10 ms·

I 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

I 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 ago
You don't need helmets, you need better roads. It's that simple. Even with a helmet, biking in US looks fucking scary.
- AlecSchueler 4y ago
  Totally 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 ago
    Absolutely 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...
    - AlecSchueler 4y ago
      I'm very glad to hear you're still with us and the helmet helped you. Manufacturers however do warn that they aren't designed to mitigate dangers it vehicular collisions, and studies show that vehicle drivers are kinder to cyclists without helmets. Sources here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-helmets-not-designed-for-impacts-from-cars-stresses-leading-maker-giro/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-...
diarmuidc 4y ago
That experiment has been tried and failed already in Australia.
- killingtime74 4y ago
  Stop spreading misinformation. It's literally the law to wear a helmet in every state and territory. It's been the law for almost 30 years. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia. 2) https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/motorcyclists/motorcyclehelmets.html https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/motorcyc... NSW police were chasing people down and fining them for not wearing a helmet. My college room mate got done twice in a month.
  - fud101 4y ago
    it's law but a lot of us don't bother with wearing one, esp to the local shops. i don't want to bother.
  - rhinoceraptor 4y ago
    The "failed" part of the experiment is that far fewer people ride bicycles in Australia today than did before helmet laws (edit, incorrect, it's per capita reduction, not absolute) in absolute numbers, not even per capita, adjusted for population growth. The laws are successful in that they get people to wear helmets, but they are an abject failure in terms of participation in cycling.
    - taneq 4y ago
      Gonna need some evidence for that causal link you're suggesting here. Counterpoint: Plenty of bike paths get plenty of use. We didn't even have these bike paths when the helmet laws came in.
      - rhinoceraptor 4y ago
        I misread the thing I was looking at, it is per-capita, not absolute. Here is a graph of the number of people cycling to work, the peak is the late 80s/early 90s before the helmet laws: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percent-cycling-to-work-by-year-capital-cities-vs-all-other-areas_fig1_275338909 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percent-cycling-to-work-...
forgotusername6 4y ago
With regards to the 12 inches of space, the UK has recently passed a law requiring a 5ft gap when passing a cyclist. As a motorist it really does make me think about how I'm going to pass safely and whether it is even possible to do.
- cassianoleal 4y ago
  That's the point though, isn't it? 12 inches is not safe for the cyclist. 5ft is a little safer. If you can't give the cyclist that much space, slow down and wait until you do.
- tsukikage 4y ago
  What I'd really like to see is cyclists giving themselves that much space. If I had a penny for every time someone's squeezed through between my wing mirror and the kerb in start/stop traffic with just an inch or two to spare... As with many other things, the way forward here is to copy the Scandinavian countries and separate cyclists from motorists entirely. Sadly, though, there are too many groups fighting this kind of change.
  - Xylakant 4y ago
    > What I'd really like to see is cyclists giving themselves that much space. If I had a penny for every time someone's squeezed through between my wing mirror and the kerb in start/stop traffic with just an inch or two to spare... This really gets pulled out every single time someone points out the proper distance required for passing a cyclist and it’s wrong. First, passing a cyclist with a car and passing a car with a cycle are asymmetric things. The cyclist needs space to actually go a straight line, the path of a bicycle is never straight - and it sways more at slower speeds. The cyclist also needs space in both directions to make a turn, for example to avoid an obstacle. If you take that space to one side, they cannot even safely turn the other direction. Cars have a significantly higher draft than cyclists. They’re bigger, heavier and scarier. If the cyclist twitches as you pass them, you were too close. Cars just don’t fall over. Cyclists do. Slippery patch on the road, whatever. And when they fall, they need space. The car driver passing the cyclist has no idea how skilled the cyclist is. And unskilled cyclists need more space to maneuver - or make mistakes when scared and fall. See above. The cyclist passing the car knows their skill. And even unskilled cars do not randomly fall over. The danger is asymmetric. A car even slightly touching a cyclist is likely to end up with a major injury or death. A cyclist slightly touching a car is a dent and a scratch. This is why in many places, there’s a mandatory minimum distance when for a car passing a cyclist, but none for cyclist passing a car.
egormakarov 4y ago
the comparison with car seat belts is not that good. you dont need to schlep around your seat belt with you any time you leave the car.
taeric 4y ago
They don't just have arguments, they have data to back it? Your post is compelling, in comparing it to seatbelt laws. That said, you probably don't know those as well as you think you do. For an easy example, public transit that is often targeting lower income areas often does not require seat belts. Indeed, I've never been in a bus that required them. Even car seat laws often have carve outs for cabs. Worse, though, your post is ultimately a false dichotomy. There is no need to pick one. We should reform police to be less "us versus them," we should make better traffic calming choices. All the while we should encourage helmets. This article even does that. The claim is not to make it criminal and not to weaponize enforcement. Because they have strong evidence that that doesn't work.
