6 ms·

The article tries extensively to dance around the fact that all else being equal, if your head is hitting the ground you're better off wearing a helmet. In the

by _Adam 4y ago

The article tries extensively to dance around the fact that all else being equal, if your head is hitting the ground you're better off wearing a helmet. In the worst cases, you aren't worse off. Acceleration is what kills, and because you can't change the starting speed nor the end speed (0 m/s), all you can change is time. That doesn't mean they have to be enforced legally, of course. So rather than attacking the merits of helmets, the argument made in the article would be more compelling if it focused on the unalienable right of humans to get severely injured doing stupid stuff for fun or profit.

treeman79 4y ago
Got hired into a company to replace a guy that didn’t wear a helmet. He came in to visit about a year later. He could sort of talk and walk a little by that point. Few years earlier my office Kate declared on Friday he was going to buy a motorcycle. Came in Monday with a broken leg. To each their own. But I’ll stick to a car with a high safety rating.
- karamanolev 4y ago
  Ah, cars. Heralded as the future for humanity, the awesome big steel cans they are.
- cassepipe 4y ago
  Public transportation is rather safe if you live in a city where it exists. Then you don't have to contribute to the car society and all its ills
threetonesun 4y ago
Ask any mountain biker and they'll give you this conclusion from experience, almost all of us have had some low-speed awkward crash where a helmet was the difference between getting up and walking away or laying in the woods with an open head wound. If I'm riding on the road do I expect a helmet to help if I'm run over or hit at high speed? Not really. But if someone clips me and I hit the pavement I'd rather something than nothing.
- im_down_w_otp 4y ago
  I am definitely alive today due directly to my wearing a helmet skateboarding, mountain biking, and skiing. Skateboard helmet saved me from taking a piece of rebar to the temple. Mountain bike helmet saved me from taking a jagged rock to the back of my head. Ski helmet saved me from taking the corner of a park rail to my forehead. There's there more than one kind of crash and more than one kind of serious/fatal head injury.
  - jamal-kumar 4y ago
    Honestly I'm completely amazed I'm not a brain damage case from my own years of boarding without one. Like, after getting hit by cars a couple of times, hitting speed wobbles going too fast bombing a hill, and falling into a crevice on a mountain... I've been through a lot of insane stuff but near-misses with almost dying on a skateboard or snowboard have definitely put the fear of death in me. Now that I'm older I don't think I would mess around without one. I've known a few people who have become brain damage cases riding around without a helmet and life isn't great for them. One of them followed me when I went camping at one point and lost his only pants in the forest on the first night kind of level.
  - propter_hoc 4y ago
    The kind of extreme sports you list having participated in have absolutely nothing in common with low speed urban bicycle commuting. It certainly makes sense to wear a helmet while doing mountain biking, BMX tricks or road racing.
    - jamal-kumar 4y ago
      People opening doors onto bike lanes without checking, impaired drivers, trucks with blind spots, all of these things are definitely stuff I'd rather have a helmet upon encountering the worst side of than not while riding on a modern road on a vehicle which doesn't have a huge case around it already. I think if you're maybe in one of those exceptionally bike-friendly places like Amsterdam that these hazards may be mitigated enough, but at least in the Americas people are actively hostile towards bike riders on the road and I think it's just a matter of civil infrastructure planning more than anything in terms of that sentiment.
lucisferre 4y ago
All else being equal if I fall down my stairs I'm better off wearing a helmet and probably football pads too. Despite this truth I don't think many people walk around their house like this.
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Do multi-ton vehicles pass within inches of your body while walking around your house?
  - lmm 4y ago
    No, and they shouldn't be allowed to do that in public spaces either.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    They don't. But that's just a dance around the undeniable fact that wearing a helmet when you go up and down the stairs is safer than not wearing a helmet. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-injuries-stairs-idUSKBN1CE1Z4 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-injuries-stairs-id...
  - interestica 4y ago
    Sidewalks then?
  - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
    It is generally inadvisable to get within inches of a high speed multi-ton vehicle in the first place. If something goes wrong with that, a mere helmet can only help so much, as you might expect. I think we can agree that multi-ton vehicles are not permitted to enter houses. Because of the dearth of such vehicles, the inhabitants feel (relatively) safe, and go about their day helmet-less. A similar approach has been used in eg. the Netherlands for bicycles. Where needed (& as much as possible, & more and more often) , bicycles are given their own paths, preferably in such a way that no motor vehicles can enter. Since the danger is thus much reduced, bicyclists on those routes also typically go about their day helmet-less. At least, this is one way to intuit why people in the Netherlands don't normally wear helmets (as often at least: they still do when racing or mountain biking or etc where there is increased risk. Just not for the normal 9-5 commute, which is considered ~safe)
twiss 4y ago
All else is not equal, though. The focus on individual responsibility for biking safety in fact reduces biking safety. It's important to recognize that at a societal level, it's more useful to focus on improving infrastructure than on increasing rates of helmet wearing. Of course, individual bikers can also still wear a helmet, but they should also demand proper biking infrastructure.
- rattray 4y ago
  How are these pitted against each other?? It's totally possible that a helmet saves your life/head with no cars involved. Happened to me a couple months ago. Helmets should be required and infrastructure should be great.
  - twiss 4y ago
    They're pitted against each other because when biking accidents happen, the biker is often blamed, especially if they weren't wearing a helmet. This is partially done to avoid having to improve the biking infrastructure. But, as the article claims, improving biking infrastructure would improve biking safety more than chastising bikers who don't wear helmets.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - apgwoz 4y ago
    I don't think anyone is saying "don't wear a helmet." What's being stated is that you can't stop at "wear a helmet," and doing so does more harm than good by creating a false sense of safety. A helmet will protect you from _some things_, no doubt. It won't protect you from a car whose driver just dumped his soda in his lap, and swerves when looking down to see the damage. The article cites the Netherlands, where bicycling is extremely popular, but helmets are not. The "safety" comes from the infrastructure which reduces hazards that make bicycling unsafe. Visibility, and isolation from 3000+ lb metal objects are the two most important things. There's a fun catch-22 here. You need more riders to create safety (groups of cyclists are visible. large groups of cyclists can advocate for bike lanes, etc), but without safety you can't attract new riders.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dtornabene 4y ago
yeah, I don't read slate much anymore but this is the most #slatepitch "article" I've waded into in a very long time. "Bike helmets actually __harm__ you" is like textbook definition contrarian clickbait.
taeric 4y ago
As a few sibling posts have said, the point is that all else is clearly not equal. For whatever reason, there are places with more bike ridership and fewer deaths. This /despite/ not having helmet mandates. Indeed, the data seems to indicate that helmet mandates go so far as to make all bikers less safe. The argument you are making is appealing, to be sure. I'd even go so far as to say I agree with it. Strictly, it is a non-sequitur to the point that is being made.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  > data seems to indicate that helmet mandates go so far as to make all bikers less safe The only mention I saw of this in the article is a study where the cyclist wearing a helmet had a shorter average distance between bike and car than when not wearing a helmet. Do you have another source, or are we going to base legislation on one study by one individual in one city?
  - apgwoz 4y ago
    The impression that I got was helmet laws make people feel like biking is default unsafe, which leads to less bikers, which leads to less visibility and less isolation of bikers (no demand, no tax dollars spent on infrastructure). If you want safe biking, you need visibility and isolation. The visibility here is helped by, say, biker wearing blinking lights and reflectors. But also, just having constant presence of bikers on the road such that drivers get used to sharing it. The isolation is space between bikes and 3000+ pound hunks of accelerating metal, e.g. dedicated bike lines / bike barriers.
    - taeric 4y ago
      This is somewhat comparing the wrong metrics. The more people you have not driving a car and instead on a bike, the safer everyone is. Exactly like the more people you have out of a car and on a bus. The bus is an easy comparison, as even on a bus, you would be safer with a seatbelt. But the added danger of not having a seatbelt is more than offset by the reduction in cars.
  - 4y ago
pessimizer 4y ago
> the article would be more compelling if it focused on the unalienable right of humans to get severely injured doing stupid stuff for fun or profit. That's definitely not a right, so it would be less convincing than just sticking to statistics (or as you refer to them, dances.)

by _Adam 4y ago

treeman79 4y ago

Got hired into a company to replace a guy that didn’t wear a helmet. He came in to visit about a year later. He could sort of talk and walk a little by that point. Few years earlier my office Kate declared on Friday he was going to buy a motorcycle. Came in Monday with a broken leg. To each their own. But I’ll stick to a car with a high safety rating.

karamanolev 4y ago
Ah, cars. Heralded as the future for humanity, the awesome big steel cans they are.
cassepipe 4y ago
Public transportation is rather safe if you live in a city where it exists. Then you don't have to contribute to the car society and all its ills

threetonesun 4y ago

Ask any mountain biker and they'll give you this conclusion from experience, almost all of us have had some low-speed awkward crash where a helmet was the difference between getting up and walking away or laying in the woods with an open head wound. If I'm riding on the road do I expect a helmet to help if I'm run over or hit at high speed? Not really. But if someone clips me and I hit the pavement I'd rather something than nothing.

im_down_w_otp 4y ago
I am definitely alive today due directly to my wearing a helmet skateboarding, mountain biking, and skiing. Skateboard helmet saved me from taking a piece of rebar to the temple. Mountain bike helmet saved me from taking a jagged rock to the back of my head. Ski helmet saved me from taking the corner of a park rail to my forehead. There's there more than one kind of crash and more than one kind of serious/fatal head injury.
- jamal-kumar 4y ago
  Honestly I'm completely amazed I'm not a brain damage case from my own years of boarding without one. Like, after getting hit by cars a couple of times, hitting speed wobbles going too fast bombing a hill, and falling into a crevice on a mountain... I've been through a lot of insane stuff but near-misses with almost dying on a skateboard or snowboard have definitely put the fear of death in me. Now that I'm older I don't think I would mess around without one. I've known a few people who have become brain damage cases riding around without a helmet and life isn't great for them. One of them followed me when I went camping at one point and lost his only pants in the forest on the first night kind of level.
- propter_hoc 4y ago
  The kind of extreme sports you list having participated in have absolutely nothing in common with low speed urban bicycle commuting. It certainly makes sense to wear a helmet while doing mountain biking, BMX tricks or road racing.
  - jamal-kumar 4y ago
    People opening doors onto bike lanes without checking, impaired drivers, trucks with blind spots, all of these things are definitely stuff I'd rather have a helmet upon encountering the worst side of than not while riding on a modern road on a vehicle which doesn't have a huge case around it already. I think if you're maybe in one of those exceptionally bike-friendly places like Amsterdam that these hazards may be mitigated enough, but at least in the Americas people are actively hostile towards bike riders on the road and I think it's just a matter of civil infrastructure planning more than anything in terms of that sentiment.

lucisferre 4y ago

All else being equal if I fall down my stairs I'm better off wearing a helmet and probably football pads too. Despite this truth I don't think many people walk around their house like this.

paulryanrogers 4y ago
Do multi-ton vehicles pass within inches of your body while walking around your house?
- lmm 4y ago
  No, and they shouldn't be allowed to do that in public spaces either.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  They don't. But that's just a dance around the undeniable fact that wearing a helmet when you go up and down the stairs is safer than not wearing a helmet. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-injuries-stairs-idUSKBN1CE1Z4 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-injuries-stairs-id...
- interestica 4y ago
  Sidewalks then?
- Kim_Bruning 4y ago
  It is generally inadvisable to get within inches of a high speed multi-ton vehicle in the first place. If something goes wrong with that, a mere helmet can only help so much, as you might expect. I think we can agree that multi-ton vehicles are not permitted to enter houses. Because of the dearth of such vehicles, the inhabitants feel (relatively) safe, and go about their day helmet-less. A similar approach has been used in eg. the Netherlands for bicycles. Where needed (& as much as possible, & more and more often) , bicycles are given their own paths, preferably in such a way that no motor vehicles can enter. Since the danger is thus much reduced, bicyclists on those routes also typically go about their day helmet-less. At least, this is one way to intuit why people in the Netherlands don't normally wear helmets (as often at least: they still do when racing or mountain biking or etc where there is increased risk. Just not for the normal 9-5 commute, which is considered ~safe)

twiss 4y ago

All else is not equal, though. The focus on individual responsibility for biking safety in fact reduces biking safety. It's important to recognize that at a societal level, it's more useful to focus on improving infrastructure than on increasing rates of helmet wearing. Of course, individual bikers can also still wear a helmet, but they should also demand proper biking infrastructure.

rattray 4y ago
How are these pitted against each other?? It's totally possible that a helmet saves your life/head with no cars involved. Happened to me a couple months ago. Helmets should be required and infrastructure should be great.
- twiss 4y ago
  They're pitted against each other because when biking accidents happen, the biker is often blamed, especially if they weren't wearing a helmet. This is partially done to avoid having to improve the biking infrastructure. But, as the article claims, improving biking infrastructure would improve biking safety more than chastising bikers who don't wear helmets.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- apgwoz 4y ago
  I don't think anyone is saying "don't wear a helmet." What's being stated is that you can't stop at "wear a helmet," and doing so does more harm than good by creating a false sense of safety. A helmet will protect you from _some things_, no doubt. It won't protect you from a car whose driver just dumped his soda in his lap, and swerves when looking down to see the damage. The article cites the Netherlands, where bicycling is extremely popular, but helmets are not. The "safety" comes from the infrastructure which reduces hazards that make bicycling unsafe. Visibility, and isolation from 3000+ lb metal objects are the two most important things. There's a fun catch-22 here. You need more riders to create safety (groups of cyclists are visible. large groups of cyclists can advocate for bike lanes, etc), but without safety you can't attract new riders.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dtornabene 4y ago

yeah, I don't read slate much anymore but this is the most #slatepitch "article" I've waded into in a very long time. "Bike helmets actually __harm__ you" is like textbook definition contrarian clickbait.

taeric 4y ago

As a few sibling posts have said, the point is that all else is clearly not equal. For whatever reason, there are places with more bike ridership and fewer deaths. This /despite/ not having helmet mandates. Indeed, the data seems to indicate that helmet mandates go so far as to make all bikers less safe. The argument you are making is appealing, to be sure. I'd even go so far as to say I agree with it. Strictly, it is a non-sequitur to the point that is being made.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
> data seems to indicate that helmet mandates go so far as to make all bikers less safe The only mention I saw of this in the article is a study where the cyclist wearing a helmet had a shorter average distance between bike and car than when not wearing a helmet. Do you have another source, or are we going to base legislation on one study by one individual in one city?
- apgwoz 4y ago
  The impression that I got was helmet laws make people feel like biking is default unsafe, which leads to less bikers, which leads to less visibility and less isolation of bikers (no demand, no tax dollars spent on infrastructure). If you want safe biking, you need visibility and isolation. The visibility here is helped by, say, biker wearing blinking lights and reflectors. But also, just having constant presence of bikers on the road such that drivers get used to sharing it. The isolation is space between bikes and 3000+ pound hunks of accelerating metal, e.g. dedicated bike lines / bike barriers.
  - taeric 4y ago
    This is somewhat comparing the wrong metrics. The more people you have not driving a car and instead on a bike, the safer everyone is. Exactly like the more people you have out of a car and on a bus. The bus is an easy comparison, as even on a bus, you would be safer with a seatbelt. But the added danger of not having a seatbelt is more than offset by the reduction in cars.
- 4y ago

pessimizer 4y ago

> the article would be more compelling if it focused on the unalienable right of humans to get severely injured doing stupid stuff for fun or profit. That's definitely not a right, so it would be less convincing than just sticking to statistics (or as you refer to them, dances.)