7 ms·

> Mandatory helmet laws make the number of injuries associated with biking go down. What are the effects on the number of fatalities associated with biking? I

by nix0n 4y ago

> Mandatory helmet laws make the number of injuries associated with biking go down. What are the effects on the number of fatalities associated with biking? It's well known (you didn't cite any studies, so I won't either) that cars pass closer to helmeted cyclists than to unhelmeted cyclists.

b3morales 4y ago
I'm a little wary of relying on this, because it seems like the kind of effect that would go away if no-helmet was more normalized. In other words, if we have a (local) culture that says "bicycling is sufficiently dangerous as to require a helmet", then drivers (even the ones who don't themselves cycle) are going to have that in their heads, and it's going to influence their behavior: "if I accidentally strike this person not wearing a helmet they're going to get really hurt, I'd better be extra careful". If the consensus is that lacking a helmet is not particularly problematic, I suspect we'll find drivers not acting specially too.
jjk166 4y ago
https://helmets.org/evalstudies.htm https://helmets.org/evalstudies.htm There is an incredibly large number of studies that have all shown massive reductions in the rates of head injuries and deaths with the introduction and enforcement of mandatory helmet laws. Apparently whatever negative effect drivers passing closer to helmeted cyclists has is insignificant against the massive improvement of protecting an extremely important and extremely vulnerable part of your body.
- adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
  All of these studies are measuring incidents per year. They miss the confounding effect that helmet laws can make people bike less.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Which just by itself would help reduce the total number of injuries, as the unfortunate reality is almost every other form of transport is less likely to result in hits to the head. So you then have to balance that against the downsides of people choosing "safer" forms of transport, which are not inconsiderable.
    - RyanHamilton 4y ago
      If you are implying cars. What about deaths from pollution? Reduced years of life from pollution? Reduced years of life from being overweight due to lack of exercise? Miserable years of life caught in traffic? "Air pollution, which is primarily the result of burning fossil fuels, takes 2.2 years of the global life expectancy for each person". https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/air-pollution-cuts-life-expectancy-by-more-than-two-years-study-2022-06-14/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        Absolutely, I certainly don't wish to see more people driving cars! But for any individual, if safety is your primary concern and you're deciding between a car and a bicycle, you'd choose the former.
    - ricardobeat 4y ago
      Not true, if you look into the data there are more pedestrian head injuries than cyclists’. Or car accidents.
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        It might be conceivable that more people hurt their heads on a per-km basis walking than cycling, but I'd be extremely surprised that for the same individual, walking (or driving) a given distance would be more likely to result in a serious head injury than cycling it.
- adql 4y ago
  Okay but we care for amount of helmeted individuals injury rate vs ones without helmets. Less incidents can be just less cyclists, or something mildly related as "on average, helmets are colorful and increase visibility vs average cyclist that before helmet had nothing well visible on them"
AlbertCory 4y ago
Back when mandatory seatbelt laws were debated, people used to concoct scenarios where a rider/driver is saved because they're not wearing a seatbelt (they were "thrown clear"). This reminds me of that. Your "safety in numbers" and "cars pass closer to helmeted cyclists" is a desperate attempt to avoid a simple fact: if a head hits the pavement without a helmet, it gets injured. Of course you can invent other scenarios, but only by ignoring that one.
- ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
  Although: https://crag.asn.au/5-ways-wearing-a-bicycle-helmet-can-result-in-injuries/ https://crag.asn.au/5-ways-wearing-a-bicycle-helmet-can-resu...
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    "Risk compensation" is definitely a legit issue. I think you're the first to bring it up.
    - ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
      It's not my first helmet debate rodeo
r00fus 4y ago
> you didn't cite any studies, so I won't either This doesn't make your response sound any better, just bitter.

by nix0n 4y ago

b3morales 4y ago

I'm a little wary of relying on this, because it seems like the kind of effect that would go away if no-helmet was more normalized. In other words, if we have a (local) culture that says "bicycling is sufficiently dangerous as to require a helmet", then drivers (even the ones who don't themselves cycle) are going to have that in their heads, and it's going to influence their behavior: "if I accidentally strike this person not wearing a helmet they're going to get really hurt, I'd better be extra careful". If the consensus is that lacking a helmet is not particularly problematic, I suspect we'll find drivers not acting specially too.

jjk166 4y ago

https://helmets.org/evalstudies.htm https://helmets.org/evalstudies.htm There is an incredibly large number of studies that have all shown massive reductions in the rates of head injuries and deaths with the introduction and enforcement of mandatory helmet laws. Apparently whatever negative effect drivers passing closer to helmeted cyclists has is insignificant against the massive improvement of protecting an extremely important and extremely vulnerable part of your body.

adgjlsfhk1 4y ago
All of these studies are measuring incidents per year. They miss the confounding effect that helmet laws can make people bike less.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Which just by itself would help reduce the total number of injuries, as the unfortunate reality is almost every other form of transport is less likely to result in hits to the head. So you then have to balance that against the downsides of people choosing "safer" forms of transport, which are not inconsiderable.
  - RyanHamilton 4y ago
    If you are implying cars. What about deaths from pollution? Reduced years of life from pollution? Reduced years of life from being overweight due to lack of exercise? Miserable years of life caught in traffic? "Air pollution, which is primarily the result of burning fossil fuels, takes 2.2 years of the global life expectancy for each person". https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/air-pollution-cuts-life-expectancy-by-more-than-two-years-study-2022-06-14/ https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      Absolutely, I certainly don't wish to see more people driving cars! But for any individual, if safety is your primary concern and you're deciding between a car and a bicycle, you'd choose the former.
  - ricardobeat 4y ago
    Not true, if you look into the data there are more pedestrian head injuries than cyclists’. Or car accidents.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      It might be conceivable that more people hurt their heads on a per-km basis walking than cycling, but I'd be extremely surprised that for the same individual, walking (or driving) a given distance would be more likely to result in a serious head injury than cycling it.
adql 4y ago
Okay but we care for amount of helmeted individuals injury rate vs ones without helmets. Less incidents can be just less cyclists, or something mildly related as "on average, helmets are colorful and increase visibility vs average cyclist that before helmet had nothing well visible on them"

AlbertCory 4y ago

Back when mandatory seatbelt laws were debated, people used to concoct scenarios where a rider/driver is saved because they're not wearing a seatbelt (they were "thrown clear"). This reminds me of that. Your "safety in numbers" and "cars pass closer to helmeted cyclists" is a desperate attempt to avoid a simple fact: if a head hits the pavement without a helmet, it gets injured. Of course you can invent other scenarios, but only by ignoring that one.

ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
Although: https://crag.asn.au/5-ways-wearing-a-bicycle-helmet-can-result-in-injuries/ https://crag.asn.au/5-ways-wearing-a-bicycle-helmet-can-resu...
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  "Risk compensation" is definitely a legit issue. I think you're the first to bring it up.
  - ndsipa_pomu 4y ago
    It's not my first helmet debate rodeo

r00fus 4y ago

> you didn't cite any studies, so I won't either This doesn't make your response sound any better, just bitter.