36 ms·

They haven't changed because they are an obvious dead end. Professional sports aside, it makes no sense to force an everyday commuter to wear such a thing for a

They haven't changed because they are an obvious dead end. Professional sports aside, it makes no sense to force an everyday commuter to wear such a thing for a very dubious return in safety while we put up with automobile transport and retarded city designers. Bicycle helmets are the equivalent of telling homeowners they should build a nuclear bunker for their home because we have no interest in ensuring safety standards for nuclear reactors fearing that could cause prices to go up.

steelframe 13y ago
Cyclists can and do suffer head impacts for any number of reasons, many not having anything to do with motorists or city planning. Personally, I've had several close calls with suicidal squirrels and rabbits on downhill segments. Also, it turns out that railroad tracks is a leading cause of injury according to the UBC BICE study: http://cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/injuries/the-bice-study/ http://cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/injuries/the-bice-study/
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  Motorists also suffer from head injuries. Head injury is the leading cause of death for motorists who die in crashes. Therefore, motorists should also wear helmets.
  - PencilAndPaper 13y ago
    I had a friend who once speculated that if the government wanted to discourage driving, they could mandate that driver wear helmets. Considering how dangerous and destructive driving is, maybe its a win-win.
  - steelframe 13y ago
    Agreed.
ajross 13y ago
Cite for the "bike helmets are ineffective" assertion? It's belied by the statistics in the linked article, among other things like fairly straightforward intuition...
- pessimizer 13y ago
  http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ >fairly straightforward intuition Ignore this when thinking about statistics.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  TFA: "More helmet laws had come into effect, but head injuries didn't go down at all."
sliverstorm 13y ago
Please, a bicycle helmet is not only useful if a car hits you. A bicycle helmet is also fairly inexpensive, and can be pretty comfortable. They are basically a very easy insurance policy whose main "cost" is inconvenience.
- hnha 13y ago
  sadly their inconvenience (and looking/feeling awkward) by far outranks the cost for me.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    That's your prerogative, but let's at least not pretend they are useless just because you personally may not like them.
    - iconjack 13y ago
      That may or may not be his prerogative, depending on the laws where he bikes.
adolph 13y ago
Did you read the article? It is an interesting and seemingly balanced story about balances between innovation and standards, the evolution of a threat model (from death to concussion) and what some of the most recent innovation is. It even covers some of the contemporary anti-helmet arguments.
- revelation 13y ago
  Oh, I did, and I love the whole Tech/bordering into SciFi angle about how we can build on that concept. But we can not possibly divorce the bicycle helmet from its' origin, effects and the economical pressures at work here.
epo 13y ago
You simply didn't read the article did you? Just used the post title (which isn't the article title) as an excuse for going off on your tedious rant about how ineffective bike helmets are.
- johnbm 13y ago
  The article doesn't provide much citations for "Bicycle helmets do an outstanding job of keeping our skulls intact in a major crash." which is the premise it starts out with and builds its case off. Obvious questions arise... like why are motorcycle or pro-sports helmets so radically different in design (full head + visor), even for scooters that barely go faster than bicycles, and how many "major crashes" result in head trauma as opposed to other kinds? And if bicycle helmets are so great, why don't we require car drivers to wear helmets too? Surely then they would also do an 'outstanding job in keeping our skulls intact in a major crash'?
  - nether 13y ago
    I think this one is decent: > In 1989, The New England Journal of Medicine published a study that looked at hundreds of cyclists treated at Seattle-area hospitals. The research team concluded that helmets “reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent and of brain injury by 88 percent.”
PencilAndPaper 13y ago
I like my head. Being a heavy object attached to your body by a thin, fairly weak neck, your head is very likely to hit the ground if you fall at speed. Also, I live in a place that has social healthcare so, it makes sense to mandate safety since we all foot the bill. Bicycle helmets are probably more equivalent to mandating homeowners to use insulated wire in their wiring than mandating everyone have a nuclear bunker which is very expensive and extreme ...unless of course your hair is the biggest deal on earth.
doktrin 13y ago
> it makes no sense to force an everyday commuter to wear such a thing for a very dubious return in safety while we put up with automobile transport and retarded city designers. Bicycle helmets are the equivalent of telling homeowners they should build a nuclear bunker for their home because we have no interest in ensuring safety standards for nuclear reactors fearing that could cause prices to go up. This reads like a rant for rants sake. The article wasn't about helmet laws but rather helmet technology and safety standards. To the "dubious return" point you made - why should bike commuters not optimize for their situation? It scarcely matters whether or not their city could have been better designed. Assuming they don't intend to move to the Netherlands, it makes eminent sense to maximize their safety while on the road.
jessaustin 13y ago
Bravo revelation, keep fighting the good fight. My favorite quote from TFA was: "More helmet laws had come into effect, but head injuries didn't go down at all." This would be confusing if one believed the marketing! Simultaneously, of course, the helmet laws perfectly performed their intended functions: discouraging cycling while forcing people to buy yet another damn commercial product. All the complainers are either cranky motorists or sidewalk cyclists. They feel slightly more guilty right-hooking a commuter who isn't wearing a helmet than some day-glo Lance wannabe. Witness their guilt turned to fury at the mere mention of actual facts about bicycle helmet effectiveness!
- PencilAndPaper 13y ago
  perhaps the incidences of head injuries dont go down, but what happens to the severity of those head injuries when helmets are being worn. If you classify a bruise on the forehead and a severe cerebral contusion both as "head injuries", you are unlikely to see much of a difference between wearing a helmet and not in terms of head injuries
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    Well that's an interesting hypothesis, and certainly study authors are well-advised to standardize their measurement procedure. Furthermore, in any specific incident you might very well be subject to a bruise if wearing a helmet and a contusion otherwise. But these studies are not about specific incidents: they reflect the totality of many cyclists spending many hours cycling. There is no reason to suspect that there would be some consistent factor that would exaggerate reporting of helmeted injuries while minimizing reporting of unhelmeted ones. Besides who would cause a bruise an injury? I get bruises every day. Bicycling is one of the safest things I do.
    - PencilAndPaper 13y ago
      I guess I am just curious as to why the study you indicated concluded that helmet laws didnt reduce head injuries. Perhaps people didnt change their helmet wearing behavior because some unenforced law? Not to be a citation jerk, but what is TFA and can you link to the study? I am genuinely curious because it seems so counter-intuitive to me.
nether 13y ago
> force an everyday commuter to wear such a thing > Bicycle helmets are the equivalent of telling homeowners they should build a nuclear bunker Um, your head gets a bit sweaty and you have to shell out $40. You look kind of dorky too, like the rest of the 50% of cyclists wearing helmets. That is not nearly the inconvenience of "building a nuclear bunker." It's more like asking the homeowner to pay a small premium on his insurance for a slightly riskier residence.
- freiheit 13y ago
  You build a nuclear bunker once. Maybe every 30 to 50 years. The tiny inconveniences of a helmet are daily. It all adds up, and is likely quite a bit more inconvenience over a lifetime.

