7 ms·

> rather not bike at all than bike safely There are many many thousands of Dutch who bike daily without a helmet, so this is a false dichotomy. I bike a lot a

> rather not bike at all than bike safely There are many many thousands of Dutch who bike daily without a helmet, so this is a false dichotomy. I bike a lot as in for transportation and running errands, and the speeds are generally quite low, and after many years I'm good at not falling off my bike. The biggest thing that concerns me is drivers and their associated cars. In many cases a helmet will do nearly nothing when you get crushed by an overpuffed SUV or truck. > There is a real need for society to discuss whether the value of reduced injuries outweighs the cost You could make an equal argument about driving and car/vehicle use. For example the city I live in has had more deaths by vehicle than deaths by homicide this year.

giantg2 4y ago
Which city?
- NegativeLatency 4y ago
  Portland, I cant find the slide with that stat that I saw from a PBOT meeting, and it looks like the results are contradictory to my statement for last year (2021) 66 dead from traffic: https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2022/traffic-crash-report-2021.pdf https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2022/traffic-cr... 93 dead from homicide (breaking the previous record of 66 from ~30 years prior): https://www.opb.org/article/2022/01/15/2021-was-a-record-year-for-homicides-in-portland/ https://www.opb.org/article/2022/01/15/2021-was-a-record-yea...
uoaei 4y ago
> I'm good at not falling off my bike. The biggest thing that concerns me is drivers... I think this is a good way to frame it for those who ~~are anxious about riding~~ don't regularly ride bikes. It's really easy to ride safely on your own once you learn the intricacies of riding on two wheels. Bikes are hard to tip over if you know what you're doing. It's the introduction of large machines with the means of generating immense amounts of kinetic energy with very little human input that things start getting complicated. In fact this applies for the introduction of electric bikes and scooters, too. So many times I have seen new riders on shiny new e-bikes accidentally shock themselves four meters forward because they aren't used to the throttle. Imagine if they're waiting behind a cyclist, or at a stoplight, and they push either themselves or a cyclist in front of them into the flow of traffic. I would be interested to see hard data but I suspect "one-person" bike injuries are much less prevalent and dangerous on average than those involving at least one cyclist and at least one motor vehicle (including e-bikes).
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  I was driving to work one day and there was a bicyclist far ahead of me, alone. I have no idea what happened but the gentleman flipped the bike and took a tumble right over the handlebars. No visible road debris, road wasn't wet, bicyclist wasn't doing anything silly. I stopped and luckily he was fine (he was wearing a helmet) but seemingly for no reason, a bicyclist ate pavement.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    Wheel could have gotten stuck in a recessed light rail line, pothole, or gouge in the road. A stick or shoelace could have become tangled in the front wheel and arrested its movement. For what it's worth, I did the same thing once without a helmet on (it was a rail line and my front tire got perfectly stuck) and made it through with only a scraped knee. So we're 1-1 on anecdata.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  "Less prevalent" seems unlikely, from the large number of accidents I'm aware of among myself and peers, maybe 25% have involved motor vehicles? Sure, they tend to be the more serious ones, but certainly if you do any sort of regular off-road recreational riding (esp. MTB) you're almost certainly going to come off quite a few times with no other vehicles involved. But I don't know how well my own observations extrapolate to the population as a whole - I suspect a large percentage of bicycle falls never get reported/recorded anywhere anyway.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    Off-road MTB riding has no relevance here in the discussion around riding bicycles on roads with motor vehicles.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      It's still completely relevant to MHL.
Supermancho 4y ago
> There are many many thousands of Dutch who bike daily without a helmet, so this is a false dichotomy. That is not a false dichotomy. The meaning of "safety" here is referencing local standards that have been socially defined. Specifically, this is about the US. > The biggest thing that concerns me is drivers and their associated cars. In many cases a helmet will do nearly nothing when you get crushed by an overpuffed SUV or truck. Or getting knocked to the ground, where you will not have the angle or too much momentum to protect your head (even after your wrist/arm snaps). > There is a real need for society to discuss whether the value of reduced injuries outweighs the cost This is the value in helmets, which has been validated immediately in every locale where it was enacted, to my own chagrin. The article immediately tries to conflate reduced usage with reduced injuries, as if more usage would reduce injuries. I'm sure there's a small multivector "Safety In Numbers" variable that has a reduced injury rate with an increase in usages...if nothing else, from normalizing bikes in some areas, but it's small enough that the injury numbers still go up from increased usage and no helmets.
