32 ms·
Mandatory helmet laws make cyclists less safe
- filbo 4y ago
- andrewstuart 4y agoJust wear a helmet. It protects you from brain damage.
- barry-cotter 4y agoIndeed, you should wear a helmet in cars and trains too.
- Dobbs 4y agoHaving proper cycling infrastructure protects you far more.
- malfist 4y agoOkay? Mandating helmets don't prevent cities from building better cycling infrastructure.
- zip1234 4y agoIf they reduce cycling, they do in fact prevent that. The old 'nobody cycles so why should we build that' argument is highly persuasive.
- Dobbs 4y agoWith proper infrastructure and cycling culture a helmet adds little benefit. Meanwhile it has several negatives including making cycling a more burdensome activity. Such as having to have your helmet, have to carry it with you in the store or leave it on the bike in the rain or to be stolen, etc. Mandatory helmet laws do more to reduce cycling then they do to protect cyclists.
- charonn0 4y agoIt's not either/or.
- usrusr 4y agoE.g. while driving. All the professional racers do it, I guess they know a thing or two about dangers while driving.
- diarmuidc 4y agoSo all drivers should be required to wear a helmet? If not, why not ?
- Philip-J-Fry 4y agoThey wear them because: Their cars are custom built (e.g. F1) and don't have air bags or crumple zones and are open top. Their cars are modified to be lighter weight, so air bags and other safety equipment is removed. Instead they are fitted with roll cages and wear a helmet. They're also racing around at high speeds where rolling a car is a real possibility. Yes, let's equate that to a road car with a proven safety record (NCAP) tests. Let's see how many tests of a cyclist smashing their head into the ground shows that it's harmless...
- usrusr 4y ago> Let's see how many tests of a cyclist smashing their head into the ground shows that it's harmless... I'm sure that you can provide evidence of helmet-wearers doing the same to show that it's harmless one you put on a foam hat? On a related note, thousands of drivers dying from head trauma each year demonstrate that NCAP is no immortality cheat either.
- cies 4y agoDemand bicycle safe cities! Helmets should be optional. Taking risks should be legal. > Just wear a helmet. You do you. Next up we gonna enforce pedestrians to wear air-bag suits "for their own safety", forbid roller skating, etc. Disclaimer: living in the Netherlands.
- alkonaut 4y ago> Taking risks should be legal What's the difference from a seat belt law? As long as I'm paying for everyone elses' healthcare (which is the norm in developed countries), their personal risk taking is my concern. Even in places without publically funded healthcare, everyone pays for others' risks through premiums so the difference isn't as big as it would seem.
- bigDinosaur 4y agoBicycling makes you fitter and healthier, reducing overall disease burden, as well as providing mental health benefits, reduced traffic, consequently reduced air pollution which also is a major win for public health. Cars literally don't do any of those things. They're convenient (at least when your city isn't subject to awful traffic) and that's it.
- cies 4y ago> What's the difference from a seat belt law? You found a risk reducing law that probably does make sense. Very small investment (Volvo relinquished the patent, thanks Volvo) and very large benefit. But this "their personal risk taking is my concern" argument of yours makes me shiver. I'd never want someone else's risk taking to be my concern: I've got more important stuff to attend to, thank God.
- tsukikage 4y agoAll right, let's suppose for a minute that self-interest is literally the only thing to be considered. Your personal risk preferences impact me in a variety of ways: * my cost of living goes up, because damage control is much more expensive than prevention; someone has to pay for it, and dead people can't. * my personal risk goes up, because resources I might need such as emergency doctors' time are occupied dealing with the consequences of your decisions instead. * my quality of life goes down, e.g. I have to spend more time waiting in traffic jams while the bodies are scraped off the roads. If you take your risks in a space I am forced to share with you, whether physical, societal or economical, your choices affect me.
- diarmuidc 4y agoThat's a fallacious argument. There is no activity that could not be made more safe by wearing a helmet. Yet we don't because the arguments like yours are simple and wrong.
- fleischhauf 4y agohow is this wrong? A helmet protects your head and thus your brain. It makes sense wear helmets in situations where your head is more prone to be damaged (e.g. construction work, or in this case biking).
- Swenrekcah 4y agoIt absolutely makes sense to wear a helmet while cycling but it just shouldn’t be compulsory.
- usrusr 4y agoMultiple cases have been documented of children strangulating themselves wearing a bike helmet while mucking about on playgrounds and the like. Entire education campaigns have set out to prevent the wearing of helmet in activities that turned out to be made less safe by them. But I agree with your general point, if the marginal safety gain during cycling was enough to make them mandatory, few activities would remain without mandatory protective headwear (my last bike-related head injury happened while walking through the kitchen during maintenance).
- fjfaase 4y agoAre you implying to always wear a helmet? When you are in a car, in public transportation, walking down the street, going down the stairs or just always? The last time, I hit my head was in a house. The closest I came to a concussion was when I slipped while walking on ice. It is quite likely, I spend at least 10,000 of biking so far without a helmet. I had some small accident, but non where I got any brain damage. In most cases the accidents was the result of my own stupidity: being too hurried, not watching the traffic, or doing putting on a rain coat while biking.
- chrisbaker98 4y agoWhat possible reason is there to not wear a helmet when riding a bike?
- kypro 4y agoSame reason for not wearing one in a car, bus or when crossing the road, I guess. Some people just like to take risks.
- fjfaase 4y agoI do not like taking risks and I think i am a risk avoiding person. Here in the Netherlands, I guess that my risk for getting involved in an accident, is not any higher than walking and other forms of transportation. I am not using an e-bike and I usually bike at a speed of about 15km/h. I do not use a racing bike, but a bike where you sit in an upright position allowing you to look around easily. I also take care of using routes that are safe. Here in the Netherlands, where are more bikes than cars, and biking is an important means of transportation for daily commutes and doing shoppings. We have good infrastructures for bikes.
- 0_____0 4y agoI wear a helmet 99.9% of the time on a bike. They are not zero hassle. If you live somewhere where stuff gets nicked in public and you’ve got a nicer helmet, you bring it inside your destination with you. They mess up hair too. They’re not GOOD reasons but let’s not pretend there aren’t any at all.
- rmvt 4y agojust don't leave your house. it protects you from getting run over, being robbed at gunpoint, heartbreak, etc. do you see where your logic fails? this is not news. wearing helmets has been associated with a range of negative issues for years now. (https://road.cc/content/news/268605-wearing-cycle-helmet-may-increase-risk-injury-says-new-research https://road.cc/content/news/268605-wearing-cycle-helmet-may..., https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a29802208/helmet-laws-safety/ https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a29802208/helmet-laws-safe..., https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911102200.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911102200.h...)
