Why i’m done wearing a helmet(bikinginmpls.com)
bikinginmpls.com
Why i’m done wearing a helmet
http://www.bikinginmpls.com/im-done-wearing-helmet/
51 comments
'Expose different viewpoints' seems along the lines of the 'I'm hoping to encourage a debate' line that people taking on 'hot-take' positions like to hide behind.
'I have a masters degree' is, of course, ad-hominem fallacy.
It's great that you yourself 'feel' safe but the position you are advocating is not well reasoned and reckless to promote to others.
'I have a masters degree' is, of course, ad-hominem fallacy.
It's great that you yourself 'feel' safe but the position you are advocating is not well reasoned and reckless to promote to others.
> 'I have a masters degree' is, of course, ad-hominem fallacy.
No it's not. You might argue that it's an argument from authority, which is a different thing, but in this case, I think a master's degree in public health is quite relevant.
You on the other hand provide not a single argument to why you feel her position is not well reasoned and reckless.
No it's not. You might argue that it's an argument from authority, which is a different thing, but in this case, I think a master's degree in public health is quite relevant.
You on the other hand provide not a single argument to why you feel her position is not well reasoned and reckless.
The guy sounds insane. Simple physics indicates that the longer the collision the less force applied will be.
The only reason that the individual states that wearing a helmet is a hinderence is:
1. You don't look as fashionable (the words are "less human")
2. Drivers see you more as a human when you're not wearing one.
I would venture to say that if a driver notices you not wearing a helmet, the assumption is that the biker is an idiot and they would be more cautious around them. (No one really wants to hit a biker) Additionally this doesn't really fix the problem. Many bikers get into an incident with cars for reasons such as:
1. The biker was not seen by the driver until it was too late. (Lack of awareness/being used to them on the road)
2. Biker cutting off the driver
3. Road rage (on the car's side): It happens but I would suggest it less common than claimed.
4. Biker not following the rules of the road. (Biking up the wrong way, ignoring stoplights/stopsigns etc)
The only reason that the individual states that wearing a helmet is a hinderence is:
1. You don't look as fashionable (the words are "less human")
2. Drivers see you more as a human when you're not wearing one.
I would venture to say that if a driver notices you not wearing a helmet, the assumption is that the biker is an idiot and they would be more cautious around them. (No one really wants to hit a biker) Additionally this doesn't really fix the problem. Many bikers get into an incident with cars for reasons such as:
1. The biker was not seen by the driver until it was too late. (Lack of awareness/being used to them on the road)
2. Biker cutting off the driver
3. Road rage (on the car's side): It happens but I would suggest it less common than claimed.
4. Biker not following the rules of the road. (Biking up the wrong way, ignoring stoplights/stopsigns etc)
>The guy sounds insane. Simple physics indicates that the longer the collision the less force applied will be.
The physics involved are a lot more complicated than you think.
To give one of many relevant examples:
Bicycle helmets are tested purely against linear impacts, where the head hits squarely against a flat surface. This turns out to be completely unrepresentative of real head impacts, which usually occur at an oblique angle[1]. Injuries caused by rotation of the head are by far the most dangerous type, as substantial shear forces can occur within the brain tissue and high torsional forces can be applied to the spinal cord and brain stem.
Motorcycle helmets offer reasonable protection against rotational head injuries, because they have a smooth, round outer surface that is highly resistant to abrasion. Unlike motorcycle helmets, bicycle helmets are covered in ventilation slots, are rarely spherical, often feature rigid visors or other protrusions, and have only a very thin outer shell.
Because of the shortcomings of standardised testing procedures, a helmet purchaser has no idea if their helmet will offer any useful protection against the most common and most dangerous type of head injury; There is good evidence that many common bicycle helmet designs will exacerbate rotational forces in oblique head impacts[2], leading to the likelihood of no net improvement in safety compared to a bare head over a realistic sample of crash types[3].
[1]http://papers.sae.org/892425/ [2]http://www.bhsi.org/chinstrp.pdf [3]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457502...
