5 ms·

Helmets are for those who take livability seriously! I grew up in Melbourne. I've worn bike helmets since I was a kid. They have been compulsory since 1990. It

Helmets are for those who take livability seriously! I grew up in Melbourne. I've worn bike helmets since I was a kid. They have been compulsory since 1990. It's not a big deal. Everyone knows it is just common sense, just like wearing seatbelts in a car. Over the years, I have had bike crashes and hit my head on the road three times. The one time I was seriously injured was in Amsterdam, where no one wears helmets. My front wheel jammed and I fell over the handlebars face-first onto the road. I had to go to hospital for stitches. I was very, very lucky I didn't end up brain-damaged. Helmets reduce serious brain trauma by 50-60%. That's well worth the small inconvenience for me.

CaptainZapp 8y ago
I hated the concept of bike helmets, which are not mandated here. After having had three falls and having been very lucky I totally reversed that sentiment and always wear a helmet now. It may be less freewheeling and comfortable. But I figured that maybe next time I'm less lucky, so it's definitely worth it. I didn't wear a helmet when renting a bike in Japan. But I've seen nobody wear a helmet there.
ghaff 8y ago
I suspect this is one of those things people just won’t agree on. On the one hand there are those who argue it’s common sense safety and a proper matter for laws. On the other there are those arguing it’s wholly unnecessary (look at Amsterdam!) and requiring it will make fewer people cycle especially in the case of bike shares.
- stevesimmons 8y ago
  Having lived in both Melbourne and Amsterdam, the two crucial differences are in the Netherlands: 1) almost all Dutch drivers are also cyclists. They know how bikes behave, how it feels to be a cyclist around cars, and are therefore far more conscientious of bikes 2) in an accident involving a car and a bike, Dutch road laws have a high presumption that the car is at fault. In Amsterdam, I don't worry about a car running me over. In London and Melbourne I do, and so never ride there without a helmet.
madeofpalk 8y ago
I'm Australian so wearing a helmet is second nature to me, but the benefits, especially around mandatory helmet laws, are apparently quite debatable. Importantly, requiring helmets deters many normal people from biking in the first place — in Australia, bike commuting rates plummeted when mandatory helmet laws went into effect While it's obvious that wearing a helmet reduces damage if you're in an accident, there's studies suggesting that wearing a helmet makes you more likely to be in an accident in the first place - car drivers drive more dangerously around helmeted riders, and helmeted riders ride more dangerously. It's all very interested and not as straight forward as I (or maybe you) would have thought. Studies and factions mentioned are from here: 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...
isostatic 8y ago
> Helmets reduce serious brain trauma by 50-60%. When? In what specific situation? He cited evidence from the University of Bath that suggests that wearing a helmet may even put cyclists at greater risk. The research showed that drivers get around 3 inches closer to cyclists who wear helmets because they perceive them as safer. [0] So it sounds like you're more likely to get hit when you wear a helmet, that can't be safe. Why don't cyclists wear a proper fitting motorcycle helmet if helmets are safer? One thing that does correlate -- the more cyclists there are, the fewer accidents per mile. [1] Something else that may be uncomfortable reading, Australian helmet laws reduce levels of cycling [2] (and explain why cycle hire schemes in Melbourne don't work). The scheme, which is costing taxpayers $5.5 million over four years, has been crippled by Melbourne's compulsory helmet laws. Bike share schemes are established in 135 cities around the world, but Melbourne's is the only one operating under such strict laws. [3] If more cyclists is good (and I'd argue it is - as it means fewer drivers, and has the crowd benefit), you need to get rid of these helmet laws - they do more harm than good [4] [0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10866273/Cycle-helmets-are-useless-says-brain-surgeon.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10866273/Cycle-... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/may/07/cycling-safety-york-calderdale https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/may/07/cycling... [2] https://theconversation.com/australian-cycling-boom-nope-its-a-myth-8020 https://theconversation.com/australian-cycling-boom-nope-its... [3] https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/a-new-helmet-to-bring-riders-into-the-fold-20100828-13wxk.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/a-new-helmet-to-... [4] https://theconversation.com/make-helmets-optional-to-double-the-number-of-cyclists-in-australia-4578 https://theconversation.com/make-helmets-optional-to-double-...

CaptainZapp 8y ago

I hated the concept of bike helmets, which are not mandated here. After having had three falls and having been very lucky I totally reversed that sentiment and always wear a helmet now. It may be less freewheeling and comfortable. But I figured that maybe next time I'm less lucky, so it's definitely worth it. I didn't wear a helmet when renting a bike in Japan. But I've seen nobody wear a helmet there.

ghaff 8y ago

I suspect this is one of those things people just won’t agree on. On the one hand there are those who argue it’s common sense safety and a proper matter for laws. On the other there are those arguing it’s wholly unnecessary (look at Amsterdam!) and requiring it will make fewer people cycle especially in the case of bike shares.

stevesimmons 8y ago
Having lived in both Melbourne and Amsterdam, the two crucial differences are in the Netherlands: 1) almost all Dutch drivers are also cyclists. They know how bikes behave, how it feels to be a cyclist around cars, and are therefore far more conscientious of bikes 2) in an accident involving a car and a bike, Dutch road laws have a high presumption that the car is at fault. In Amsterdam, I don't worry about a car running me over. In London and Melbourne I do, and so never ride there without a helmet.

madeofpalk 8y ago

I'm Australian so wearing a helmet is second nature to me, but the benefits, especially around mandatory helmet laws, are apparently quite debatable. Importantly, requiring helmets deters many normal people from biking in the first place — in Australia, bike commuting rates plummeted when mandatory helmet laws went into effect While it's obvious that wearing a helmet reduces damage if you're in an accident, there's studies suggesting that wearing a helmet makes you more likely to be in an accident in the first place - car drivers drive more dangerously around helmeted riders, and helmeted riders ride more dangerously. It's all very interested and not as straight forward as I (or maybe you) would have thought. Studies and factions mentioned are from here: 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...

isostatic 8y ago

> Helmets reduce serious brain trauma by 50-60%. When? In what specific situation? He cited evidence from the University of Bath that suggests that wearing a helmet may even put cyclists at greater risk. The research showed that drivers get around 3 inches closer to cyclists who wear helmets because they perceive them as safer. [0] So it sounds like you're more likely to get hit when you wear a helmet, that can't be safe. Why don't cyclists wear a proper fitting motorcycle helmet if helmets are safer? One thing that does correlate -- the more cyclists there are, the fewer accidents per mile. [1] Something else that may be uncomfortable reading, Australian helmet laws reduce levels of cycling [2] (and explain why cycle hire schemes in Melbourne don't work). The scheme, which is costing taxpayers $5.5 million over four years, has been crippled by Melbourne's compulsory helmet laws. Bike share schemes are established in 135 cities around the world, but Melbourne's is the only one operating under such strict laws. [3] If more cyclists is good (and I'd argue it is - as it means fewer drivers, and has the crowd benefit), you need to get rid of these helmet laws - they do more harm than good [4] [0] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10866273/Cycle-helmets-are-useless-says-brain-surgeon.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10866273/Cycle-... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/may/07/cycling-safety-york-calderdale https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/may/07/cycling... [2] https://theconversation.com/australian-cycling-boom-nope-its-a-myth-8020 https://theconversation.com/australian-cycling-boom-nope-its... [3] https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/a-new-helmet-to-bring-riders-into-the-fold-20100828-13wxk.html https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/a-new-helmet-to-... [4] https://theconversation.com/make-helmets-optional-to-double-the-number-of-cyclists-in-australia-4578 https://theconversation.com/make-helmets-optional-to-double-...