bambax 4y ago
> Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent people from riding bikes. Just like mandatory seat belt laws did not prevent anyone from driving cars! There's a big difference between a helmet and a seat belt; the seat belt is part of the car; you have to carry the helmet, have it with you at all times, before and after riding. The net result is a drop in the number of riders, which has an impact on overall safety. I came to this article thinking it would be BS but it turns out to be quite reasonable. Yes, helmets protect rider and all riders should wear one; but making helmets mandatory have unintended consequences which result, as a whole, in making bikes less safe for everyone.
- invalidname 4y ago
  So carry it or tie it to your bike. There are folding helmets and pretty light helmets. I crashed recently. It made a difference to my skull. I had a motorcycle for well over a decade. We have helmet laws here and I carried that heavier helmet or placed it on my bike. It was fine. Part of the cost of having a bike.
  - bambax 4y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33865031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33865031
  - Fricken 4y ago
    I've had hundreds of crashes on a bike and hundreds of others crashes and wipeouts doing other activities. A helmet has never once come in handy. So I've come to believe that knowing how to wipe out, as a reflexive skill, is far more critical to safety than strapping some styrofoam to your head. Unfortunately you can't glance at a cyclist and decide affirmatively that they're an idiot for riding without wipeout skills.
    - malfist 4y ago
      It only takes one crash where the helmet was needed for you to never need one again...if you didn't wear one. We went through this same nonsense with motorcycles. Stop acting like it's the end of the world to put a piece of foam and plastic on your head for a little bit.
rhinoceraptor 4y ago
A seat belt is much less of an imposition on comfort and convenience than a helmet is. And there isn't really a more convenient alternative to driving a car, so of course mandating seat belts doesn't reduce car use. Statistically, you are much more likely to die or be injured in a car crash than on a bike, so surely we should mandate helmet use in cars, right?
- pfdietz 4y ago
  If the article was "Mandatory Helmet Laws Make Cyclists Less Comfortable", you'd have a point there in that first part.
  - rhinoceraptor 4y ago
    The point of the article is not that helmets are unsafe, no one would argue that wearing one is less safe than not. The simple fact is, in every place where cycling is normalized and not a deviant behavior for weird lycra-wearing dentists or people with DUIs, almost no one wears a helmet. Mandating helmets is a failed policy if the goal is to reduce reliance on cars, and to make cities safer for everyone.
    - jjk166 4y ago
      > Mandating helmets is a failed policy if the goal is to reduce reliance on cars, and to make cities safer for everyone. That's not the goal. The goal is to reduce head injuries. Mandatory helmet laws are effective at achieving that goal. If part of that reduction is simply discouraging people who would not ride a bike safely from riding a bike, that's not necessarily out of line with the goal.
      - sagarm 4y ago
        Great, let's ban the cars doing the running over. Head injuries solved.
        4y ago
tester89 4y ago
> Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent people from riding bikes. Just like mandatory seat belt laws did not prevent anyone from driving cars! > As far as killing bike share systems, look no further than Seattle, Washington. After they implemented similar policies, their bike share system floundered. The same has been seen in cities across Australia.
- smazga 4y ago
  Biking in Seattle is vehicular assisted suicide. The only variable is how long it takes. The hills don't help, either. Helmets are way down the list of reasons not to bike there.
afiori 4y ago
> "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. This is the same argument as "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" and it is the same level of technically-true-but-if-you-need-to-say-it-you-are-probably-wrong-in-practice"
mc32 4y ago
When you have a weak argument, you throw whatever you can to try to immunize it against attack[1], including things that are at most peripheral to the issue, like race, which is not an issue in many countries on earth (Thailand, China, Korea, Japan, most African countries, middle east, most parts of Europe, etc. [1]It the modern "think of the children", but instead, "think of the minorities" but worse because there are adult voices in minorities who can speak for themselves and most also want safety. That said in many places there are racist policies against one group or another, but I don't think the above is that.
scott_w 4y ago
> /Some/ protection is better than nothing at all. As a regular bike rider of 20 years, a helmet has protected me on exactly 2 occasions: once when I was training for racing and once actually in a race. So technical/fast conditions that most riders don't encounter. The biggest danger to a leisure or commuter rider are car drivers running them over. Helmets do nothing to stop a multiple ton steel object hitting your body at 30+mph and don't protect the parts that get hit. > 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. 100% this is the answer. The only thing helmet laws and discussions do is let people feel good about themselves while doing literally nothing to prevent vulnerable users.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > As a regular bike rider of 20 years, a helmet has protected me on exactly 2 occasions: once when I was training for racing and once actually in a race That's their purpose, protect you when you need it, which is on average a couple of times in a lifetime. If the helmet had protected you hundreds of times, probably you should have stopped riding a bike (or your friends and family should have stopped you). If you heard someone say "the seat belt saved my life at least 30 times" would you or would you not think that that person is dangerous and should not drive?