The physics involved are a lot more complicated than you think.
To give one of many relevant examples:
Bicycle helmets are tested purely against linear impacts, where the head hits squarely against a flat surface. This turns out to be completely unrepresentative of real head impacts, which usually occur at an oblique angle[1]. Injuries caused by rotation of the head are by far the most dangerous type, as substantial shear forces can occur within the brain tissue and high torsional forces can be applied to the spinal cord and brain stem.
Motorcycle helmets offer reasonable protection against rotational head injuries, because they have a smooth, round outer surface that is highly resistant to abrasion. Unlike motorcycle helmets, bicycle helmets are covered in ventilation slots, are rarely spherical, often feature rigid visors or other protrusions, and have only a very thin outer shell.
Because of the shortcomings of standardised testing procedures, a helmet purchaser has no idea if their helmet will offer any useful protection against the most common and most dangerous type of head injury; There is good evidence that many common bicycle helmet designs will exacerbate rotational forces in oblique head impacts[2], leading to the likelihood of no net improvement in safety compared to a bare head over a realistic sample of crash types[3].
[1]http://papers.sae.org/892425/ [2]http://www.bhsi.org/chinstrp.pdf [3]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457502...
The only reason that the individual states that wearing a helmet is a hinderence...
You missed one important point from the OP:
One well-done study that evaluated all the current studies out there (called a meta-analysis), found there to be no benefit to helmet use when you take into account all types of injuries. Helmets protect against certain kinds of injuries (those to the head) and increase the likelihood of other injuries (those to the neck).
That last sentence there is important, so I'll call it out again: "Helmets protect against certain kinds of injuries and increase the likelihood of other injuries."
You missed one important point from the OP:
One well-done study that evaluated all the current studies out there (called a meta-analysis), found there to be no benefit to helmet use when you take into account all types of injuries. Helmets protect against certain kinds of injuries (those to the head) and increase the likelihood of other injuries (those to the neck).
That last sentence there is important, so I'll call it out again: "Helmets protect against certain kinds of injuries and increase the likelihood of other injuries."
The simple fact is that bicycle helmets are not designed to withstand an auto collision. If you are relying on them to protect you in an auto collision, you're doing it wrong. Get a motorcycle helmet instead.
I approve of that! (That and requiring training/license for bikers)
Yes, we should all armor up before leaving the house. Or maybe just get rid of the thousand-pound blocks of steel and plastic hurtling around, barely controlled, in close vicinity to our mushy bodies.
I also approve of protected bike lanes. [Putting bikers on sidewalks is stupid]
Yes you should armor up. After all, those in cars are already heavily armored up with more than 50 years of safety equipment.
Yes you should armor up. After all, those in cars are already heavily armored up with more than 50 years of safety equipment.
> I also approve of protected bike lanes. [Putting bikers on sidewalks is stupid]
Do both. Have a bike lane on the side walk, with some separation provided by rails near crossings, or trees and such on longer stretches. Consider this for example:
https://goo.gl/maps/6PRpg
There are many small details that that keep the bikers away from the pedestrians, but it also serves the bikers (and the car drivers) by putting the curb between the two.
Do both. Have a bike lane on the side walk, with some separation provided by rails near crossings, or trees and such on longer stretches. Consider this for example:
https://goo.gl/maps/6PRpg
There are many small details that that keep the bikers away from the pedestrians, but it also serves the bikers (and the car drivers) by putting the curb between the two.
It takes a little to get used to the sidewalks/bikers in Germany. It also takes a bit to get used to trusting them.
