4 ms·

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.

by 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.
michaelt 13y ago
Well, this stuff is always going to depend on where you are and who you know. I commuted to work by bicycle at an english university and I knew many other people who did, many without helmets, but the accident rate was very low. On the other hand, this might be the consequence of safety in numbers, good infrastructure/cycle paths, availability of quiet roads with wide deserted sidewalks, the fact the average cyclist lived much closer than the average car driver and hence covered fewer miles of road. I'm sure someone commuting by bicycle in London during the rush hour, or in other countries, might have a very different experience. I'd be interested to hear where you're located, if every bicycle commuter is involved in multiple accidents? Personally I see motorcycle helmets as quite different to bicycle helmets; motorbikes tend to go a lot faster leading to very different injury patterns in accidents, from what I've read. They're also very different as signals of social status. And many governments want to increase the number of bicycles on the road, and hence don't want to make moves that discourage bicycle riders, while most governments are indifferent to or want to reduce the number of motorbikes, so if legislation reduces the number of motorbike riders they don't particularly care.
dobbsbob 13y ago
Same, everybody I know who commutes on a bike has horrible accident stories and my city has designated bike lanes even. That said they also don't like the helmet laws since cops here seem to only go after the poorerst riders like the homeless with tickets because they know they can't pay so can arrest them later. Whenever a major event happens here they sweep up all the homeless for unpaid helmet fines and keep them locked up long enough for foreign media not to see them on the streets.
- interstitial 13y ago
  Well said. It's all fun and philosophical games until you realize the self-righteousness of the state comes from barrel of a gun.
D_Alex 13y ago
>If I didn't wear a helmet, I might not have the courage to ride at all...etc. So wear a helmet, there is no law whatsoever prohibiting you to wear one. Me, I am a datum point for the argument that helmets stop you from cycling. I used to ride a bike everywhere before the compulsory helmet laws were introduced. After, cycling became so much less convenient, you had to make sure that you brought your helmet, that you kept it secure, and I plain do not like the way bicycle helmets feel on your head. I hate the compulsory helmet laws, and I want them gone.
- baddox 13y ago
  > So wear a helmet, there is no law whatsoever prohibiting you to wear one. And just be aware that you might subconsciously drive less safely while you are wearing a helmet, and automobile drivers might subconsciously pass closer to you while you're wearing a helmet.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  > I plain do not like the way bicycle helmets feel on your head. > I hate the compulsory helmet laws, and I want them gone. This is the heart of the bike helmet debate, not the "evidence". I put that word in quotes because epidemiology is being abused by people who just don't like wearing helmets.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    ...epidemiology is being abused by people who just don't like wearing helmets. You're going to have to be more specific in your critique if you want to be taken seriously. What in TFA amounted to an "abuse" of epidemiology?
dalke 13y ago
There are many things there to unpack. Where do you live where "every single bicycle commuter" has been in at least one accident which is "much worse than an auto accident"? Can you be more definite about what you're comparing? It seems like you're talking average-case car-car collision with worst-case car-bike collision. The worst-case consequence of an auto accident is, what, the Ibadan tanker truck explosion in Nigeria which killed 100-200 people? And it's not hard to find reports of car crashes which kill 6 or more people. (For that matter, every walker and runner I know has been involved in accidents, like tripping, falling down stairs, or hitting a low branch.) There's nothing preventing you from wearing a helmet when you ride. I know people who don't feel safe unless they have lots of reflectors. I don't feel safe when I have to ride on a road with cars, except during the non-rush hours during the day. The problem about scenarios is they exclude the cost/benefit discussion. I can easily think of a scenario where wearing motorcycle body armor would help. For that matter, I can think of a scenario where wearing a wet suit while cycling would useful - what if you fall into a cold river while crossing it? I could probably come up with a good reason for bringing an air tank - if a tanker car crashes and releases toxic fumes in the air, then you can still breath and get away. The point of the article was that the cost/benefit calculations for a bike helmet are complicated. There's no clear signal that they are useful. There are scenarios where they are useful, yes, and scenarios where a helmet requirement is a net negative. Both are mentioned. You say the risks are "downplayed." Did you not read the article, much less its references? You ask "Should we encourage motorcyclists not to wear helmets?" That's a very different topic. As the article points out: "a recent study identified two broad subpopulations of cyclist: “one speed-happy group that cycle fast and have lots of cycle equipment including helmets, and one traditional kind of cyclist without much equipment, cycling slowly.” The study concluded that compulsory cycle helmet legislation may selectively reduce cycling in the second group." I am a member of that second, slow group. I bike at about 18 kph. This is slower than the fastest marathon runners. I believe there's an evolutionary argument that running speeds and slower are generally safe for the human body. (Either that, or we need to start putting safety gear on Usain Bolt!) But motorcyclists and moped riders, downhill skiers and Tour de France riders, all go at a faster rate. The energy in a collision goes as the velocity squared, so there's 6x more energy in someone going 45 kph than at 18. This translates to a lot more possible damage, so more of a need for protective gear.

by codex 13y ago

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.

