5 ms·

Amusing no one wears helmets.

by mrbman7 12y ago

Semiapies 12y ago
I've heard serious arguments to the effect that the American insistence on helmets for cyclists deters cycling.
plantain 12y ago
Why would they need to when the biggest danger factor (cars) is removed as a threat?
- rapala 12y ago
  Because car or no car the head still goes crack when it hits the road. To me it seems obvious to reduce a risk of fatal injury with something as simple as a helmet.
  - Nux 12y ago
    Agreed. Helmets for cyclists should be mandatory, just like seat belts are for drivers.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      Mandatory helmet laws kill people, and possibly more than are saved. This happens in two ways: car drivers drive more dangerously when they see a helmet; less people ride a bycicle and so there is more pollution and more deaths or more lack-of-exercise related death.
      - pm24601 12y ago
        > car drivers drive more dangerously when they see a helmet In the U.S. and U.K.. sadly this is true. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/5334208.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/5334208.... ) "Dr Walker thinks the reason drivers give less room to cyclists wearing helmets is because they see them as 'Lycra-clad street warriors' and believe they are more predictable than those without." "To test another theory, Dr Walker donned a long wig to see whether there was any difference in passing distance when drivers thought they were overtaking what appeared to be a female cyclist. "While wearing the wig, drivers gave him an average of 14cm more space when passing." However, allowing this to remain true is victim blaming. A driver should be forced to respect a cyclist and give them room. In California, (yeah California) there is now a 3 foot minimum passing distance ( https://calbike.org/advocacy/giveme3/give-me-3-faq/ https://calbike.org/advocacy/giveme3/give-me-3-faq/ ) "The law is invaluable when a bicyclist is injured in a collision. It establishes a clear basis for citing motorists for unsafe passing." "How do motorists give three feet on narrow roads? "State law has never guaranteed motorists a right to pass whenever or wherever they want. Motorists may only pass when it’s safe to do so. This doesn’t change with the Three Feet for Safety Act. "The new law requires motorists to slow down and wait to pass only when it is safe to do so. Motorists have to be prepared to demonstrate that three feet were NOT available and the slower, closer pass was done according to the law. This is a higher burden of proof for drivers than we have under the current law, which places no conditions on how to pass at a “safe distance.” So hopefully, the police will aggressively ticket motorists acting in a way that is unsafe for cyclists.
    - century19 12y ago
      I disagree. I think that forcing people to wear helmets would result in less people cycling, defeating the purpose. Being able to hop on and hop of your bike while not carrying a helmet around is great. I don't think anyone would want helmets introduced. If you are doing high speed cycling on a racing bike then you need a helmet, but if you are going to the shops to get milk on a city bike with no gears I don't think it adds anything. Of course safety is important. Not having lights on your bike in winter is very dangerous (drivers can't see you in their mirrors) and the police do frequent random stops and issue fines. Anecdotally a friend of mine was in a very bad cycling accident (hit by a bus). She had no helmet and it wouldn't have helped. After months of rehab for her broken leg she is cycling again without a helmet. Of course she could have fallen differently and a helmet would have helped, but most of the damage was caused by the collision and not the fall.
    - rapala 12y ago
      I don't support mandatory helmet laws because we have evidence that it actually increases the risk of cycling. Not using a helmet also only affects the cyclists risk of injury. Still, I personally advocate using a helmet when you cycle.
  - EliRivers 12y ago
    Do you wear a helmet when you walk somewhere? If not, why not? If you've decided that the risk of head injury when you walk somewhere is so little that you'll take the risk and not wear the helmet, you've made the exact same decision as the cyclists. In the Netherlands, because they have a sensible traffic system, the risk has been reduced so far that many, many people make that same decision that you do when you walk without wearing a helmet.
    - ptaipale 12y ago
      No, I don't wear a helmet when walking, but I do when cycling. That is because my speed is much higher when cycling, and because it is easier to fall. And I've experienced that a cycling helmet is good to wear. There was this child that appeared from a bush to the bike path. I hit the brakes and went over the bar. A slight bumb in the head but no injury there; broke a radix bone though.
      - edwinjm 12y ago
        As you can see in the video, all cyclists drive quite slow. In the Netherlands, cyclists who use their bike for sport, do wear helmets and go outside town.
      - stinos 12y ago
        because it is easier to fall ... I hit the brakes and went over the bar Please do not be offended, and by all means keep on wearing a helmet if you want (after all it is safer, no denying that) but maybe there is room for improvement in your cycling? Those two things I quoted seem to indicate you haven't completely mastered cycling, or your bike isn't properly setup, or a combination of both. I see them for instance as well with foreigners who never owned a bycicle and then come to a country and are given one. For an experienced byciclist riding is usually a second nature, like walking, and falls don't happen more often then they do with walking. Note I'm talking 'normal' cycling here, not for instance downhill or bmx where not ever falling sometimes means you're not pushing yourself hard enough :]
        ptaipale 12y ago
  - JohnGB 12y ago
    Helmets would save a lot of head injuries in car accidents - which is why they are mandatory in racing. So would you advocate compulsory helmets in cars?
    - rapala 12y ago
      No, because they severly restrict the field of view, something that is not as big a problem on a closed race track.
louwrentius 12y ago
We Dutch are basically born on a bycicle and learn to ride it at a young age. Everybody can cycle, it's so...ingrained. almost 17 milion people. 200 deaths a year. 65000 accidents required doctor treatment (maybe we are not zo great at cycling as we think). 15000 end up in a hospital. Especially old people tend to get killed. http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/publicaties/2014/04/24/tabellen-verkeersdoden-2013%5B2%5D.html http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/public... Still, overall 570 traffic deaths (including cars and pedestrians etc) for 2013 is quite good.
- IkmoIkmo 12y ago
  Puts us in the top 15 with the usual suspects. United Kingdom was a surprising one for me though, would not have expected it to be better than say Finland or the Netherlands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...
joepie91_ 12y ago
As somebody who lives in the Netherlands, I've not really found a reason for helmets to be used. Dutch people are generally very competent at cycling (and other non-motorized transport-on-wheels like inline skates). I've personally also never known anybody who experienced a traffic accident where a helmet would have helped them - it's usually broken legs, scrapes on knees, etc.
m0nty 12y ago
The obsession with helmets in many countries is born of an idea that violence on the roads is inevitable. It's a bit like responding to knife or gun crime by saying everyone should wear kevlar vests, problem solved! Rather than insisting that knives and guns are not used in public spaces. Some people have real problems grasping this. Cars are seen as inherently dangerous, pedestrians and everyone else should (ideally) stay off the roads, and nobody should challenge our "right" to drive where and when we like. But driving is still a choice, albeit coerced since there are so few alternatives, and that choice has profound implications for others. Why should I wear protective clothing because you choose to drive a vehicle which puts me in danger? In the Netherlands, to respond to your point, they have largely eliminated motoring-related danger for cyclists. If anyone is interested in the development of Dutch cycling infrastructure, this is an excellent video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o (How the Dutch got their cycle paths, 6m 29s) David Hembrow has an informative blog about all things cycling in Holland: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/ http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/
ar-jan 12y ago
There are good reasons for not making helmets required. See e.g. this overview: Bicycle helmets and the law, http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817.full http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817.full
bane 12y ago
http://vimeo.com/43038579 http://vimeo.com/43038579

