7 ms·

Bicycle Helmets and the law: a perfect teaching case for epidemiology

45 points by biehl 13y ago

awjr 13y ago
I think it's really important to understand the impact cycle helmets have. They negatively impact the number of people cycling. They enforce the perception that cycling is dangerous. Finally, as the study showed, they are designed to only be involved in an accident between you and the road. Not another vehicle. They bring a false sense of security. If cycle helmets were made compulsory in the UK, it is calculated that an extra 253 people per year would die from obesity related diseases ( http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1231.html http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1231.html ) . Ironically cycle helmets kill. What is interesting about this is the identification of two groups of cyclists. The 'speed' group who currently wear helmets (and usually have lycra) and then the slow group (the rest of society) who just want to go from A to B. Helmet laws specifically have a negative impact on the slow group. This is the group of people that we need to encourage. As mentioned in the BMJ article ( http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaL... ) : "For others, this is an explicitly political matter, where an emphasis on helmets reflects a seductively individualistic approach to risk management (or even “victim blaming”) while the real gains lie elsewhere. It is certainly true that in many countries, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, cyclists have low injury rates, even though rates of cycling are high and almost no cyclists wear helmets. This seems to be achieved through interventions such as good infrastructure; stronger legislation to protect cyclists; and a culture of cycling as a popular, routine, non-sporty, non-risky behaviour." This stuff is important. The UK justice system is permeated with the belief that if you were not wearing a helmet then you were, in some way, partially responsible. It's got so bad that insurance payouts are being affected by this. Note I personally don't wear a cycle helmet except in winter when I want to have a bigger light to see the trail ahead of me as I commute to work. However if I go out on a club ride then I wear one. I'm pushing the speed of the bike and it could slip out from under me. I do not wear it with the belief it would save me if I had a collision with a car.
- codex 13y ago
  Personally, every single bicycle commuter I have known has been involved in an accident, often multiple. The consequences are much worse than an auto accident. If I didn't wear a helmet, I might not have the courage to ride at all--even if they help only in some scenarios. I often see the risks of bicycling and not wearing a helmet downplayed, but to me this rings of agenda and not reality on the road. For example, it seems like all arguments against helmeted cycling also apply to helmeted motorcycling. Should we encourage motorcyclists not to wear helmets?
  - ams6110 13y ago
    It's interesting that in the name of "healthy living" busybody types encourage us to bicycle to work (thus exposing ourselves to significantly higher risk of accidental injury) or do things like posting nag signs to "take the stairs" next to the elevators (ever compare injury rates in riding elevators vs. falling on stairs?)
    - schiffern 13y ago
      The exercise benefits vastly outweigh the additional injury risk. http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4521 http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4521 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/ That said, everyone should have the right to choose which risks they assume (including biking w/o a helmet).
    - stefan_kendall 13y ago
      Are you truly afraid of stairs? Are you 85?
  - revelation 13y ago
    I guess motorcyclists wear full face helmets because they don't like gravel flying into their eye at 50mph. That said, they still die like flies and for reasons totally unrelated to (not) wearing a helmet.
jchrisa 13y ago
Our family does without a car and I take my daughter to school or pick her up in my cargo e-bike. Neither my wife or I wear helmets as speeds are slow around here and there are plenty of other family bikers. I think my daughter is safer when I'm not wearing a helmet, as I can see and hear better and most importantly it's easier to make eye contact with drivers when you don't have a helmet on.
- eCa 13y ago
  What kind of helmet impairs vision and hearing? I haven't heard this before so I'm curious.
  - alistairSH 13y ago
    Downhill racing helment? Motorcycle helmet? Neither of which you'd normally wear on a road bike.
    - reubenmorais 13y ago
      Or in a commute/recreational ride, which is the type of bike riding we need to increase.
  - jchrisa 13y ago
    Would you be able to take in all the sites and sounds around you on a nature hike, say you are going birdwatching or something, just as well with a foam hat on? If you can see your helmet at all then that's part of your peripheral vision you are sacrificing. And if you can't see your helmet it's probably not gonna do much in a car crash anyway... I prefer not to get hit and one way to do it is ride in a part of the world that respects people on bikes. When I lived in Mountain View I wore a helmet... but I also didn't bike much.
    - reubenmorais 13y ago
      >And if you can't see your helmet Properly worn bike helmets are invisible to the person wearing it (except for the head visor extension if you use one, and that's above you so doesn't really get in the way). >it's probably not gonna do much in a car crash anyway Bike helmets aren't designed to protect you from a crash with a car, so yes, it's probably not going to do much, even if it was in your peripheral vision.
