4 ms·

Must be a cultural thing. If someone tried this here in Denmark, they would get such a shitstorm. Helmets are generally understood to increase cyclist safety.

Kim_Bruning 4y ago
Interesting! AFAIK, in the Netherlands helmets are considered to slightly reduce safety in the general case (but this is not a strong effect). The general objective is to make infrastructure sufficiently safe so that helmets become redundant.
- loloquwowndueo 4y ago
  No amount of infrastructure safety will help if you take a tumble and hit your head - a helmet would totally help. Even experienced cyclists take the occasional fall :)
  - stephen_g 4y ago
    Yeah, my dad almost died like that. On a separated bike path in very good condition, he would have only been going about 30 km/h given where it was (he can't actually remember what happened due to TBI but managed to make a full recovery after four months of hospital and rehab). Comparing the size of the foam on the impact side of the helmet vs. the other side was amazing, it was squashed to a fraction of the size. If that had been skull straight onto the concrete it would have been lights out pretty much instantly.
  - mrpopo 4y ago
    Which they mentioned in the article: “A major cause of head injuries is going over the handlebars, which is not possible with a 3 metre long bike. Helmets protect against falls. They don't protect against cars.
    - loloquwowndueo 4y ago
      Unless the bike is made of rubber, you can totally hit your head somewhere on the bike. Also look at the amount of car vs. bike accidents where the cyclists head smashes against the windshield. A helmet protects in that case too.
      - Brian_K_White 4y ago
        Probably should wear a hocky mask then.
        loloquwowndueo 4y ago
        And body armour, why not.
    - anonymousab 4y ago
      When a biker gets in a car accident, falling is generally going to be a part of that process.
  - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
    Technically you are correct that wearing a helmet does reduce risk of head injury somewhat. However -when infrastructure for cycling is already very safe- you start seeing all sorts of strange statistical effects; and it is not immediately obvious that helmets are a net benefit. As an example of one of the more funny&misleading statistics: People who wear bicycle helmets in the Netherlands actually end up in hospital more often. https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/who-are-all-these-self-harming-dutch-helmet-wearers/ https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/who-are-al... I looked around a bit to see if I could find a paper that takes a balanced view. This particular paper seems to be a bit more from your perspective where wearing helmets might be of some utility. However it does leave the impression that it is would actually be somewhat hard to break even on wearing helmets in the Netherlands. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-08544-5 https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...
    - bombcar 4y ago
      I assume the paper checked that the non-helmet wearers were not appearing in the morgue?
      - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
        The first document explains that people who take risks (like riding at high speeds or on a mountain bike) DO wear helmets in the Netherlands. Which is the reason why helmet wearers show up in hospital more often. The second is a recent paper that applies evenly to people who ride a bike "normally", [From experience: at low speeds on segregated infrastructure at around 15 km/h or so]. My interpretation is that it concludes that wearing a helmet would improve safety for cyclists somewhat; however it would not (currently) be risk-cost-effective according to their measure; and would require intervention to break even.
    - grumple 4y ago
      There's a couple takeaways from the first article. The cyclists with helmets are the serious ones riding for sport. I'd also guess commuters who are going long distances wear helmets. These cyclists are putting in far more miles than unhelmeted cyclists. I see the same thing in my city; very casual bikers don't wear helmets. Commuters and sport cyclists do. And those groups are putting in the most miles by far. If zero people rode bikes without helmets, you'd see 0 cyclists without helmets in the hospital. All those injured will be wearing helmets. It's a terrible measure.
- shlant 4y ago
  relevant article: https://dutchreview.com/culture/cycling/5-reasons-why-the-dutch-cycle-without-bike-helmets/ https://dutchreview.com/culture/cycling/5-reasons-why-the-du...
- Handytinge 4y ago
  This viewpoint (that helmet wearers take bigger risks) only holds validity when helmet wearing is a choice. In my country (Australia), helmet wearing is mandatory and the vast, vast majority seem to follow this rule. I've never felt "more protected" wearing a helmet, as I wouldn't ride without one. It's a default state.

