5 ms·

You can do it, but you shouldn't advocate it. Arguments against widespread use: - making people wear helmets will make less people bike, less people biking on

You can do it, but you shouldn't advocate it. Arguments against widespread use: - making people wear helmets will make less people bike, less people biking on the road leads to more accidents with bikes, and more deaths [1] - a helmet may make people in general more reckless [1] - cars will pass closer to people when they are wearing a helmet than when they are unprotected [1] - if people need helmets, cycling is apparent a dangerous activity, attracting risk-seekers, skewing the statistics [1] - compulsory helmet use in Australia seems to support some of these (perhaps) counter-intuitive arguments [1] - helmet itself is dubious [2] Morale: sure, wear a helmet, but don't evangelize its use. It's a tragedy of the commons if you will succeed. [1] http://hanlonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2011/07/should-my-son-wear-a-cycle-helmet.html http://hanlonblog.dailymail.co.uk/2011/07/should-my-son-wear... [2] http://www.tbd.com/blogs/tbd-on-foot/2011/08/idea-of-the-day-ditch-the-bike-helmet--12152.html http://www.tbd.com/blogs/tbd-on-foot/2011/08/idea-of-the-day...

analog31 12y ago
Has the experiment in [1], where cars pass closer, ever been replicated? Admittedly, I'm skeptical. Is it correlated to the rider being more reckless, and riding closer to traffic?
- zik 12y ago
  There have been no attempts at replicating the experiment yet, however the study is generally regarded as valid by the scientific community [1]. One study examined the same source data a different way and came up with different conclusions [2]. [1] http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/3812/do-cars-pass-with-less-space-for-bicyclists-who-wear-helmets http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/3812/do-cars-pas... [2] http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0075424 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...
  - analog31 12y ago
    The first link shows no data, just some general sense of validity based on some other claimed psychological effect. I don't mean to sound snarky, but lots of things can be made to seem plausible if certain effects are taken for granted. The second link seems to invalidate the study, as you say. Granted, how close cars pass cyclists is only one factor affecting safety. I suspect that the most dangerous or critical situations are the ones where the driver is either minimally aware, or unaware, of the presence of the cyclist. I doubt there's a special brain circuit that influences the driver's behavior based on the cyclist's helmet without alerting the driver to the existence of the cyclist.
charlieflowers 12y ago
I despise this train of thought. I've heard it before. In essence, it translates to this: "We know it is safer to wear a helmet, but we need to lie to other people about it, so that more people will bike." You only need 1 highly publicized brain injury to someone who followed this dishonest advice to undo all the gains in biking adoption you (think you) created.
- math0ne 12y ago
  People get brain injury's from car accidents all the time, why are we not advocating for people being mandated to wear them while in an automobile as well as on bicycles. As someone posted above: "A UK study on the effects of cycle helmets found that if pedestrians and motorists wore helmets it would save 12 times more lives than if cyclists wore them."
  - cooper12 12y ago
    > why are we not advocating for people being mandated to wear them while in an automobile as well as on bicycles. While I don't know how effective they are, cars already have a safety system: airbags. Cars are also built to rigorous safety standards. As for why pedestrians aren't mandated to wear them, they have infrastructure in place to protect them from cars: traffic laws, sidewalk/street separation, and crossing lights. Cyclists on the other hand are usually riding directly in the streets or in poor excuses for bike lanes.
  - charlieflowers 12y ago
    I haven't seen the study, but I don't believe the claim. I'm no Lance Armstrong by any stretch, but I've done a bit of biking here and there. And twice already, I've had crashes that could have been serious without a helmet. It's too easy to fly over the handle bars. Once was a slight layer of mud over a sidewalk, which was completely unpredictable to me (but won't ever be again). Extrapolating from my own experience (which is by no means a gold plated double blind study, but which still presents valid evidence about reality), the physics of a bicycle make the rider prone to crashes that involve head impact. You can cry "anecdotal," but I'll answer "common sense." Besides, the people who argue that evangelizing helmet-free riding will lead to more riders actually acknowledge that helmets are important ... they just want to spread a different story publicly.
cooper12 12y ago
I'm sorry but I find these arguments to be a load of bull. Why are we using behavior as an argument against wearing helmets? >making people wear helmets will make less people bike Why not increase bike advocacy instead? Participation does not eclipse safety. >a helmet may make people in general more reckless Again, behavior. > cars will pass closer to people when they are wearing a helmet than when they are unprotected Ditto. That's why I'm glad many states have the 3 feet law. We can improve this with advocacy and legislation. > if people need helmets, cycling is apparent a dangerous activity, attracting risk-seekers, skewing the statistics Attracting risk takers? Seriously? Almost everything rideable on wheels has people wearing helmets. They're just as likely to be attracted to skateboarding or rollerblading by that logic. I'll give you the last two points however, as those can be backed up with numbers, but just be aware that statistics can lie, mislead, and be misinterpreted, especially with non-controlled and non-optimal study designs.