steelframe 13y ago

Cyclists can and do suffer head impacts for any number of reasons, many not having anything to do with motorists or city planning. Personally, I've had several close calls with suicidal squirrels and rabbits on downhill segments. Also, it turns out that railroad tracks is a leading cause of injury according to the UBC BICE study: http://cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/injuries/the-bice-study/ http://cyclingincities.spph.ubc.ca/injuries/the-bice-study/

thrownaway2424 13y ago
Motorists also suffer from head injuries. Head injury is the leading cause of death for motorists who die in crashes. Therefore, motorists should also wear helmets.
- PencilAndPaper 13y ago
  I had a friend who once speculated that if the government wanted to discourage driving, they could mandate that driver wear helmets. Considering how dangerous and destructive driving is, maybe its a win-win.
- steelframe 13y ago
  Agreed.

ajross 13y ago

Cite for the "bike helmets are ineffective" assertion? It's belied by the statistics in the linked article, among other things like fairly straightforward intuition...

pessimizer 13y ago
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ >fairly straightforward intuition Ignore this when thinking about statistics.
jessaustin 13y ago
TFA: "More helmet laws had come into effect, but head injuries didn't go down at all."

sliverstorm 13y ago

Please, a bicycle helmet is not only useful if a car hits you. A bicycle helmet is also fairly inexpensive, and can be pretty comfortable. They are basically a very easy insurance policy whose main "cost" is inconvenience.

hnha 13y ago
sadly their inconvenience (and looking/feeling awkward) by far outranks the cost for me.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  That's your prerogative, but let's at least not pretend they are useless just because you personally may not like them.
  - iconjack 13y ago
    That may or may not be his prerogative, depending on the laws where he bikes.

adolph 13y ago

Did you read the article? It is an interesting and seemingly balanced story about balances between innovation and standards, the evolution of a threat model (from death to concussion) and what some of the most recent innovation is. It even covers some of the contemporary anti-helmet arguments.

revelation 13y ago
Oh, I did, and I love the whole Tech/bordering into SciFi angle about how we can build on that concept. But we can not possibly divorce the bicycle helmet from its' origin, effects and the economical pressures at work here.

