8 ms·

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

by 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.
  - bikingdev 13y ago
    No, we primarily wear full face helmets for the same reasons we wear leather or abrasion resistive textiles. Secondary benefits are protection from gravel flying up in our face as well as comfort from noise and weather - especially at speed. Protective gear goes a long way, a helmet can save your life, leather can save your legs and boots can save your feet.
- reubenmorais 13y ago
  There's an important (but not always obvious) difference here: individually, you're strictly safer with a helmet, but when you start forcing people to wear helmets, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. That's why lots of cycling organizations promote voluntary use of helmets.
Hinrik 13y ago
Another potentially harmful effect is that drivers tend to be less cautious around helmeted cyclists: http://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/26335_en.html http://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/26335_en.html
- analog31 13y ago
  This is a study that I'd definitely need to see repeated. The "reproducibility crisis" looms large.
  - dalke 13y ago
    Don't know why you were downvoted. The BMJ article even gives the caveat "albeit with a single author and subject." Hinrik: the BMJ paper we're talking about also gives the actual citation, not the commentary that you point to. BTW, looking at the citations to that paper, there's a re-analysis of the same data, at http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0075424 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna... . It broadly agrees with Walker's conclusion, but notes a diminished effect of wearing a helmet: > Risk compensation theory for helmet wearing while cycling has generated increased interest in the peer-reviewed literature, although there is little to no evidence to support the theory. Walker's [2] argument that helmet wearing affects the behaviour of motor vehicle drivers does not support risk compensation theory upon re-analysis. Helmet wearing is associated with a small difference in passing distance and is not associated with close passing. The evidence from this study does not justify recommendations around helmet wearing, but rather highlights the more important factors of kerb distance, road characteristics and traffic type which may inform more effective cycling safety improvements. It too says "This study has several limitations with regards to the data. Ian Walker was the only cyclist observed and therefore his cycling behaviour may not be representative of cyclists in general", then lists other limitations.
rdtsc 13y ago
> 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 It seems you'd need work upstream a bit to prove your point. The conventional wisdom is that bicycle helmets are a "good thing". Ok so 253 extra people will die from obesity. What about the ones that will not die but be disabled. What about those that don't die from falling of the bicycle but get disabled permanently or temporarily. > They enforce the perception that cycling is dangerous. Is that so controversial though. Cycling, absent dedicated bike lines, separate bike paths, and very well organized intersections is dangerous. Heck, driving is dangerous, riding a bike among cars is even more dangerous from what I understand. Now, I don't have the data, you seem to have some, so I can't point to any studies right of the bat here. > Finally, as the study showed, they are designed to only be involved in an accident between you and the road. Not another vehicle. Well ok, the helmet protects the head. Hitting the road because a car hit the cyclist or a deer or someone put a stick in the spokes, I can see having a helmet, even one not designed for automobile accident protection as a better idea than not having one. One thing I can see is the false sense of security. I buy that argument. Someone before talked (sorry, can't remember who or where or if it was study or not) how when they were riding alongside cars and if they had a helmet, cars actually drove closer to them, and if they didn't, cars gave them more room. That's interesting I think.
- D_Alex 13y ago
  >What about the ones that will not die but be disabled... You mean disabled by obesity, right? I am sure there would be LOTS.
  - baddox 13y ago
    I don't think bicycle helmets would often protect people in scenarios where they would have become disabled without a helmet.
  - rdtsc 13y ago
    Saying both, looking at dead people is a bit too binary. Some people I know how are terribly obese are unhealthy and disabled in many respect. Some people who have been hit by cars while riding bikes also can get disabled but not killed. So looking at rates of deaths only might not paint the whole picture of safety.
cageface 13y ago
Right after I first moved to San Francisco one of my new roommates was hit by a car while riding his bike downtown. He put a large, helmet-sized dent in the car's windshield. He spent a few weeks in the hospital anyway but he would have been dead if he hadn't been wearing his helmet.
- baddox 13y ago
  Lots of deaths of pedestrian and even automobile drivers/passengers could probably also be prevented with bicycle helmets.

by awjr 13y ago

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.
- bikingdev 13y ago
  No, we primarily wear full face helmets for the same reasons we wear leather or abrasion resistive textiles. Secondary benefits are protection from gravel flying up in our face as well as comfort from noise and weather - especially at speed. Protective gear goes a long way, a helmet can save your life, leather can save your legs and boots can save your feet.
reubenmorais 13y ago
There's an important (but not always obvious) difference here: individually, you're strictly safer with a helmet, but when you start forcing people to wear helmets, the disadvantages outweigh the benefits. That's why lots of cycling organizations promote voluntary use of helmets.