- seadan83 4y ago
  The safety in numbers should not be resigned as a small effect. When drivers see zero cyclists, they stop looking for them. There is a very notable difference in streets that get high non motorized usage vs a lot. Compare a playground or park with a lot of pedestrians compared to say a national forest. What's more, a helmet only helps if you hit your head. A small fraction (afaik, less than 10%) of falls will have a helmet helping you at all (but when it would, you tend to really want the helmet)
- ricardobeat 4y ago
  [citation needed]
jjk166 4y ago
Very few cyclists get crushed, the overwhelming majority of people who die in cycling accidents suffer the head trauma that helmets are specifically meant to prevent. Plenty of people do bike daily without a helmet, likewise plenty of people don't wear their seatbelts daily - and 99.9% of the time they suffer no ill effect. The Netherlands is one of the few countries where more people die per year cycling than driving, and per capita they have a much higher cycling fatality rate than neighboring countries. Well designed infrastructure is a good thing, but accidents still happen.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  Head injuries are also the most common thing that kills drivers. Your argument provides an equally strong case that drivers should be required to wear helmets. The hierarchy of helmet need is #1 motorcyclists, #2 drivers, #3 pedestrians–pedestrian head injuries are incredibly common–, and #4 cyclists.
  - NegativeLatency 4y ago
    The first couple of pages in this doc substantiate your claim (for Portland) at least: https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2022/traffic-crash-report-2021.pdf https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2022/traffic-cr...
    - jeffbee 4y ago
      Well, that is interesting, but head injuries are often from just falling over from any height, not really from being hit by cars. Most traumatic brain injuries in older adults are from falling from standing height or less.
  - chollida1 4y ago
    > The hierarchy of helmet need is #1 motorcyclists, #2 drivers, #3 pedestrians–pedestrian head injuries are incredibly common–, and #4 cyclists. Interesting. I would have assumed cyclists are second given how fast road bikes go and the fact that they normally ride on major roads where cars speeds are well above 60 km/hr. How did you arrive at your ordering? Was it from an unlinked source?
lm28469 4y ago
> the speeds are generally quite low, Your speed doesn't matter, it's the speed at which your head hits the ground that matters and that can be quite high even if you're standing still before falling
- NegativeLatency 4y ago
  The speed you travel on your bike directly contributes to the speed your head potentially hits something. Also the slower you travel the more time you have to react to or avoid or mitigate a crash. We could require everyone to wear helmets all the time (for their own safety since someone could just fall over or trip at any time), but that's clearly not going to happen. I think the more general point to consider here is that helmet laws are a distraction from larger issues surrounding traffic deaths and the way we design our cities and transportation systems.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  I’d note that being hit by a car doesn’t crush you typically, it merely transfers a lot of force and you hit the ground very hard. One of my best friends in high school was an unparalleled genius in everything he attempted - piano, chess, sports, math, everything. But he was hit by a car driving and hit his head on the curb. He has lived there rest of his life in the care of his parents with the mental capacity of a 5 year old.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
I’ve never been in a car accident that required a seat belt either. We should remove them all by your logic. Cars have tons of safety regulations built into them and seat belt laws are pervasive. I don’t expect them to relax over time either, cars are much safer than they ever have been and I expect their safety will continue to improve year over year. Can you say the same thing about the bicycle? What safety features do they have? The helmet is the only one I can think of.
- mytherin 4y ago
  > I’ve never been in a car accident that required a seat belt either. We should remove them all by your logic. Having a seat belt in a car is far less of an inconvenience than carrying around a helmet. If mandatory helmet laws cause people to take a car to the supermarket instead of biking then *more* people will die. Not to mention the immense congestion and destruction of the planet this will cause. > Cars have tons of safety regulations built into them and seat belt laws are pervasive. I don’t expect them to relax over time either, cars are much safer than they ever have been and I expect their safety will continue to improve year over year. Cars have safety features for their passengers - meanwhile they are by far the most lethal mode of transportation worldwide. Should we only care about people inside a car, or should we perhaps start caring about *all people*? > Can you say the same thing about the bicycle? What safety features do they have? The helmet is the only one I can think of. How about not going at very fast speeds? What safety features does "walking" have? Should we now start wearing a helmet while walking?

giantg2 4y ago

Which city?

