4 ms·

You seem to be interested in this question: "If I bike without a helmet, how much more likely am I to be injured than if I bike with a helmet?". And of course,

You seem to be interested in this question: "If I bike without a helmet, how much more likely am I to be injured than if I bike with a helmet?". And of course, the answer is that you are safer with a helmet. But the article is interested in a different question: "If I bike, how likely am I to be injured?". This question is very heavily influenced by the ratio of bikes to cars on the road. More bikes leads to lower chance of injury for bicyclists.

AlbertCory 4y ago
"overall traffic safety" is not a goal for MHLs for bikes, or motorcyclists; or seatbelt laws for car riders. Your first paragraph's question is the only relevant part of that.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  But, that's not correct either. MHLs could increase my overall risk of cycling accident enough to offset any gain from wearing the helmet. There are studies that show drivers go faster and closer to cyclists wearing helmets (vs those without helmets). That alone could increase the risk of deadly car-bike interaction enough to offset the gains from wearing the helmet. https://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet-cyclists-less-room/ https://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet... Edit - either way, I'm all for separate, protecetetd bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. That's the "real" solution here - get bikes and cars onto different roads and what drivers do or don't do ceases to be a problem (almost, we still get drunken idiots driving down our protected bike paths outside DC).
- shwestrick 4y ago
  That's not a useful perspective. It doesn't matter what the goal of the law is; it matters what effect the law has.
pdonis 4y ago
I would put it this way: the article's information might be useful if you are trying to decide whether or not to bike. But if you have decided to bike, the article's information in no way means you should not wear a helmet. Unfortunately, the clickbait headline mixes up these two very different things.
- welshwelsh 4y ago
  The article isn't for either of those things. Mandatory helmet laws are a matter of public policy, they have nothing to do with individual people making individual decisions. The article's information is useful if you are a voter or a politician trying to decide whether mandatory helmet laws will help to make your city a safe place for cyclists.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > The article isn't for either of those things. You'd never know it from the clickbait headline. > Mandatory helmet laws are a matter of public policy, they have nothing to do with individual people making individual decisions. Public policy doesn't do anything by itself; all it does is determine the incentives that people face when making individual decisions to do or not do things. So correctly describing the effects of a public policy is very important to individual people trying to make individual decisions.
    - substation13 4y ago
      > all it does is determine the incentives You say that like it's not a HUGE thing. Incentives will determine the entire transport ratios of a region. Biking on freeways is for misfits and weirdos :)
      - pdonis 4y ago
        > You say that like it's not a HUGE thing. I said no such thing. Obviously incentives are important. I'm just pointing out that incentives act on individuals making individual decisions. So to claim, as the GGP (not you) did, that public policy has nothing to do with individual decisions is simply wrong.
    - a1369209993 4y ago
      > You'd never know it from the clickbait headline. What headline are you seeing? At the time of this comment, the clickbait headline is: > > Mandatory helmet laws make cyclists less safe Which is clearly relevant for: > a voter or a politician trying to decide whether mandatory helmet laws will help to make your city a safe place for cyclists. and not clearly relevant for individual people making individual decisions, whether about biking at all, or about wearing a helmet when they do. (It's obviously possible (even likely) that relevant information might show up, but the clickbait headline isn't actually claiming that.)
wizofaus 4y ago
But that problem can be addressed in other ways - primarily better infrastructure (though I'd like to see better driver education too, e.g. as per the Netherlands where drivers are encouraged to open doors while parked in a manner that ensures they see any oncoming cyclists before doing so). We have MHL where I live and while I think there's a good argument for relaxing them at least for certain cases, I am grateful for having grown up in a culture where wearing a helmet is expected/ normal while riding a bike - they've certainly saved me from more serious injuries multiple times (including cases where I've hit the top of my head on branches etc. while riding!). But the fact that so few places in the world do have such legislation is telling - if a law truly is effective with limited downsides it tends to get adopted far more universally.
- mackrevinack 4y ago
  but would you have hit your head if you weren't wearing a helmet? maybe you would have been more cautious! maybe people are slightly more careless/risk taking when they take certain safety measures?
  - bluGill 4y ago
    Cars in the 1950s had what amounted to spikes in the middle of the steering wheel and it didn't cause people to be more careful.
- stingrae 4y ago
  The infrastructure doesn't get built until you have large demand from existing cyclists.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Building out better infrastructure is usually the most effective way to increase the number of people cycling (and to make it safer for those already doing so).
    - jackbravo 4y ago
Cpoll 4y ago
> And of course, the answer is that you are safer with a helmet. I'm not claiming you're wrong, just that it's not a home-run "of course": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