epo 13y ago

You simply didn't read the article did you? Just used the post title (which isn't the article title) as an excuse for going off on your tedious rant about how ineffective bike helmets are.

johnbm 13y ago
The article doesn't provide much citations for "Bicycle helmets do an outstanding job of keeping our skulls intact in a major crash." which is the premise it starts out with and builds its case off. Obvious questions arise... like why are motorcycle or pro-sports helmets so radically different in design (full head + visor), even for scooters that barely go faster than bicycles, and how many "major crashes" result in head trauma as opposed to other kinds? And if bicycle helmets are so great, why don't we require car drivers to wear helmets too? Surely then they would also do an 'outstanding job in keeping our skulls intact in a major crash'?
- nether 13y ago
  I think this one is decent: > In 1989, The New England Journal of Medicine published a study that looked at hundreds of cyclists treated at Seattle-area hospitals. The research team concluded that helmets “reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent and of brain injury by 88 percent.”

PencilAndPaper 13y ago

I like my head. Being a heavy object attached to your body by a thin, fairly weak neck, your head is very likely to hit the ground if you fall at speed. Also, I live in a place that has social healthcare so, it makes sense to mandate safety since we all foot the bill. Bicycle helmets are probably more equivalent to mandating homeowners to use insulated wire in their wiring than mandating everyone have a nuclear bunker which is very expensive and extreme ...unless of course your hair is the biggest deal on earth.

doktrin 13y ago

> it makes no sense to force an everyday commuter to wear such a thing for a very dubious return in safety while we put up with automobile transport and retarded city designers. Bicycle helmets are the equivalent of telling homeowners they should build a nuclear bunker for their home because we have no interest in ensuring safety standards for nuclear reactors fearing that could cause prices to go up. This reads like a rant for rants sake. The article wasn't about helmet laws but rather helmet technology and safety standards. To the "dubious return" point you made - why should bike commuters not optimize for their situation? It scarcely matters whether or not their city could have been better designed. Assuming they don't intend to move to the Netherlands, it makes eminent sense to maximize their safety while on the road.

jessaustin 13y ago

Bravo revelation, keep fighting the good fight. My favorite quote from TFA was: "More helmet laws had come into effect, but head injuries didn't go down at all." This would be confusing if one believed the marketing! Simultaneously, of course, the helmet laws perfectly performed their intended functions: discouraging cycling while forcing people to buy yet another damn commercial product. All the complainers are either cranky motorists or sidewalk cyclists. They feel slightly more guilty right-hooking a commuter who isn't wearing a helmet than some day-glo Lance wannabe. Witness their guilt turned to fury at the mere mention of actual facts about bicycle helmet effectiveness!

PencilAndPaper 13y ago
perhaps the incidences of head injuries dont go down, but what happens to the severity of those head injuries when helmets are being worn. If you classify a bruise on the forehead and a severe cerebral contusion both as "head injuries", you are unlikely to see much of a difference between wearing a helmet and not in terms of head injuries
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Well that's an interesting hypothesis, and certainly study authors are well-advised to standardize their measurement procedure. Furthermore, in any specific incident you might very well be subject to a bruise if wearing a helmet and a contusion otherwise. But these studies are not about specific incidents: they reflect the totality of many cyclists spending many hours cycling. There is no reason to suspect that there would be some consistent factor that would exaggerate reporting of helmeted injuries while minimizing reporting of unhelmeted ones. Besides who would cause a bruise an injury? I get bruises every day. Bicycling is one of the safest things I do.
  - PencilAndPaper 13y ago
    I guess I am just curious as to why the study you indicated concluded that helmet laws didnt reduce head injuries. Perhaps people didnt change their helmet wearing behavior because some unenforced law? Not to be a citation jerk, but what is TFA and can you link to the study? I am genuinely curious because it seems so counter-intuitive to me.

nether 13y ago

> force an everyday commuter to wear such a thing > Bicycle helmets are the equivalent of telling homeowners they should build a nuclear bunker Um, your head gets a bit sweaty and you have to shell out $40. You look kind of dorky too, like the rest of the 50% of cyclists wearing helmets. That is not nearly the inconvenience of "building a nuclear bunker." It's more like asking the homeowner to pay a small premium on his insurance for a slightly riskier residence.

freiheit 13y ago
You build a nuclear bunker once. Maybe every 30 to 50 years. The tiny inconveniences of a helmet are daily. It all adds up, and is likely quite a bit more inconvenience over a lifetime.