4 ms·

Until there is a distinct change in driver attitudes, riding without a helmet in most of the US is just nuts. Sure, there are places like Portland with dedicat

Until there is a distinct change in driver attitudes, riding without a helmet in most of the US is just nuts. Sure, there are places like Portland with dedicated bike lanes and an overall emphasis on pro-bike culture, but it is a rare spot. In the bay area, there is a very large biking community -- road, mountain, around town, etc. The problem is, the infrastructure isn't there for bikes compared to Amsterdam. We have "bike lanes" that any vehicle can enter within, say, about 150' to make a turn onto another street. Vehicles don't look for bikes. The bike ways in Amsterdam, certain parts of Munich, and other towns are often separate from the roads. When not, people expect them and are courteous to them much more than here.

baddox 14y ago
Most of the "anti-helmet" studies and arguments I've seen aren't particularly anti-helmet in principle, but rather just make the case that the benefits of wearing a helmet apply equally to pedestrians and automobile drivers/passengers. The argument isn't that helmets can prevent head injuries while riding a bike. The argument is that if there are laws or social stigma around bicycle helmets, then they should apply equally to pedestrians and automobile drivers/passengers.
- cbr 14y ago
  > the benefits of wearing a helmet apply equally to pedestrians and automobile drivers/passengers Cycling is about six times more likely to kill you, per hour, than driving. So while helmets in cars would help some, the case for them on bikes is stronger.
  - cpt1138 14y ago
    Cite for that statement please?
  - corporalagumbo 14y ago
    I would also like to see some evidence for this wild claim.
    - RegEx 14y ago
      This thread is full of "evidence I've seen" without sources, on both sides of the argument.
  - rmc 14y ago
    But do people spend as much time driving as cycling?
papalalu 14y ago
the fact is that a helmet is not enough to guarantee your safety - if cycling without one is "nuts", cycling with one is too.
- ImprovedSilence 14y ago
  This really hits it. A helmet isn't some all protective force field. If a truck is going to run you over, a helmet isn't going to save you. I think helmets are associated with bikes, because before we used bikes to commute, which involves simply riding about town, we used bikes to rip through the woods inches away from trees and sharp rocks, or jumped them off of mounds of dirt, or flung road bikes down mountain roads at 50per. (at least those three seem to sum up my first 23 years of existence) I live in DC, got old, but still NEVER commute with a helmet, and feel perfectly safe all the time. In fact, tons more safe than when I try to get a training ride in. (for which I wear a helmet)
  - jmspring 14y ago
    Generally, I've seen three types of injuries with regard to cycling -- the classic being the collar bone breaking, next up some road rash (ie, you know how to lay your bike down or slide out due to a rear flat tire at speed), and head trauma. The first two, the helmet is useless to help. The third? Usually pretty darn helpful. Around here in Santa Cruz, a town known for biking -- many local builders, a couple of clubs, and a very forceful pro-bike lobby -- we still don't have the infrastructure that places like Portland or Amsterdam have. In fact, the roads are pretty much crap in most places. So you have to be careful. One recent solo accident involved a young adult who was biking at night on a dark road (dumb) but also not wearing a helmet. He crashed. Currently he is in critical condition. Pretty sure a helmet (and a light) would have helped him out. The story -- http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_21655013/santa-cruz-man-bicycle-crash-critical-condition http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_21655013/santa... Personally, I've had some spills while mountain biking where a helmet has come in pretty darn handy.
  - Spooky23 14y ago
    Not really -- a helmet protects you from head injury. Is a car seatbelt useless because it doesn't do much for a side collision? I don't ride much, but one time I was out is the rain and had to swerve on a intersection that happened to be made of cobblestone, and ended up going down hard on the slick stone. Had I not been wearing a helmet, I would have had a severe head trauma. That type of accident is pretty common, and wearing the helmet avoids lots of needless suffering.

baddox 14y ago

Most of the "anti-helmet" studies and arguments I've seen aren't particularly anti-helmet in principle, but rather just make the case that the benefits of wearing a helmet apply equally to pedestrians and automobile drivers/passengers. The argument isn't that helmets can prevent head injuries while riding a bike. The argument is that if there are laws or social stigma around bicycle helmets, then they should apply equally to pedestrians and automobile drivers/passengers.

cbr 14y ago
> the benefits of wearing a helmet apply equally to pedestrians and automobile drivers/passengers Cycling is about six times more likely to kill you, per hour, than driving. So while helmets in cars would help some, the case for them on bikes is stronger.
- cpt1138 14y ago
  Cite for that statement please?
- corporalagumbo 14y ago
  I would also like to see some evidence for this wild claim.
  - RegEx 14y ago
    This thread is full of "evidence I've seen" without sources, on both sides of the argument.
- rmc 14y ago
  But do people spend as much time driving as cycling?

papalalu 14y ago

the fact is that a helmet is not enough to guarantee your safety - if cycling without one is "nuts", cycling with one is too.

ImprovedSilence 14y ago
This really hits it. A helmet isn't some all protective force field. If a truck is going to run you over, a helmet isn't going to save you. I think helmets are associated with bikes, because before we used bikes to commute, which involves simply riding about town, we used bikes to rip through the woods inches away from trees and sharp rocks, or jumped them off of mounds of dirt, or flung road bikes down mountain roads at 50per. (at least those three seem to sum up my first 23 years of existence) I live in DC, got old, but still NEVER commute with a helmet, and feel perfectly safe all the time. In fact, tons more safe than when I try to get a training ride in. (for which I wear a helmet)
- jmspring 14y ago
  Generally, I've seen three types of injuries with regard to cycling -- the classic being the collar bone breaking, next up some road rash (ie, you know how to lay your bike down or slide out due to a rear flat tire at speed), and head trauma. The first two, the helmet is useless to help. The third? Usually pretty darn helpful. Around here in Santa Cruz, a town known for biking -- many local builders, a couple of clubs, and a very forceful pro-bike lobby -- we still don't have the infrastructure that places like Portland or Amsterdam have. In fact, the roads are pretty much crap in most places. So you have to be careful. One recent solo accident involved a young adult who was biking at night on a dark road (dumb) but also not wearing a helmet. He crashed. Currently he is in critical condition. Pretty sure a helmet (and a light) would have helped him out. The story -- http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_21655013/santa-cruz-man-bicycle-crash-critical-condition http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/localnews/ci_21655013/santa... Personally, I've had some spills while mountain biking where a helmet has come in pretty darn handy.
- Spooky23 14y ago
  Not really -- a helmet protects you from head injury. Is a car seatbelt useless because it doesn't do much for a side collision? I don't ride much, but one time I was out is the rain and had to swerve on a intersection that happened to be made of cobblestone, and ended up going down hard on the slick stone. Had I not been wearing a helmet, I would have had a severe head trauma. That type of accident is pretty common, and wearing the helmet avoids lots of needless suffering.