6 ms·

The pictures that I've seen of the various "saved my life" destroyed helmets have the polystyrene split apart - it's usually quite easy to split polystyrene if

The pictures that I've seen of the various "saved my life" destroyed helmets have the polystyrene split apart - it's usually quite easy to split polystyrene if the force is applied the right (wrong) way. I don't like the concept of requiring PPE for a relatively safe activity as cycling as it makes cycling seem like a far more risky activity than it is and there's also the problem of "helmet hair" which can dissuade commuters. It's telling that countries where bike helmets were mandated had a sharp downturn in the numbers of cyclists.

323 4y ago
Cycling is risky. I've stopped cycling on roads with cars because I realized it's just a matter of time until I get in a serious accident. https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/wp/2016/05/12/how-safe-is-bike-commuting-perhaps-less-than-you-think/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/wp/2016/05/12/how-saf... I'm with you on the mandatory helmet issue, I don't like it either, but mostly because I don't like needlessly restricting ones freedoms, if you want to risk your life, that's fine with me as long as you don't risk others lives too.
- bluejekyll 4y ago
  Cycling is only risky due to the shared infrastructure with cars. The thing that raises the risk is cars. We should all be demanding that our streets are made safe for all users. We already have sidewalks in many places for this reason, we just need to extend similar safe infrastructure to bicycles and other road users too. Just throwing your hands up and not asking for change is a sure way to not improve things.
  - op00to 4y ago
    No one has ever been injured cycling on a trail! It’s amazing how the laws of physics no longer apply once you stop sharing infrastructure with motor vehicles. More seriously, you can easily hit a rock or something and go over the handlebars on a bike path.
    - u801e 4y ago
      Bike paths also tend to have more surface hazards because they're not designed following stringent standards that designers of roads have to follow.
    - confidantlake 4y ago
      It isn't a binary thing but a rate.
    - seoaeu 4y ago
      There’s worlds of difference between crashing your bike versus being hit by a car while riding your bike. Yeah, it’ll hurt either way, but the former is substantially less likely to be fatal
    - kevinmgranger 4y ago
      A human being's weight hitting the ground at 30 mph (already a generously high figure) is far less serious than a multi-ton vehicle hitting them at 30 mph (already a generously low figure). So, yes, physics.
  - stevejb 4y ago
    I used to live next to a popular bike trail, that had 0 sharing with cars. Not a road within 50 meters. There were plenty of injuries. Bike vs bike, bike vs pedestrian, bike vs stationary object, distracted cyclist injures themselves. Etc. If you're going 30 km/hr in thin lycra, you can certainly injure yourself with no help from anyone or anything else.
    - bluejekyll 4y ago
      This is a common issue in this discussion. People using bikes for sport is a different category for cyclist than an urban and/or casual rider. When cycling for sport you should always wear a helmet.
      - usrusr 4y ago
        If you put on special dress for an activity, don't skip the helmet. Same as driving, actually: people who don special driving kit wear a helmet with that, everybody else drives without. When I spent time in a French hospital after bike helmet use (not involving a car by the way, except for the ambulance that called the helicopter), I was really curious if I would continue that pattern or become of of those "helmet even on civilian clothes rides" people. Was expecting the latter, but nope, would still feel as alien as putting on a helmet to drive.
      - u801e 4y ago
        There are many people who cycle for transportation. In order to utilize cycling for transportation, people need to maintain higher speeds, or spend a lot more time commuting each way. Just dismissing their needs by calling them sports cyclists because they ride at faster speeds doesn't do anyone any favors.
        bluejekyll 4y ago