- rmvt 4y agocorrection: i pasted the wrong bicyling.com link, this is the one i meant https://www.bicycling.com/news/a20009468/people-take-more-risks-when-wearing-helmets-study-finds/ https://www.bicycling.com/news/a20009468/people-take-more-ri...
- frankjr 4y agoI think the article and the arguments presented don't really make much sense, but I do find interesting that it says the article was published on Oct 5, 2022, yet there are comments going back as far as November 2019.
- laborcontract 4y agoGood catch. This is a SEO trick they probably do every year to convince google that their information is timely. Edit: Yep. https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/https://www.bicycling.com/culture/a29802208/helmet-laws-safety/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/https://www.bicy...
- i_am_proteus 4y agoIs Google's search team really this naïve? Google keeps cached versions of sites it crawls. An algorithm to catch these date changes would not be difficult to implement.
- chrisbaker98 4y agoIt might not necessarily be about tricking Google's algorithm. It could also be to make users stick around. People might be less likely to read an article (and potentially click another link on the site and generate another ad impression) if see that the article is "old".
- laborcontract 4y agoMost people make cursory updates to the body of the text as well. Like my sibling comment said, updating the date also helps your search engagement by showing a more recent date. That said it’s considered best practice to show the original and updated date.
- i_am_proteus 4y agoI think the entire point is that it shouldn't "help search engagement" if it's an older article that's been "updated for present year" just to game search results. >cursory updates to the body of the text Still pretty straightforward to algorithmically determine if this has happened.
- thinkmcfly 4y ago[flagged]
- Aldipower 4y agoAs someone who's friend got blood clots from the vaccine, I find your comment very cynic.
- thinkmcfly 4y agoAs someone who survived a nearly lethal bike accident because I tore my helmet off right before impact, I can really sympathize with you about that
- deafpolygon 4y agoI find this article riddled with circular and poor logic. Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent people from riding bikes. Just like mandatory seat belt laws did not prevent anyone from driving cars! "Lastly, we know these “quality of life” laws are disproportionately enforced in communities of color and in lower income communities." - what the hell?! Yes, helmet and safety laws are the reason why police officers disproportionately enforce various laws against communities of color. /s Let's blame this and not deal with the real problem: reform of police enforcement. To deal with bike safety, we need to make everyone wear bike helmets until we reach critical mass in cycling adoption. /Some/ protection is better than nothing at all. In the meantime, we need to implement better traffic calming and separation of automobile and cycling/pedestrian traffic. Kids die every year because in many areas, they have no choice but to bike on the side of a road that has cars whizzing past 60+ mph with less than 12 inches of separation in between.
- dncornholio 4y agoYou don't need helmets, you need better roads. It's that simple. Even with a helmet, biking in US looks fucking scary.
- AlecSchueler 4y agoTotally this. The helmets sold at the bicycle store aren't gonna help much if you get in an accident with a van. Separate the roads for different uses. Cycling infrastructure is solved in many places. The culture of blaming cyclists needs to end
- rdxm 4y agoAbsolutely not true on the efficacy assertion. I've been run over while out training on my bike, went through a windshield head first. Without a helmet on my brain matter would have been in the lap of the driver. I've got hundreds of thousands of miles in my legs and I won't get on a bike without a helmet on even going around the block. On the infrastructure yes, agree. I'd be happy with simple stuff like ubiquitous bikes lanes and 10 foot wide shoulders...
- bowsamic 4y agoIt's interesting to me how different countries approach helmets. In Germany some people wear them, but many don't. In the Netherlands wearing a helmet is practically unheard of.
- b93rn 4y agoIn the Netherlands you're either a tourist or 60 year or older if you wear a helmet. But it is also not that fair to compare the Netherlands to other countries. We grew up with bicycles and our infrastructure is much better for cycling.
- diarmuidc 4y agoI suspect people don't like comparing with the Netherlands because it doesn't support their biases in this argument
- smcl 4y agoIt's more that the Netherlands is a substantial outlier in terms of how they accommodate cyclists, so applying their attitudes towards helmets without also being as cyclist-friendly (infrastructurally and socially) as they are is asking for trouble.
- bowsamic 4y agoObviously infrastructure helps a lot, but there is still the danger inherent in the fact that it's quite far from your head to the ground. I don't wear a helmet though personally, since the bike infrastructure is good in my city in Germany, at least on the routes I take
- cowmoo728 4y agoAlmost every racefiets rider wears one. Anyone going far or fast typically does.
- usrusr 4y agoPretty much exactly the same as driving: those who put on special clothes for their vehicle use activity routinely make the helmet part of that special attire, those who operate their vehicle in plain clothes don't.
- dncornholio 4y agoHelmet on a bicycle does do more harm then good. If you're MTB or going fast, sure wear a helmet. If you just bike to get to work or school and stay well below 25km/h, and have good cycling infra, you don't a helmet. It's like US don't want people to bike.
- swader999 4y agoI don't wear a helmet skiing but always when biking. It's too easy to lose your front tire grip on gravel or wet pavement and that often puts your face in direct contact with the earth. It happens almost instantly.
- konha 4y agoThe effects of Safety In Numbers cannot be overstated. I’d go as far and say it’s even more important than cycling infrastructure like physically separate bike lanes. You do not want to be the only cyclist at a busy intersection between cars making a turn crossing your lane. Might be counterintuitive, but if a helmet mandate reduces the number of riders even slightly it is a bad idea. And of course: Wear a helmet. Especially if your city is still designed for cars.
- AlecSchueler 4y ago> You do not want to be the only cyclist at a busy intersection between cars making a turn crossing your lane. With well designed infrastructure this won't happen. Give cyclists separate lights with priority. The situation you're describing is extremely rare in somewhere like the Netherlands.
- hombre_fatal 4y agoBut that is just a trivially true point. Let’s think of things we can do until our city becomes interested in redoing its streets in 100 years, if ever.
- AlecSchueler 4y agoWhy? Our cities aren't magical beasts whose whims we must yield to. They're shaped by people. Demand better. Look at the transformations taking place in Paris, how cities like Utrecht have been saved from car-centric design and given back to humans. I just don't understand this defeatist attitude. Most people on this site live in healthy democracies. Why do we call for reforms in every political sphere but maintain an adamant denial of our power over city planning?
- ThatGeoGuy 4y agoIronically, municipal politics probably serves the largest impact and easiest entry point for leveraging political will. Not everything has to be harangued like many federal-level politics are. You can just go to your city council and demand better. The worst that can happen is they say no - and you can just organize to vote them out with the rest of your community.