Unfortunately in the US: Bikers don't have a lot of regulations, requirements, and their behavior is poorly enforced. (No bell, they have the legal ability to go through red lights under safe conditions [but it's taken as we can skip red lights because of lazyness])
In the state of Illinois it is illegal for a person over 13 to ride their bike on the sidewalk. There aren't even the markings for bike lanes on the sidewalk. However people still do, the ones who do still believe that they're in the right. (Although.. doing that in downtown Chicago during tourist season makes me feel that tasing them for doing should be legal)
An example of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEPx0N_jAa8
Unfortunately in the US: Bikers don't have a lot of regulations, requirements, and their behavior is poorly enforced. (No bell, they have the legal ability to go through red lights under safe conditions [but it's taken as we can skip red lights because of lazyness])
In the state of Illinois it is illegal for a person over 13 to ride their bike on the sidewalk. There aren't even the markings for bike lanes on the sidewalk. However people still do, the ones who do still believe that they're in the right. (Although.. doing that in downtown Chicago during tourist season makes me feel that tasing them for doing should be legal)
An example of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEPx0N_jAa8
Its absolutely illegal in my state (Iowa) for a bicycle to run a red light. They are required to observe all traffic laws that any other vehicle has.
> No bell
Hey i ride without bell too. On the other hand, i don't mind staying at walking speed and taking it slowly if there's some congestion up ahead. I find bell users to be insufferable dicks at most times.
> they have the legal ability to go through red lights under safe conditions
Everytime bicycles come up on HN i learn some new insanity about the USA. Do you have a link to the legistlation for that?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEPx0N_jAa8
From my point of view, NEITHER of these three people are fit to participate in civilized society. Especially not the cop who tells the lady to shut up because she might get shot by someone.
Hey i ride without bell too. On the other hand, i don't mind staying at walking speed and taking it slowly if there's some congestion up ahead. I find bell users to be insufferable dicks at most times.
> they have the legal ability to go through red lights under safe conditions
Everytime bicycles come up on HN i learn some new insanity about the USA. Do you have a link to the legistlation for that?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEPx0N_jAa8
From my point of view, NEITHER of these three people are fit to participate in civilized society. Especially not the cop who tells the lady to shut up because she might get shot by someone.
There's something called the Idaho stop which is, very simply, allowing cyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs, and red lights as stop signs. Since traffic lights are not meant for cycling at all and often don't make it safer, this alternative has turned out to be quite the safe compromise.
http://bikeleague.org/content/bike-law-university-idaho-stop
That page also mentions other states where a cyclist can go through a red light, usually if it is supposed to be triggered by vehicles and the smaller bicycle can't achieve that.
http://bikeleague.org/content/bike-law-university-idaho-stop
That page also mentions other states where a cyclist can go through a red light, usually if it is supposed to be triggered by vehicles and the smaller bicycle can't achieve that.
The red-light item is fictitious. There aren't traffic laws written that waffle like that. Its a cyclist's lame rationalization.
> Yes, we should all armor up before leaving the house. Or maybe just get rid of the thousand-pound blocks of steel and plastic hurtling around, barely controlled, in close vicinity to our mushy bodies.
I would love a world where we—well, maybe not got rid of cars, but at least changed our cities so that they were not the dominant and motivating force; but between accomplishing that, and wearing as much protection as possible, I know that there's only one that I can do today (or, I suspect, in my lifetime).
I would love a world where we—well, maybe not got rid of cars, but at least changed our cities so that they were not the dominant and motivating force; but between accomplishing that, and wearing as much protection as possible, I know that there's only one that I can do today (or, I suspect, in my lifetime).
Yes, and in the same legislation, let's also require licenses and helmets for pedestrians, because they annoy me far more than cyclists. Also, fatality rates for helmeted pedestrians are higher than fatality rates for helmeted cyclists in some studies.
I think the key points are:
>and increase the likelihood of other injuries (those to the neck).
>There is some evidence[1] that cars may pass cyclists closer if they are wearing a helmet.
[1]http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf
*edit for formatting
>and increase the likelihood of other injuries (those to the neck).
>There is some evidence[1] that cars may pass cyclists closer if they are wearing a helmet.