        Not sure exactly what your point is. The risky behavior being referred to in the article is partly going faster than one should. You're basically making the same point, in order to go faster you feel you must wear a helmet, which if you flip around, you don't go as fast when not wearing a helmet. Not going as fast is less risky behavior. Now you can decide you want to bike faster, and by all means (and I would make this choice as well), when riding aggressively in any context, you should wear a helmet.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    > We should all be demanding that our streets are made safe for all users We should also be demanding that there is no crime as well. But outside of this fantasy land you need to accept that cyclists will be interacting with cars at multiple points in their journey from A to B. There are just too many practical issues building an entirely seperate cycling network. So until this magical day cycling should be considered risky.
    - hgomersall 4y ago
      There are many cities that manage to make cyclists feel completely safe from cars. Nothing magical, just consistent policy and good design standards.
    - micromacrofoot 4y ago
      Some very dense cities are building biking infrastructure right now, it’s not a logistical impossibility… it’s mostly a political problem
  - jskrablin 4y ago
    People fall with their bikes when there's no cars around. And there are plenty obstacles available around the city to help you fall. Hitting your head against a road surface after falling with a bike will generally ruin your day if you are not wearing a helmet. Simple physics, really.
    - seoaeu 4y ago
      Whereas being hit by a truck can end your life, end if you are wearing a helmet
  - u801e 4y ago
    > Cycling is only risky due to the shared infrastructure with cars. Use of shared infrastructure for all vehicles is risky when the rules of movement (position and right of way) rules are not followed. Some cyclists do not follow those rules and end up in collisions. Other times, authorities paint lines that guide cyclists to ride in unsafe areas (too close to the edge of the roadway, or too close to parked vehicles), or designate areas for cyclists to ride where they're hidden from the motorists' view until both enter the intersection. When one follows the rules of movement and rides in a predictable manner, that risk is largely eliminated. > We already have sidewalks in many places for this reason Sidewalks or side paths that have cyclists follow pedestrian right of way rules on approach and through intersections simply doesn't work. The reason is that cyclists move much faster than a walking pedestrian. Pedestrians walk between 2 to 4 mph, while cyclists ride between 10 to 20 mph. A pedestrian that's within a few feet of entering the roadway can be seen by a motorist in time for the motorist to stop and yield to them. On the other hand, a cyclist can be 50 feet away and not seen by the motorist before the enter the intersection. So, instead of yielding, a collision happens instead. Cyclists move closer to vehicular speeds as opposed to pedestrian speeds (you can't ride in a straight line when going at walking pace). It makes sense for them to be treated like vehicles and follow the same rules. The rules are designed in a way to accommodate vehicles moving at different speeds.
- grey_earthling 4y ago
  Sounds more like it's the cars that are risky, not the cycling.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    Well done. You've figured out that cars are in fact incredibly dangerous objects. Now you just need to figure out how to cycle from A to B that doesn't interact with them.
pengaru 4y ago
Cycling has a pretty high probability of crashing/falling, and in such an event there's a good chance your face/head will impact something. Not that I'm in favor of requiring wearing any safety gear, I'm totally in favor of weeding out morons from the gene pool. But to act like helmets aren't a good idea for cyclists is asinine. Personally I try always rock a full-face MTB helmet when I'm cycling.
- ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
  The full-face helmets provide much better protection, but they have the trade-offs of being more uncomfortable and hotter. I'm not convinced that cycling is especially dangerous and my experience is that I've inevitably put my hands out when falling, so I think that gloves should be the first part of PPE recommended for cyclists. Luckily, I've never hit my helmet/head when coming off so I've found that a bike helmet is most useful for stopping low branches etc from hitting me. I'd recommend cycling/protective glasses too - very good for protecting against insects hitting your eyes. I find it interesting that people seem to have a skewed attitude towards head protection and cycling. If head protection is that important, then why are helmets not recommended for car passengers, people showering, changing a lightbulb etc.?
  - pengaru 4y ago
