So, in summary, a helmet is a good idea if you drive full-speed around corners where you have no idea if it's clear?
  - saiya-jin 10y ago
    based solely on my experience, apart from the part about full speed (i really wasn't going fast, maybe 20 kmh but terrain was bad), yes. If I include what fiancee sees on emergencies, which most people don't even want to know about but it's real life anyway, then wear it everywhere on bike. you can see people getting quite emotional feeling they know what's best for them. Usually never had an accident, so it cannot happen to them. Whatever, I wouldn't push it, use whatever you want. But 1) you will cover all medical cost caused by lack of helmet in case of accident and 2) I would be cautious what to push on kids, but once people get emotional on the topic any discussion is over, as seen in this thread
- ralfn 10y ago
  This focus on helmets is ridiculous, because you only have to types of bikes: 1. Death traps 2. Dutch bikes You want less people to die in traffic while riding a bike? Don't make a helmet mandatory. Make the dutch bike mandatory. Your bike needs to be heavy. You need to sit up straight. And if you stretch your legs you have to stand. Whenever i see the images of americans on rice bikes and mountain bikes in NYC, i too think it looks incredibly dangerous. If i would hit a door with a dutch bike, i wouldn't fall, i would just stand still. And the door will likely be a bit broken. It's not about the helmets. Its about the bike design.
gambiting 10y ago
I think those statistics are very very very heavily skewed and should be ignored. If you have a car accident, 99% of the time, it gets recorded. If you have a bike accident, if the police is not involved, where are you going to report it? To whom? Therefore, the only cases that do get reported are collisions with vehicles, or cases severe enough that cyclist gets taken to hospital - and in those cases, the situation is already bad, even if they wore a helmet. My point is - situations where a helmet has saved a life are rarely recorded, so they don't show up in any sort of statistic(even I had an accident where I flew across the handlebars, hit my head directly on the edge of a curb, helmet split in half, and I was fine - yet this wasn't recorded anywhere. It does not exist in any sort of statistic, despite - very clearly - saving my life).
- pja 10y ago
  Split, or crushed? Helmets absorb the energy of an impact by crushing - it’s a destructive process. It might have protected you from cuts & abrasions, but if it didn’t crush then it didn’t absorb any of the impact.
  - ptaipale 10y ago
    The helmet splitting is a result of the crush on impact. This is why you should always replace the helmet after it has been "useful" i.e. suffered an impact. Even if it stays in one piece, it has been crushed and lost some of its protection. I think that the parent comment's statement "situations where a helmet has saved a life are rarely recorded" is a bit of an exaggeration, because quite often, if the helmet saves your head, you still suffer some other injuries. But it is indeed possible that people fall so that they suffer no other injuries, they'd just have cracked their head without the helmet.

cowsandmilk 10y ago

so that if you are in an accident, the reaction of everyone else isn't "he should have been wearing a helmet".