Amusing no one wears helmets.

by mrbman7 12y ago

Amusing no one wears helmets.

Semiapies 12y ago

I've heard serious arguments to the effect that the American insistence on helmets for cyclists deters cycling.

plantain 12y ago

Why would they need to when the biggest danger factor (cars) is removed as a threat?

rapala 12y ago
Because car or no car the head still goes crack when it hits the road. To me it seems obvious to reduce a risk of fatal injury with something as simple as a helmet.
- Nux 12y ago
  Agreed. Helmets for cyclists should be mandatory, just like seat belts are for drivers.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Mandatory helmet laws kill people, and possibly more than are saved. This happens in two ways: car drivers drive more dangerously when they see a helmet; less people ride a bycicle and so there is more pollution and more deaths or more lack-of-exercise related death.
    - pm24601 12y ago
      > car drivers drive more dangerously when they see a helmet In the U.S. and U.K.. sadly this is true. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/5334208.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/5334208.... ) "Dr Walker thinks the reason drivers give less room to cyclists wearing helmets is because they see them as 'Lycra-clad street warriors' and believe they are more predictable than those without." "To test another theory, Dr Walker donned a long wig to see whether there was any difference in passing distance when drivers thought they were overtaking what appeared to be a female cyclist. "While wearing the wig, drivers gave him an average of 14cm more space when passing." However, allowing this to remain true is victim blaming. A driver should be forced to respect a cyclist and give them room. In California, (yeah California) there is now a 3 foot minimum passing distance ( https://calbike.org/advocacy/giveme3/give-me-3-faq/ https://calbike.org/advocacy/giveme3/give-me-3-faq/ ) "The law is invaluable when a bicyclist is injured in a collision. It establishes a clear basis for citing motorists for unsafe passing." "How do motorists give three feet on narrow roads? "State law has never guaranteed motorists a right to pass whenever or wherever they want. Motorists may only pass when it’s safe to do so. This doesn’t change with the Three Feet for Safety Act. "The new law requires motorists to slow down and wait to pass only when it is safe to do so. Motorists have to be prepared to demonstrate that three feet were NOT available and the slower, closer pass was done according to the law. This is a higher burden of proof for drivers than we have under the current law, which places no conditions on how to pass at a “safe distance.” So hopefully, the police will aggressively ticket motorists acting in a way that is unsafe for cyclists.
  - century19 12y ago
    I disagree. I think that forcing people to wear helmets would result in less people cycling, defeating the purpose. Being able to hop on and hop of your bike while not carrying a helmet around is great. I don't think anyone would want helmets introduced. If you are doing high speed cycling on a racing bike then you need a helmet, but if you are going to the shops to get milk on a city bike with no gears I don't think it adds anything. Of course safety is important. Not having lights on your bike in winter is very dangerous (drivers can't see you in their mirrors) and the police do frequent random stops and issue fines. Anecdotally a friend of mine was in a very bad cycling accident (hit by a bus). She had no helmet and it wouldn't have helped. After months of rehab for her broken leg she is cycling again without a helmet. Of course she could have fallen differently and a helmet would have helped, but most of the damage was caused by the collision and not the fall.
  - rapala 12y ago
    I don't support mandatory helmet laws because we have evidence that it actually increases the risk of cycling. Not using a helmet also only affects the cyclists risk of injury. Still, I personally advocate using a helmet when you cycle.
- EliRivers 12y ago
  Do you wear a helmet when you walk somewhere? If not, why not? If you've decided that the risk of head injury when you walk somewhere is so little that you'll take the risk and not wear the helmet, you've made the exact same decision as the cyclists. In the Netherlands, because they have a sensible traffic system, the risk has been reduced so far that many, many people make that same decision that you do when you walk without wearing a helmet.
  - ptaipale 12y ago