    > then why are helmets not recommended for car passengers, people showering, changing a lightbulb etc Strawman much? car passengers: airbags and seatbelts are in direct conflict with and superior to helmets. people showering and changing lightbulbs are not traveling at speeds exceeding a walking pace in an orientation predisposing them for a head/facial impact for hours at a time. The full-face helmet I wear is heavily vented like any other bicycling helmet, there is practically no worse comfort than any other cycling helmet worth wearing. And considering how much I appreciate my teeth and not potentially needing to drink hamburgers through a straw while my broken jaw heals due to a cycling mishap, even if it were less comfortable I'm totally on board. I've written this up with details in previous comments on this subject, but I have multiple friends/friends' family members who have suffered substantial facial/dental injuries in seemingly totally benign cycling activities gone awry. All of them would likely have been non-events had they been wearing a full-face MTB helmet.
ComputerGuru 4y ago
Cycling in a vacuum is safe-ish and not a particularly risky affair. Cycling on a shared road with automobiles going eight times your speed and weighing some 250 times your bipedal vehicle’s weight is not so safe.
- ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
  I'd recommend reducing your tyre pressure and definitely remember some oxygen.
- u801e 4y ago
  Differences in speed and mass are largely irrelevant if collisions don't occur. You can minimize the risk of a collision by following the rules of movement on the road (right of way and positioning) and anticipate if someone isn't following those rules and take appropriate action to avoid a collision before it's imminent. If passenger cars, large trucks and buses. and motorcycles can share the road, so can pedalcyclists.
  - seoaeu 4y ago
    > If passenger cars, large trucks and buses. and motorcycles can share the road, so can pedalcyclists. Separated bike infrastructure empirically reduces cyclist fatalities. And it isn’t hard to guess why.
    - u801e 4y ago
      The vast majority of collisions cyclists are involved in happen at intersections (incluing mid block drivways and alleys). Very few collision involve hit from behind. Cycling infrastructure that places cyclists in the pedestrian position when crossing an intersection exacerbates the risk of getting into a collision when crossing the intersection because motorists aren't really looking to see someone moving at cyclist speed as they're exiting the intersection. The other problem is that cyclists are hidden from view by parked cars until a short time before entering the intersection. This makes it difficult for both the cyclist and motorist to see each other until it's too late to avoid a collision. If you're not riding where motorists are looking, you're far more likely to end up in a collision, fatal or not[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE
vkou 4y ago
Cycling on roadways is not a relatively safe activity. I don't know a single cyclist commuter that has not been involved in a car crash - and I'm in my early 30s.
- QuarterReptile 4y ago
  I admittedly only commuted by bike for 3 years, 2018-2020, but I was never involved in a crash. I ride in some ways contrary to common advice, but that may contribute.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  Hi, 'vkou. Nice to meet you. I once got doored, but I didn't crash as a result. Also the car that doored me was parked at the time.
rhinoceraptor 4y ago
Also, the average person likely drives much more than rides a bicycle, so they're much more likely to be injured in a car accident. But no one would suggest mandatory helmet use for drivers, even though that would likely prevent many times more deaths and injuries than mandatory bicycle helmets.
- seunosewa 4y ago
  Seatbelts and airbags provide very good protection for drivers' heads. If cars didn't have those, drivers would need helmets.
  - u801e 4y ago
    Many motorists do suffer head injuries in crashes.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  Can you provide some evidence that helmets provide additional benefits when used in combination with airbags and seatbelts? Specifically actual testing. You would probably want to look at auto racing. My gut feeling is that even a slight decrease in visibility in a car wherein visibility is already limited would make a collision more likely and airbags would already provide substantial cushioning for your head so long as the seatbelt keeps the driver in the car. I think helmets in a car would be a net loss.