interstitial 13y ago
The government knows what's best for you. Stop being so individualistic.
dreamdu5t 13y ago
I'll take responsibility for my life and you busybody do gooders can fuck off. Let's make helmets mandatory after we outlaw being a fat fuck and eating like shit.
- JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  Unfortunately my insurance pays for folks with your attitude. So yes its my business. Unless you want to sign a waiver for bicycle-related injuries? No?
  - jype 13y ago
    However, it pays substantially less for such folks as it does for the folks such folks are angry about. Bicycle related injuries are not what any insurance company is worried about, while obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and motor vehicle related injuries actually really are the issues that keep raising the cost of your insurance - you just don't see it that way, because you don't want to take responsibility for the costs your lifestyle imposes on the society. I'm dreadfully sorry if this has come out as addressed to an individual - speaking epidemiologically, this is absolutely about all of us, collectively. I would never recommend anyone to not wear a helmet, but I would rather see their choice of transport be the bicycle as often as possible, and mandatory wearing of helmet will not help that.
    - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
      Sorry I got lost in all the prepositions and articles. To be clear, I happen to be a bicyle-rider, who likes to take week-long 500 mile vacations on a variety of human-powered cycles. No obesity here, nor cardiovascular issues. So I'm definitely paying for others' problems of whatever kind.
      - jessaustin 13y ago
        Your quest for personal perfection, young grasshopper, will not be complete until you accept that others have different preferences, which are just as valid for them as your lycra-clad Lanciness is for you.
shirro 13y ago
Bike helmets are mandatory Australia wide and it is enforced. I have no idea if the net effects are positive or negative but the behaviour is so normalised now people rarely question it. I don't think it represents a disincentive to people exercising or kids riding to school. It might have when introduced but I suspect other lifestyle changes have more impact. When I was a kid I had to ride a couple of km just to see a computer. I had two television stations and my only electronic game was pong so riding my bike was the only way to stay sane. Where it is a problem is you don't carry a helmet around with you so you can't just hop on a mates bike or hire a bike without putting someone else's helmet on which isn't attractive. I have considered hiring a bike when interstate but the helmet thing has always put me off.
jype 13y ago
I've been commuting by bike ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgvjnOJwWTU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgvjnOJwWTU ) for about 20 years now and I feel that every motor vehicle occupant should be wearing a helmet. The case is quite clear: Most people who die in cars have not had their heads protected by a helmet at the time of the fatal collision. While they might very well be dead regardless, so might the occasional cyclist that got run over by a lorry while not wearing her helmet, so this doesn't really enter the argument. When helmets are mandatory for car occupants, I shall laugh at their faces and ask them if they feel any safer crossing the railroad tracks. I'm also certain my ill manners will improve road safety by a measurable margin. And, of course, I wear a helmet most of the time.
angersock 13y ago
I am truly baffled at the number of people here against bicycle helmets--have you never had to interact with someone who has suffered brain damage? I'd wear two damned helmets if it ever saved me being in that position.
- jype 13y ago
  I find it hard to believe anyone here is against bicycle helmets. I can only see people who think helmets should not be mandatory, because the data shows this will reduce the number of people using their bicycles for casual transport, which in turn increases their risk for a wide range of health problems and simultaneously makes cycling more dangerous for everyone else, because fewer cyclists on the road means fewer drivers will take enough care to notice them and give them their space.
- glomph 13y ago
  More people get brain damage falling down the stairs or off ladders in their own homes though. Should we mandate helmets in the home?
brg 13y ago
Cost-benefit analysis and the role of government in personal safety laws is very interesting. One of the best TED talks is Steven Levitt on children's car seats. They do not seem to more beneficial than seat belts passed infancy. These are very much related, as BC has increased the age at which children need to be confined to a car seat to 9. Steven Levitt: Surprising stats about child carseats http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_levitt_on_child_carseats.html http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_levitt_on_child_carseats.htm...
pconf 13y ago
IMO the most important aspect of this whole debate is money. Lots of money is made from manufacturing and selling bicycle helmets. That's why the bicycle-naive general population only knows about helmets when asked about bicycle safety. Given that skills training, traffic engineering and other key components of real (i.e., statistically defensible) bicycle safety are not profitable how would you go about fixing this dysfunctional aspect of our automobile-centric cultures?

