9 ms·

> If you don't wear a helmet, don't worry about it, it doesn't mitigate that much risk. The exercise benefits of biking do way more to increase your life expect

> If you don't wear a helmet, don't worry about it, it doesn't mitigate that much risk. The exercise benefits of biking do way more to increase your life expectancy than skipping a helmet does to reduce it. This is very, very stupid advice.

maw 9y ago
Citation needed. (FWIW, I always use a helmet except when I use shared bikes, which is rare, only a few times a year. I get on one of my own bikes, helmeted, hundreds of times a year.)
- troncjb 9y ago
  I really don't need to cite anything to tell you that if you get in an accident you are better off wearing more protective gear. I don't care that very few cyclists get in bad accidents compared to walkers and joggers. I care that if I am in an accident, my brain doesn't become a smear on the pavement.
  - maw 9y ago
    You're assuming that accidents are equally likely with and without helmets and ignoring OP's point that, on balance, you're better off biking without a helmet than not biking at all. You might actually be right here. I do not know. Either way, don't expect "I really don't need to cite anything" to convince anybody serious.
    - bkor 9y ago
      Don't understand why this has been downvoted. The research behind helmets is exactly why in The Netherlands helmets aren't mandatory. For one, they reduce the amount of people who cycle. Thus they take a car with higher speed, etc. Secondly, wearing a helmet causes cars to be less risk adverse when interacting with you. Lastly, most helmets are utter crap. They tested various and the majority sold in shops are of very poor quality (don't help at all). Strangely, in Denmark most cyclists do wear a helmet. To me it's very inconvenient. E.g. where to store the damn thing when going anywhere?
wbkang 9y ago
I totally agree. "Cyclists without helmets triple their chance of death by head injury" https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/10/15/cyclists_without_helmets_triple_their_chance_of_death_by_head_injury.html https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/10/15/cyclists_without...
- sandover 9y ago
  Look at it in terms of effect on life expectancty. The risk of death from 1 hour of cycling reduces life expectancy by about 24 minutes. Wearing a helmet probably changes this by a couple of minutes. - http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safe... - https://nwurban.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/cyclings-impact-on-life-expectancy/ https://nwurban.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/cyclings-impact-on-... 1 additional hour of sitting and watching TV in the evening, in an already sedentary life, probably has a similar effect on life expectancy. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/get-up-get-out-dont-sit http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/get-up-get-out-dont... The exercise you get from that same session of cycling for 1 hour INCREASES life expectancy from 3-9 hours. - http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2013/03/minutes-exercise-longer-life http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2013/03/minutes-exercise-longer... - WHO study, http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/exercise-lengthens-life-regardless-12-11-06/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/exercise-l...
  - abakker 9y ago
    I'm not sure it is appropriate to think about helmet use as having a bearing on life expectancy. The data on helmet accident avoidance is terrible. i.e. we have no idea what the severity of an accident "would have been" because that kind of data is never reported. Anecdotally, I've needed my helmet many times, but never reported its use to anyone. you could theoretically look at the injury rate for non-helmeted people, but, again, you don't know how representative that rate is of the population. You are assuming that the non-helmeted accident statistics sample is representative of the cycling population. I am not sure that is true.
    - 9y ago
sandover 9y ago
It sounds like you're not informed. https://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720762/stop-forcing-people-to-wear-bike-helmets https://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720762/stop-forcing-people-to...
- troncjb 9y ago
  > Helmet proponents are right about one thing: If you're in a serious accident, then wearing a helmet makes the odds of a head injury significantly lower — by somewhere between 15 and 40 percent. (This is why ER doctors and brain surgeons are so pro-helmet — they've seen firsthand what happens in helmet-less accidents.) So this is why most of us wear a helmet. The logic is not "so few people get in accidents that if I wear a helmet it is likely to be overkill!". The logic is "if I get in an accident I will be very glad I am wearing this." Generally, you prepare for the worst, not hope that you are on (typo) the right side of statistics.
  - sandover 9y ago
    For this reason, I wear a helmet. But the health benefits of cycling vastly swamp the risk of death, so the helmet gain is only a small marginal difference. The person who is truly taking a risk is the person who doesn't ride a bike because of the perception that it's dangerous, and continues to be sedentary and drive a car to work. This person is literally reducing their life expectancy by years. (See links I posted elsewhere in the thread.) You need to be able to think about conditional probability.
    - troncjb 9y ago
      > so the helmet gain is only a small marginal difference This is such, such flawed logic. If you are a cyclist getting hit by a car, the averages and statistics don't matter at all. If you are the cyclist getting hit by a car, the helmet is not a "marginal difference". Your protective gear matters. You need to consider the individual cyclist when you are making sweeping statements about the usage of protective gear.
      - 9y ago
froindt 9y ago
To throw an anecdote in, my brother was riding straight through an intersection on green when a driver turned into him. Witnesses said he flew up around 10 feet, up and over the car, and completely shattered his helmet when he landed. He got out of the hospital after 2 days with 3 broken vertebrae. He likely would have been in for over a week if he hadn't died. That helmet made all the difference. Yeah it's still probably a net increase on your life expectancy to ride without a helmet compared to driving, but most people wear seat belts even though almost every mile driven doesn't result in a crash.
- sandover 9y ago