323 4y ago

Cycling is risky. I've stopped cycling on roads with cars because I realized it's just a matter of time until I get in a serious accident. https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/wp/2016/05/12/how-safe-is-bike-commuting-perhaps-less-than-you-think/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/wp/2016/05/12/how-saf... I'm with you on the mandatory helmet issue, I don't like it either, but mostly because I don't like needlessly restricting ones freedoms, if you want to risk your life, that's fine with me as long as you don't risk others lives too.

bluejekyll 4y ago
Cycling is only risky due to the shared infrastructure with cars. The thing that raises the risk is cars. We should all be demanding that our streets are made safe for all users. We already have sidewalks in many places for this reason, we just need to extend similar safe infrastructure to bicycles and other road users too. Just throwing your hands up and not asking for change is a sure way to not improve things.
- op00to 4y ago
  No one has ever been injured cycling on a trail! It’s amazing how the laws of physics no longer apply once you stop sharing infrastructure with motor vehicles. More seriously, you can easily hit a rock or something and go over the handlebars on a bike path.
  - u801e 4y ago
    Bike paths also tend to have more surface hazards because they're not designed following stringent standards that designers of roads have to follow.
  - confidantlake 4y ago
    It isn't a binary thing but a rate.
  - seoaeu 4y ago
    There’s worlds of difference between crashing your bike versus being hit by a car while riding your bike. Yeah, it’ll hurt either way, but the former is substantially less likely to be fatal
  - kevinmgranger 4y ago
    A human being's weight hitting the ground at 30 mph (already a generously high figure) is far less serious than a multi-ton vehicle hitting them at 30 mph (already a generously low figure). So, yes, physics.
- stevejb 4y ago
  I used to live next to a popular bike trail, that had 0 sharing with cars. Not a road within 50 meters. There were plenty of injuries. Bike vs bike, bike vs pedestrian, bike vs stationary object, distracted cyclist injures themselves. Etc. If you're going 30 km/hr in thin lycra, you can certainly injure yourself with no help from anyone or anything else.
  - bluejekyll 4y ago
    This is a common issue in this discussion. People using bikes for sport is a different category for cyclist than an urban and/or casual rider. When cycling for sport you should always wear a helmet.
    - usrusr 4y ago
      If you put on special dress for an activity, don't skip the helmet. Same as driving, actually: people who don special driving kit wear a helmet with that, everybody else drives without. When I spent time in a French hospital after bike helmet use (not involving a car by the way, except for the ambulance that called the helicopter), I was really curious if I would continue that pattern or become of of those "helmet even on civilian clothes rides" people. Was expecting the latter, but nope, would still feel as alien as putting on a helmet to drive.
    - u801e 4y ago
      There are many people who cycle for transportation. In order to utilize cycling for transportation, people need to maintain higher speeds, or spend a lot more time commuting each way. Just dismissing their needs by calling them sports cyclists because they ride at faster speeds doesn't do anyone any favors.
      - bluejekyll 4y ago
        Not sure exactly what your point is. The risky behavior being referred to in the article is partly going faster than one should. You're basically making the same point, in order to go faster you feel you must wear a helmet, which if you flip around, you don't go as fast when not wearing a helmet. Not going as fast is less risky behavior. Now you can decide you want to bike faster, and by all means (and I would make this choice as well), when riding aggressively in any context, you should wear a helmet.
- threeseed 4y ago
  > We should all be demanding that our streets are made safe for all users We should also be demanding that there is no crime as well. But outside of this fantasy land you need to accept that cyclists will be interacting with cars at multiple points in their journey from A to B. There are just too many practical issues building an entirely seperate cycling network. So until this magical day cycling should be considered risky.
  - hgomersall 4y ago
    There are many cities that manage to make cyclists feel completely safe from cars. Nothing magical, just consistent policy and good design standards.
  - micromacrofoot 4y ago
    Some very dense cities are building biking infrastructure right now, it’s not a logistical impossibility… it’s mostly a political problem
- jskrablin 4y ago
  People fall with their bikes when there's no cars around. And there are plenty obstacles available around the city to help you fall. Hitting your head against a road surface after falling with a bike will generally ruin your day if you are not wearing a helmet. Simple physics, really.
  - seoaeu 4y ago
    Whereas being hit by a truck can end your life, end if you are wearing a helmet
- u801e 4y ago
  > Cycling is only risky due to the shared infrastructure with cars. Use of shared infrastructure for all vehicles is risky when the rules of movement (position and right of way) rules are not followed. Some cyclists do not follow those rules and end up in collisions. Other times, authorities paint lines that guide cyclists to ride in unsafe areas (too close to the edge of the roadway, or too close to parked vehicles), or designate areas for cyclists to ride where they're hidden from the motorists' view until both enter the intersection. When one follows the rules of movement and rides in a predictable manner, that risk is largely eliminated. > We already have sidewalks in many places for this reason Sidewalks or side paths that have cyclists follow pedestrian right of way rules on approach and through intersections simply doesn't work. The reason is that cyclists move much faster than a walking pedestrian. Pedestrians walk between 2 to 4 mph, while cyclists ride between 10 to 20 mph. A pedestrian that's within a few feet of entering the roadway can be seen by a motorist in time for the motorist to stop and yield to them. On the other hand, a cyclist can be 50 feet away and not seen by the motorist before the enter the intersection. So, instead of yielding, a collision happens instead. Cyclists move closer to vehicular speeds as opposed to pedestrian speeds (you can't ride in a straight line when going at walking pace). It makes sense for them to be treated like vehicles and follow the same rules. The rules are designed in a way to accommodate vehicles moving at different speeds.
grey_earthling 4y ago
Sounds more like it's the cars that are risky, not the cycling.
- threeseed 4y ago
  Well done. You've figured out that cars are in fact incredibly dangerous objects. Now you just need to figure out how to cycle from A to B that doesn't interact with them.

pengaru 4y ago

Cycling has a pretty high probability of crashing/falling, and in such an event there's a good chance your face/head will impact something. Not that I'm in favor of requiring wearing any safety gear, I'm totally in favor of weeding out morons from the gene pool. But to act like helmets aren't a good idea for cyclists is asinine. Personally I try always rock a full-face MTB helmet when I'm cycling.

ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
The full-face helmets provide much better protection, but they have the trade-offs of being more uncomfortable and hotter. I'm not convinced that cycling is especially dangerous and my experience is that I've inevitably put my hands out when falling, so I think that gloves should be the first part of PPE recommended for cyclists. Luckily, I've never hit my helmet/head when coming off so I've found that a bike helmet is most useful for stopping low branches etc from hitting me. I'd recommend cycling/protective glasses too - very good for protecting against insects hitting your eyes. I find it interesting that people seem to have a skewed attitude towards head protection and cycling. If head protection is that important, then why are helmets not recommended for car passengers, people showering, changing a lightbulb etc.?
- pengaru 4y ago
  > then why are helmets not recommended for car passengers, people showering, changing a lightbulb etc Strawman much? car passengers: airbags and seatbelts are in direct conflict with and superior to helmets. people showering and changing lightbulbs are not traveling at speeds exceeding a walking pace in an orientation predisposing them for a head/facial impact for hours at a time. The full-face helmet I wear is heavily vented like any other bicycling helmet, there is practically no worse comfort than any other cycling helmet worth wearing. And considering how much I appreciate my teeth and not potentially needing to drink hamburgers through a straw while my broken jaw heals due to a cycling mishap, even if it were less comfortable I'm totally on board. I've written this up with details in previous comments on this subject, but I have multiple friends/friends' family members who have suffered substantial facial/dental injuries in seemingly totally benign cycling activities gone awry. All of them would likely have been non-events had they been wearing a full-face MTB helmet.

ComputerGuru 4y ago

Cycling in a vacuum is safe-ish and not a particularly risky affair. Cycling on a shared road with automobiles going eight times your speed and weighing some 250 times your bipedal vehicle’s weight is not so safe.

ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
I'd recommend reducing your tyre pressure and definitely remember some oxygen.
u801e 4y ago
Differences in speed and mass are largely irrelevant if collisions don't occur. You can minimize the risk of a collision by following the rules of movement on the road (right of way and positioning) and anticipate if someone isn't following those rules and take appropriate action to avoid a collision before it's imminent. If passenger cars, large trucks and buses. and motorcycles can share the road, so can pedalcyclists.
- seoaeu 4y ago
  > If passenger cars, large trucks and buses. and motorcycles can share the road, so can pedalcyclists. Separated bike infrastructure empirically reduces cyclist fatalities. And it isn’t hard to guess why.
  - u801e 4y ago
    The vast majority of collisions cyclists are involved in happen at intersections (incluing mid block drivways and alleys). Very few collision involve hit from behind. Cycling infrastructure that places cyclists in the pedestrian position when crossing an intersection exacerbates the risk of getting into a collision when crossing the intersection because motorists aren't really looking to see someone moving at cyclist speed as they're exiting the intersection. The other problem is that cyclists are hidden from view by parked cars until a short time before entering the intersection. This makes it difficult for both the cyclist and motorist to see each other until it's too late to avoid a collision. If you're not riding where motorists are looking, you're far more likely to end up in a collision, fatal or not[1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE

vkou 4y ago

Cycling on roadways is not a relatively safe activity. I don't know a single cyclist commuter that has not been involved in a car crash - and I'm in my early 30s.

QuarterReptile 4y ago
I admittedly only commuted by bike for 3 years, 2018-2020, but I was never involved in a crash. I ride in some ways contrary to common advice, but that may contribute.
jessaustin 4y ago
Hi, 'vkou. Nice to meet you. I once got doored, but I didn't crash as a result. Also the car that doored me was parked at the time.

rhinoceraptor 4y ago

Also, the average person likely drives much more than rides a bicycle, so they're much more likely to be injured in a car accident. But no one would suggest mandatory helmet use for drivers, even though that would likely prevent many times more deaths and injuries than mandatory bicycle helmets.

seunosewa 4y ago
Seatbelts and airbags provide very good protection for drivers' heads. If cars didn't have those, drivers would need helmets.
- u801e 4y ago
  Many motorists do suffer head injuries in crashes.
michaelmrose 4y ago
Can you provide some evidence that helmets provide additional benefits when used in combination with airbags and seatbelts? Specifically actual testing. You would probably want to look at auto racing. My gut feeling is that even a slight decrease in visibility in a car wherein visibility is already limited would make a collision more likely and airbags would already provide substantial cushioning for your head so long as the seatbelt keeps the driver in the car. I think helmets in a car would be a net loss.