3 ms·

Cars are not the only reason to wear helmets. Simply falls are enough of a reason: you're not a pedestrian when you're on a bike, and you're susceptible to inj

by magduf 7y ago

Cars are not the only reason to wear helmets. Simply falls are enough of a reason: you're not a pedestrian when you're on a bike, and you're susceptible to injuries that pedestrians simply are not, even if the bike is not moving. Standing/sitting on a mechanical contraption simply is not normal for the human body, and it's very easy to get your leg trapped in a way that you break it, or your ankle, or hit your head on a curb or the pavement. Don't forget, the roads that we cycle on are also not natural in any way, and our bodies were not evolved for them. Concrete and asphalt are hard, not like dirt, and hitting your head on it can cause severe injury or death, again even if the bike is not moving. Do people fall over on bikes? Not that often, but probably a lot more often than pedestrians do, and because of the bike getting in the way, you're more likely to hit your head on something.

ogre_codes 7y ago
You are not debating the same thing. Nobody is suggesting that riding without a helmet is as safe as riding without. The lack of helmet laws makes me safer on my bike regardless of whether I wear a helmet or not because it means fewer people are driving cars. Cars are far more likely to injure/ kill me than a solo crash, adding barriers to getting people to adopt bikes makes cycling more dangerous. The more people on bikes, the more cars expect people on bikes, better bike infrastructure, and it makes people in cars more alert to the presence of cyclists. We have a fairly popular bike-share program here. People can poke a few buttons on their phone and get access to a bike instantly. With a helmet law, that's not the case, they have to be prepared in advance. The presence and popularity of that bike share makes me safer. Removing several hundred motorists from the road every day in our city has a far bigger impact on cyclist safety than the presence/ absence of a helmet.
- magduf 7y ago
  I'm not advocating for mandatory helmet laws in that post, I'm just pointing out why you should wear a helmet on a bike, regardless of any laws. You, personally, will be safer with a helmet; it's a simple fact of physics. Sure, fewer cars means it's safer for cyclists, but you keep focusing on cars and ignoring other dangers with cycling: other cyclists, pedestrians, slippery/uneven roads, or just plain mistakes by the rider, all of which can result in a fall where your head contacts the ground.
  - kevstev 7y ago
    Do you also wear boots, an armored jacket and pants? Gloves? I bike to work every day, and spent a good part of my childhood on a bike- mountain biking on trails in the woods. I have had countless banged up knees, elbows, ankles and hands, but never had a head injury. I used to ride a motorcycle, and wore the full getup aside from pants, and I feel cyclists would be far more protected wearing a jacket and gloves. Anecdotes aside- figures from the UK (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119262/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119262/) show that it takes 8000 years of cycling to produce a clinically severe head injury and 22000 years for one death. From that same source, roughly 1% of all head injuries admitted into hospitals are from cycling, and 60% are alcohol related. Yet people would find it ridiculous if you suggested they wear a drinking helmet. The fixation on helmets really confuses me. Its not helped that a lot of it seems to be pushed by people who seem to use it as some kind of virtue-signaling issue. There is just such a focus on a fairly burdensome piece of equipment that in a small percentage of rides in which an incident occurs, and in a small percentage of those incidents, this piece of equipment may help reduce the severity of your injuries, while all other equipment is left out of the conversation.
    - emanuensis 7y ago
      +1 gloves
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      > From that same source, roughly 1% of all head injuries admitted into hospitals are from cycling, and 60% are alcohol related. Yet people would find it ridiculous if you suggested they wear a drinking helmet. That is a hilarious and wonderful comparison. I'm gonna save that one for future discussion of helmets and safety.
    - magduf 7y ago
      >From that same source, roughly 1% of all head injuries admitted into hospitals are from cycling, and 60% are alcohol related. This stat means absolutely nothing. It's coming from a place where not that many people cycle, the summary even says that cycling experienced a decline, so of course there's not going to be that many injuries from cycling when very few people are doing it. By contrast, British people drink a LOT, so of course they're going to have a lot of alcohol-related injuries. It's just like America: there's very little cycling, and a LOT of drinking and drunkenness, so it doesn't take any great intelligence to predict that there will be far more alcohol-related injuries than cycling-related ones. And yes, maybe people there should wear drinking helmets, with the way people in those two countries love to get drunk so much. >There is just such a focus on a fairly burdensome piece of equipment "Burdensome"? Are you kidding me? Something that weighs a few ounces? I guess you think seatbelts are "burdensome" too. And yes, I do wear gloves when cycling; they have pads to absorb vibration, and can be helpful if I fall and scrape my hands. They're far more "burdensome" than a helmet, since they take more time to put on (which still isn't very much).