- fredley 4y agoMandatory Helmet Laws may make cyclists less safe by macroscopic effects but for the love of God wear a helmet. I would not have a father right now if he had not been wearing a helmet when he hit a pothole. It's not just cars / other road users that are potentially dangerous to cyclists, poor road surface or debris can just as likely cause a life-changing injury, even if you're not travelling at high speed. Wear a helmet.
- jonstewart 4y agoThis is kind of what the article says. It’s not anti-helmet. For cities, bikeshare can be amazing—I live in DC and our CaBi system is very popular. It is a cheap and easy way for everyone to have access to a bike, and it complements the District’s investment in a bike lane network. A helmet law would kneecap the system. Wearing a helmet is good, but getting people out of cars and onto bikes with good bike lanes will lead to overall health benefits for a community.
- ZanyProgrammer 4y agoYet it is being anti helmet by trying to cite sketch studies and be too clever by half.
- barbazoo 4y ago> A helmet law would kneecap the system Just an anecdote. Bike share in Vancouver, BC where helmets are mandatory comes with helmets attached to the bikes. And there are "hair nets" IIRC for hygiene purposes.
- cies 4y agoThe only real argument for making it less safe is the "increased interactions with the police" argument. This seems to be very US-centric as in most other places an interaction with the police will not get you shot/teased/maced/neck-kneeled as likely.
- JohnGB 4y agoThe Netherlands did a study on bike helmets and found that cars tend to be more dangerous with cyclists if the cyclists are wearing a helmet, which is why there are no mandatory bicycle helmet laws in the Netherlands. However, it's worth noting that the cycling infrastructure in the Netherlands also for the most part separates bikes and cars with more than just a line of paint, so their experience may not translate well to other countries with poor cycling infrastructure.
- Fiahil 4y agothat study comes out a lot, but, AFAIK was poorly challenged. It would be nice to get a second opinion on this topic before jumping to conclusions.
- lukas099 4y agoIt may not be perfect, but if it's the best study we have on the matter I think we should tentatively and judiciously accept it.
- snakeboy 4y agoI would assume there is quite a lot of evidence for the efficacy of helmets in the event of a crash, no? I think in general it makes more sense to give credence to studies that give intuitive results that are explainable by sound first principles modeling, rather than one study that gives an unintuitive result based on human behavior.
- ThatGeoGuy 4y agoNot really? There may be slight reductions in some injuries as a result of helmet use, but for most cyclists this isn't really what you'd call definitive data. At the end of the day, a few inches of foam isn't going to protect you from a few tonnes of steel. That said, it's notoriously under-studied. If you look into "best helmet" in terms of safety you'll see a lot of marketing speak and not a lot of science. The way that helmets are tested tend to 1) not be reflective of actual use of the helmet in a conflict scenario and 2) tend to make pretty broad assumptions about the largest danger factor on the roads. The thing is that you would /think/ that there's a lot of evidence out there for helmet use. The most compelling evidence for helmet use is for drivers in cars / automobiles, and we wouldn't dare mandate that into existence. Helmet laws always seem to get people ruffled up but at the end of the day the number of bike fatalities is already low, and skewing that in terms of helmet use somewhat misses the point - dedicated and separated bicycle infrastructure will have a vastly larger impact compared to any mandate on using a helmet. It seems like arguing about adding a mandate on helmets is just an easy way for the system to wash its hands of responsibility for not regulating vehicle and street design more thoroughly.
- alkonaut 4y agoThe article doesn't seem to make any claims about reduced safety. It claims there is a reduction in cycling, worse business for bike-sharing and more harassment of minorities. But what are the concrete numbers on injuries (either absolute or per distance traveled) that would back up the safety claim? Or is the "less safe" not actually refering to physical safety while riding?
- kriro 4y agoMy cousin had a cycling accident where his helmet cracked in half (pretty much) but the head was safe. He just slipped on some leafs or ice or something so there wasn't even anyone else involved. Ever since I saw that picture I'm religious about wearing a helmet. Skulls crack folks, not rocket science. I mean I don't need a law for that. I kind of like my life.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- incomingpain 4y ago>A reduction in the number of cyclists on streets; Really a goal of the move. For sure there's a reduction, article suggests 15-40% which jives for me. So long as a bikes are allowed on the road, you will have movements to punish cyclists. Soon as a city has bike pathes all over enabling you to get to your destination and banning cyclists off the road and sidewalks. Then this problem will be solved. Bike sharing systems basically cant function where bike helmets are mandatory. Which is super interesting because how many people really just ignore the bike helmet rule anyway? >More exposure among vulnerable populations to unnecessary interactions with police. Police brutality is a huge problem for the USA. Not anyone else.
- vxNsr 4y agoThere is some serious reaching going on here, chicago has mandatory helmet laws, most people don't wear helmets anyways its one of those selective enforcement laws that will get you in trouble you're already doing something the cops care about. Our bike share program is fine and bike infra is increasing.
- jmount 4y agoI know one observation is just an anecdote, but my experience is totally different. 1) I had one fall from a bicycle in my 30s from a front axle failure. My fault on not setting the quick release on the wheel correctly. I had the good fortune to roll forward. My head touched the ground, and I had no injury or concussion. My foam (no outer shell) helmet had cracked. I think the impact "doing work" on the helmet prevented a serious injury. 2) I have never been injured by the helmet (dropped on my foot, or not been able to see due to it).
- josephcsible 4y agoYou're confusing helmets with mandatory helmet laws.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jmount 4y agoAh, good point. Policy can be different than individual actions.
- pja 4y agoA helmet protects you by being crushed - it dissipates the kinetic energy of your head in the process. They’re not very strong in tension at all - a cracked helmet is a helmet that failed to do its job properly. If it crushed first & then cracked then that’s different of course.
- gernb 4y agoDo you wear a helmet when you walk? 800k people a year get injuries from falling while walking. Would you be for a mandatory walking helmet law?
- wehtuer 4y agoQuick release systems in bicycles are really the worst. They should be outlawed for non-professionals for obvious safety issues since people who just casually ride bikes never educate themselves on these boring things. And it takes like a few minutes maximum for a complete noob to take off and install another wheel in traditional "slow release" system so it's entirely pointless for casualists yet dangerous.
