6 ms·

Helmets actually have two effects that increase fatalities: 1) Psychological: motorists give less safety margin to helmeted cyclists. 2) Cyclist reduction: lo

by xiaoma 9y ago

Helmets actually have two effects that increase fatalities: 1) Psychological: motorists give less safety margin to helmeted cyclists. 2) Cyclist reduction: locales which require helmets have sharply fewer cyclists on the road, which is is strongly correlated with less empathy from drivers and more cyclist fatalities. Helmet laws are one of the worst possible ideas if you want cycling to be safe.

xupybd 9y ago
I live in NZ we've had helmet laws for a long time. As a teen I had a bad crash. I felt the thud as my helmet hit the concrete then the grind as it slid across the rough road surface. If I'd not been wearing that helmet it would have been my skull left to deal with that initial thud and my face to deal with the friction while sliding along the road. I was pretty banged up but not as badly as I could have been. I was a teen no way I'd have worn a helmet if I wasn't required too.
- xiaoma 9y ago
  It's a situation where what's best for one person isn't always the same as what's good for everyone. If they weren't required, there would have been more cyclists, possibly a better separated lane for you and the driver (assuming one was involved) would have been more used to and aware of the importance of sharing the road with those like you. If you're planning on mountain biking or doing certain commutes, it absolutely makes sense to wear a helmet and yet, that doesn't mean that helmet laws are good for the safety of the populace as a whole (and this isn't even getting into 3rd order effects like heart disease in the sedentary, pollution related diseases, etc).
  - xupybd 9y ago
    Agreed. No car was involved, I hit another cyclist. I've added one data point to the discussion, that's about it. But mandating helmets aside, I'd highly recommend wearing one.
falcolas 9y ago
I don't understand this stance, personally. Folks who post on Hacker News rely on their mind almost exclusively for their income. And yet, when bicycling comes up, there are always advocates for doing away with helmets and for attempting to up the penalties for cars. Few, if any, appear to realize that cars are always going to have the "right of weight" on the road. If you want to tighten up the laws for car drivers, that's fine - but it's still going to be the bicyclist who suffers the most in such an accident. Penalties won't help them when they are dead, a vegetable, or otherwise critically injured. Penalties won't stop a hit from the head from damaging the brain. Penalties won't stop cars from hitting bikers. Look at the drunk driving penalties in the US. They are some of the harshest driving related penalties on our books; yet some people still drive drunk (and that's not counting those who drive (or ride) at a few percentage points below the legal limits). And here's where I start getting into preachy territory: it's ultimately up to the biker to keep themselves alive; car drivers aren't going to magically become perfect drivers, and accidents will still happen. If you want to ride a bicycle on the same road as cars which weigh thousands of pounds that can move at speeds more than double your own, the only thing that will ultimately keep you alive is you.
- nunez 9y ago
  Amen!
adambard 9y ago
There are strong arguments for either case, but I think it comes down to this: Helmet laws make intuitive sense in situations/jurisdictions where cyclists and cars share the road directly -- i.e., places without dedicated infrastructure to separate the two. Cyclists riding on roads with cars (even with painted bike lanes, but especially without them) are presumably at much greater risk of experiencing a fatal conflict, although statistics about this are less available than one would hope. Cyclists on dedicated cycle paths are at scarcely greater risk than pedestrians, who would probably object to being made to wear a helmet. Given the above, I would support a compromise law that mandated helmet use on public (car) roads, but not in residential areas or dedicated bike paths.

by xiaoma 9y ago

xupybd 9y ago

I live in NZ we've had helmet laws for a long time. As a teen I had a bad crash. I felt the thud as my helmet hit the concrete then the grind as it slid across the rough road surface. If I'd not been wearing that helmet it would have been my skull left to deal with that initial thud and my face to deal with the friction while sliding along the road. I was pretty banged up but not as badly as I could have been. I was a teen no way I'd have worn a helmet if I wasn't required too.

xiaoma 9y ago
It's a situation where what's best for one person isn't always the same as what's good for everyone. If they weren't required, there would have been more cyclists, possibly a better separated lane for you and the driver (assuming one was involved) would have been more used to and aware of the importance of sharing the road with those like you. If you're planning on mountain biking or doing certain commutes, it absolutely makes sense to wear a helmet and yet, that doesn't mean that helmet laws are good for the safety of the populace as a whole (and this isn't even getting into 3rd order effects like heart disease in the sedentary, pollution related diseases, etc).
- xupybd 9y ago
  Agreed. No car was involved, I hit another cyclist. I've added one data point to the discussion, that's about it. But mandating helmets aside, I'd highly recommend wearing one.

falcolas 9y ago

I don't understand this stance, personally. Folks who post on Hacker News rely on their mind almost exclusively for their income. And yet, when bicycling comes up, there are always advocates for doing away with helmets and for attempting to up the penalties for cars. Few, if any, appear to realize that cars are always going to have the "right of weight" on the road. If you want to tighten up the laws for car drivers, that's fine - but it's still going to be the bicyclist who suffers the most in such an accident. Penalties won't help them when they are dead, a vegetable, or otherwise critically injured. Penalties won't stop a hit from the head from damaging the brain. Penalties won't stop cars from hitting bikers. Look at the drunk driving penalties in the US. They are some of the harshest driving related penalties on our books; yet some people still drive drunk (and that's not counting those who drive (or ride) at a few percentage points below the legal limits). And here's where I start getting into preachy territory: it's ultimately up to the biker to keep themselves alive; car drivers aren't going to magically become perfect drivers, and accidents will still happen. If you want to ride a bicycle on the same road as cars which weigh thousands of pounds that can move at speeds more than double your own, the only thing that will ultimately keep you alive is you.

nunez 9y ago
Amen!

adambard 9y ago

There are strong arguments for either case, but I think it comes down to this: Helmet laws make intuitive sense in situations/jurisdictions where cyclists and cars share the road directly -- i.e., places without dedicated infrastructure to separate the two. Cyclists riding on roads with cars (even with painted bike lanes, but especially without them) are presumably at much greater risk of experiencing a fatal conflict, although statistics about this are less available than one would hope. Cyclists on dedicated cycle paths are at scarcely greater risk than pedestrians, who would probably object to being made to wear a helmet. Given the above, I would support a compromise law that mandated helmet use on public (car) roads, but not in residential areas or dedicated bike paths.