3 ms·
> 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? That is ve
by jbandela1 4y ago
> 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?
That is very faulty logic.
In a modern car with a person seat belted in, there is very little for a person to strike their head against (which is what a helmet protects against). The airbags are there to protect you from striking your head against the steering column or the side of the passenger compartment.
On a bike, there is nothing protecting you from striking your head against something.
When I was doing neurosurgery, I saw lots of head trauma. The head trauma for bad car accidents was more diffuse axonal injury caused by rotational or deceleration forces that a helmet would not protect you against (your head isn't slamming into anything). Whereas with bicycle accidents it was more impact trauma and skull fractures and resulting brain injury (which a helmet would have protected you against).
Source: Neurosurgery resident at a Level 1 trauma center.
- ActorNightly 4y agoYet, every any time you are driving a car around at track, during an HPDE event or Track day, you are required to wear a helmet, and those events are MUCH safer than the streets. Arguing on this line is pointless. You can use this line to justify any number of mandatory safer features. The goal should be to drive an adoption of clean, non congestive, personal transportation, and the primary drivers for this is cost and convenience. Mandatory laws requiring stuff is counter to this.