  I wear a helmet too! But it doesn't change the truth of the sentence: "The exercise benefits of biking do way more to increase your life expectancy than skipping a helmet does to reduce it."
  - s73v3r_ 9y ago
    But that sentence doesn't make any sense! There is precisely ZERO reason to skip the helmet!
    - inopinatus 9y ago
      That assertion is incorrect. There are reasons. Reasons that you and I might find vain or foolhardy, but reasons nevertheless.
      - s73v3r_ 9y ago
        Maybe in the sense that there are reasons to shoot yourself in the dick, but I don't think anyone would take those as being a reasonable argument.
        inopinatus 9y ago
        If that comparison was apt, we wouldn't see so many people out riding sans protection. But we do, and it's because they have a share bike that didn't come with a helmet, or they were worried about messing up their hair, or they lost their helmet, or they left it at the destination, or they're a rebellious teenager who just doesn't care, or no-one educated them about the risks, or they just forgot to put it on. A better comparison would be to flossing your teeth, or wearing sunscreen: everyone should do it, but not everyone will do it.
pboutros 9y ago
Such a bummer -- the rest of the post was so good. It's really easy to say "I've never had an accident" and "don't worry about not wearing a helmet".
outside1234 9y ago
this is like saying you can keep drinking whiskey after quiting smoking because your life expectancy is greatly increased. these things are additive, not either/ors.
imperialdrive 9y ago
I've biked heavily for 30 years... advising people to wear a helmet never works. What works 99% of the time is the first freak crash. Not a crash where they felt like they were speeding, or not paying attention, or drunk... then they think it was avoidable. It takes a crash where you hit a rare little crack in the road, or a bump hidden in the shadows, or a car doing a u-turn out of the blue... then it 'clicks' Or, in my case, you witness someone take a minor fall and tap their skull on a curb and seizure and not be quite the same from that point on. If you're reading this and don't wear a helmet, you should consider experimenting with mind altering drugs as well, may as well enjoy the moment.
- 3pt14159 9y ago
  Take everything you just said and apply it not to a bicycle helmet but to a full face motorcycle helmet. Now do you see how you sound? Bike helmets marginally help, but the same marginal difference is found going from bicycle helmets to full face motorcycle ones. I’ve broken my face in 4 places in a bike accident where the only thing that would have helped would have been a motorcycle helmet, but I don’t go around town wearing one or telling other people to. I like the air in my hair and I’m ok with the additional risk that not wearing any helmet carries. I’m careful in otherways but I’m an adult making an informed choice about the relative risk.
  - imperialdrive 9y ago
    Shoot, now I'm getting paranoid... I've talked to a handful of people in full helmet gear and it's a similar painful story... definitely thought about the face/chin-plant scenario. I prefer the full peripheral vision but I'd be singing a different tune if I lost teeth or broke a facial bone... sorry to hear about your accident.
  - darly 9y ago
    You don't actually need a full face motorcycle helmet, that's overkill for cycling speeds (and uncomfortable with exertion). I regularly commute to work by bike and after a bad fall where I almost landed on my face, I decided to upgrade from a normal helmet to a full face bicycle helmet. You can get a decent one for ~$150 and it'll give you some protection even if you fall flat on your face. Highly recommend as a normal helmet doesn't do much for your face and a lot of falls could result in facial damage.
vbernat 9y ago
Most people here seems to miss the point. If you tell people to wear an helmet to cycle, they won't cycle.
oppositelock 9y ago
The assumption is that wearing a helmet somehow reduces the odds of exercise. Just keep your helmet with your bike, and you'll never forget it. I've been cycling to work for years, which which has varied from 10 miles one way, to 1 mile. I always wear my helmet, and in all these years an many thousands of bike miles, it only been "useful" once. A drainage grate was covered over with leaves, I didn't see it, my front wheel fell in, fork snapped off, and I flew over the handlebars, headfirst into the curb. My helmet split in two and I had a massive head bruise, but had I not been wearing it, I'd be dead.
- sandover 9y ago
  > wearing a helmet somehow reduces the odds of exercise Helmet paranoia DOES reduce the odds of exercise. On a group level, at the level of public health, that's PRECISELY what it does. I encourage you to read about it, that's why they call it the helmet paradox. This piece is a nice summary. http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets Bike helmets protect our heads, but they also do the following: 1. increase your chances of getting in an accident 2. discourage cycling Here's what to do: 1. If you want to be healthy, ride a bike instead of driving. 2. If you want to be even healthier, consider maybe putting on a helmet, but be mindful it doesn't increase your risk-taking behavior. I choose option 2, but option 1 is also great.
mcsb1 9y ago
Actually not wearing a helmet is very clever advice. In the Netherlands almost nobody wears a helmet and yet it is one of the safest places to cycle. In fact we all tend to overcompensate safety with more risky behaviour. A car is basically a 1.5t full body steel armor. And then we go and drive at speeds far beyond of what this armor can protect us from. If you'd remove the body work and make it a buggy, people would drive a lot slower. Personal anecdote: I bought a helmet a few years ago. While it was still in delivery I came into a situation where I was not sure what a car was doing and I caught myself thinking: "with a helmet I'd not braked" - but rather taken the risk. Thus I have never worn it and it is sitting there collecting dust. Another abstract example: no country is more obsessed with "low carb" and "low fat" than the US. Yet no other country produces more plus sized people than the US. Yet another example is Michael Schumacher. Without the helmet he may not have taken the risk to go into unknown terrain. I feel vulnerable without a helmet and that keeps me alive.
s0rce 9y ago
This is heavily disputed. I suggest you read both sides of the argument and say something constructive.
u801e 9y ago
I think it's better to concentrate on educating riders on bike handling skills and skills they need when riding in traffic rather than concentrate on helmet use to the exclusion of all else.