- anorwell 4y agoThe article says: > When the Australian cities of Melbourne and Brisbane mandated helmet use, it actually made streets less safe for cyclists. The number of people riding bikes dropped precipitously, which reduced the “Safety in Numbers” effect. This links to [1], but this paper doesn't seem to support the assertion at all. > These results help explain why two of the four companies operating in Sydney decided to leave the city in July 2018: the low rate of trips-per-day per bike, a high level of vandalism, and the threat of heavy fines from councils made the system one without potential for financial profit. While dockless bikesharing appears to be successful in many cities globally, the factors leading to its success have not been replicated in Sydney to date. There's no mention of helmets, and the paper is specifically about bike sharing programs, not biking in general. [1] https://findingspress.org/article/7615-stationless-in-sydney-the-rise-and-decline-of-bikesharing-in-australia https://findingspress.org/article/7615-stationless-in-sydney...
- float4 4y agoI'll cite SWOV.nl (Dutch institute for road safety research): > The effect of (mandatory) bicycle helmets on bicycle use is not clear. Several international studies show that bicycle use decreases after the introduction of helmet laws, even though most studies do not find such an effect or only find a temporary effect [9] [42] [49]. [...] > There are two international review studies of the effect of mandatory helmet use on the use of bicycles, both dating from 2018 [9] [42]. The first study [42] shows that the available research results are not unequivocal. It states that mandatory helmet use could indeed result in a decrease of the number of cyclists, but that this need not always be the case and that, if the number of cyclists initially decreases, that need not be of long duration. The second study is a mostly qualitative analysis of the available literature [9]. Based on their findings, the researchers conclude that there is little to no evidence of a substantial decrease of bicycle use due to the introduction of mandatory helmets. They have examined 23 studies/data sets and conclude that 2 of these studies support the hypothesis that mandatory helmets lead to a decrease of cycling, whereas 13 studies do not, and 8 studies show mixed results. > The abovementioned review studies only concern research done abroad, in particular in Australia and North America. https://swov.nl/en/fact-sheet/bicycle-helmets https://swov.nl/en/fact-sheet/bicycle-helmets (Under "What is the effect of helmet use on the popularity of cycling?")
- lajosbacs 4y agoI wear a helmet, laws or not. But when I occasionally don't, I notice that I am way more careful, e.g. more mindful of a curb with a metal post that I ride by. I wonder if this effect is permanent, if I would stop wearing a helmet forever.
- ZanyProgrammer 4y agoBeing more mindful won't protect your brain if you do get in an accident without a helmet. If the effect as permanent, why wear helmets at all? This is all galaxy freakonomics brain shit.
- fastaguy88 4y agoOf course, mandatory helmet laws do NOT make cyclists less safe. They may make people who choose not to cycle because of the law less safe. But there is no discussion of the balance of safety -- more for helmet wearers, perhaps less for people who choose not to cycle.
- kevincox 4y agoNot quite right. They make those who still cycle less safe because less people will cycle overall. So basically a single person wearing a helmet is safer than not wearing. But a person wearing a helmet is a crowd is less safe than that person biking "alone" not wearing a helmet.
- aeharding 4y agoIt's a lot more productive to support a free helmet program in your city, if you really want more people to wear helmets.
- qwertox 4y agoWhen I started biking around 4 years ago, I rode my bike for at least two years without a helmet. That would be around 10.000 km without one. I never had an issue. When I started wearing a helmet I started breaking my bones, because I started to do riskier stuff (which was the reason for starting to wear a helmet). Then I got used to it and bought myself a better one last year, instead of the 20€ one wich I initially had. But I don't ride my bike in traffic on a street, so those first two years were never really a high-risk scenario.
- jupp0r 4y agoI started playing daily russian roulette last month and never had an issue. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
- jjk166 4y agoMandatory helmet laws make the number of injuries associated with biking go down. That is their purpose, and they are effective. Yes, some of that is people who would rather not bike at all than bike safely, and there are some non-linear effects from that, but it's still a net reduction in injuries. There is a real need for society to discuss whether the value of reduced injuries outweighs the cost in terms of less cycling - for example more car emmisions, more traffic congestion, less easy cardio, etc. But to say people are less safe is just not true for the common definition of safe.
- chitowneats 4y ago> but it's still a net reduction in injuries. Citation needed. If they are now traveling via automobile, I doubt there is a net reduction when taking into account: vehicle injuries and fatalities, air pollution, and of course, in the long term, anthropogenic climate change. This is a classic example of a system with perverse incentives. Everyone feels safer in their big SUV. In reality it's just an arms race, and we're all losing.
- cbsmith 4y ago> Everyone feels safer in their big SUV. In reality it's just an arms race, and we're all losing. I'm not sure, absent secondary effects, wearing a helmet makes cycling more dangerous for other cyclists the way that driving a big SUV, absent secondary effects makes it more dangerous for other drivers. It's not like the extra mass from helmets means you'll do more damage when you smash in to other cyclists.
- noirbot 4y agoSure, but that's not the argument. It's that if you require people to carry a helmet with them to use your for-hire bike system, less people will use it, but they'll still need to get places, so they're more likely to hire a car or drive themselves. The hypothesis is that requiring helmets may make individual bikers safer in isolation, but if it causes less people to bike and to drive instead, the increase in people driving cars may make it less safe to ride a bike, even adjusted for the fact that they're safer via the helmet. I'd imagine this is especially true given that the helmet mostly only helps prevent the more dramatic injuries to the head. Getting hit by a car is still likely to seriously injure you in plenty of places the helmet doesn't help with.
- julius 4y agoDoes not matter if it is more safe or not. It is typical goverment overreach. Me wearing a helmet is no ones business but my own. It has no effect whatsoever on anyone else in society.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago> It has no effect whatsoever on anyone else in society If you die or not in an accident makes an enormous difference in society, especially for the other people involved in the accident.
- SpeedilyDamage 4y agoYour brains splayed out on the concrete has an effect on my child as she watches you die a gruesome death...
- renewiltord 4y agoIs your child specifically sensitive to brains? If she sees me lying at the end of a long red smear in a pool of blood with my head intact, but with my leg ripped off and my other limbs contorted into absurd positions, is she likely to have no lasting effects. Fascinating child.
- SpeedilyDamage 4y agoThis is a logic failure; I didn't say specifically or exclusively brains, I provided an example of one of the many gruesome ways your dead body would cause harm to others based on your poor decision making skills.
- ravenstine 4y agoA possible steel man for the opposite position could be that a person hospitalized because of a preventable injury to the head will be of a greater cost to society, and that the sacrifice of personal liberty is outweighed by every dollar going towards something more beneficial. I'm not saying I totally agree with that, but I think it's an argument that's rarely articulated, whereas the more reductive argument of keeping everyone "safe" is almost always the default.
- charonn0 4y agoIt seems like they're really reaching to find ways to oppose helmet laws on "safety" grounds. I discern that their opposition to helmet laws has nothing to do with safety.