  - scott_w 4y ago
    You completely missed my point. Helmets protected me in bike racing where they're already mandatory. They do not protect most riders at all.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > Helmets protected me in bike racing where they're already mandatory. > They do not protect most riders at all. This is a textbook example of non sequitur. I would also add that it's so obvious that it hurts, because, simply, most bikers have never raced and never will, so to them what is cruise speed for a professional biker is where the risks are. I too have been a professional car driver in (very) minor leagues, that doesn't mean that what protected me while racing cannot protect my dad that never like driving and has always been very bad at it.
Steltek 4y ago
> Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent people from riding bikes. Just like mandatory seat belt laws did not prevent anyone from driving cars! I don't see how adding friction does not lead to a reduction in cycling? Unlike helmets, seat belts are one size fits all and they're built into the car. I'm not putting on someone else's sweaty and gross helmet. But you've hit on the right issue: helmets would be far less necessary if car drivers could stop hitting people. There aren't a whole lot of people just falling over all alone in a bike lane and outside Tour De France recaps, bike-on-bike crashes are also uncommon and uneventful. Remove the 3 tons of metal whizzing by and helmets would probably be reserved for winter conditions, rain, or sport activities. The solution isn't in changing biking. It's in changing driving.
- scifibestfi 4y ago
  You also have to carry it around, it increases the surface area of your head, it's harder to do shoulder checks, they are uncomfortable when it's hot out, and for some hair types it messes up your hair for the day.
cbsmith 4y ago
> Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent people from riding bikes. Just like mandatory seat belt laws did not prevent anyone from driving cars! That's a straw man. Nowhere in the article does it use the word "prevent". What the article cites are studies indicating that the behavioural effect of the laws was a reduction in bike riding. > "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. Again, that's a straw man argument. The laws aren't the reason why police officers disproportionately enforce said laws against communities of colour, but an observable effect of said laws is that they are disproportionately enforced on communities of colour. Sure, you can work on police enforcement reform, but until you get that problem fixed, the disproportionate enforcement is an observable effect. > 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. That contains the kind of poor logic you're critical of. There's a presumption that to reach critical mass in cycling adoption we need to "make everyone wear bike helmets", despite evidence cited in the article that the blunt instrument of legal mandates appears to reduce cycling adoption. The article agrees with you (as does most everyone else) that "some protection is better than nothing at all". It's not a question of whether wearing a bicycle helmet is a good idea or not. Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean that a legal mandate for it is also a good idea. > 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. Again, the article agrees with you on this point: "Right now, with nearly 40,000 people killed on American roads every year, that means we need to keep our leaders’ attention focused on structural reforms like complete street redesigns, which are proven to make our public spaces safe for everybody, whether they are walking, biking, taking transit, and yes, driving too."
michaelt 4y ago
> Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent people from riding bikes. Mandatory helmet laws say to people "Look Out! Bicycles are DANGEROUS! No matter how careful or experienced you are or where you're cycling, you could get your head smashed like a bowl of eggs at any time" If that's not an anti-cycling message, what is?
dehrmann 4y ago
> disproportionately enforced in communities of color and in lower income communities Everything needs a DEI angle, these days.
uoaei 4y ago
Latest on HN: someone with zero personal experience in the matter bullshits as if they are an expert on the basis of debate-bro style analysis involving only the structure of the argument. It has been zero days since our last...
banannaise 4y ago
> Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent people from riding bikes. Non-recreational biking (e.g. using a bike to get around) with a helmet is a giant pain in the ass. I have to find a place to store my helmet securely or carry it around all day. It messes up my hair, so I have to perform extra effort to be presentable at my destination. Within my city, I travel by bike a decent percentage of the time; with a helmet law, I would basically never do so.
thrwy_918 4y ago
>Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent people from riding bikes. Just like mandatory seat belt laws did not prevent anyone from driving cars! This is an absurd comparison. Mandatory helmet wearing makes bike-sharing programs almost completely unworkable. In my city, I see more people riding bikes from bike sharing programs than I do riding privately owned bikes.