    No, I don't wear a helmet when walking, but I do when cycling. That is because my speed is much higher when cycling, and because it is easier to fall. And I've experienced that a cycling helmet is good to wear. There was this child that appeared from a bush to the bike path. I hit the brakes and went over the bar. A slight bumb in the head but no injury there; broke a radix bone though.
    - edwinjm 12y ago
      As you can see in the video, all cyclists drive quite slow. In the Netherlands, cyclists who use their bike for sport, do wear helmets and go outside town.
    - stinos 12y ago
      because it is easier to fall ... I hit the brakes and went over the bar Please do not be offended, and by all means keep on wearing a helmet if you want (after all it is safer, no denying that) but maybe there is room for improvement in your cycling? Those two things I quoted seem to indicate you haven't completely mastered cycling, or your bike isn't properly setup, or a combination of both. I see them for instance as well with foreigners who never owned a bycicle and then come to a country and are given one. For an experienced byciclist riding is usually a second nature, like walking, and falls don't happen more often then they do with walking. Note I'm talking 'normal' cycling here, not for instance downhill or bmx where not ever falling sometimes means you're not pushing yourself hard enough :]
      - ptaipale 12y ago
- JohnGB 12y ago
  Helmets would save a lot of head injuries in car accidents - which is why they are mandatory in racing. So would you advocate compulsory helmets in cars?
  - rapala 12y ago
    No, because they severly restrict the field of view, something that is not as big a problem on a closed race track.

louwrentius 12y ago

We Dutch are basically born on a bycicle and learn to ride it at a young age. Everybody can cycle, it's so...ingrained. almost 17 milion people. 200 deaths a year. 65000 accidents required doctor treatment (maybe we are not zo great at cycling as we think). 15000 end up in a hospital. Especially old people tend to get killed. http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/publicaties/2014/04/24/tabellen-verkeersdoden-2013%5B2%5D.html http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/public... Still, overall 570 traffic deaths (including cars and pedestrians etc) for 2013 is quite good.

IkmoIkmo 12y ago
Puts us in the top 15 with the usual suspects. United Kingdom was a surprising one for me though, would not have expected it to be better than say Finland or the Netherlands. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-re...

joepie91_ 12y ago

As somebody who lives in the Netherlands, I've not really found a reason for helmets to be used. Dutch people are generally very competent at cycling (and other non-motorized transport-on-wheels like inline skates). I've personally also never known anybody who experienced a traffic accident where a helmet would have helped them - it's usually broken legs, scrapes on knees, etc.

m0nty 12y ago

The obsession with helmets in many countries is born of an idea that violence on the roads is inevitable. It's a bit like responding to knife or gun crime by saying everyone should wear kevlar vests, problem solved! Rather than insisting that knives and guns are not used in public spaces. Some people have real problems grasping this. Cars are seen as inherently dangerous, pedestrians and everyone else should (ideally) stay off the roads, and nobody should challenge our "right" to drive where and when we like. But driving is still a choice, albeit coerced since there are so few alternatives, and that choice has profound implications for others. Why should I wear protective clothing because you choose to drive a vehicle which puts me in danger? In the Netherlands, to respond to your point, they have largely eliminated motoring-related danger for cyclists. If anyone is interested in the development of Dutch cycling infrastructure, this is an excellent video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuBdf9jYj7o (How the Dutch got their cycle paths, 6m 29s) David Hembrow has an informative blog about all things cycling in Holland: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/ http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/

ar-jan 12y ago

There are good reasons for not making helmets required. See e.g. this overview: Bicycle helmets and the law, http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817.full http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817.full

bane 12y ago

http://vimeo.com/43038579 http://vimeo.com/43038579