[1]http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf
*edit for formatting
Accidents don't happen when cars are passing cyclists, though. Drivers notice this because they're inconvenienced, but it's actually pretty safe. Accidents happen at intersections, due to cars turning in front of bikes, or not being aware of bikes that are turning.
As for neck injuries... if a helmet increases my chance of a neck injury because it decreased my chance of a fractured skull, i'll take the trade.
As for neck injuries... if a helmet increases my chance of a neck injury because it decreased my chance of a fractured skull, i'll take the trade.
That was my thought too when I read the claim about neck injuries. Does a helmet really increase the risk of neck injury, or does it just increase the likelihood of surviving the blow to the head that caused the neck injury? Wearing a helmet should have no way of affecting your neck unless you're being stuck in the head, in which case I would definitely prefer to be wearing one.
The author didn't provide any references for his assertion, so we won't know.
Yeah, I'm all for the idea of riding without a helmet when I'm commuting in downtown Chicago... but I already have two nasty gashes in my favorite helment that make it clear this would be a very bad idea.
Dude, you know you're not supposed to keep using the same helmet after you get in a crash, right?
[deleted]
Insane? Because of a very reasonable line of reasoning? I think that's mostly your perspective.
There is data about what helmets and other safety measures do to bike safety. It's worth noting that the Dutch bike association is not a fan of helmet laws. Although of course Netherland has already implemented a lot more effective measures to improve bicycle safety.
There is data about what helmets and other safety measures do to bike safety. It's worth noting that the Dutch bike association is not a fan of helmet laws. Although of course Netherland has already implemented a lot more effective measures to improve bicycle safety.
> The guy sounds insane. Simple physics indicates that the longer the collision the less force applied will be.
The problem is that helmets are only designed (and tested!) to cover one very specific type of crash. The head smashing into the ground directly and at high speed one. And all it does is turn a potentially very severe injury into a less severe one. It shifts the risk-profile from maybe dying, maybe breaking bones in your head and definitely having a concussion to less risk of dying, less risk of breaking bones and definitely having a concussion.
It doesn't do anything when you get in a low speed crash because the compressive strength of the foam inside helmets is actually very high. Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) is the crushable material inside bicycle helmets. Here you can see that 10psi is a very reasonable number and that 25psi plus isn't unreasonable.
http://www.epsindustry.org/building-construction/compressive...
Let's suppose that 10psi is the number and that you manage to crush a substantial portion of the helmet. Maybe that's 20 square inches. That means it took 200lbs ( 10psi * 20sqin ) of force to do that. If the average head weighs 11lbs it must have experienced something like 18 Gs to make that happen. Sure 18 G is better than 60 G (or whatever if you didn't have a helmet) but it's not as though wearing a helmet turns any crash into something very survivable and with very little consequence.
Anecdotally I went over the handlebars once at 22mph. Another cyclist popped out of stopped traffic (not at a crosswalk) and I had about 10 feet to react. I hit her back tire and knocker her over, but I went over the bars and pivoted around my front wheel right into the ground. Headfirst. I was wearing a helmet and very glad to have been but my helmet only had about a 3" diameter flat spot on the top.
Personally I would have preferred that the foam had only been 5psi (instead of 10psi) and that the crush zone had been larger and it would have slowed things down more. But helmets have to pass a CSPC test and it's a 6 foot drop, which means that it doesn't do much unless it's a very, very bad fall. Personally I thought my fall was pretty horrible and that the helmet should have used up the majority of the crush zone, but while the flat spot was 3" in diameter it was only about 1/4" deep out of the 1" or so of total foam depth.
http://gearfinder.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html
I get that you understand the simple physics, but as it turns out, real life is substantially more complicated than JUST simple physics most of the time.
The problem is that helmets are only designed (and tested!) to cover one very specific type of crash. The head smashing into the ground directly and at high speed one. And all it does is turn a potentially very severe injury into a less severe one. It shifts the risk-profile from maybe dying, maybe breaking bones in your head and definitely having a concussion to less risk of dying, less risk of breaking bones and definitely having a concussion.