tinco 10y ago

* Citation needed

mpweiher 10y ago
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bicycle+helmets+not+safer&l=1 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=bicycle+helmets+not+safer&l=1
- tinco 10y ago
  So you're going with "a neurosurgeon said", "motorists between Bristol and Salisbury drive closer to people with helmets" and a TedX talk that cites "some research shows". Solid citation.
ralfn 10y ago
That is true for the original statement (that helmets provide safety on a bike) as well. I mean, you would expect some improvement, but (as a Dutch citizen), i expect it to prevent harm in the same way wearing helmet during sex would prevent harm. In general: if you taking those kind of risks (as a car, as a bike, etc.) that people on a bike need a helmet, you don't belong in traffic here. The effect on mentality may be as important, if not more important. Also, interesting to realize, if car and a bike have an accident, by law, it is automatically the fault of the car, no matter what. Even if the person on the bike is drunk, driving in the wrong direction, etc. So, although bikers are betting their life going out, cars are betting their wealth, money and freedom. It turns out, instead of focusing on 'who is at fault' and 'who is right', it is much safer to focus on 'lets make sure we don't hit each other' and turn accidents into a mutually-assured-destruction kind of deal. This way, every actor in traffic has a natural tendency to compensates for mistakes of the other actors. And this attitude is the one that prevents most accidents.
- wobbleblob 10y ago
  > if car and a bike have an accident, by law, it is automatically the fault of the car, no matter what. Even if the person on the bike is drunk, driving in the wrong direction, etc. Both drivers and cyclists seem to believe this, but it is an exaggeration. The law says a court may decide to hold your (mandatory) liability insurance liable for some of the damage 'without having to prove your guilt'. It does not say you get the blame no matter what the pedestrian or cyclist does. At the same time, you can still sue the cyclist or pedestrian for damage to your car. http://www.anwb.nl/juridisch-advies/aanrijding-en-dan/aansprakelijkheid/voetganger-of-fietser http://www.anwb.nl/juridisch-advies/aanrijding-en-dan/aanspr...
  - ralfn 10y ago
    >Both drivers and cyclists seem to believe this, but it is an exaggeration. I wonder how much safer this misbelief is making us though.
    - qb45 10y ago
      Well, it certainly makes for some people saying that bikes should be heavy so as to be better at ramming into cars. I have mixed feelings about your attitude to say the least.
- jandrese 10y ago
  > Also, interesting to realize, if car and a bike have an accident, by law, it is automatically the fault of the car, no matter what. Even if the person on the bike is drunk, driving in the wrong direction, etc. Isn't this because the motorist has insurance while a bike rider does not? I've never seen cyclist insurance, although maybe the Dutch have it? There's no point trying to get blood from a stone by assigning blame to the uninsured party.
mcv 10y ago
http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html https://www.cnet.com/news/brain-surgeon-theres-no-point-wearing-cycle-helmets/ https://www.cnet.com/news/brain-surgeon-theres-no-point-wear... But more relevant to the Dutch situation: https://vvn.nl/dossier/fietshelm https://vvn.nl/dossier/fietshelm http://www.fietsersbond.nl/de-feiten/verkeer-en-veiligheid/fietshelmen#.V_ua64XntN4 http://www.fietsersbond.nl/de-feiten/verkeer-en-veiligheid/f... The main takeaway is that nobody in Netherland wants helmets to be mandatory. The positive effects of a helmet are insufficiently proven, and the negative effects of making helmets mandatory seem not worth the risk. Some organizations do recommend helmets for children between 10 and 14, which seems to be the group that's most likely to benefit from them.

jgraham 10y ago

That is very unclear. Some studies suggest it isn't, but a recent metastudy reached very different conclusions [1]: > Bicycle helmet use was associated with reduced odds of head injury, serious head injury, facial injury and fatal head injury. The reduction was greater for serious or fatal head injury. Neck injury was rare and not associated with helmet use. [1] http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/09/06/ije.dyw153.abstract http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/09/06/ije.d...

kristofferR 10y ago
Sorry, I should have been more clear. That helmets protect the head in a crash pretty obvious, and that metastudy seems to confirm it. What I had in mind was that helmet users tend to risk-compensate, taking more risks in traffic.
- nbouscal 10y ago
  In the majority of cases, risk compensation leads to a decrease in expected benefit of legislation, but does not eliminate the benefit. (At least, that's the message I came away with from reading Foolproof.)
- walshemj 10y ago
  is there any real evidence to back this up - they used to say the same/similar things about seatbelts.

auxym 10y ago

Here are two credible reviews / meta-analyses stating the contrary, that is, that bicycle helmet use or legislation does, statistically, reduce head injuries. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457500000488 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457500... http://www.cochrane.org/CD005401/INJ_bicycle-helmet-legislation-for-the-uptake-of-helmet-use-and-prevention-of-head-injuries http://www.cochrane.org/CD005401/INJ_bicycle-helmet-legislat... That said, despite personally wearing a helmet on my daily commute, I don't support legislation. I unfortunately don't have sources on hand, but I firmly believe that spending public dollars on bike infrastructure and better legislation for bicycle/car interaction would yield better safety improvements for cyclists AND increase cycling uptake.

baddox 10y ago
Use or legislation of helmets while driving a car and walking would also almost certainly reduce head injuries. It's far from a sufficient argument for legislation.
- henryaj 10y ago
  > Use or legislation of helmets while driving a car would almost certainly reduce head injuries Hence the legal requirement to wear seatbelts.
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  Head injuries in car accidents are very uncommon, and the same with pedestrians. Pedestrians aren't likely to hit their heads on concrete at speeds well beyond that which the human body was designed for. Car accident victims don't have hard surfaces to hit their heads on in cars, and instead get other injuries. That's why seat belts are required by law in most jurisdictions, and also why airbags are mandated in all new vehicles. Are you trying to argue against seat belts and airbags now? Are you going to claim that you're safer being thrown clear?
ZeroGravitas 10y ago
I always wore a helmet when I cycle commuted, so I think I mostly agree, but I will point out that my major objection to legislation is on the grounds that it would deter cycling, and therefore be a net negative for health overall, and that one of the most important factors for cycle safety is the number of cyclists, so anything that puts people off cycling creates a negative re-inforcement that makes everyone still cycling less safe, and every new cyclist makes everyone safer. At least one of your studies notes that it doesn't cover that argument: > None of the included studies measured actual bicycle use so it was not possible to evaluate the claim that fewer individuals were cycling due to the implementation of the helmet laws. Although the results of the review support bicycle helmet legislation for reducing head injuries, the evidence is currently insufficient to either support or negate the claims of bicycle helmet opponents that helmet laws may discourage cycling.