45 points by biehl 13y ago

awjr 13y ago

I think it's really important to understand the impact cycle helmets have. They negatively impact the number of people cycling. They enforce the perception that cycling is dangerous. Finally, as the study showed, they are designed to only be involved in an accident between you and the road. Not another vehicle. They bring a false sense of security. If cycle helmets were made compulsory in the UK, it is calculated that an extra 253 people per year would die from obesity related diseases ( http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1231.html http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1231.html ) . Ironically cycle helmets kill. What is interesting about this is the identification of two groups of cyclists. The 'speed' group who currently wear helmets (and usually have lycra) and then the slow group (the rest of society) who just want to go from A to B. Helmet laws specifically have a negative impact on the slow group. This is the group of people that we need to encourage. As mentioned in the BMJ article ( http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaL... ) : "For others, this is an explicitly political matter, where an emphasis on helmets reflects a seductively individualistic approach to risk management (or even “victim blaming”) while the real gains lie elsewhere. It is certainly true that in many countries, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, cyclists have low injury rates, even though rates of cycling are high and almost no cyclists wear helmets. This seems to be achieved through interventions such as good infrastructure; stronger legislation to protect cyclists; and a culture of cycling as a popular, routine, non-sporty, non-risky behaviour." This stuff is important. The UK justice system is permeated with the belief that if you were not wearing a helmet then you were, in some way, partially responsible. It's got so bad that insurance payouts are being affected by this. Note I personally don't wear a cycle helmet except in winter when I want to have a bigger light to see the trail ahead of me as I commute to work. However if I go out on a club ride then I wear one. I'm pushing the speed of the bike and it could slip out from under me. I do not wear it with the belief it would save me if I had a collision with a car.

codex 13y ago
Personally, every single bicycle commuter I have known has been involved in an accident, often multiple. The consequences are much worse than an auto accident. If I didn't wear a helmet, I might not have the courage to ride at all--even if they help only in some scenarios. I often see the risks of bicycling and not wearing a helmet downplayed, but to me this rings of agenda and not reality on the road. For example, it seems like all arguments against helmeted cycling also apply to helmeted motorcycling. Should we encourage motorcyclists not to wear helmets?
- ams6110 13y ago
  It's interesting that in the name of "healthy living" busybody types encourage us to bicycle to work (thus exposing ourselves to significantly higher risk of accidental injury) or do things like posting nag signs to "take the stairs" next to the elevators (ever compare injury rates in riding elevators vs. falling on stairs?)
  - schiffern 13y ago
    The exercise benefits vastly outweigh the additional injury risk. http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4521 http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4521 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/ That said, everyone should have the right to choose which risks they assume (including biking w/o a helmet).
  - stefan_kendall 13y ago
    Are you truly afraid of stairs? Are you 85?
- revelation 13y ago
  I guess motorcyclists wear full face helmets because they don't like gravel flying into their eye at 50mph. That said, they still die like flies and for reasons totally unrelated to (not) wearing a helmet.

jchrisa 13y ago

Our family does without a car and I take my daughter to school or pick her up in my cargo e-bike. Neither my wife or I wear helmets as speeds are slow around here and there are plenty of other family bikers. I think my daughter is safer when I'm not wearing a helmet, as I can see and hear better and most importantly it's easier to make eye contact with drivers when you don't have a helmet on.

eCa 13y ago
What kind of helmet impairs vision and hearing? I haven't heard this before so I'm curious.
- alistairSH 13y ago
  Downhill racing helment? Motorcycle helmet? Neither of which you'd normally wear on a road bike.
  - reubenmorais 13y ago
    Or in a commute/recreational ride, which is the type of bike riding we need to increase.
- jchrisa 13y ago
  Would you be able to take in all the sites and sounds around you on a nature hike, say you are going birdwatching or something, just as well with a foam hat on? If you can see your helmet at all then that's part of your peripheral vision you are sacrificing. And if you can't see your helmet it's probably not gonna do much in a car crash anyway... I prefer not to get hit and one way to do it is ride in a part of the world that respects people on bikes. When I lived in Mountain View I wore a helmet... but I also didn't bike much.
  - reubenmorais 13y ago
    >And if you can't see your helmet Properly worn bike helmets are invisible to the person wearing it (except for the head visor extension if you use one, and that's above you so doesn't really get in the way). >it's probably not gonna do much in a car crash anyway Bike helmets aren't designed to protect you from a crash with a car, so yes, it's probably not going to do much, even if it was in your peripheral vision.

interstitial 13y ago

The government knows what's best for you. Stop being so individualistic.

dreamdu5t 13y ago

I'll take responsibility for my life and you busybody do gooders can fuck off. Let's make helmets mandatory after we outlaw being a fat fuck and eating like shit.