- cbsmith 4y agoYou'll note the criticism in this article goes beyond safety grounds. The reason for the headline is patently obvious though: if the sole intended positive effect of the laws doesn't actually play out, then it's no longer a case of weighing the positives vs. the negatives.
- charonn0 4y agoI noted that the criticism in the article attempts to frame on safety grounds.
- cbsmith 4y agoYes. I point is that even if your motives have nothing to do with safety, assuming you can make a credible argument, it makes perfect sense that you'd attack the laws on "safety" grounds, since the presumed positive safety effect is really the only supporting argument for the laws. tl;dr: if there was an oracle that could tell us definitively that mandatory helmet laws don't improve safety, I think we'd see mandatory helmet laws repealed pretty much everywhere.
- charonn0 4y agoI don't think they've made a credible argument here. This is true regardless of whether the arguments they raise have merit otherwise (e.g. police interactions.) People are well justified in looking at them askance for their choice of framing device. It's manipulative and dishonest, or at the very least comes off that way.
- cbsmith 4y ago
- denton-scratch 4y agoOne risk for cyclists from helmet-wearing is torque. If you fall off and bang your head, the helmet will give you some protection against a head injury (how much protection? Nobody knows, because unlike motorcyle helmets, there are no standards). But the helmet increases the width of your head, which means that torque from the impact is more likely to injure your neck.
- ben7799 4y agoEverything about this is misinformation. The neck torque thing constantly has been trotted out by anti-helmet motoryclists and has never been shown to be real. And there are many bicycle helmet standards, some of which are very strict. CPSC, the European equivalents, SNELL bicycle certifications, etc.. There are separate certifications for bicycling disciplines with higher risk like BMX, Downhil/Enduro mountain biking, etc.. as well. The SNELL standards for bicycles don't require the same levels of protection as motorcycle or car motorsports helmets but are very strict in that they will go and buy helmets in the field to hold the manufacturers honest. CPSC famously lets the companies self-certify. CPSC Standard: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/part-1203 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/part-1203 SNELL Standards: https://smf.org/stds https://smf.org/stds EU Stanard (EN 1078): https://www.helmetfacts.com/standards/en-1078/ https://www.helmetfacts.com/standards/en-1078/
- taylodl 4y agoIf you're cycling anywhere where you're depending on a painted line to keep you safe from tons of metal that's traveling much faster than you - then you'd better have a helmet on, at the minimum! I'd argue the same for stand-on electric scooters as well. Maybe what we need to normalize is always having a helmet with you. It's sad we have to have laws to mandate such things, but here we are.
- s0rce 4y agoOr maybe we mandate real infrastructure to keep you safe from tons of metal traveling much faster than you?
- taylodl 4y agoThat's the proper solution, but we may have problems implementing it in newer cities that were designed with cars in mind and don't have much in the way of public transportation outside of busses - in other words the U.S. South and the U.S. Midwest.
- Animats 4y agoThe new phrase is "acceptable losses". If some important social goal can be accomplished at the cost of some lives, that's acceptable. That reasoning has been applied to COVID.[1][2] A China-style lockdown reduces deaths to a very low level, but the impact on GDP is unacceptable to most of the rest of the world. Here, it's being applied to bicyclists. Because more people of color are cited for not wearing a helmet, it's more important to eliminate that discrimination than to save a few lives. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7255398/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7255398/ [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/11/28/covid-who-is-dying/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2022/11/28/covid-who-i...
- zip1234 4y agoThese laws 1. make it harder for people to cycle and 2. give motorists a scapegoat when they hit cyclists (a cyclist not wearing their helmet as they were crushed by a 7000lb Hummer).
- toss1 4y agoThis is nonsense, and sounds like the same kind of opposition to motorcycle helmets, i.e., a series of platitudes and excuses that are thinly or not-at-all supported by any actual data. Basic protective gear has a high frequency of converting a life-changing or life-ending event into a "drat, I scratched my helmet/glasses/gear" event. When I was a teenager a guy in my town was getting known as a motocross racer. Until one Friday he was tuning his bike, went around the block to check something about the tune, slid on a patch of sand, hit his head and died. If he'd just spend 5sec to toss his helmet on, he'd have had to get another one for that race. Instead, he is no more. Their entire argument here is that 'fewer cyclists come out with helmet laws because it is mandatory'. Aside form no data, I'd say that it is better that there are fewer cyclists but they have their helmets on. Sure, there's less of a 'safety in numbers' effect, but the effect of many more injuries in the news/scuttlebut will also reduce numbers of cyclists.
- cptskippy 4y agoI think the title should be changed to "Mandatory Helmet Laws reduces Bike Share usage which results in fewer bikes on the road".
- globular-toast 4y agoImagine requiring non-smokers to wear respirators because passive smoking is bad for you.
- elenaferrantes 4y agoNext : mandatory helmet for pedestrians. You never know, it could save your life. It’s not the end of the world to wear one.
- Animatronio 4y agoBetter yet - stay at home. Don't leave unless really necessary. Have everything delivered, preferably by autonomous electric drones. WFH. Exercise indoors. Have a super-insulated home, but don't naturally ventilate it.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- oblio 4y agoYou two comments (the one I'm replying to and the previous one) fell of the slippery hope, near the deep end.
- Animatronio 4y agoSlippery slope, perhaps? Then yeah... I guess so.
- elenaferrantes 4y agoNo worries, I have my helmet ;-)
- giantg2 4y agoIt seems that most of the commentary here is about whether or not there are more injuries with helmets. It seems largely moot since this is basically a proxy for the conversation that we should have - should there be helmet mandates?
- macrolime 4y agoSeems one of the big issues here is that almost nobody will use bikesharing when needing to wear a helmet as people would rarely have a helmet available when wanting to rent a bike. I wonder how it would look if all rental bikes had a helmet included.
- fluoridation 4y agoHelmets get pretty gross. I would not want to use someone else's helmet.
- scelerat 4y agoIf we're looking for effectively reducing injury across all people, shouldn't we be working on mandatory helmet laws for automobile occupants first? Bicycle riders (in the US) are a small minority.
- vorpalhex 4y agoDo you have any research that wearing a helmet in an automobile saves people? Given that you have a full frame and airbags that seems questionable.
- seadan83 4y agoI recall seeing similar research. On a phone, but could try to dig up citations showing head injuries is significant factor for mortality. Eg: if it makes no sense, and airbags and frame are good enough, why do they wear helmets in nascar? (Answer, the helmet helps prevent head injuries when in a motor-vehicke crash)
- Eric_WVGG 4y agoMore people have head injuries in showers than on bicycles. Furthermore, the focus on helmets makes it sound as though head injuries were the only — or even primary — threat that cyclists face.