It doesn't do anything when you get in a low speed crash because the compressive strength of the foam inside helmets is actually very high. Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) is the crushable material inside bicycle helmets. Here you can see that 10psi is a very reasonable number and that 25psi plus isn't unreasonable.
http://www.epsindustry.org/building-construction/compressive...
Let's suppose that 10psi is the number and that you manage to crush a substantial portion of the helmet. Maybe that's 20 square inches. That means it took 200lbs ( 10psi * 20sqin ) of force to do that. If the average head weighs 11lbs it must have experienced something like 18 Gs to make that happen. Sure 18 G is better than 60 G (or whatever if you didn't have a helmet) but it's not as though wearing a helmet turns any crash into something very survivable and with very little consequence.
Anecdotally I went over the handlebars once at 22mph. Another cyclist popped out of stopped traffic (not at a crosswalk) and I had about 10 feet to react. I hit her back tire and knocker her over, but I went over the bars and pivoted around my front wheel right into the ground. Headfirst. I was wearing a helmet and very glad to have been but my helmet only had about a 3" diameter flat spot on the top.
Personally I would have preferred that the foam had only been 5psi (instead of 10psi) and that the crush zone had been larger and it would have slowed things down more. But helmets have to pass a CSPC test and it's a 6 foot drop, which means that it doesn't do much unless it's a very, very bad fall. Personally I thought my fall was pretty horrible and that the helmet should have used up the majority of the crush zone, but while the flat spot was 3" in diameter it was only about 1/4" deep out of the 1" or so of total foam depth.
http://gearfinder.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html
I get that you understand the simple physics, but as it turns out, real life is substantially more complicated than JUST simple physics most of the time.
So you're upset that the material will not protect against lower impact collisions and still protect you against high impact collisions? (yet still be wearable)
I wouldn't say "upset" is the correct word, but perhaps "disappointed" is accurate.
It is disappointing that helmets only seem to protect against very severe events. Because these very severe events also happen to be fairly rare. So basically a bike helmet is not like buying health insurance, but more like buying life insurance that only pays out if you're eaten by a wild animal. And you live in the First World. But you pay for it just the same, because you have to put on and wear that helmet EVERY SINGLE RIDE because you never know when your ticket might get punched.
The point is that it seems like if you want to make people safer, the helmet should protect them against lower energy collisions and higher energy collisions both. But the CSPC test is a one-size-fits-all test that ALL helmets have to pass and as a result, there's absolutely no differentiation whatsoever. So all bike helmets have to protect you against truly horrific crashes, crashes that people riding around at 5-15mph will never experience.
It'd be nice if the CSPC would make a few categories of protection that you can buy helmets for. Casual cycling, BMX, mountain and road say. And then let the manufacturers tailor the helmets towards the risk that people ACTUALLY face when they bicycle.
The way it's done right now would be like requiring formula 1 cars to have airbags because they're cars too and all cars have to have airbags.
> So you're upset that the material will not protect against lower impact collisions and still protect you against high impact collisions
I don't think it would be impossibly difficult to get a helmet that had 1/2" of 3psi foam and 1/2" of 15psi foam. Then you could get some protection against the common concussion injury and still retain most (if not all) of your death mitigation as well.
But so long as the CSPC has a one-size-fits-all test it's very unlikely that things will change.
It is disappointing that helmets only seem to protect against very severe events. Because these very severe events also happen to be fairly rare. So basically a bike helmet is not like buying health insurance, but more like buying life insurance that only pays out if you're eaten by a wild animal. And you live in the First World. But you pay for it just the same, because you have to put on and wear that helmet EVERY SINGLE RIDE because you never know when your ticket might get punched.
The point is that it seems like if you want to make people safer, the helmet should protect them against lower energy collisions and higher energy collisions both. But the CSPC test is a one-size-fits-all test that ALL helmets have to pass and as a result, there's absolutely no differentiation whatsoever. So all bike helmets have to protect you against truly horrific crashes, crashes that people riding around at 5-15mph will never experience.