by magduf 7y ago

ogre_codes 7y ago

You are not debating the same thing. Nobody is suggesting that riding without a helmet is as safe as riding without. The lack of helmet laws makes me safer on my bike regardless of whether I wear a helmet or not because it means fewer people are driving cars. Cars are far more likely to injure/ kill me than a solo crash, adding barriers to getting people to adopt bikes makes cycling more dangerous. The more people on bikes, the more cars expect people on bikes, better bike infrastructure, and it makes people in cars more alert to the presence of cyclists. We have a fairly popular bike-share program here. People can poke a few buttons on their phone and get access to a bike instantly. With a helmet law, that's not the case, they have to be prepared in advance. The presence and popularity of that bike share makes me safer. Removing several hundred motorists from the road every day in our city has a far bigger impact on cyclist safety than the presence/ absence of a helmet.

magduf 7y ago
I'm not advocating for mandatory helmet laws in that post, I'm just pointing out why you should wear a helmet on a bike, regardless of any laws. You, personally, will be safer with a helmet; it's a simple fact of physics. Sure, fewer cars means it's safer for cyclists, but you keep focusing on cars and ignoring other dangers with cycling: other cyclists, pedestrians, slippery/uneven roads, or just plain mistakes by the rider, all of which can result in a fall where your head contacts the ground.
- kevstev 7y ago
  Do you also wear boots, an armored jacket and pants? Gloves? I bike to work every day, and spent a good part of my childhood on a bike- mountain biking on trails in the woods. I have had countless banged up knees, elbows, ankles and hands, but never had a head injury. I used to ride a motorcycle, and wore the full getup aside from pants, and I feel cyclists would be far more protected wearing a jacket and gloves. Anecdotes aside- figures from the UK (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119262/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119262/) show that it takes 8000 years of cycling to produce a clinically severe head injury and 22000 years for one death. From that same source, roughly 1% of all head injuries admitted into hospitals are from cycling, and 60% are alcohol related. Yet people would find it ridiculous if you suggested they wear a drinking helmet. The fixation on helmets really confuses me. Its not helped that a lot of it seems to be pushed by people who seem to use it as some kind of virtue-signaling issue. There is just such a focus on a fairly burdensome piece of equipment that in a small percentage of rides in which an incident occurs, and in a small percentage of those incidents, this piece of equipment may help reduce the severity of your injuries, while all other equipment is left out of the conversation.
  - emanuensis 7y ago
    +1 gloves
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    > From that same source, roughly 1% of all head injuries admitted into hospitals are from cycling, and 60% are alcohol related. Yet people would find it ridiculous if you suggested they wear a drinking helmet. That is a hilarious and wonderful comparison. I'm gonna save that one for future discussion of helmets and safety.
  - magduf 7y ago
    >From that same source, roughly 1% of all head injuries admitted into hospitals are from cycling, and 60% are alcohol related. This stat means absolutely nothing. It's coming from a place where not that many people cycle, the summary even says that cycling experienced a decline, so of course there's not going to be that many injuries from cycling when very few people are doing it. By contrast, British people drink a LOT, so of course they're going to have a lot of alcohol-related injuries. It's just like America: there's very little cycling, and a LOT of drinking and drunkenness, so it doesn't take any great intelligence to predict that there will be far more alcohol-related injuries than cycling-related ones. And yes, maybe people there should wear drinking helmets, with the way people in those two countries love to get drunk so much. >There is just such a focus on a fairly burdensome piece of equipment "Burdensome"? Are you kidding me? Something that weighs a few ounces? I guess you think seatbelts are "burdensome" too. And yes, I do wear gloves when cycling; they have pads to absorb vibration, and can be helpful if I fall and scrape my hands. They're far more "burdensome" than a helmet, since they take more time to put on (which still isn't very much).