- Zigurd 4y agoThe real lesson is that studies like this can't be boiled down to clickbait. Helmets make each individual cyclists isolated action safer. The question then becomes whether cyclists ride more, in more diverse, less protected settings, and are exposed to more risk because of road design? Or do they take more risks intentionally? And for what purpose? Both, or neither, can turn out to be true. Making cycling safer can't be reduced to "don't bother with helmets." Much less is it valid to say helmets are a "nanny state" matter. On top of which, none of this directly bears on whether, in making lack of a helmet a premise for a traffic stop, we gave cops another tool for harassing minorities. In some places, like LA, the vast majority of cop "work" is cop-initiated traffic stops, disproportionately of minorities, that does nothing to enhance road safety and leave just a sliver of resources for property crime and other things that matter much more to the people of the community.
- conor_f 4y agoThe safest thing for cyclists is not a helmet, it's good infrastructure. Everything else is just noise.
- AlbertCory 4y agoIf ever there was a deliberately-deceptive clickbait headline, this is it. Let's look at their overall conclusions: 1. A reduction in the number of cyclists on streets; 2. Financial struggle for popular bike sharing systems; and 3. More exposure among vulnerable populations to unnecessary interactions with police. NONE of these support the clickbait headline. #1 and #2 say that MHLs reduce the number of cyclists. And #3 fails to control for "percent of populations who ride without helmets." None of them say that a cyclist wearing a helmet is just as likely, or more likely, to get injured. > The unfortunate truth is mandatory helmet laws simply don’t lead to their purported goal, which is to make streets safer. No, that's never been the "purported goal." The goal is to protect people who already ARE cycling.
- jeffbee 4y agohttps://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet-cyclists-less-room/ https://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet...
- AlbertCory 4y agoMissing from this is any proof of a connection between "close passes" and injuries: "The new paper from Walker also re-affirms that wearing a helmet was indeed associated with more “close” passes when you take into consideration that in some places, the law dictates more than one meter of room." and any increase in accidents, let alone injury accidents.
- ndsipa_pomu 4y agoIt seems obvious to me that if drivers are passing closer, then there's less room for error, either by the driver not judging distance or the cyclist needing to avoid a pothole etc. There's also the intimidation factor - a lot of people are put off from cycling due to not feeling safe, and having vehicles pass at speed within a metre is extremely scary.
- 3bone 4y agoI agree, they don't do a fantastic job of justifying the title. However, #1 and #2 are related, and the article does try to explain why they cause less safety. More people biking means both fewer cars, and people driving cars are more aware of bikers. > Safety in Numbers is a straightforward concept: More people on bikes creates safer conditions on our streets. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), which represents professional planners from 81 cities from around the United States, pointed this out in their own pushback on NTSB’s recommendations. If you follow the links in the article you'll come to some actual research about the topic https://www.bmj.com/content/332/7543/722.2 https://www.bmj.com/content/332/7543/722.2.
- billyt555 4y agoAccording to the CDC, 30% of injury related deaths are TBI-related, and 14% of those TBIs are from car accidents. Why not have mandatory helmets for auto drivers too?
- fnordpiglet 4y agoBecause the car already has multiple redundant safety systems. The bicycle has exactly zero.
- billyt555 4y agoMaybe so, but auto accidents still result in lots of head injuries even with the existing safety systems.
- fnordpiglet 4y agoIs that a reason to adopt no safety systems for a bicycle?
- ben7799 4y agoYou're right, if anyone was rational we'd all wear helmets in the car all the time. It's all irrationality and a belief that cars are much safer than we pretend they are. As someone who has worn a helmet in the car from time to time, a lot of cars don't even leave enough headroom available for someone 6' tall to wear the helmet without their head hitting the ceiling.
- maerF0x0 4y agoNot sure if you've ever worn a racing/motorcycle helmet but the visibilty/mobility is not the same. People would shoulder check even less than they do now.
- billyt555 4y agoI'm talking about a bicycle helmet.
- seadan83 4y agoAh, another car vs bike culture war filled commentary section. Sadly a place where HN is not even immune. To sum up the article, the effect of lots of bicyclists leading to careful driving is greater than the protective effect of wearing a helmet while biking. Because helmet laws do cause a drop in ridership, it's counterintuitively a net negative for cyclist safety. That is the claim of the article. To refute this, one must show that the "critical mass theory" is not significant and that driver attentiveness to cyclists is not a function of the number of cyclists. The claim is not refuted by giving studies showing that when cyclists crash and hit their head, then helmets are (incredibly) significant for reducing head injuries. Nor is the claim refuted by saying cyclists should not be in the road, or saying (without evidence) that there is no reduction in ridership from helmet laws (the article cites examples demonstrating that reduction). So again, the car centric here need to focus on whether the critical mass effect is actually a real thing, or need to find the evidence that ridership is not a function of helmet laws (the data, generally and from this article, indicate that both are the case).
- ndsipa_pomu 4y agoThe most frustrating thing about people focussing on cycle helmets is that they have very little effect on cyclist safety. PPE should be the last thing that people consider when looking at road danger. From https://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-not-even-top-10-things-keep-cycling-safe https://road.cc/content/news/111258-chris-boardman-helmets-n... > Talking about helmets had become a time-consuming distraction, he said. “We’ve got to tackle the helmet debate head on because it’s so annoying,” he said. “It gets a disproportionate amount of coverage. When you have three minutes and someone asks ‘Do you wear a helmet’ you know the vast majority of your time when you could be talking about stuff that will make a difference, is gone.” > He said the focus on helmets had made cycling seem more dangerous than it really is. > “We’ve gone away from the facts,” he said. “We’ve gone to anecdotes. It’s like shark attacks - more people are killed building sandcastles than are killed by sharks. It’s just ludicrous that the facts aren’t matching up with the actions because the press focus, naturally, on the news stories, and [the notion that cycling is dangerous] becomes the norm, and it isn’t the norm.
- AdrianB1 4y ago
- JodieBenitez 4y agoAs a cyclist riding a dedicated and perfectly safe lane by the country, the day helmets are mandatory is the day I sell my bike. Enough with that zero-risk obsession.
- fredrikholm 4y agoHeadline sounds like a Friedman quote. Coming from Scandinavia where dedicated bike paths are the default, I'm surprised that Americans willingly bike directly in traffic. Especially given how few they are (compared to the very high number of cars). The few times people bike in traffic here is on the rare occasion where you need to switch between two separate bike lanes that aren't connected. Having seen cyclist getting hit by a car doing 20kmh/30mph and hitting the pavement head first, however inconvenient it might be for you, please wear a helmet.