dncornholio 4y ago

You don't need helmets, you need better roads. It's that simple. Even with a helmet, biking in US looks fucking scary.

AlecSchueler 4y ago
Totally 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 ago
  Absolutely 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...
  - AlecSchueler 4y ago
    I'm very glad to hear you're still with us and the helmet helped you. Manufacturers however do warn that they aren't designed to mitigate dangers it vehicular collisions, and studies show that vehicle drivers are kinder to cyclists without helmets. Sources here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-helmets-not-designed-for-impacts-from-cars-stresses-leading-maker-giro/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-...

diarmuidc 4y ago

That experiment has been tried and failed already in Australia.

killingtime74 4y ago
Stop spreading misinformation. It's literally the law to wear a helmet in every state and territory. It's been the law for almost 30 years. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets_in_Australia. 2) https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/motorcyclists/motorcyclehelmets.html https://roadsafety.transport.nsw.gov.au/stayingsafe/motorcyc... NSW police were chasing people down and fining them for not wearing a helmet. My college room mate got done twice in a month.
- fud101 4y ago
  it's law but a lot of us don't bother with wearing one, esp to the local shops. i don't want to bother.
- rhinoceraptor 4y ago
  The "failed" part of the experiment is that far fewer people ride bicycles in Australia today than did before helmet laws (edit, incorrect, it's per capita reduction, not absolute) in absolute numbers, not even per capita, adjusted for population growth. The laws are successful in that they get people to wear helmets, but they are an abject failure in terms of participation in cycling.
  - taneq 4y ago
    Gonna need some evidence for that causal link you're suggesting here. Counterpoint: Plenty of bike paths get plenty of use. We didn't even have these bike paths when the helmet laws came in.
    - rhinoceraptor 4y ago
      I misread the thing I was looking at, it is per-capita, not absolute. Here is a graph of the number of people cycling to work, the peak is the late 80s/early 90s before the helmet laws: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percent-cycling-to-work-by-year-capital-cities-vs-all-other-areas_fig1_275338909 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Percent-cycling-to-work-...