maw 9y ago

Citation needed. (FWIW, I always use a helmet except when I use shared bikes, which is rare, only a few times a year. I get on one of my own bikes, helmeted, hundreds of times a year.)

troncjb 9y ago
I really don't need to cite anything to tell you that if you get in an accident you are better off wearing more protective gear. I don't care that very few cyclists get in bad accidents compared to walkers and joggers. I care that if I am in an accident, my brain doesn't become a smear on the pavement.
- maw 9y ago
  You're assuming that accidents are equally likely with and without helmets and ignoring OP's point that, on balance, you're better off biking without a helmet than not biking at all. You might actually be right here. I do not know. Either way, don't expect "I really don't need to cite anything" to convince anybody serious.
  - bkor 9y ago
    Don't understand why this has been downvoted. The research behind helmets is exactly why in The Netherlands helmets aren't mandatory. For one, they reduce the amount of people who cycle. Thus they take a car with higher speed, etc. Secondly, wearing a helmet causes cars to be less risk adverse when interacting with you. Lastly, most helmets are utter crap. They tested various and the majority sold in shops are of very poor quality (don't help at all). Strangely, in Denmark most cyclists do wear a helmet. To me it's very inconvenient. E.g. where to store the damn thing when going anywhere?

wbkang 9y ago

I totally agree. "Cyclists without helmets triple their chance of death by head injury" https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/10/15/cyclists_without_helmets_triple_their_chance_of_death_by_head_injury.html https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/10/15/cyclists_without...