It'd be nice if the CSPC would make a few categories of protection that you can buy helmets for. Casual cycling, BMX, mountain and road say. And then let the manufacturers tailor the helmets towards the risk that people ACTUALLY face when they bicycle.
The way it's done right now would be like requiring formula 1 cars to have airbags because they're cars too and all cars have to have airbags.
> So you're upset that the material will not protect against lower impact collisions and still protect you against high impact collisions
I don't think it would be impossibly difficult to get a helmet that had 1/2" of 3psi foam and 1/2" of 15psi foam. Then you could get some protection against the common concussion injury and still retain most (if not all) of your death mitigation as well.
But so long as the CSPC has a one-size-fits-all test it's very unlikely that things will change.
The helmet buys you t. Lower density foam buys you less t.
Pondering it briefly, I think it is difficult to arbitrarily change the size of the compressed zone of the helmet, as that depends on the contact patches (helmet head and helmet ground) and so the shape of the helmet more than the density of the foam. It can be optimized for a given foam thickness, and then you're done.
Pondering it briefly, I think it is difficult to arbitrarily change the size of the compressed zone of the helmet, as that depends on the contact patches (helmet head and helmet ground) and so the shape of the helmet more than the density of the foam. It can be optimized for a given foam thickness, and then you're done.
You've assumed constant foam density which I don't believe is a given. That's how all helmets are made right now, but nothing would prevent someone from making two separate pieces and bonding them together, except cost. And what's the incentive to increase cost (and thus price) unless you can use that to differentiate somehow?
You say cost, I see perception of market. A article in Wired (or whatever) talking about how you worked with Snell to develop a new testing standard that accounted for lower energy crashes would be great marketing. The problem is that the helmet would be more expensive and assuming it used crushing foam, more fragile than existing helmets.
I guess I think cost and perception of the market as the same thing. If you increase cost but don't increase perceived value, then you're lowering profits for a noble reason, but not one that's defensible to shareholders. If you increase cost and increase perceived value at least you maintain profits and you don't get fired.
But if the CSPC doesn't give manufacturers any incentive by having different protection classes or levels or any way to differentiate whatsoever, well, what's the point of spending more money to achieve a good societal outcome if it means that you get fired? Incentives matter and you can look at it from either side of cost but ultimately a lot of what we're talking about here is dollars.
But if the CSPC doesn't give manufacturers any incentive by having different protection classes or levels or any way to differentiate whatsoever, well, what's the point of spending more money to achieve a good societal outcome if it means that you get fired? Incentives matter and you can look at it from either side of cost but ultimately a lot of what we're talking about here is dollars.
My point is that manufacturers can respond to the incentive provided by the market, they don't have to wait for the CSPC to drop a certification.
A simple thesis coming from that point of view is that there isn't much of a market for (presumably) more expensive helmets that protect better in low energy crashes.
A simple thesis coming from that point of view is that there isn't much of a market for (presumably) more expensive helmets that protect better in low energy crashes.
Ah, I see what you're saying. And I agree to a certain extent.
I guess what bugs me is that the CSPC is causing (by inaction) many thousands of people who are involved in lower energy bike crashes to get concussions.
Whether there is no market or not I think is debatable though, because the CSPC standard has definitely "warped" the market. In other words, all the helmets pass the standard and it's very difficult to tell if one is "better" than another. And because of that, differentiation is only based on looks.
Because the minimal level of protection is so high it's very hard to effectively market that one helmet is "safer" than another in that it'll protect you in the common but not life threatening crash that most people encounter. And because it's so difficult, nobody does it.
It's not hard to imagine that marketing your helmet as "safer" in some way might result in getting fines from the CSPC or lawsuits from your competitors for libel, since all helmets have to pass the CSPC test.
Given the choice between some risk of getting fired, going to jail, bankrupting your company, etc or just doing nothing, most people with the power to actually make a difference aren't going to risk anything. And I can't really blame them for it.