michaelt 13y ago

Well, this stuff is always going to depend on where you are and who you know. I commuted to work by bicycle at an english university and I knew many other people who did, many without helmets, but the accident rate was very low. On the other hand, this might be the consequence of safety in numbers, good infrastructure/cycle paths, availability of quiet roads with wide deserted sidewalks, the fact the average cyclist lived much closer than the average car driver and hence covered fewer miles of road. I'm sure someone commuting by bicycle in London during the rush hour, or in other countries, might have a very different experience. I'd be interested to hear where you're located, if every bicycle commuter is involved in multiple accidents? Personally I see motorcycle helmets as quite different to bicycle helmets; motorbikes tend to go a lot faster leading to very different injury patterns in accidents, from what I've read. They're also very different as signals of social status. And many governments want to increase the number of bicycles on the road, and hence don't want to make moves that discourage bicycle riders, while most governments are indifferent to or want to reduce the number of motorbikes, so if legislation reduces the number of motorbike riders they don't particularly care.

dobbsbob 13y ago

Same, everybody I know who commutes on a bike has horrible accident stories and my city has designated bike lanes even. That said they also don't like the helmet laws since cops here seem to only go after the poorerst riders like the homeless with tickets because they know they can't pay so can arrest them later. Whenever a major event happens here they sweep up all the homeless for unpaid helmet fines and keep them locked up long enough for foreign media not to see them on the streets.

interstitial 13y ago
Well said. It's all fun and philosophical games until you realize the self-righteousness of the state comes from barrel of a gun.

D_Alex 13y ago

>If I didn't wear a helmet, I might not have the courage to ride at all...etc. So wear a helmet, there is no law whatsoever prohibiting you to wear one. Me, I am a datum point for the argument that helmets stop you from cycling. I used to ride a bike everywhere before the compulsory helmet laws were introduced. After, cycling became so much less convenient, you had to make sure that you brought your helmet, that you kept it secure, and I plain do not like the way bicycle helmets feel on your head. I hate the compulsory helmet laws, and I want them gone.

baddox 13y ago
> So wear a helmet, there is no law whatsoever prohibiting you to wear one. And just be aware that you might subconsciously drive less safely while you are wearing a helmet, and automobile drivers might subconsciously pass closer to you while you're wearing a helmet.
snowwrestler 13y ago
> I plain do not like the way bicycle helmets feel on your head. > I hate the compulsory helmet laws, and I want them gone. This is the heart of the bike helmet debate, not the "evidence". I put that word in quotes because epidemiology is being abused by people who just don't like wearing helmets.
- jessaustin 13y ago
  ...epidemiology is being abused by people who just don't like wearing helmets. You're going to have to be more specific in your critique if you want to be taken seriously. What in TFA amounted to an "abuse" of epidemiology?

dalke 13y ago

There are many things there to unpack. Where do you live where "every single bicycle commuter" has been in at least one accident which is "much worse than an auto accident"? Can you be more definite about what you're comparing? It seems like you're talking average-case car-car collision with worst-case car-bike collision. The worst-case consequence of an auto accident is, what, the Ibadan tanker truck explosion in Nigeria which killed 100-200 people? And it's not hard to find reports of car crashes which kill 6 or more people. (For that matter, every walker and runner I know has been involved in accidents, like tripping, falling down stairs, or hitting a low branch.) There's nothing preventing you from wearing a helmet when you ride. I know people who don't feel safe unless they have lots of reflectors. I don't feel safe when I have to ride on a road with cars, except during the non-rush hours during the day. The problem about scenarios is they exclude the cost/benefit discussion. I can easily think of a scenario where wearing motorcycle body armor would help. For that matter, I can think of a scenario where wearing a wet suit while cycling would useful - what if you fall into a cold river while crossing it? I could probably come up with a good reason for bringing an air tank - if a tanker car crashes and releases toxic fumes in the air, then you can still breath and get away. The point of the article was that the cost/benefit calculations for a bike helmet are complicated. There's no clear signal that they are useful. There are scenarios where they are useful, yes, and scenarios where a helmet requirement is a net negative. Both are mentioned. You say the risks are "downplayed." Did you not read the article, much less its references? You ask "Should we encourage motorcyclists not to wear helmets?" That's a very different topic. As the article points out: "a recent study identified two broad subpopulations of cyclist: “one speed-happy group that cycle fast and have lots of cycle equipment including helmets, and one traditional kind of cyclist without much equipment, cycling slowly.” The study concluded that compulsory cycle helmet legislation may selectively reduce cycling in the second group." I am a member of that second, slow group. I bike at about 18 kph. This is slower than the fastest marathon runners. I believe there's an evolutionary argument that running speeds and slower are generally safe for the human body. (Either that, or we need to start putting safety gear on Usain Bolt!) But motorcyclists and moped riders, downhill skiers and Tour de France riders, all go at a faster rate. The energy in a collision goes as the velocity squared, so there's 6x more energy in someone going 45 kph than at 18. This translates to a lot more possible damage, so more of a need for protective gear.