4 ms·

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 hel

by 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.

by 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.