analog31 12y ago

Has the experiment in [1], where cars pass closer, ever been replicated? Admittedly, I'm skeptical. Is it correlated to the rider being more reckless, and riding closer to traffic?

zik 12y ago
There have been no attempts at replicating the experiment yet, however the study is generally regarded as valid by the scientific community [1]. One study examined the same source data a different way and came up with different conclusions [2]. [1] http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/3812/do-cars-pass-with-less-space-for-bicyclists-who-wear-helmets http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/3812/do-cars-pas... [2] http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0075424 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna...
- analog31 12y ago
  The first link shows no data, just some general sense of validity based on some other claimed psychological effect. I don't mean to sound snarky, but lots of things can be made to seem plausible if certain effects are taken for granted. The second link seems to invalidate the study, as you say. Granted, how close cars pass cyclists is only one factor affecting safety. I suspect that the most dangerous or critical situations are the ones where the driver is either minimally aware, or unaware, of the presence of the cyclist. I doubt there's a special brain circuit that influences the driver's behavior based on the cyclist's helmet without alerting the driver to the existence of the cyclist.

charlieflowers 12y ago

I despise this train of thought. I've heard it before. In essence, it translates to this: "We know it is safer to wear a helmet, but we need to lie to other people about it, so that more people will bike." You only need 1 highly publicized brain injury to someone who followed this dishonest advice to undo all the gains in biking adoption you (think you) created.

math0ne 12y ago
People get brain injury's from car accidents all the time, why are we not advocating for people being mandated to wear them while in an automobile as well as on bicycles. As someone posted above: "A UK study on the effects of cycle helmets found that if pedestrians and motorists wore helmets it would save 12 times more lives than if cyclists wore them."
- cooper12 12y ago
  > why are we not advocating for people being mandated to wear them while in an automobile as well as on bicycles. While I don't know how effective they are, cars already have a safety system: airbags. Cars are also built to rigorous safety standards. As for why pedestrians aren't mandated to wear them, they have infrastructure in place to protect them from cars: traffic laws, sidewalk/street separation, and crossing lights. Cyclists on the other hand are usually riding directly in the streets or in poor excuses for bike lanes.
- charlieflowers 12y ago
  I haven't seen the study, but I don't believe the claim. I'm no Lance Armstrong by any stretch, but I've done a bit of biking here and there. And twice already, I've had crashes that could have been serious without a helmet. It's too easy to fly over the handle bars. Once was a slight layer of mud over a sidewalk, which was completely unpredictable to me (but won't ever be again). Extrapolating from my own experience (which is by no means a gold plated double blind study, but which still presents valid evidence about reality), the physics of a bicycle make the rider prone to crashes that involve head impact. You can cry "anecdotal," but I'll answer "common sense." Besides, the people who argue that evangelizing helmet-free riding will lead to more riders actually acknowledge that helmets are important ... they just want to spread a different story publicly.

cooper12 12y ago

I'm sorry but I find these arguments to be a load of bull. Why are we using behavior as an argument against wearing helmets? >making people wear helmets will make less people bike Why not increase bike advocacy instead? Participation does not eclipse safety. >a helmet may make people in general more reckless Again, behavior. > cars will pass closer to people when they are wearing a helmet than when they are unprotected Ditto. That's why I'm glad many states have the 3 feet law. We can improve this with advocacy and legislation. > if people need helmets, cycling is apparent a dangerous activity, attracting risk-seekers, skewing the statistics Attracting risk takers? Seriously? Almost everything rideable on wheels has people wearing helmets. They're just as likely to be attracted to skateboarding or rollerblading by that logic. I'll give you the last two points however, as those can be backed up with numbers, but just be aware that statistics can lie, mislead, and be misinterpreted, especially with non-controlled and non-optimal study designs.