NegativeLatency 4y ago
Portland, I cant find the slide with that stat that I saw from a PBOT meeting, and it looks like the results are contradictory to my statement for last year (2021) 66 dead from traffic: https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2022/traffic-crash-report-2021.pdf https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2022/traffic-cr... 93 dead from homicide (breaking the previous record of 66 from ~30 years prior): https://www.opb.org/article/2022/01/15/2021-was-a-record-year-for-homicides-in-portland/ https://www.opb.org/article/2022/01/15/2021-was-a-record-yea...

uoaei 4y ago

> I'm good at not falling off my bike. The biggest thing that concerns me is drivers... I think this is a good way to frame it for those who ~~are anxious about riding~~ don't regularly ride bikes. It's really easy to ride safely on your own once you learn the intricacies of riding on two wheels. Bikes are hard to tip over if you know what you're doing. It's the introduction of large machines with the means of generating immense amounts of kinetic energy with very little human input that things start getting complicated. In fact this applies for the introduction of electric bikes and scooters, too. So many times I have seen new riders on shiny new e-bikes accidentally shock themselves four meters forward because they aren't used to the throttle. Imagine if they're waiting behind a cyclist, or at a stoplight, and they push either themselves or a cyclist in front of them into the flow of traffic. I would be interested to see hard data but I suspect "one-person" bike injuries are much less prevalent and dangerous on average than those involving at least one cyclist and at least one motor vehicle (including e-bikes).

vorpalhex 4y ago
I was driving to work one day and there was a bicyclist far ahead of me, alone. I have no idea what happened but the gentleman flipped the bike and took a tumble right over the handlebars. No visible road debris, road wasn't wet, bicyclist wasn't doing anything silly. I stopped and luckily he was fine (he was wearing a helmet) but seemingly for no reason, a bicyclist ate pavement.
- uoaei 4y ago
  Wheel could have gotten stuck in a recessed light rail line, pothole, or gouge in the road. A stick or shoelace could have become tangled in the front wheel and arrested its movement. For what it's worth, I did the same thing once without a helmet on (it was a rail line and my front tire got perfectly stuck) and made it through with only a scraped knee. So we're 1-1 on anecdata.
wizofaus 4y ago
"Less prevalent" seems unlikely, from the large number of accidents I'm aware of among myself and peers, maybe 25% have involved motor vehicles? Sure, they tend to be the more serious ones, but certainly if you do any sort of regular off-road recreational riding (esp. MTB) you're almost certainly going to come off quite a few times with no other vehicles involved. But I don't know how well my own observations extrapolate to the population as a whole - I suspect a large percentage of bicycle falls never get reported/recorded anywhere anyway.
- uoaei 4y ago
  Off-road MTB riding has no relevance here in the discussion around riding bicycles on roads with motor vehicles.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    It's still completely relevant to MHL.

Supermancho 4y ago

> There are many many thousands of Dutch who bike daily without a helmet, so this is a false dichotomy. That is not a false dichotomy. The meaning of "safety" here is referencing local standards that have been socially defined. Specifically, this is about the US. > The biggest thing that concerns me is drivers and their associated cars. In many cases a helmet will do nearly nothing when you get crushed by an overpuffed SUV or truck. Or getting knocked to the ground, where you will not have the angle or too much momentum to protect your head (even after your wrist/arm snaps). > There is a real need for society to discuss whether the value of reduced injuries outweighs the cost This is the value in helmets, which has been validated immediately in every locale where it was enacted, to my own chagrin. The article immediately tries to conflate reduced usage with reduced injuries, as if more usage would reduce injuries. I'm sure there's a small multivector "Safety In Numbers" variable that has a reduced injury rate with an increase in usages...if nothing else, from normalizing bikes in some areas, but it's small enough that the injury numbers still go up from increased usage and no helmets.

