6 ms·

> If you ride a bicycle, please wear a helmet. Or you know, don't, because you've got perfectly safe bicycle infrastructure and you're never going faster than

by Luc 12y ago

> If you ride a bicycle, please wear a helmet. Or you know, don't, because you've got perfectly safe bicycle infrastructure and you're never going faster than 20 km/h anyway. What works for you is not a universal law. You know how this bicycle helmet issue always turns into a shouting match on the internet? I think it's to a large extent because people don't have the empathy to see themselves in the situation of a bicyclist on the other side of the world, in a different automotive culture, with different laws and history.

scott_s 12y ago
Falling off your bike at 20 km/h and hitting your head is still enough for a decent head injury.
- Luc 12y ago
  Pfft, you don't need to be going that fast. My wife was pushed off her bike at perhaps 5 km/h and fractured her shoulder. Took nearly a year of healing and revalidation.
  - carlob 12y ago
    That would be an argument for wearing protection when walking as well, you know?
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      Kind of ... no, not really. Walking at 2mph with both feet on the ground, very different from balanced on a frame of pipework rolling at 5mph. Much more likely to 'land on your feet' when walking.
      - carlob 12y ago
        Parent poster wrote 5 km/h which is really the speed of most walkers not 5 mph. I'm sure that if you get hit by a car that's going fast enough it won't really matter if you have a bike, a skateboard, or just the soles of your shoes…
        JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Yeah but you don't have to hit a car to take a dive on your bike. Just stopping at a light you can go over.
gburt 12y ago
I take it you missed his part about breaking his chain. That said: http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/hfaq.html http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/hfaq.html and a variety of research suggesting that helmet laws reduce ridership which causes far more cost (in heart disease and inactivity ailments) than the lack of helmets.
nathanb 12y ago
Can you explain what you mean by "perfectly safe bicycle infrastructure" and how this removes the need for a helmet?
- jepper 12y ago
  In the Netherlands we have dedicated cycling lanes along larger roads and car drivers that are comfortable with cyclists. Almost everbody cycles, nobody wears helmets. And we haven't got a raised head injury mortality or paralysis rate because of bike injuries. I've never had an injury and probably traveled more kilometers by bike than any other means of transportation. I do wear a helmet while road biking but that's a whole different topic.
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Look here, and search for "Netherlands" for the full horror storey of 'safe' bicycle infrastructure: http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm
    - dalke 12y ago
      I don't see a horror story. Could you explain it? In the Netherlands, 1/4 of all trips, and 8% of all distances traveled, are by bicycle, so the numbers reported there are hard to compare to other countries. What level of fatalities and head injuries would count as "not a horror story" to you? What level of fatalities by running or jogging would count as "not a horror story" to you? (BTW, the statistics only list "head/brain injury". I presumed that a scratch on the chin would count as a head injury. Also, the text under "And more from the same paper" does not exist in the referenced paper. The text says the 'estimates are partly based on research carried out in countries like the United States and Australia', so don't really reflect the infrastructure.
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        The first paragraph in the Netherlands section: "67,000 casualties of cycling crashes are treated at a first-aid department (Source: Injury Information System LIS), 8,000 cyclists are admitted to hospital (Source: National Medical Registration LMR), and 190 people die as a consequence of a cycling crash (Source Statistics Netherlands – Unnatural deaths). Of the seriously injured bicycle casualties2 admitted to hospital, a third were diagnosed with head or brain injuries (32%). " We can assume 'seriously injured' does not include scratched chins.
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
Its the old observers paradox. "I haven't had a bike accident, so bike helmets aren't necessary". Nothing works but resorting to the statistics. What statistics have you to offer?
- antientropic 12y ago
  Here in the Netherlands, nearly nobody wears a helmet. If the horror stories in this thread are to be believed, half the population of the country should be clinically brain dead at this point. They're not, so perhaps not wearing a helmet is not as dangerous as some people believe. Regarding statistics: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html has some useful pointers. Conclusion: "Despite the considerable effort that has been put into research about cycle helmets, there is no real-world evidence that helmets have ever resulted in the net saving of even a single life. However, if helmets were actually effective, then many more pedestrian and motor vehicle occupant lives could be expected to be saved if these groups wore helmets."
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Read the thread! Everybody seems to know somebody/have experienced an accident where the helmet saved their skull. That "conclusion" can't be serious. Real-world evidence is all around us. I'm calling bull on that site.
  - jac_no_k 12y ago
    So I've seen the cycle commuters in the Netherlands. It's at a nice relaxed pace where it's unlikely a cyclist will be surprised or an equipment failure is going to be catastrophic. The use case is going to dictate what equipment is going to be needed. When I had an internally geared hub, I had it fail on a steep uphill where I was standing to get enough torque down, where it essentially went into neutral, similar to a chain snapping. This almost threw me off the bicycle. Netherlands, relatively flat. I've since switched to a road bicycle and traveling at higher speeds. Once a taxi blindly crossed in front of me, sending me hurtling over the taxi. I landed on my head, lost consciousness briefly. Helmet was deformed. Without it, the outcome would have been much more catastrophic. Another incident, this time going slowly down a steep mountain road, while tightening my line to avoid an oncoming car, the front wheel slipped on leaves sending me down to ground. Landed mostly on my side but helmet hit the ground really hard, enough to stun me. The inner support of the helmet broke mostly free of the outer shell but stayed in place because of the chin strap. This too could have ended badly with no cell phone reception for about 15km and a civilization 30km away. Anyways... it depends on use case. Over here in Tokyo, the utility bicycles and cyclists are just like the Netherlands. Sedate pace, low number of incidents. The roadies and faster cycle commuters have necessary equipment including helmets, safety glasses, gloves, blinkers, and lamps. I recognize I have a higher risk profile and take on extra precautions.

by Luc 12y ago

scott_s 12y ago

Falling off your bike at 20 km/h and hitting your head is still enough for a decent head injury.