I guess what bugs me is that the CSPC is causing (by inaction) many thousands of people who are involved in lower energy bike crashes to get concussions.
Whether there is no market or not I think is debatable though, because the CSPC standard has definitely "warped" the market. In other words, all the helmets pass the standard and it's very difficult to tell if one is "better" than another. And because of that, differentiation is only based on looks.
Because the minimal level of protection is so high it's very hard to effectively market that one helmet is "safer" than another in that it'll protect you in the common but not life threatening crash that most people encounter. And because it's so difficult, nobody does it.
It's not hard to imagine that marketing your helmet as "safer" in some way might result in getting fines from the CSPC or lawsuits from your competitors for libel, since all helmets have to pass the CSPC test.
Given the choice between some risk of getting fired, going to jail, bankrupting your company, etc or just doing nothing, most people with the power to actually make a difference aren't going to risk anything. And I can't really blame them for it.
I am assuming that Snell Foundation would not be resistant to developing such a standard, as long as it was somewhat meaningful.
An affirmative statement that a helmet passed a standard could not be construed as libel, and I think the CSPC wouldn't be bothered about it.
An affirmative statement that a helmet passed a standard could not be construed as libel, and I think the CSPC wouldn't be bothered about it.
> An affirmative statement that a helmet passed a standard could not be construed as libel
OK so if your helmet has passed the standard, and your competitors helmet has too, what is the differentiation?
You have to say "safer" somehow, but the CSPC sort-of has a monopoly on the definition of "safe" and you might well raise their ire by marketing a helmet as "safer" because that undermines the implicit assumption that they are doing their job well by making good standards which are appropriate. So yes if you started doing this without politicking extensively you might end up in a lot of trouble.
If you don't believe me, you might consider reading the rather long, detailed and excellent article by Bicycling Magazine on the issue: http://gearfinder.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html
OK so if your helmet has passed the standard, and your competitors helmet has too, what is the differentiation?
You have to say "safer" somehow, but the CSPC sort-of has a monopoly on the definition of "safe" and you might well raise their ire by marketing a helmet as "safer" because that undermines the implicit assumption that they are doing their job well by making good standards which are appropriate. So yes if you started doing this without politicking extensively you might end up in a lot of trouble.
If you don't believe me, you might consider reading the rather long, detailed and excellent article by Bicycling Magazine on the issue: http://gearfinder.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html
And yet there is a private body that certifies helmets as meeting their private standards:
http://www.smf.org/cert
ETA: the article you link mentions ASTM maintaining a more stringent standard!
It also has this gem, given our discussion:
There may never be an improved government standard for bicycle helmets. Experts may never come to a consensus on a standard for testing the forces most closely associated with concussions. But one test can be administered now: the market test. After all, new technology costs more. "Adding that upcharge to a $50 helmet," Scott Sports designer John Thompson told me, "is a harder sell."
http://www.smf.org/cert
ETA: the article you link mentions ASTM maintaining a more stringent standard!
It also has this gem, given our discussion:
There may never be an improved government standard for bicycle helmets. Experts may never come to a consensus on a standard for testing the forces most closely associated with concussions. But one test can be administered now: the market test. After all, new technology costs more. "Adding that upcharge to a $50 helmet," Scott Sports designer John Thompson told me, "is a harder sell."
I might suggest that this is the "good Samaritan" principle at work. There is a standard that the government has made, and which it enforces. The government is supposed to do the right thing (at least so people tend to believe, all the evidence to the contrary notwithstanding) and so the existence of SOME governmental standard (even if it isn't great) really screws up attempts to improve upon it.
If there was no definitive standard and instead three competing standards bodies then people would have to get informed a bit and decide what to do. But there's a government standard, so anything that passes it must be OK and everything else is superfluous. I might not think that way when it comes to buying helmets, but how many moms or dads buying their child a helmet might think exactly that?