forgotusername6 4y ago

With regards to the 12 inches of space, the UK has recently passed a law requiring a 5ft gap when passing a cyclist. As a motorist it really does make me think about how I'm going to pass safely and whether it is even possible to do.

cassianoleal 4y ago
That's the point though, isn't it? 12 inches is not safe for the cyclist. 5ft is a little safer. If you can't give the cyclist that much space, slow down and wait until you do.
tsukikage 4y ago
What I'd really like to see is cyclists giving themselves that much space. If I had a penny for every time someone's squeezed through between my wing mirror and the kerb in start/stop traffic with just an inch or two to spare... As with many other things, the way forward here is to copy the Scandinavian countries and separate cyclists from motorists entirely. Sadly, though, there are too many groups fighting this kind of change.
- Xylakant 4y ago
  > What I'd really like to see is cyclists giving themselves that much space. If I had a penny for every time someone's squeezed through between my wing mirror and the kerb in start/stop traffic with just an inch or two to spare... This really gets pulled out every single time someone points out the proper distance required for passing a cyclist and it’s wrong. First, passing a cyclist with a car and passing a car with a cycle are asymmetric things. The cyclist needs space to actually go a straight line, the path of a bicycle is never straight - and it sways more at slower speeds. The cyclist also needs space in both directions to make a turn, for example to avoid an obstacle. If you take that space to one side, they cannot even safely turn the other direction. Cars have a significantly higher draft than cyclists. They’re bigger, heavier and scarier. If the cyclist twitches as you pass them, you were too close. Cars just don’t fall over. Cyclists do. Slippery patch on the road, whatever. And when they fall, they need space. The car driver passing the cyclist has no idea how skilled the cyclist is. And unskilled cyclists need more space to maneuver - or make mistakes when scared and fall. See above. The cyclist passing the car knows their skill. And even unskilled cars do not randomly fall over. The danger is asymmetric. A car even slightly touching a cyclist is likely to end up with a major injury or death. A cyclist slightly touching a car is a dent and a scratch. This is why in many places, there’s a mandatory minimum distance when for a car passing a cyclist, but none for cyclist passing a car.

egormakarov 4y ago

the comparison with car seat belts is not that good. you dont need to schlep around your seat belt with you any time you leave the car.

taeric 4y ago

They don't just have arguments, they have data to back it? Your post is compelling, in comparing it to seatbelt laws. That said, you probably don't know those as well as you think you do. For an easy example, public transit that is often targeting lower income areas often does not require seat belts. Indeed, I've never been in a bus that required them. Even car seat laws often have carve outs for cabs. Worse, though, your post is ultimately a false dichotomy. There is no need to pick one. We should reform police to be less "us versus them," we should make better traffic calming choices. All the while we should encourage helmets. This article even does that. The claim is not to make it criminal and not to weaponize enforcement. Because they have strong evidence that that doesn't work.

bambax 4y ago

> Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent people from riding bikes. Just like mandatory seat belt laws did not prevent anyone from driving cars! There's a big difference between a helmet and a seat belt; the seat belt is part of the car; you have to carry the helmet, have it with you at all times, before and after riding. The net result is a drop in the number of riders, which has an impact on overall safety. I came to this article thinking it would be BS but it turns out to be quite reasonable. Yes, helmets protect rider and all riders should wear one; but making helmets mandatory have unintended consequences which result, as a whole, in making bikes less safe for everyone.

invalidname 4y ago
So carry it or tie it to your bike. There are folding helmets and pretty light helmets. I crashed recently. It made a difference to my skull. I had a motorcycle for well over a decade. We have helmet laws here and I carried that heavier helmet or placed it on my bike. It was fine. Part of the cost of having a bike.
- bambax 4y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33865031 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33865031
- Fricken 4y ago
  I've had hundreds of crashes on a bike and hundreds of others crashes and wipeouts doing other activities. A helmet has never once come in handy. So I've come to believe that knowing how to wipe out, as a reflexive skill, is far more critical to safety than strapping some styrofoam to your head. Unfortunately you can't glance at a cyclist and decide affirmatively that they're an idiot for riding without wipeout skills.
  - malfist 4y ago
    It only takes one crash where the helmet was needed for you to never need one again...if you didn't wear one. We went through this same nonsense with motorcycles. Stop acting like it's the end of the world to put a piece of foam and plastic on your head for a little bit.