sandover 9y ago
Look at it in terms of effect on life expectancty. The risk of death from 1 hour of cycling reduces life expectancy by about 24 minutes. Wearing a helmet probably changes this by a couple of minutes. - http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safest-form-of-transportation/ http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/13/bicycling-the-safe... - https://nwurban.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/cyclings-impact-on-life-expectancy/ https://nwurban.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/cyclings-impact-on-... 1 additional hour of sitting and watching TV in the evening, in an already sedentary life, probably has a similar effect on life expectancy. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/get-up-get-out-dont-sit http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/get-up-get-out-dont... The exercise you get from that same session of cycling for 1 hour INCREASES life expectancy from 3-9 hours. - http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2013/03/minutes-exercise-longer-life http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2013/03/minutes-exercise-longer... - WHO study, http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/exercise-lengthens-life-regardless-12-11-06/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/exercise-l...
- abakker 9y ago
  I'm not sure it is appropriate to think about helmet use as having a bearing on life expectancy. The data on helmet accident avoidance is terrible. i.e. we have no idea what the severity of an accident "would have been" because that kind of data is never reported. Anecdotally, I've needed my helmet many times, but never reported its use to anyone. you could theoretically look at the injury rate for non-helmeted people, but, again, you don't know how representative that rate is of the population. You are assuming that the non-helmeted accident statistics sample is representative of the cycling population. I am not sure that is true.
  - 9y ago

sandover 9y ago

It sounds like you're not informed. https://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720762/stop-forcing-people-to-wear-bike-helmets https://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720762/stop-forcing-people-to...

troncjb 9y ago
> Helmet proponents are right about one thing: If you're in a serious accident, then wearing a helmet makes the odds of a head injury significantly lower — by somewhere between 15 and 40 percent. (This is why ER doctors and brain surgeons are so pro-helmet — they've seen firsthand what happens in helmet-less accidents.) So this is why most of us wear a helmet. The logic is not "so few people get in accidents that if I wear a helmet it is likely to be overkill!". The logic is "if I get in an accident I will be very glad I am wearing this." Generally, you prepare for the worst, not hope that you are on (typo) the right side of statistics.
- sandover 9y ago
  For this reason, I wear a helmet. But the health benefits of cycling vastly swamp the risk of death, so the helmet gain is only a small marginal difference. The person who is truly taking a risk is the person who doesn't ride a bike because of the perception that it's dangerous, and continues to be sedentary and drive a car to work. This person is literally reducing their life expectancy by years. (See links I posted elsewhere in the thread.) You need to be able to think about conditional probability.
  - troncjb 9y ago
    > so the helmet gain is only a small marginal difference This is such, such flawed logic. If you are a cyclist getting hit by a car, the averages and statistics don't matter at all. If you are the cyclist getting hit by a car, the helmet is not a "marginal difference". Your protective gear matters. You need to consider the individual cyclist when you are making sweeping statements about the usage of protective gear.
    - 9y ago

froindt 9y ago

To throw an anecdote in, my brother was riding straight through an intersection on green when a driver turned into him. Witnesses said he flew up around 10 feet, up and over the car, and completely shattered his helmet when he landed. He got out of the hospital after 2 days with 3 broken vertebrae. He likely would have been in for over a week if he hadn't died. That helmet made all the difference. Yeah it's still probably a net increase on your life expectancy to ride without a helmet compared to driving, but most people wear seat belts even though almost every mile driven doesn't result in a crash.

sandover 9y ago
I wear a helmet too! But it doesn't change the truth of the sentence: "The exercise benefits of biking do way more to increase your life expectancy than skipping a helmet does to reduce it."
- s73v3r_ 9y ago
  But that sentence doesn't make any sense! There is precisely ZERO reason to skip the helmet!
  - inopinatus 9y ago
    That assertion is incorrect. There are reasons. Reasons that you and I might find vain or foolhardy, but reasons nevertheless.
    - s73v3r_ 9y ago
      Maybe in the sense that there are reasons to shoot yourself in the dick, but I don't think anyone would take those as being a reasonable argument.
      - inopinatus 9y ago
        If that comparison was apt, we wouldn't see so many people out riding sans protection. But we do, and it's because they have a share bike that didn't come with a helmet, or they were worried about messing up their hair, or they lost their helmet, or they left it at the destination, or they're a rebellious teenager who just doesn't care, or no-one educated them about the risks, or they just forgot to put it on. A better comparison would be to flossing your teeth, or wearing sunscreen: everyone should do it, but not everyone will do it.

pboutros 9y ago

Such a bummer -- the rest of the post was so good. It's really easy to say "I've never had an accident" and "don't worry about not wearing a helmet".

outside1234 9y ago

this is like saying you can keep drinking whiskey after quiting smoking because your life expectancy is greatly increased. these things are additive, not either/ors.

imperialdrive 9y ago

I've biked heavily for 30 years... advising people to wear a helmet never works. What works 99% of the time is the first freak crash. Not a crash where they felt like they were speeding, or not paying attention, or drunk... then they think it was avoidable. It takes a crash where you hit a rare little crack in the road, or a bump hidden in the shadows, or a car doing a u-turn out of the blue... then it 'clicks' Or, in my case, you witness someone take a minor fall and tap their skull on a curb and seizure and not be quite the same from that point on. If you're reading this and don't wear a helmet, you should consider experimenting with mind altering drugs as well, may as well enjoy the moment.

