5 ms·

I think we can solve this with a bulleted list: * Scare people off from using bikes * Uncomfortable * Supply excuse to not make biking safer * Expensiv

• rayiner 14y ago
  The first point just begs the question. The third one is questionable at best. The last two are just incorrect. I think the "no helmet" thing is just a weird bit of biker culture that's going to eventually die out, much like smoker culture is dying out in the US.
  • jarek 14y ago
    > I think the "no helmet" thing is just a weird bit of biker culture that's going to eventually die out, much like smoker culture is dying out in the US. Is this a US-only claim, or do you reckon people in Amsterdam and Copenhagen will see your light and start wearing helmets?
  • cshesse 14y ago
    Maybe, I always wear a helmet myself. And it's true that europeans smoke more, so maybe it makes sense that they don't wear helmets.
  • danieldk 14y ago
    It's not going to happen in Western Europe, because it is not really necessary. Most of my family and friends have used bikes nearly daily since they were three or four years old. I know of no-one who had a head injury. Biking without helmet is perfectly safe here (Netherlands), because of traffic laws and bike lanes.
• leviathant 14y ago
  My mother worked in a head trauma unit while I was young, and I particularly take umbrage with that last bullet point. While wearing a helmet won't do you much good when you ignore a stop sign and get plowed over by an SUV, neither will a seat belt save your life if you lose control going 110 down a tree-lined rural highway.
  • mikeash 14y ago
    I'm rather shocked at the number of comments in this thread that just extrapolate anecdotes. Your mother's profession has nothing to do with this whatsoever, unless it involved studying the actual statistics of bicycle helmet safety.
    • snowwrestler 14y ago
      Whether a bike helmet makes you safer has nothing whatsoever to do with statistics; it is simple physics. You can try it yourself by hitting your head with a rock--with and without the helmet on.
      • mikeash 14y ago
        Right, and adding more programmers to a software project will always make it finish earlier (try it yourself by writing a small app with a friend), and flying is always more dangerous than driving (try losing your engines in an airplane and in a car).
        • snowwrestler 14y ago
          No, it really is just simple physics. Arguing this point just makes it look like you don't understand the limitations of epidemiology. Allow me to illustrate the fallacy with this joke: A man is arrested at the airport because he has a bomb in his backpack. When questioned by police he claims he brought it for safety because "what are the odds that there would be TWO bombs on the same airplane?" Put another way: you don't need a population study to decide whether feeding rat poison to kids is a good idea. Now if we were talking about whether mandatory helmet laws make people safer, population statistics are essential tools of policy analysis. But if we are talking about one single head, we know the helmet increases safety based on the simple rock test I outlined above.
          • mikeash 14y ago
            I thought we were talking about the population as a whole, not a single head. Not mandatory laws, but a culture where helmet use is de facto required versus not. I also recall studies where wearing a helmet was found to be more dangerous overall, for the individual, because drivers assume that helmeted bicyclists are more skilled and don't give them as much room, leading to more accidents. My point being that you can't simply take a simple "rock + head + helmet = better" and assume that conclusion is correct. This stuff is complicated. And everybody in this thread trying to pretend that this stuff is not complicated is really pissing me off. Edit: to make sure we're not talking past each other, there are at least five different relevant questions here: 1. If wearing a helmet was required by law, would this be a net gain for society? 2. If wearing a helmet is heavily encouraged by society but legally optional, would this be a net gain? 3. Is wearing a helmet regularly a net gain for the individual? 4. Is wearing a helmet on one particular ride a net gain for the individual? 5. Is wearing a helmet in a crash a net gain for the individual? The only question answered by your simple physics is #5, which also happens to be the least useful question in the list. Even #5 is not obvious the way you make it sound: it's entirely possible, although probably not actually the case, that the added weight increases the risk of neck trauma more than the protection of the skull reduces the risk of head trauma. In any case, none of the other four questions are answered at all by your thought experiment, even though those four questions are what we should be examining when we ask the question of whether we should wear a helmet while riding, and whether we should encourage or require helmets in general.
• zobzu 14y ago
  That's not exactly a very good list. Here's what i think is a better one: - doesn't look cool - slightly less comfortable - one more thing to think about and carry along when you go for a ride On the plus side: - does actually make you safer - its cheap unless you need a super competition-brand-etc (then you've a different issue) - its light - when everybody wears it you don't have to feel like you're the only clown who fears for his life wearing one
  • qu4z-2 14y ago
    I don't think cheap and light are fair points there. Sure, it could be worse, but no helmet is definitely cheaper and lighter than a helmet. (aside from possible medical bills, but I feel that's covered under the 'keeps you safe' point).
• zem 14y ago
  * plays badly with city-supplied shared bicycles