rhinoceraptor 4y ago

A seat belt is much less of an imposition on comfort and convenience than a helmet is. And there isn't really a more convenient alternative to driving a car, so of course mandating seat belts doesn't reduce car use. Statistically, you are much more likely to die or be injured in a car crash than on a bike, so surely we should mandate helmet use in cars, right?

pfdietz 4y ago
If the article was "Mandatory Helmet Laws Make Cyclists Less Comfortable", you'd have a point there in that first part.
- rhinoceraptor 4y ago
  The point of the article is not that helmets are unsafe, no one would argue that wearing one is less safe than not. The simple fact is, in every place where cycling is normalized and not a deviant behavior for weird lycra-wearing dentists or people with DUIs, almost no one wears a helmet. Mandating helmets is a failed policy if the goal is to reduce reliance on cars, and to make cities safer for everyone.
  - jjk166 4y ago
    > Mandating helmets is a failed policy if the goal is to reduce reliance on cars, and to make cities safer for everyone. That's not the goal. The goal is to reduce head injuries. Mandatory helmet laws are effective at achieving that goal. If part of that reduction is simply discouraging people who would not ride a bike safely from riding a bike, that's not necessarily out of line with the goal.
    - sagarm 4y ago
      Great, let's ban the cars doing the running over. Head injuries solved.
      - 4y ago

tester89 4y ago

> Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent people from riding bikes. Just like mandatory seat belt laws did not prevent anyone from driving cars! > As far as killing bike share systems, look no further than Seattle, Washington. After they implemented similar policies, their bike share system floundered. The same has been seen in cities across Australia.

smazga 4y ago
Biking in Seattle is vehicular assisted suicide. The only variable is how long it takes. The hills don't help, either. Helmets are way down the list of reasons not to bike there.

afiori 4y ago

> "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. This is the same argument as "Guns don't kill people; people kill people" and it is the same level of technically-true-but-if-you-need-to-say-it-you-are-probably-wrong-in-practice"

mc32 4y ago

When you have a weak argument, you throw whatever you can to try to immunize it against attack[1], including things that are at most peripheral to the issue, like race, which is not an issue in many countries on earth (Thailand, China, Korea, Japan, most African countries, middle east, most parts of Europe, etc. [1]It the modern "think of the children", but instead, "think of the minorities" but worse because there are adult voices in minorities who can speak for themselves and most also want safety. That said in many places there are racist policies against one group or another, but I don't think the above is that.

scott_w 4y ago

> /Some/ protection is better than nothing at all. As a regular bike rider of 20 years, a helmet has protected me on exactly 2 occasions: once when I was training for racing and once actually in a race. So technical/fast conditions that most riders don't encounter. The biggest danger to a leisure or commuter rider are car drivers running them over. Helmets do nothing to stop a multiple ton steel object hitting your body at 30+mph and don't protect the parts that get hit. > 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. 100% this is the answer. The only thing helmet laws and discussions do is let people feel good about themselves while doing literally nothing to prevent vulnerable users.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> As a regular bike rider of 20 years, a helmet has protected me on exactly 2 occasions: once when I was training for racing and once actually in a race That's their purpose, protect you when you need it, which is on average a couple of times in a lifetime. If the helmet had protected you hundreds of times, probably you should have stopped riding a bike (or your friends and family should have stopped you). If you heard someone say "the seat belt saved my life at least 30 times" would you or would you not think that that person is dangerous and should not drive?
- scott_w 4y ago
  You completely missed my point. Helmets protected me in bike racing where they're already mandatory. They do not protect most riders at all.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > Helmets protected me in bike racing where they're already mandatory. > They do not protect most riders at all. This is a textbook example of non sequitur. I would also add that it's so obvious that it hurts, because, simply, most bikers have never raced and never will, so to them what is cruise speed for a professional biker is where the risks are. I too have been a professional car driver in (very) minor leagues, that doesn't mean that what protected me while racing cannot protect my dad that never like driving and has always been very bad at it.