saiya-jin 10y ago

Anecdotal evidence - i never wore helmet when growing up, nobody did. once had an accident on small bmx bike when I fell head first on tarmac, but didn't land on head and apart from scratches and being shaken all good (if parents only knew...). few years ago decided to buy new cross country (ie all-rounder) one, lightweight and blazing fast for what it is. Decided to go for a helmet for the first time. After 2 weeks, had a head-first fall because of my GF stopped on some narrow forest path uphill, behind the corner and I hit brakes full power when I saw her with no place to avoid. I miss few seconds of memories, just waking up laying in the grass, picking my head from sharp pointy stone sticking out of the ground - helmet hit it in forehead area. Have I not worn it, it's more probable than not I would die there, I was still badly shaken from impact force on my head, and I was driving slowly when it happened (10-15 kmh). Fiancee works on emergency, the stuff she sees daily makes her wear helmet too. Link all articles you want, we're keeping our helmets where they are, on our heads, thank you.

lucb1e 10y ago
So, in summary, a helmet is a good idea if you drive full-speed around corners where you have no idea if it's clear?
- saiya-jin 10y ago
  based solely on my experience, apart from the part about full speed (i really wasn't going fast, maybe 20 kmh but terrain was bad), yes. If I include what fiancee sees on emergencies, which most people don't even want to know about but it's real life anyway, then wear it everywhere on bike. you can see people getting quite emotional feeling they know what's best for them. Usually never had an accident, so it cannot happen to them. Whatever, I wouldn't push it, use whatever you want. But 1) you will cover all medical cost caused by lack of helmet in case of accident and 2) I would be cautious what to push on kids, but once people get emotional on the topic any discussion is over, as seen in this thread
ralfn 10y ago
This focus on helmets is ridiculous, because you only have to types of bikes: 1. Death traps 2. Dutch bikes You want less people to die in traffic while riding a bike? Don't make a helmet mandatory. Make the dutch bike mandatory. Your bike needs to be heavy. You need to sit up straight. And if you stretch your legs you have to stand. Whenever i see the images of americans on rice bikes and mountain bikes in NYC, i too think it looks incredibly dangerous. If i would hit a door with a dutch bike, i wouldn't fall, i would just stand still. And the door will likely be a bit broken. It's not about the helmets. Its about the bike design.

gambiting 10y ago

I think those statistics are very very very heavily skewed and should be ignored. If you have a car accident, 99% of the time, it gets recorded. If you have a bike accident, if the police is not involved, where are you going to report it? To whom? Therefore, the only cases that do get reported are collisions with vehicles, or cases severe enough that cyclist gets taken to hospital - and in those cases, the situation is already bad, even if they wore a helmet. My point is - situations where a helmet has saved a life are rarely recorded, so they don't show up in any sort of statistic(even I had an accident where I flew across the handlebars, hit my head directly on the edge of a curb, helmet split in half, and I was fine - yet this wasn't recorded anywhere. It does not exist in any sort of statistic, despite - very clearly - saving my life).

pja 10y ago
Split, or crushed? Helmets absorb the energy of an impact by crushing - it’s a destructive process. It might have protected you from cuts & abrasions, but if it didn’t crush then it didn’t absorb any of the impact.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  The helmet splitting is a result of the crush on impact. This is why you should always replace the helmet after it has been "useful" i.e. suffered an impact. Even if it stays in one piece, it has been crushed and lost some of its protection. I think that the parent comment's statement "situations where a helmet has saved a life are rarely recorded" is a bit of an exaggeration, because quite often, if the helmet saves your head, you still suffer some other injuries. But it is indeed possible that people fall so that they suffer no other injuries, they'd just have cracked their head without the helmet.