3 ms·

Yes, you should absolutely wear a helmet when riding a bicycle at low speeds. Your skull is vulnerable to impacts at speeds that are relatively low compared to

Yes, you should absolutely wear a helmet when riding a bicycle at low speeds. Your skull is vulnerable to impacts at speeds that are relatively low compared to full-speed cycling. On a few occasions I've witnessed a cyclist panic and wobble after being passed far too closely by a car traveling far too fast for such a manoeuvre. This has caused such cyclists to wobble, inadvertently clip the curb and mount the pavement, fall off sideways and subsequently strike their head on a nearby wall whilst falling. The resulting injury can be very harmful. Another example of slow-speed head injury: off-road biking down a very steep incline with a loose surface. I've seen people fall and tumble at almost stationary speeds.

tajen 10y ago
Yours are anecdotal evidence of an extremely low risk. There are some bike accidents, which are already rare; Very few involve the head; and even fewer would be saved by a helmet. Whereas, requiring a helmet is a sufficient disincentive to biking that studies have shown that it increases the number of deaths in countries that made it mandatory, by making people drive instead and later die from cardiac diseases and obesity. So yes you should wear a helmet while biking, but we should not make it mandatory. In other counter-intuitive statistics about biking, passing at the red light is good for you.
- lorenzhs 10y ago
  Please don't turn this into yet another debate on whether making helmet use mandatory is a good idea.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  "Thinking is pointless, just like motorcycle helmets!" "Rafi, how many of your friends have died in motorcycle accidents?" "Pfft, nine. Buy NONE of them were from head trauma, they all died from massive spinal trauma." Be honest... are you just playing the reference game, or do I need to be really worried?
ghshephard 10y ago
To be clear - any cyclist crazy enough to ride a bicycle on the same road as cars definitely needs all the protection they can get, I think that goes without saying. But now you've moved from the "extraordinary low risk of accident" that comes from cycling to the "Probably one of the most dangerous things I can do" risk factor. And, pretty much 100% of the time I go snowboarding, I wear a helmet. What I'm trying to surface (apparently poorly) is that life, to some degree, is about managing risks. And we often respond carte blanche scenarios with exactly the same response, regardless of whether it's proportionally required. Cycling - on road, moving fast, around anything else moving fast, at all treacherous conditions - sure, yes wear a helmet. But, casual cycling on a nice day, protected path - probably not required. Another area of proportional risk response - portable devices on planes. At one time, end of the world if you had one on during takeout (seriously, other passengers would freak out if they thought yours was on) - and then, all of a sudden - every airport/airline in the United States lets you read your kindle, play games on your phone. People realized their responses were not proportionate to the risk.
- jabl 10y ago
  Huh? Over here at least, people (me included) cycle on the same road as cars all the time. Not freeways, of course, but normal city roads with a speed limit of up to 50 km/h. It's actually illegal to cycle on the sidewalk unless there's an explicit traffic sign allowing bicycles.
  - baq 10y ago
    Netherlands doesn't count, it's a place where cars respect bikes and vice versa. Try riding a bicycle in a country where there's hostility between the two.
  - ghshephard 10y ago
    You could not pay me to rid a bicycle on the road here in Singapore. Or in many places in Northern California. I can't tell you about Dubai, because I've never seen a cyclist on the road there. My "Risk Mitigation" strategy in these scenarios is to say, "No, Hell No." Regarding the law - it's illegal in Redwood City to ride on the sidewalk, but almost 100% of "Utility" cyclists (that is, people taking short trips who aren't decked out in "cyclist" gear) almost always ride on the sidewalk; and the police certainly did not make it a priority to ticket them - and given the density of police cars in Redwood City, any given cyclist traveling a few kilometers was likely to be seen by one, if not more police officers.

tajen 10y ago

Yours are anecdotal evidence of an extremely low risk. There are some bike accidents, which are already rare; Very few involve the head; and even fewer would be saved by a helmet. Whereas, requiring a helmet is a sufficient disincentive to biking that studies have shown that it increases the number of deaths in countries that made it mandatory, by making people drive instead and later die from cardiac diseases and obesity. So yes you should wear a helmet while biking, but we should not make it mandatory. In other counter-intuitive statistics about biking, passing at the red light is good for you.

lorenzhs 10y ago
Please don't turn this into yet another debate on whether making helmet use mandatory is a good idea.
M_Grey 10y ago
"Thinking is pointless, just like motorcycle helmets!" "Rafi, how many of your friends have died in motorcycle accidents?" "Pfft, nine. Buy NONE of them were from head trauma, they all died from massive spinal trauma." Be honest... are you just playing the reference game, or do I need to be really worried?

ghshephard 10y ago

To be clear - any cyclist crazy enough to ride a bicycle on the same road as cars definitely needs all the protection they can get, I think that goes without saying. But now you've moved from the "extraordinary low risk of accident" that comes from cycling to the "Probably one of the most dangerous things I can do" risk factor. And, pretty much 100% of the time I go snowboarding, I wear a helmet. What I'm trying to surface (apparently poorly) is that life, to some degree, is about managing risks. And we often respond carte blanche scenarios with exactly the same response, regardless of whether it's proportionally required. Cycling - on road, moving fast, around anything else moving fast, at all treacherous conditions - sure, yes wear a helmet. But, casual cycling on a nice day, protected path - probably not required. Another area of proportional risk response - portable devices on planes. At one time, end of the world if you had one on during takeout (seriously, other passengers would freak out if they thought yours was on) - and then, all of a sudden - every airport/airline in the United States lets you read your kindle, play games on your phone. People realized their responses were not proportionate to the risk.

jabl 10y ago
Huh? Over here at least, people (me included) cycle on the same road as cars all the time. Not freeways, of course, but normal city roads with a speed limit of up to 50 km/h. It's actually illegal to cycle on the sidewalk unless there's an explicit traffic sign allowing bicycles.
- baq 10y ago
  Netherlands doesn't count, it's a place where cars respect bikes and vice versa. Try riding a bicycle in a country where there's hostility between the two.
- ghshephard 10y ago
  You could not pay me to rid a bicycle on the road here in Singapore. Or in many places in Northern California. I can't tell you about Dubai, because I've never seen a cyclist on the road there. My "Risk Mitigation" strategy in these scenarios is to say, "No, Hell No." Regarding the law - it's illegal in Redwood City to ride on the sidewalk, but almost 100% of "Utility" cyclists (that is, people taking short trips who aren't decked out in "cyclist" gear) almost always ride on the sidewalk; and the police certainly did not make it a priority to ticket them - and given the density of police cars in Redwood City, any given cyclist traveling a few kilometers was likely to be seen by one, if not more police officers.