Steltek 4y ago

> Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent people from riding bikes. Just like mandatory seat belt laws did not prevent anyone from driving cars! I don't see how adding friction does not lead to a reduction in cycling? Unlike helmets, seat belts are one size fits all and they're built into the car. I'm not putting on someone else's sweaty and gross helmet. But you've hit on the right issue: helmets would be far less necessary if car drivers could stop hitting people. There aren't a whole lot of people just falling over all alone in a bike lane and outside Tour De France recaps, bike-on-bike crashes are also uncommon and uneventful. Remove the 3 tons of metal whizzing by and helmets would probably be reserved for winter conditions, rain, or sport activities. The solution isn't in changing biking. It's in changing driving.

scifibestfi 4y ago
You also have to carry it around, it increases the surface area of your head, it's harder to do shoulder checks, they are uncomfortable when it's hot out, and for some hair types it messes up your hair for the day.

cbsmith 4y ago

> Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent people from riding bikes. Just like mandatory seat belt laws did not prevent anyone from driving cars! That's a straw man. Nowhere in the article does it use the word "prevent". What the article cites are studies indicating that the behavioural effect of the laws was a reduction in bike riding. > "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. Again, that's a straw man argument. The laws aren't the reason why police officers disproportionately enforce said laws against communities of colour, but an observable effect of said laws is that they are disproportionately enforced on communities of colour. Sure, you can work on police enforcement reform, but until you get that problem fixed, the disproportionate enforcement is an observable effect. > 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. That contains the kind of poor logic you're critical of. There's a presumption that to reach critical mass in cycling adoption we need to "make everyone wear bike helmets", despite evidence cited in the article that the blunt instrument of legal mandates appears to reduce cycling adoption. The article agrees with you (as does most everyone else) that "some protection is better than nothing at all". It's not a question of whether wearing a bicycle helmet is a good idea or not. Just because something is a good idea doesn't mean that a legal mandate for it is also a good idea. > 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. Again, the article agrees with you on this point: "Right now, with nearly 40,000 people killed on American roads every year, that means we need to keep our leaders’ attention focused on structural reforms like complete street redesigns, which are proven to make our public spaces safe for everybody, whether they are walking, biking, taking transit, and yes, driving too."

michaelt 4y ago

> Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent people from riding bikes. Mandatory helmet laws say to people "Look Out! Bicycles are DANGEROUS! No matter how careful or experienced you are or where you're cycling, you could get your head smashed like a bowl of eggs at any time" If that's not an anti-cycling message, what is?

dehrmann 4y ago

> disproportionately enforced in communities of color and in lower income communities Everything needs a DEI angle, these days.

uoaei 4y ago

Latest on HN: someone with zero personal experience in the matter bullshits as if they are an expert on the basis of debate-bro style analysis involving only the structure of the argument. It has been zero days since our last...

banannaise 4y ago

> Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent people from riding bikes. Non-recreational biking (e.g. using a bike to get around) with a helmet is a giant pain in the ass. I have to find a place to store my helmet securely or carry it around all day. It messes up my hair, so I have to perform extra effort to be presentable at my destination. Within my city, I travel by bike a decent percentage of the time; with a helmet law, I would basically never do so.

thrwy_918 4y ago

>Mandatory helmet laws do not prevent people from riding bikes. Just like mandatory seat belt laws did not prevent anyone from driving cars! This is an absurd comparison. Mandatory helmet wearing makes bike-sharing programs almost completely unworkable. In my city, I see more people riding bikes from bike sharing programs than I do riding privately owned bikes.