JoeAltmaier 13y ago
Unfortunately my insurance pays for folks with your attitude. So yes its my business. Unless you want to sign a waiver for bicycle-related injuries? No?
- jype 13y ago
  However, it pays substantially less for such folks as it does for the folks such folks are angry about. Bicycle related injuries are not what any insurance company is worried about, while obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and motor vehicle related injuries actually really are the issues that keep raising the cost of your insurance - you just don't see it that way, because you don't want to take responsibility for the costs your lifestyle imposes on the society. I'm dreadfully sorry if this has come out as addressed to an individual - speaking epidemiologically, this is absolutely about all of us, collectively. I would never recommend anyone to not wear a helmet, but I would rather see their choice of transport be the bicycle as often as possible, and mandatory wearing of helmet will not help that.
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    Sorry I got lost in all the prepositions and articles. To be clear, I happen to be a bicyle-rider, who likes to take week-long 500 mile vacations on a variety of human-powered cycles. No obesity here, nor cardiovascular issues. So I'm definitely paying for others' problems of whatever kind.
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      Your quest for personal perfection, young grasshopper, will not be complete until you accept that others have different preferences, which are just as valid for them as your lycra-clad Lanciness is for you.

shirro 13y ago

Bike helmets are mandatory Australia wide and it is enforced. I have no idea if the net effects are positive or negative but the behaviour is so normalised now people rarely question it. I don't think it represents a disincentive to people exercising or kids riding to school. It might have when introduced but I suspect other lifestyle changes have more impact. When I was a kid I had to ride a couple of km just to see a computer. I had two television stations and my only electronic game was pong so riding my bike was the only way to stay sane. Where it is a problem is you don't carry a helmet around with you so you can't just hop on a mates bike or hire a bike without putting someone else's helmet on which isn't attractive. I have considered hiring a bike when interstate but the helmet thing has always put me off.

jype 13y ago

I've been commuting by bike ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgvjnOJwWTU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgvjnOJwWTU ) for about 20 years now and I feel that every motor vehicle occupant should be wearing a helmet. The case is quite clear: Most people who die in cars have not had their heads protected by a helmet at the time of the fatal collision. While they might very well be dead regardless, so might the occasional cyclist that got run over by a lorry while not wearing her helmet, so this doesn't really enter the argument. When helmets are mandatory for car occupants, I shall laugh at their faces and ask them if they feel any safer crossing the railroad tracks. I'm also certain my ill manners will improve road safety by a measurable margin. And, of course, I wear a helmet most of the time.

angersock 13y ago

I am truly baffled at the number of people here against bicycle helmets--have you never had to interact with someone who has suffered brain damage? I'd wear two damned helmets if it ever saved me being in that position.

jype 13y ago
I find it hard to believe anyone here is against bicycle helmets. I can only see people who think helmets should not be mandatory, because the data shows this will reduce the number of people using their bicycles for casual transport, which in turn increases their risk for a wide range of health problems and simultaneously makes cycling more dangerous for everyone else, because fewer cyclists on the road means fewer drivers will take enough care to notice them and give them their space.
glomph 13y ago
More people get brain damage falling down the stairs or off ladders in their own homes though. Should we mandate helmets in the home?

brg 13y ago

Cost-benefit analysis and the role of government in personal safety laws is very interesting. One of the best TED talks is Steven Levitt on children's car seats. They do not seem to more beneficial than seat belts passed infancy. These are very much related, as BC has increased the age at which children need to be confined to a car seat to 9. Steven Levitt: Surprising stats about child carseats http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_levitt_on_child_carseats.html http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_levitt_on_child_carseats.htm...

pconf 13y ago

IMO the most important aspect of this whole debate is money. Lots of money is made from manufacturing and selling bicycle helmets. That's why the bicycle-naive general population only knows about helmets when asked about bicycle safety. Given that skills training, traffic engineering and other key components of real (i.e., statistically defensible) bicycle safety are not profitable how would you go about fixing this dysfunctional aspect of our automobile-centric cultures?