3pt14159 9y ago
Take everything you just said and apply it not to a bicycle helmet but to a full face motorcycle helmet. Now do you see how you sound? Bike helmets marginally help, but the same marginal difference is found going from bicycle helmets to full face motorcycle ones. I’ve broken my face in 4 places in a bike accident where the only thing that would have helped would have been a motorcycle helmet, but I don’t go around town wearing one or telling other people to. I like the air in my hair and I’m ok with the additional risk that not wearing any helmet carries. I’m careful in otherways but I’m an adult making an informed choice about the relative risk.
- imperialdrive 9y ago
  Shoot, now I'm getting paranoid... I've talked to a handful of people in full helmet gear and it's a similar painful story... definitely thought about the face/chin-plant scenario. I prefer the full peripheral vision but I'd be singing a different tune if I lost teeth or broke a facial bone... sorry to hear about your accident.
- darly 9y ago
  You don't actually need a full face motorcycle helmet, that's overkill for cycling speeds (and uncomfortable with exertion). I regularly commute to work by bike and after a bad fall where I almost landed on my face, I decided to upgrade from a normal helmet to a full face bicycle helmet. You can get a decent one for ~$150 and it'll give you some protection even if you fall flat on your face. Highly recommend as a normal helmet doesn't do much for your face and a lot of falls could result in facial damage.

vbernat 9y ago

Most people here seems to miss the point. If you tell people to wear an helmet to cycle, they won't cycle.

oppositelock 9y ago

The assumption is that wearing a helmet somehow reduces the odds of exercise. Just keep your helmet with your bike, and you'll never forget it. I've been cycling to work for years, which which has varied from 10 miles one way, to 1 mile. I always wear my helmet, and in all these years an many thousands of bike miles, it only been "useful" once. A drainage grate was covered over with leaves, I didn't see it, my front wheel fell in, fork snapped off, and I flew over the handlebars, headfirst into the curb. My helmet split in two and I had a massive head bruise, but had I not been wearing it, I'd be dead.

sandover 9y ago
> wearing a helmet somehow reduces the odds of exercise Helmet paranoia DOES reduce the odds of exercise. On a group level, at the level of public health, that's PRECISELY what it does. I encourage you to read about it, that's why they call it the helmet paradox. This piece is a nice summary. http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets Bike helmets protect our heads, but they also do the following: 1. increase your chances of getting in an accident 2. discourage cycling Here's what to do: 1. If you want to be healthy, ride a bike instead of driving. 2. If you want to be even healthier, consider maybe putting on a helmet, but be mindful it doesn't increase your risk-taking behavior. I choose option 2, but option 1 is also great.

mcsb1 9y ago

Actually not wearing a helmet is very clever advice. In the Netherlands almost nobody wears a helmet and yet it is one of the safest places to cycle. In fact we all tend to overcompensate safety with more risky behaviour. A car is basically a 1.5t full body steel armor. And then we go and drive at speeds far beyond of what this armor can protect us from. If you'd remove the body work and make it a buggy, people would drive a lot slower. Personal anecdote: I bought a helmet a few years ago. While it was still in delivery I came into a situation where I was not sure what a car was doing and I caught myself thinking: "with a helmet I'd not braked" - but rather taken the risk. Thus I have never worn it and it is sitting there collecting dust. Another abstract example: no country is more obsessed with "low carb" and "low fat" than the US. Yet no other country produces more plus sized people than the US. Yet another example is Michael Schumacher. Without the helmet he may not have taken the risk to go into unknown terrain. I feel vulnerable without a helmet and that keeps me alive.

s0rce 9y ago

This is heavily disputed. I suggest you read both sides of the argument and say something constructive.

u801e 9y ago

I think it's better to concentrate on educating riders on bike handling skills and skills they need when riding in traffic rather than concentrate on helmet use to the exclusion of all else.