seadan83 4y ago
The safety in numbers should not be resigned as a small effect. When drivers see zero cyclists, they stop looking for them. There is a very notable difference in streets that get high non motorized usage vs a lot. Compare a playground or park with a lot of pedestrians compared to say a national forest. What's more, a helmet only helps if you hit your head. A small fraction (afaik, less than 10%) of falls will have a helmet helping you at all (but when it would, you tend to really want the helmet)
ricardobeat 4y ago
[citation needed]

jjk166 4y ago

Very few cyclists get crushed, the overwhelming majority of people who die in cycling accidents suffer the head trauma that helmets are specifically meant to prevent. Plenty of people do bike daily without a helmet, likewise plenty of people don't wear their seatbelts daily - and 99.9% of the time they suffer no ill effect. The Netherlands is one of the few countries where more people die per year cycling than driving, and per capita they have a much higher cycling fatality rate than neighboring countries. Well designed infrastructure is a good thing, but accidents still happen.

jeffbee 4y ago
Head injuries are also the most common thing that kills drivers. Your argument provides an equally strong case that drivers should be required to wear helmets. The hierarchy of helmet need is #1 motorcyclists, #2 drivers, #3 pedestrians–pedestrian head injuries are incredibly common–, and #4 cyclists.
- NegativeLatency 4y ago
  The first couple of pages in this doc substantiate your claim (for Portland) at least: https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2022/traffic-crash-report-2021.pdf https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2022/traffic-cr...
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    Well, that is interesting, but head injuries are often from just falling over from any height, not really from being hit by cars. Most traumatic brain injuries in older adults are from falling from standing height or less.
- chollida1 4y ago
  > The hierarchy of helmet need is #1 motorcyclists, #2 drivers, #3 pedestrians–pedestrian head injuries are incredibly common–, and #4 cyclists. Interesting. I would have assumed cyclists are second given how fast road bikes go and the fact that they normally ride on major roads where cars speeds are well above 60 km/hr. How did you arrive at your ordering? Was it from an unlinked source?

lm28469 4y ago

> the speeds are generally quite low, Your speed doesn't matter, it's the speed at which your head hits the ground that matters and that can be quite high even if you're standing still before falling

NegativeLatency 4y ago
The speed you travel on your bike directly contributes to the speed your head potentially hits something. Also the slower you travel the more time you have to react to or avoid or mitigate a crash. We could require everyone to wear helmets all the time (for their own safety since someone could just fall over or trip at any time), but that's clearly not going to happen. I think the more general point to consider here is that helmet laws are a distraction from larger issues surrounding traffic deaths and the way we design our cities and transportation systems.
fnordpiglet 4y ago
I’d note that being hit by a car doesn’t crush you typically, it merely transfers a lot of force and you hit the ground very hard. One of my best friends in high school was an unparalleled genius in everything he attempted - piano, chess, sports, math, everything. But he was hit by a car driving and hit his head on the curb. He has lived there rest of his life in the care of his parents with the mental capacity of a 5 year old.

fnordpiglet 4y ago

I’ve never been in a car accident that required a seat belt either. We should remove them all by your logic. Cars have tons of safety regulations built into them and seat belt laws are pervasive. I don’t expect them to relax over time either, cars are much safer than they ever have been and I expect their safety will continue to improve year over year. Can you say the same thing about the bicycle? What safety features do they have? The helmet is the only one I can think of.

mytherin 4y ago
> I’ve never been in a car accident that required a seat belt either. We should remove them all by your logic. Having a seat belt in a car is far less of an inconvenience than carrying around a helmet. If mandatory helmet laws cause people to take a car to the supermarket instead of biking then *more* people will die. Not to mention the immense congestion and destruction of the planet this will cause. > Cars have tons of safety regulations built into them and seat belt laws are pervasive. I don’t expect them to relax over time either, cars are much safer than they ever have been and I expect their safety will continue to improve year over year. Cars have safety features for their passengers - meanwhile they are by far the most lethal mode of transportation worldwide. Should we only care about people inside a car, or should we perhaps start caring about *all people*? > Can you say the same thing about the bicycle? What safety features do they have? The helmet is the only one I can think of. How about not going at very fast speeds? What safety features does "walking" have? Should we now start wearing a helmet while walking?