Kim_Bruning 4y ago

Interesting! AFAIK, in the Netherlands helmets are considered to slightly reduce safety in the general case (but this is not a strong effect). The general objective is to make infrastructure sufficiently safe so that helmets become redundant.

loloquwowndueo 4y ago
No amount of infrastructure safety will help if you take a tumble and hit your head - a helmet would totally help. Even experienced cyclists take the occasional fall :)
- stephen_g 4y ago
  Yeah, my dad almost died like that. On a separated bike path in very good condition, he would have only been going about 30 km/h given where it was (he can't actually remember what happened due to TBI but managed to make a full recovery after four months of hospital and rehab). Comparing the size of the foam on the impact side of the helmet vs. the other side was amazing, it was squashed to a fraction of the size. If that had been skull straight onto the concrete it would have been lights out pretty much instantly.
- mrpopo 4y ago
  Which they mentioned in the article: “A major cause of head injuries is going over the handlebars, which is not possible with a 3 metre long bike. Helmets protect against falls. They don't protect against cars.
  - loloquwowndueo 4y ago
    Unless the bike is made of rubber, you can totally hit your head somewhere on the bike. Also look at the amount of car vs. bike accidents where the cyclists head smashes against the windshield. A helmet protects in that case too.
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      Probably should wear a hocky mask then.
      - loloquwowndueo 4y ago
        And body armour, why not.
  - anonymousab 4y ago
    When a biker gets in a car accident, falling is generally going to be a part of that process.
- Kim_Bruning 4y ago
  Technically you are correct that wearing a helmet does reduce risk of head injury somewhat. However -when infrastructure for cycling is already very safe- you start seeing all sorts of strange statistical effects; and it is not immediately obvious that helmets are a net benefit. As an example of one of the more funny&misleading statistics: People who wear bicycle helmets in the Netherlands actually end up in hospital more often. https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/who-are-all-these-self-harming-dutch-helmet-wearers/ https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/who-are-al... I looked around a bit to see if I could find a paper that takes a balanced view. This particular paper seems to be a bit more from your perspective where wearing helmets might be of some utility. However it does leave the impression that it is would actually be somewhat hard to break even on wearing helmets in the Netherlands. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-08544-5 https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...
  - bombcar 4y ago
    I assume the paper checked that the non-helmet wearers were not appearing in the morgue?
    - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
      The first document explains that people who take risks (like riding at high speeds or on a mountain bike) DO wear helmets in the Netherlands. Which is the reason why helmet wearers show up in hospital more often. The second is a recent paper that applies evenly to people who ride a bike "normally", [From experience: at low speeds on segregated infrastructure at around 15 km/h or so]. My interpretation is that it concludes that wearing a helmet would improve safety for cyclists somewhat; however it would not (currently) be risk-cost-effective according to their measure; and would require intervention to break even.
  - grumple 4y ago
    There's a couple takeaways from the first article. The cyclists with helmets are the serious ones riding for sport. I'd also guess commuters who are going long distances wear helmets. These cyclists are putting in far more miles than unhelmeted cyclists. I see the same thing in my city; very casual bikers don't wear helmets. Commuters and sport cyclists do. And those groups are putting in the most miles by far. If zero people rode bikes without helmets, you'd see 0 cyclists without helmets in the hospital. All those injured will be wearing helmets. It's a terrible measure.
shlant 4y ago
relevant article: https://dutchreview.com/culture/cycling/5-reasons-why-the-dutch-cycle-without-bike-helmets/ https://dutchreview.com/culture/cycling/5-reasons-why-the-du...
Handytinge 4y ago
This viewpoint (that helmet wearers take bigger risks) only holds validity when helmet wearing is a choice. In my country (Australia), helmet wearing is mandatory and the vast, vast majority seem to follow this rule. I've never felt "more protected" wearing a helmet, as I wouldn't ride without one. It's a default state.