AlbertCory 4y ago

"overall traffic safety" is not a goal for MHLs for bikes, or motorcyclists; or seatbelt laws for car riders. Your first paragraph's question is the only relevant part of that.

alistairSH 4y ago
But, that's not correct either. MHLs could increase my overall risk of cycling accident enough to offset any gain from wearing the helmet. There are studies that show drivers go faster and closer to cyclists wearing helmets (vs those without helmets). That alone could increase the risk of deadly car-bike interaction enough to offset the gains from wearing the helmet. https://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet-cyclists-less-room/ https://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet... Edit - either way, I'm all for separate, protecetetd bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. That's the "real" solution here - get bikes and cars onto different roads and what drivers do or don't do ceases to be a problem (almost, we still get drunken idiots driving down our protected bike paths outside DC).
shwestrick 4y ago
That's not a useful perspective. It doesn't matter what the goal of the law is; it matters what effect the law has.

pdonis 4y ago

I would put it this way: the article's information might be useful if you are trying to decide whether or not to bike. But if you have decided to bike, the article's information in no way means you should not wear a helmet. Unfortunately, the clickbait headline mixes up these two very different things.

welshwelsh 4y ago
The article isn't for either of those things. Mandatory helmet laws are a matter of public policy, they have nothing to do with individual people making individual decisions. The article's information is useful if you are a voter or a politician trying to decide whether mandatory helmet laws will help to make your city a safe place for cyclists.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > The article isn't for either of those things. You'd never know it from the clickbait headline. > Mandatory helmet laws are a matter of public policy, they have nothing to do with individual people making individual decisions. Public policy doesn't do anything by itself; all it does is determine the incentives that people face when making individual decisions to do or not do things. So correctly describing the effects of a public policy is very important to individual people trying to make individual decisions.
  - substation13 4y ago
    > all it does is determine the incentives You say that like it's not a HUGE thing. Incentives will determine the entire transport ratios of a region. Biking on freeways is for misfits and weirdos :)
    - pdonis 4y ago
      > You say that like it's not a HUGE thing. I said no such thing. Obviously incentives are important. I'm just pointing out that incentives act on individuals making individual decisions. So to claim, as the GGP (not you) did, that public policy has nothing to do with individual decisions is simply wrong.
  - a1369209993 4y ago
    > You'd never know it from the clickbait headline. What headline are you seeing? At the time of this comment, the clickbait headline is: > > Mandatory helmet laws make cyclists less safe Which is clearly relevant for: > a voter or a politician trying to decide whether mandatory helmet laws will help to make your city a safe place for cyclists. and not clearly relevant for individual people making individual decisions, whether about biking at all, or about wearing a helmet when they do. (It's obviously possible (even likely) that relevant information might show up, but the clickbait headline isn't actually claiming that.)

wizofaus 4y ago

But that problem can be addressed in other ways - primarily better infrastructure (though I'd like to see better driver education too, e.g. as per the Netherlands where drivers are encouraged to open doors while parked in a manner that ensures they see any oncoming cyclists before doing so). We have MHL where I live and while I think there's a good argument for relaxing them at least for certain cases, I am grateful for having grown up in a culture where wearing a helmet is expected/ normal while riding a bike - they've certainly saved me from more serious injuries multiple times (including cases where I've hit the top of my head on branches etc. while riding!). But the fact that so few places in the world do have such legislation is telling - if a law truly is effective with limited downsides it tends to get adopted far more universally.

mackrevinack 4y ago
but would you have hit your head if you weren't wearing a helmet? maybe you would have been more cautious! maybe people are slightly more careless/risk taking when they take certain safety measures?
- bluGill 4y ago
  Cars in the 1950s had what amounted to spikes in the middle of the steering wheel and it didn't cause people to be more careful.
stingrae 4y ago
The infrastructure doesn't get built until you have large demand from existing cyclists.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Building out better infrastructure is usually the most effective way to increase the number of people cycling (and to make it safer for those already doing so).
  - jackbravo 4y ago

Cpoll 4y ago

> And of course, the answer is that you are safer with a helmet. I'm not claiming you're wrong, just that it's not a home-run "of course": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation