5 ms·

To avoid death or serious injury in case of an accident.

by tfourb 3y ago

romafirst3 3y ago
By that logic everyone in a car should wear a helmet in case of an accident. Head trauma is a real danger in car accidents. Wearing a helmet in your car will help with any head trauma. Why don't car drivers wear a helmet?
- defrost 3y ago
  Because car drivers, unlike ebike riders and buggy drivers, are surrounded by a metal cage built to some level of crash protection standard. Car drivers also largely wear seat belts that prevent them being thrown through the air and impacting trees, kerbs, etc. It's kind of obvious really.
- dxdm 3y ago
  You're probably aware of other cases where people wear helmets, for example on construction sites and while riding motorbikes or indeed bicycles. A lot of people riding cars wear seatbelts. I don't understand what's supposed to be so baffling about wearing helmets in this case, as well.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    Bicycle helmets are virtually useless when involved in a multi-vehicle collision (e.g. a cyclist and a car driver). They are typically tested IIRC for speeds of up to 12mph onto a static surface from a height of 2m or so. The forces involved when colliding with a motorised vehicle are orders of magnitude greater. https://www.cycleplan.co.uk/cycle-savvy/what-are-the-cycle-helmet-safety-standards/ https://www.cycleplan.co.uk/cycle-savvy/what-are-the-cycle-h...
    - EasyMark 3y ago
      and what percentage of bike accidents are collisions with cars? I've had a few bike accidents, none were head on collisions, mostly unexpected obstructions, gravels like ball bearings and one time a love tap by a car where I got a bruise and the driver got yelled at for not paying attention.
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        Something just under 50%, I believe.
- tfourb 3y ago
  Bikes, especially e-bikes, go routinely around 40mph and share the road with huge chunks of metal (cars) that go even quicker. You head will cave in if you hit the ground or get hit by a car at these speeds. You really don’t see the need for a helmet? Drivers in modern cars also wear “helmets” btw. The car (roll cage and airbags) is specifically designed to fulfill the exact same purpose.
  - usrusr 3y ago
    When a head "caves in" from an impact, no helmet will save you. More handsome corpse, I give you that.
    - sgerenser 3y ago
      I used to live in NY state. I remember reading about this group of motorcyclists protesting the states motorcycle helmet law by riding around at rallies helmet-less. Their argument against helmets was the usual “I’ll be dead anyway with or without a helmet” or “I’d rather be dead than a cripple.” Then at one of these rallies, while riding at fairly low speed, this guy hit a rock or oil patch or something, dropped his bike, hit his head and died. Medical experts agreed if he was wearing a helmet he’d almost certainly be fine.
      - usrusr 3y ago
        And chances are he was dead without his head being caved in. That's simply the wrong model when talking about head protection from traffic dangers. Where the helmet protects from small but fast-moving masses (weapons, falling rock or tools), protection of the skull structure can absolutely be the helmet's job. But where the danger is hitting a large mass like a car or a planet, the acceleration involved is the dominant problem and it will get you long before "caved in". Helmets provide a bit of a crumple zone that can certainly be very valuable, but at impact speeds that would be "cave in" without the helmet, even a crumple zone precisely tuned to exactly this impact (chances are that would be a wildly suboptimal configuration for many many other impacts) would fail to flatten the acceleration curve to survivable levels. "handsome corpse" wasn't aimed at helmets in general, it was aimed at the mental model of protecting from cave-in.
- LegibleCrimson 3y ago
  You're significantly more likely to injure your head on a bike than in a car without a helmet. In a world where bikes had crumple space, seat belts, and didn't fall over, it might be different.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    Do you have any figures to support that claim?
- Hamuko 3y ago
  Your car will most likely have an explosive charge inside the steering wheel that quickly inflates a cloth bag with air to cushion your head and prevent it from smacking hard against the steering wheel. They're called "airbags".
- kelnos 3y ago
  The modern car itself, and several of its safety features, act as a fairly effective "helment". In San Francisco (and I assume many other places) the parking enforcement cops ride these little things called "interceptors"[0]. They're little more than 3-wheel motorcycles with a body around them. They don't really have much in the way of safety features, so the drivers wear bike helmets. It's about gauging risk and determining what's likely to help. I would bet that if everyone wore helmets in cars, it wouldn't change injury/fatality stats a meaningful amount, beyond what seatbelts, airbags, etc. already do. But for bicycles (and perhaps these "interceptors", they perhaps do make a difference. [0] https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2GED3CT/san-francisco-usa-april-8-2014-san-francisco-parking-enforcement-police-officer-drives-a-small-go-4-interceptor-electric-patrol-tricycle-vehicle-2GED3CT.jpg https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2GED3CT/san-francisco-usa-april-8-...
- Staple_Diet 3y ago
  Because the added weight at high velocity would result in more severe whiplash. This, wearing helmets in a car could actually increase rather than decrease injuries following a crash, especially in children who wear harnesses. This is the reason why HANS devices are used in racing.
- timeon 3y ago
  There was attempt to invent collar airbag for bike riders as alternative for helmet. Cars already have airbags (and seat belts).
- zen928 3y ago
  For example, if you had protective headgear guarding you the innumerable number of times you were dropped as an infant then this conversation wouldn't be necessary, but society is forced to pay the price for enabling bad faith actors asking "questions" about an extremely well researched topic that you've either chose not to do any knowledge seeking on your own for, or are willingly ignoring to postulate another topic that absolutely no one who values their time would want to discuss with you about. Maybe someone like you SHOULD wear a helmet in a car though, so good suggestion! :)
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    I think Mawr offers some very well researched arguments to the contrary though. It's not an open and shut case. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39658466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39658466
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  A closely related argument is that we should encourage shower helmets due to the chances of head injury whilst showering. Also, ladder helmets and light-bulb changing helmets.
- EasyMark 3y ago
  Because you're in a steel cage surrounded by air bags. It's about statistics, not "perfect safety". Head injuries per bike rider are far worse in bike accidents (and motorcycle) than in cars. It's about being reasonable but not being a bubble boy.

To avoid death or serious injury in case of an accident.

by tfourb 3y ago

To avoid death or serious injury in case of an accident.

By that logic everyone in a car should wear a helmet in case of an accident. Head trauma is a real danger in car accidents. Wearing a helmet in your car will help with any head trauma. Why don't car drivers wear a helmet?

defrost 3y ago
Because car drivers, unlike ebike riders and buggy drivers, are surrounded by a metal cage built to some level of crash protection standard. Car drivers also largely wear seat belts that prevent them being thrown through the air and impacting trees, kerbs, etc. It's kind of obvious really.
dxdm 3y ago
You're probably aware of other cases where people wear helmets, for example on construction sites and while riding motorbikes or indeed bicycles. A lot of people riding cars wear seatbelts. I don't understand what's supposed to be so baffling about wearing helmets in this case, as well.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  Bicycle helmets are virtually useless when involved in a multi-vehicle collision (e.g. a cyclist and a car driver). They are typically tested IIRC for speeds of up to 12mph onto a static surface from a height of 2m or so. The forces involved when colliding with a motorised vehicle are orders of magnitude greater. https://www.cycleplan.co.uk/cycle-savvy/what-are-the-cycle-helmet-safety-standards/ https://www.cycleplan.co.uk/cycle-savvy/what-are-the-cycle-h...
  - EasyMark 3y ago
    and what percentage of bike accidents are collisions with cars? I've had a few bike accidents, none were head on collisions, mostly unexpected obstructions, gravels like ball bearings and one time a love tap by a car where I got a bruise and the driver got yelled at for not paying attention.
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      Something just under 50%, I believe.
tfourb 3y ago
Bikes, especially e-bikes, go routinely around 40mph and share the road with huge chunks of metal (cars) that go even quicker. You head will cave in if you hit the ground or get hit by a car at these speeds. You really don’t see the need for a helmet? Drivers in modern cars also wear “helmets” btw. The car (roll cage and airbags) is specifically designed to fulfill the exact same purpose.
- usrusr 3y ago
  When a head "caves in" from an impact, no helmet will save you. More handsome corpse, I give you that.
  - sgerenser 3y ago
    I used to live in NY state. I remember reading about this group of motorcyclists protesting the states motorcycle helmet law by riding around at rallies helmet-less. Their argument against helmets was the usual “I’ll be dead anyway with or without a helmet” or “I’d rather be dead than a cripple.” Then at one of these rallies, while riding at fairly low speed, this guy hit a rock or oil patch or something, dropped his bike, hit his head and died. Medical experts agreed if he was wearing a helmet he’d almost certainly be fine.
    - usrusr 3y ago
      And chances are he was dead without his head being caved in. That's simply the wrong model when talking about head protection from traffic dangers. Where the helmet protects from small but fast-moving masses (weapons, falling rock or tools), protection of the skull structure can absolutely be the helmet's job. But where the danger is hitting a large mass like a car or a planet, the acceleration involved is the dominant problem and it will get you long before "caved in". Helmets provide a bit of a crumple zone that can certainly be very valuable, but at impact speeds that would be "cave in" without the helmet, even a crumple zone precisely tuned to exactly this impact (chances are that would be a wildly suboptimal configuration for many many other impacts) would fail to flatten the acceleration curve to survivable levels. "handsome corpse" wasn't aimed at helmets in general, it was aimed at the mental model of protecting from cave-in.
