5 ms·

> If my bike ride is just 5 minutes why bother wearing a helmet? It reads much easier like this.

by numlock86 6y ago

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
To be pedantic, bike helmets are uncommon in bike safe countries like mine / NL.
- buran77 6y ago
  Cycling fatalities still make up a third of total traffic fatalities in the Netherlands. And almost 70% of those several hundreds who die in cycling accidents are over 65, people who are much more likely to lose their balance and are more sensitive to an impact, meaning a bit of protection would have gone a long way. That's just fatalities, think of all the non-fatal accidents, and how may of the 6000 people hospitalized each year just for unilateral accidents (with bollards or lamp-posts) need an MRI because they bumped their head. The numbers don't get better without adding protection because according to SWOV almost 80% of cycling accidents are unilateral or between cyclists. But there's a cultural opposition to helmets in many countries, chief among reasons being that "helmets don't look good" and "real cyclists don't need one". If you didn't wear one your whole life, you won't start at 65.
  - dmm 6y ago
    30% of vehicle deaths are due to traumatic brain injuries. There's also a cultural opposition to wearing helmets in motor vehicles.
    - daniel957 6y ago
      Is there a cultural opposition? In my 30 years of life, I’ve never read an article, seen a TV show, watched a movie, read a book, heard a conversation, etc where the idea about wearing helmets in cars was even discussed. I’ve never even heard a comedian joke about it. Who is opposing this? Are you saying there’s opposition just because it’s a thing that doesn’t exist?
      - mikepurvis 6y ago
        And yet, it turns out there have been various attempts at a motoring helmet over the years: https://colvilleandersen.medium.com/the-case-for-motorist-helmets-d1d6c4ae3ed2 https://colvilleandersen.medium.com/the-case-for-motorist-he... So that does open the question about whether suppression of this lifesaving technology has been something intentional on the part of automotive companies and enthusiasts (see: "jaywalking") or if it's the other way, that making road safety issues about only cycling helmets is an attempt to de-legitimize that mode and blame victims.
Dylan16807 6y ago
If you only make a couple bike rides like that in your life then skipping the helmet isn't a big deal.
- daniel957 6y ago
  It only takes one time to die. I’m assuming you’ve never met anyone that died due to a bike. So insensitive.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    It's okay to take a risk occasionally. It's a bad idea to climb a mountain or go sky diving every day, but doing it once doesn't make you a reckless person.
    - daniel957 6y ago
      Doing it once and not being properly prepared does make you a reckless person. To use an exaggerated example like you did, would you go skydiving without taking a class ahead of time? Would you go without a parachute? Would you go without a backup? Stop being facetious just to prove your point, please.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        Going skydiving, with a class, with a parachute, with a backup, is still dangerous. Climbing a mountain with good equipment and a buddy is still dangerous. Being "properly prepared" is only relevant inside a context. You can't look at just preparation when deciding if something is too dangerous. The actual risk numbers are the important thing here. If I'm driving 100 miles, and I do something sloppy that doubles my risk of dying in a car crash, the actual danger I face is less than the danger of skydiving just once with perfect prep. If it's also a special occasion where I'm going to get a huge amount of enjoyment out of it... the risk seems okay. Even if we're focused just on car safety, we should be far more upset when someone buys a car without top-tier safety ratings than about some one-off trip like this. Being able to point at some specific danger, like a battery on the floor, is just bikeshedding. What matters is the risk per day/month/year, and most of that risk is invisible.

> If my bike ride is just 5 minutes why bother wearing a helmet? It reads much easier like this.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

To be pedantic, bike helmets are uncommon in bike safe countries like mine / NL.

buran77 6y ago
Cycling fatalities still make up a third of total traffic fatalities in the Netherlands. And almost 70% of those several hundreds who die in cycling accidents are over 65, people who are much more likely to lose their balance and are more sensitive to an impact, meaning a bit of protection would have gone a long way. That's just fatalities, think of all the non-fatal accidents, and how may of the 6000 people hospitalized each year just for unilateral accidents (with bollards or lamp-posts) need an MRI because they bumped their head. The numbers don't get better without adding protection because according to SWOV almost 80% of cycling accidents are unilateral or between cyclists. But there's a cultural opposition to helmets in many countries, chief among reasons being that "helmets don't look good" and "real cyclists don't need one". If you didn't wear one your whole life, you won't start at 65.
- dmm 6y ago
  30% of vehicle deaths are due to traumatic brain injuries. There's also a cultural opposition to wearing helmets in motor vehicles.
  - daniel957 6y ago
    Is there a cultural opposition? In my 30 years of life, I’ve never read an article, seen a TV show, watched a movie, read a book, heard a conversation, etc where the idea about wearing helmets in cars was even discussed. I’ve never even heard a comedian joke about it. Who is opposing this? Are you saying there’s opposition just because it’s a thing that doesn’t exist?
    - mikepurvis 6y ago
      And yet, it turns out there have been various attempts at a motoring helmet over the years: https://colvilleandersen.medium.com/the-case-for-motorist-helmets-d1d6c4ae3ed2 https://colvilleandersen.medium.com/the-case-for-motorist-he... So that does open the question about whether suppression of this lifesaving technology has been something intentional on the part of automotive companies and enthusiasts (see: "jaywalking") or if it's the other way, that making road safety issues about only cycling helmets is an attempt to de-legitimize that mode and blame victims.

Dylan16807 6y ago

If you only make a couple bike rides like that in your life then skipping the helmet isn't a big deal.

daniel957 6y ago
It only takes one time to die. I’m assuming you’ve never met anyone that died due to a bike. So insensitive.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  It's okay to take a risk occasionally. It's a bad idea to climb a mountain or go sky diving every day, but doing it once doesn't make you a reckless person.
  - daniel957 6y ago
    Doing it once and not being properly prepared does make you a reckless person. To use an exaggerated example like you did, would you go skydiving without taking a class ahead of time? Would you go without a parachute? Would you go without a backup? Stop being facetious just to prove your point, please.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      Going skydiving, with a class, with a parachute, with a backup, is still dangerous. Climbing a mountain with good equipment and a buddy is still dangerous. Being "properly prepared" is only relevant inside a context. You can't look at just preparation when deciding if something is too dangerous. The actual risk numbers are the important thing here. If I'm driving 100 miles, and I do something sloppy that doubles my risk of dying in a car crash, the actual danger I face is less than the danger of skydiving just once with perfect prep. If it's also a special occasion where I'm going to get a huge amount of enjoyment out of it... the risk seems okay. Even if we're focused just on car safety, we should be far more upset when someone buys a car without top-tier safety ratings than about some one-off trip like this. Being able to point at some specific danger, like a battery on the floor, is just bikeshedding. What matters is the risk per day/month/year, and most of that risk is invisible.