Luc 12y ago
Pfft, you don't need to be going that fast. My wife was pushed off her bike at perhaps 5 km/h and fractured her shoulder. Took nearly a year of healing and revalidation.
- carlob 12y ago
  That would be an argument for wearing protection when walking as well, you know?
  - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
    Kind of ... no, not really. Walking at 2mph with both feet on the ground, very different from balanced on a frame of pipework rolling at 5mph. Much more likely to 'land on your feet' when walking.
    - carlob 12y ago
      Parent poster wrote 5 km/h which is really the speed of most walkers not 5 mph. I'm sure that if you get hit by a car that's going fast enough it won't really matter if you have a bike, a skateboard, or just the soles of your shoes…
      - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
        Yeah but you don't have to hit a car to take a dive on your bike. Just stopping at a light you can go over.

gburt 12y ago

I take it you missed his part about breaking his chain. That said: http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/hfaq.html http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/hfaq.html and a variety of research suggesting that helmet laws reduce ridership which causes far more cost (in heart disease and inactivity ailments) than the lack of helmets.

nathanb 12y ago

Can you explain what you mean by "perfectly safe bicycle infrastructure" and how this removes the need for a helmet?

jepper 12y ago
In the Netherlands we have dedicated cycling lanes along larger roads and car drivers that are comfortable with cyclists. Almost everbody cycles, nobody wears helmets. And we haven't got a raised head injury mortality or paralysis rate because of bike injuries. I've never had an injury and probably traveled more kilometers by bike than any other means of transportation. I do wear a helmet while road biking but that's a whole different topic.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Look here, and search for "Netherlands" for the full horror storey of 'safe' bicycle infrastructure: http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm
  - dalke 12y ago
    I don't see a horror story. Could you explain it? In the Netherlands, 1/4 of all trips, and 8% of all distances traveled, are by bicycle, so the numbers reported there are hard to compare to other countries. What level of fatalities and head injuries would count as "not a horror story" to you? What level of fatalities by running or jogging would count as "not a horror story" to you? (BTW, the statistics only list "head/brain injury". I presumed that a scratch on the chin would count as a head injury. Also, the text under "And more from the same paper" does not exist in the referenced paper. The text says the 'estimates are partly based on research carried out in countries like the United States and Australia', so don't really reflect the infrastructure.
    - JoeAltmaier 12y ago
      The first paragraph in the Netherlands section: "67,000 casualties of cycling crashes are treated at a first-aid department (Source: Injury Information System LIS), 8,000 cyclists are admitted to hospital (Source: National Medical Registration LMR), and 190 people die as a consequence of a cycling crash (Source Statistics Netherlands – Unnatural deaths). Of the seriously injured bicycle casualties2 admitted to hospital, a third were diagnosed with head or brain injuries (32%). " We can assume 'seriously injured' does not include scratched chins.

JoeAltmaier 12y ago

Its the old observers paradox. "I haven't had a bike accident, so bike helmets aren't necessary". Nothing works but resorting to the statistics. What statistics have you to offer?

antientropic 12y ago
Here in the Netherlands, nearly nobody wears a helmet. If the horror stories in this thread are to be believed, half the population of the country should be clinically brain dead at this point. They're not, so perhaps not wearing a helmet is not as dangerous as some people believe. Regarding statistics: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1012.html has some useful pointers. Conclusion: "Despite the considerable effort that has been put into research about cycle helmets, there is no real-world evidence that helmets have ever resulted in the net saving of even a single life. However, if helmets were actually effective, then many more pedestrian and motor vehicle occupant lives could be expected to be saved if these groups wore helmets."
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  Read the thread! Everybody seems to know somebody/have experienced an accident where the helmet saved their skull. That "conclusion" can't be serious. Real-world evidence is all around us. I'm calling bull on that site.
- jac_no_k 12y ago
  So I've seen the cycle commuters in the Netherlands. It's at a nice relaxed pace where it's unlikely a cyclist will be surprised or an equipment failure is going to be catastrophic. The use case is going to dictate what equipment is going to be needed. When I had an internally geared hub, I had it fail on a steep uphill where I was standing to get enough torque down, where it essentially went into neutral, similar to a chain snapping. This almost threw me off the bicycle. Netherlands, relatively flat. I've since switched to a road bicycle and traveling at higher speeds. Once a taxi blindly crossed in front of me, sending me hurtling over the taxi. I landed on my head, lost consciousness briefly. Helmet was deformed. Without it, the outcome would have been much more catastrophic. Another incident, this time going slowly down a steep mountain road, while tightening my line to avoid an oncoming car, the front wheel slipped on leaves sending me down to ground. Landed mostly on my side but helmet hit the ground really hard, enough to stun me. The inner support of the helmet broke mostly free of the outer shell but stayed in place because of the chin strap. This too could have ended badly with no cell phone reception for about 15km and a civilization 30km away. Anyways... it depends on use case. Over here in Tokyo, the utility bicycles and cyclists are just like the Netherlands. Sedate pace, low number of incidents. The roadies and faster cycle commuters have necessary equipment including helmets, safety glasses, gloves, blinkers, and lamps. I recognize I have a higher risk profile and take on extra precautions.