LegibleCrimson 3y ago
You're significantly more likely to injure your head on a bike than in a car without a helmet. In a world where bikes had crumple space, seat belts, and didn't fall over, it might be different.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  Do you have any figures to support that claim?
Hamuko 3y ago
Your car will most likely have an explosive charge inside the steering wheel that quickly inflates a cloth bag with air to cushion your head and prevent it from smacking hard against the steering wheel. They're called "airbags".
kelnos 3y ago
The modern car itself, and several of its safety features, act as a fairly effective "helment". In San Francisco (and I assume many other places) the parking enforcement cops ride these little things called "interceptors"[0]. They're little more than 3-wheel motorcycles with a body around them. They don't really have much in the way of safety features, so the drivers wear bike helmets. It's about gauging risk and determining what's likely to help. I would bet that if everyone wore helmets in cars, it wouldn't change injury/fatality stats a meaningful amount, beyond what seatbelts, airbags, etc. already do. But for bicycles (and perhaps these "interceptors", they perhaps do make a difference. [0] https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2GED3CT/san-francisco-usa-april-8-2014-san-francisco-parking-enforcement-police-officer-drives-a-small-go-4-interceptor-electric-patrol-tricycle-vehicle-2GED3CT.jpg https://c8.alamy.com/comp/2GED3CT/san-francisco-usa-april-8-...
Staple_Diet 3y ago
Because the added weight at high velocity would result in more severe whiplash. This, wearing helmets in a car could actually increase rather than decrease injuries following a crash, especially in children who wear harnesses. This is the reason why HANS devices are used in racing.
timeon 3y ago
There was attempt to invent collar airbag for bike riders as alternative for helmet. Cars already have airbags (and seat belts).
zen928 3y ago
For example, if you had protective headgear guarding you the innumerable number of times you were dropped as an infant then this conversation wouldn't be necessary, but society is forced to pay the price for enabling bad faith actors asking "questions" about an extremely well researched topic that you've either chose not to do any knowledge seeking on your own for, or are willingly ignoring to postulate another topic that absolutely no one who values their time would want to discuss with you about. Maybe someone like you SHOULD wear a helmet in a car though, so good suggestion! :)
- wkat4242 3y ago
  I think Mawr offers some very well researched arguments to the contrary though. It's not an open and shut case. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39658466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39658466
ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
A closely related argument is that we should encourage shower helmets due to the chances of head injury whilst showering. Also, ladder helmets and light-bulb changing helmets.
EasyMark 3y ago
Because you're in a steel cage surrounded by air bags. It's about statistics, not "perfect safety". Head injuries per bike rider are far worse in bike accidents (and motorcycle) than in cars. It's about being reasonable but not being a bubble boy.