- robbrawkly 4y agoMandatory motorcycling helmeting was enacted in Minnesota and traffic deaths with motorcycles went way down. I think it was people wanting organ donations that wanted helmets to be not mandatory(and maybe some other unsavory people). I guess it makes sense.
- up2isomorphism 4y agoThe cyclists have been the most blatant traffic violators for quite a while in the city. Ik any day if someone is running a red light it is likely a cyclists. Now this type of article is just a another way of presenting such a mentality.
- smcin 4y agoNo, and your individual experience (which country/state/city?) doesn't necessarily prove anything: minor violations by cyclists don't necessarily imply any reduction to other people's safety, totally unlike violations by cars/trucks/buses. They often simply mean the regulation doesn't make sense or can safely be ignored (we're all aware of some regulations for motorists being ignored or under-prosecuted.) Extremely relevant example: many jurisdictions in the US have or are looking at legalizing so-called Idaho stop/rolling stop [0], which allows cyclists to treat a stop sign as a yield sign, and a red light as a stop sign. (Obviously they still have to stop or yield to pedestrians crossing or about to cross). [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idaho_stop
- up2isomorphism 4y agoWhat you are saying reflects exactly the mentality I described in my post, rules are for others, not for me. BTW, I probably have been on bicycle more than you will ever be able to considering where I grew up. But some new US cyclists (particularly someone does not believe this is just another means of transportation) are often the worst traffic violators: I usually do not see any motorist running red light usually in months, but bikers? Well on a daily basis. I did not see these behavior where I grew up where everybody's main way of getting somewhere is by bike.
- smcin 4y agoNo, your assumption is wrong and I cycled for decades. I also spent some time in Amsterdam which is the #6 best city for bikes in the world. No it doesn't reflect "mentality"; as both a cyclist and driver and pedestrian and transit rider I'm extremely aware that different rules and practices have disparate impact, sometimes massive, sometimes for no valid reason whatsoever. Also, another thing you neglect is that in the US, adjacent or nearby traffic lights are typically not synchronized, also the crossing delay for pedestrians (or minor roads, or left-turn lanes) is often very long (sometimes 6-14 minutes at major intersections, I've measured it, it deprioritizes other users vs. heavy car traffic). To offset some of these insane practices, many US localities are allowing Idaho stops. Like I said to you. It is in many localities perfectly good and legal for a cyclist to proceed (obviously yielding to cross-traffic, if there is any) through a red light. In the last year I've almost been killed by other drivers 50++ times but (even as a pedestrian) by cyclists 0 times (You may quibble selection bias, since there are few cyclists, esp. after 7pm in winter). Complaining about cyclists at intersections where a bridge/overpass/underpass should reasonably have been built decades before, is missing the point. In US cities, cyclists have to pay a price in safety and speed for the sins of city councils for having deprioritized them for 50 years. Yes, sometimes new US cyclists are traffic violators; they simply need to be taught. Like I said, not all violations are dangerous to other users; things like no reflectors, no lights, no reflective jacket, are mainly a risk to themselves not other people. Very obvious solutions exist like free or discounted helmets; very clearly painted bike lanes with optional plastic separators near intersections to prevent corner-turning cars straying into their lane; organized bike groups for newbies; bike corridors in the suburbs; proper lighting, signage and cameras at intersections, and serious enforcement against drivers who injure cyclists (the US doesn't do this, but has a fetish about drivers who've had one drink). The city of Cupertino is pretty good for bike planning: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/transportation-mobility/bicycle-and-pedestrian-travel/bicycle-transportation-plan-implementation https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/... As to the US not devoting anywhere near enough public funding to cycling, the Dutch et al. know for decades that it's an investment in public health, in converting motorists to bicyclists/ transit riders/ pedestrians. It's also space-efficient to do bikes + transit, since e.g. Amsterdam is essentially at sea level and physically can't do multistorey car parks. One of the silver linings of Covid was a massive reset in cycling, transit and pedestrian policy, and a one-time golden opportunity to shift commuters from cars to better modes. Essentially reversing some of the insanity of US 1970s-style urban/suburban planning. Complaining that a few novice cyclists initially violate some laws (before they learn) is a tiny price to pay for a longterm much healthier, more sustainable, pedestrian-friendly urban planning, that also allows higher population densities and hence enables transit. (For sure, the small minority of cyclists who actually do dangerous things should be prosecuted; I hope that's not your strawman of my comment, because I never said that either.)
- timzaman 4y agoZero people in Holland use bike helmets, and we are the biggest bikers. I usually say: 'if you need to wear a helmet to be safe, you shouldnt be biking'. Make the streets safer, dont focus on the helmet.
- balls187 4y agoAmerican cities are almost overwhelming designed for car traffic and not pedestrian / people. I wonder if Dutch cities tend to favor bikes and people, which leads to fewer fatal accidents. Or as the article is suggesting because biking is such integral to dutch culture, drivers expect bicyclists and are more apt to look out for them
- lamontcg 4y agoThe only legal effect of mandatory helmet laws are that black and homeless people will get a ticket when they get into an accident, even if the accident wasn't their fault (but then it certainly becomes their fault).
- missedthecue 4y agoYou can buy a bicycle helmet for $15, are you saying that minorities are priced out of this? How do they afford the bike itself?
- snhly 4y agoWorded differently: Minimum $15 (average: $35) each time your helmet is stolen/lost/forgotten (from my experience as a cyclist: this is a much more frequent occurrence than losing the bike). We'd be adding a new legal requirement for cycling. This would of course discourage financially struggling groups with more pressing issues at the front of their mind. If someone is living well below the poverty line, and they or their kids lose a helmet, through theft or otherwise, they may just decide to start walking 3 hours to work/school each day for a while. $15 each time you lose it may seem small to us, but for some parent it could be a choice between buying a new helmet and buying 2-3 days of MacDonalds meals for the kids. The over-arching cause of cyclist death is bad cyclist infrastructure. Solutions targeting anything else are just red herrings and detraction. Bike helmets should be encouraged but not enforced. PS mandatory bike helmets would inevitably drive up the price of bike helmets beyond minimum $15.
- lamontcg 4y agoI'm really saying that the only people who get the ticket are minorities or homeless, and its used as a tool to blame them if there's any accidents. https://crosscut.com/news/2020/12/nearly-half-seattles-helmet-citations-go-homeless-people https://crosscut.com/news/2020/12/nearly-half-seattles-helme... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/18/us/seattle-bicycle-helmet.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/18/us/seattle-bicycle-helmet...