Hinrik 13y ago

Another potentially harmful effect is that drivers tend to be less cautious around helmeted cyclists: http://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/26335_en.html http://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/26335_en.html

analog31 13y ago
This is a study that I'd definitely need to see repeated. The "reproducibility crisis" looms large.
- dalke 13y ago
  Don't know why you were downvoted. The BMJ article even gives the caveat "albeit with a single author and subject." Hinrik: the BMJ paper we're talking about also gives the actual citation, not the commentary that you point to. BTW, looking at the citations to that paper, there's a re-analysis of the same data, at http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0075424 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna... . It broadly agrees with Walker's conclusion, but notes a diminished effect of wearing a helmet: > Risk compensation theory for helmet wearing while cycling has generated increased interest in the peer-reviewed literature, although there is little to no evidence to support the theory. Walker's [2] argument that helmet wearing affects the behaviour of motor vehicle drivers does not support risk compensation theory upon re-analysis. Helmet wearing is associated with a small difference in passing distance and is not associated with close passing. The evidence from this study does not justify recommendations around helmet wearing, but rather highlights the more important factors of kerb distance, road characteristics and traffic type which may inform more effective cycling safety improvements. It too says "This study has several limitations with regards to the data. Ian Walker was the only cyclist observed and therefore his cycling behaviour may not be representative of cyclists in general", then lists other limitations.

rdtsc 13y ago

> 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 It seems you'd need work upstream a bit to prove your point. The conventional wisdom is that bicycle helmets are a "good thing". Ok so 253 extra people will die from obesity. What about the ones that will not die but be disabled. What about those that don't die from falling of the bicycle but get disabled permanently or temporarily. > They enforce the perception that cycling is dangerous. Is that so controversial though. Cycling, absent dedicated bike lines, separate bike paths, and very well organized intersections is dangerous. Heck, driving is dangerous, riding a bike among cars is even more dangerous from what I understand. Now, I don't have the data, you seem to have some, so I can't point to any studies right of the bat here. > Finally, as the study showed, they are designed to only be involved in an accident between you and the road. Not another vehicle. Well ok, the helmet protects the head. Hitting the road because a car hit the cyclist or a deer or someone put a stick in the spokes, I can see having a helmet, even one not designed for automobile accident protection as a better idea than not having one. One thing I can see is the false sense of security. I buy that argument. Someone before talked (sorry, can't remember who or where or if it was study or not) how when they were riding alongside cars and if they had a helmet, cars actually drove closer to them, and if they didn't, cars gave them more room. That's interesting I think.

D_Alex 13y ago
>What about the ones that will not die but be disabled... You mean disabled by obesity, right? I am sure there would be LOTS.
- baddox 13y ago
  I don't think bicycle helmets would often protect people in scenarios where they would have become disabled without a helmet.
- rdtsc 13y ago
  Saying both, looking at dead people is a bit too binary. Some people I know how are terribly obese are unhealthy and disabled in many respect. Some people who have been hit by cars while riding bikes also can get disabled but not killed. So looking at rates of deaths only might not paint the whole picture of safety.

cageface 13y ago

Right after I first moved to San Francisco one of my new roommates was hit by a car while riding his bike downtown. He put a large, helmet-sized dent in the car's windshield. He spent a few weeks in the hospital anyway but he would have been dead if he hadn't been wearing his helmet.

baddox 13y ago
Lots of deaths of pedestrian and even automobile drivers/passengers could probably also be prevented with bicycle helmets.