- MagicMoonlight 4y ago"Seat belts make drivers less safe"
- olliej 4y agoMy supervisor for my masters was vehemently anti-helmet. Not anti-helmet law, anti helmet - was so viscerally opposed to them that he bought a tricycle to circumvent NZs mandatory helmet law and then intentionally goaded police into writing tickets so he could then say “the law says bicycle and this is a tricycle”. Note that every study has shown that wearing a helmet reduces the likelihood of permanent injury, so while you can complain that helmet laws are bad, this guy was an idiot and believed that the act of wearing a helmet itself increased your likelihood of injury.
- Naijoko 4y agoThis Articel is bullshit. Helmets make cyclist more safe. It only reduces the total number of cyclist. And because of that there is less investment in cycling infrastructure. But the scientific articel they are linking to says following " Do more people on bikes cause cycling to become safer, or does safer infrastructure attract more people to bike? There’s no conclusive evidence either way, but the answer is probably a mix of both. " So full blown clickbait...
- cgrealy 4y agoEven if we are to take the propositions in the article at face value (some of those studies are dubious), it still leaves you with a simple equation. MHLs make it more likely that you will be involved in an accident, but also more likely that you will survive said accident. It’s a trade off between risk and consequences. If I’m given the choice of getting slapped in the face on a coin toss or playing Russian roulette, I’m going to choose a 50% chance of a slap vs a 16% chance of death. And honestly, the whole argument that less people will cycle if they have to wear a helmet is colossally dumb. Only an idiot would drive without a seat belt these days, but they also faced resistance when they were first enforced. People just get used it. Also, NZ has MHLs and cycling is going up.
- jgalt212 4y ago> More exposure among vulnerable populations to unnecessary interactions with police. Don't forget to leave out the obligatory reference to structural racism.
- trmsw 4y agoA better way to make cyclists and pedestrians safer would be more stringent laws against dangerous car designs, and some enforcement of the existing laws. We are starting to see US-style monster pickups and SUVs here in Belgium and they are a fucking abomination - far too large for city streets - and their extra weight and height plus reduced visibility make them dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists.
- mcv 4y agoI'm in favour of requiring a much stricter driver's license to drive those big pickups and SUVs. And maybe some other measures to discourage their unnecessary use.
- teddyh 4y agoA special case in the U.S. is that I’ve heard that car drivers have an unusually large ire against cyclists. They see cyclists as a stereotype; i.e. using a racing bicycle, wearing spandex, going dangerously fast around both people and cars, not respecting traffic laws, and, crucially, wearing helmets. If you are biking using a normal bicycle, while wearing normal street clothes, but are wearing a helmet, this might make drivers associate you with the stereotype and therefore feel safe in hating you and your bicycle. You have changed from “a normal person on a bicycle” to the dreaded cyclist. If this is so, then it might be that the helmet in fact did not make you any safer, on balance.
- balls187 4y agoPronto didn't fail due to mandatory helmets.
- bilsbie 4y agoMods, I submitted this exact url 23 hours ago. Why didn’t future submissions go to mine?
- dclaw 4y agoThese arguments are always idiotic. You don't need a traumatic brain injury to know that hitting your head on the ground is a problem. Helmet laws are not in fact about cars. Even riding in the middle of nowhere on the dirt can lead to an injury. Most of the world is not a city.
- mcv 4y agoNo, but cities are where most of the bikes are. Mountainbikers don't need helmet laws to know to wear one. And they usually do.
- nedt 4y agoThe thing about helmet is that it only helps protect the head and even there only partly. You might still have broken bones, bruises, shoulders, knees that hurt for a long time for various reasons, but hey at least we had a helmet. So we are talking about avoiding TBI. But TBI not only happen on a bike. Accidents resulting in TBI happen at home, no one wearing a helmet, or in cars. And for cars helmets were developed. And the same people saying cyclists must wear a helmet start calling you stupid for wanting passengers in a car wear a helmet, because "they are not race car drivers". In the end they are kinda right and shouldn't have to wear a helmet. It's much better to make the road safe for everyone. And then a helmet for cyclists is also not necessary anymore.
- bobbylarrybobby 4y agoAnd pedestrians can also fall or get hit by a car and hit their head. Should pedestrians have to wear helmets?
- hoosieree 4y agoSomewhat related, rugby players get injured less than American football players[1]. Also I can't help but imagine how much safer car drivers would be if they wore helmets while driving. [1] http://michelicenter.com/publications/media/2008-bjsm-colleg-rugby-union-inj-patterns-in-ne1[1].pdf http://michelicenter.com/publications/media/2008-bjsm-colleg...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- tmnvix 4y agoConversely, introducing mandatory helmets for people in vehicles could increase safety for everyone. Win/win unless you are one of the drivers that is dissuaded from using a car I guess.
- time4tea 4y agoI wonder how many of the commenter here have actually ridden a bike? Anyhow, one conveniently unasked question is "what do bike helmets protect the rider from" Well, it isn't collisions with cars. It is unlikely to be brain injury. It isn't jaw fractures. We know this because the lack of research in all these areas is almost non-existent. The best we can say is that a loss of control incident (not a vehicle collision) may be mitigated in some dimension by wearing a helmet. Pretty much all other assertions are just that, assertions with no basis in science. A single study doesn't count as basis. There is however a lot of evidence for risk taking behaviours on the behalf of drivers. That's why 39,000 people were killed in road collions in the USA in 2020. 45% of them caused by speeding, alcohol impairment, or not wearing a seat belt. Not wearing a seat belt is different to not wearing a bike helmet due to the extreme difference in speeds, collision dynamics and kinetic energy. Remember mv^2.
- amai 4y agoDoesn‘t that imply that seatbelt obligation would make car drivers less safe, too?
- micadep 4y agoThis is not clickbait. Helmets prevent the adoption of cycling because people don't want to look stupid in a helmet. Yet, for cyclists like for pack animals, safety is in numbers. Safety is also in dedicated infrastructure, to share less road with cars, but is not going to be built unless there is enough adoption. Having to wear helmets that are as cool as swimming armbands is not good for adoption. Maybe start by having a Steve Jobs like person building a cool helmet? Or make it less ridiculous (in the eye of society) by running ad campaigns with Kardashian's, Ronaldo, or whoever people look up to and want to emulate.
- sinuhe69 4y agoVietnam and China were country with huge population of daily bikers. People used bike for all walks of life, even traveling very long distance. None of them mandated helmet wearing for decades. And AFAIK, the number of death or serious injuries was virtually zero. Maybe today bikes are a bit faster, but I don't think it makes any significant difference.
- andrewstuart 4y agoThis is completely wrong. Please provide references to back up your statement.