Once the complexity is hidden behind a good/bad (it passes the test or it doesn't) metric any kind of critical thinking tends to go out the window. The CSPC test is good in that it prevents people from making helmets that would fall apart if you dropped them accidentally.
But it's not good in that there are inherent tradeoffs between foam strength and shock absorption and it has in effect arbitrarily decided that one particular point on that line is the RIGHT tradeoff full stop.
I don't have the stats for lower versus higher energy crashes. But it seems likely to me (based on 30 years and at least 50,000 miles of cycling) that lower energy outweighs higher energy by perhaps some 100:1. And if the distribution is that skewed, then perhaps you could do more good by fixing the low energy crashes even if it costs on the high energy crashes.
But ultimately I'd prefer for people to have that choice by themselves. Right now you can buy high energy helmets and that's about it. There might be SOME that can also protect against lower energy crashes. But there aren't any low energy only helmets for sale ANYWHERE. I might prefer one of those for just tooling around town at speeds of less than 15mph. Thanks to the CSPC if I want one of those I have to make it myself. While I could probably do that it'd cost me a year and $20k and I wouldn't be able to recoup that investment by selling, because again that helmet wouldn't pass the mandatory CSPC muster.
I think the situation stinks, and telling me that it is actually good doesn't make it so.
If there was no definitive standard and instead three competing standards bodies then people would have to get informed a bit and decide what to do. But there's a government standard, so anything that passes it must be OK and everything else is superfluous. I might not think that way when it comes to buying helmets, but how many moms or dads buying their child a helmet might think exactly that?
Once the complexity is hidden behind a good/bad (it passes the test or it doesn't) metric any kind of critical thinking tends to go out the window. The CSPC test is good in that it prevents people from making helmets that would fall apart if you dropped them accidentally.
But it's not good in that there are inherent tradeoffs between foam strength and shock absorption and it has in effect arbitrarily decided that one particular point on that line is the RIGHT tradeoff full stop.
I don't have the stats for lower versus higher energy crashes. But it seems likely to me (based on 30 years and at least 50,000 miles of cycling) that lower energy outweighs higher energy by perhaps some 100:1. And if the distribution is that skewed, then perhaps you could do more good by fixing the low energy crashes even if it costs on the high energy crashes.
But ultimately I'd prefer for people to have that choice by themselves. Right now you can buy high energy helmets and that's about it. There might be SOME that can also protect against lower energy crashes. But there aren't any low energy only helmets for sale ANYWHERE. I might prefer one of those for just tooling around town at speeds of less than 15mph. Thanks to the CSPC if I want one of those I have to make it myself. While I could probably do that it'd cost me a year and $20k and I wouldn't be able to recoup that investment by selling, because again that helmet wouldn't pass the mandatory CSPC muster.
I think the situation stinks, and telling me that it is actually good doesn't make it so.
5. Biker not using lights at night "because they are in a bike lane".
Bike lights are far more important safety gear than a helmet is.
But not having a helmet attracts more negative attention than not having lights does.
But not having a helmet attracts more negative attention than not having lights does.
I used to consider lights “optional,” but since bicycling has grown in popularity, I have observed more lightless riders — or failed to observe, rather — and now quite agree. I’m amazed that I got away with riding effectively invisible, with no incidents, for as long as I did.
Now I’m baffled by the fact that lights aren’t built into the frames of all non-competitive road bikes…
Now I’m baffled by the fact that lights aren’t built into the frames of all non-competitive road bikes…
They are standard on all Dutch bikes. Is that not true in other countries? Bikes without lights, rear reflectors and reflectors on the wheels or tires are far, far more dangerous than not wearing a helmet.
> But not having a helmet attracts more negative attention than not having lights does.
Not true. At least not universally. It all depends on how many and what kind of idiots live where you bike.
Not true. At least not universally. It all depends on how many and what kind of idiots live where you bike.
Is this true?
I assume anyone riding without lights at night is a gigantic moron. I barely notice people not wearing helmets, which is much more common (sadly, they are both fairly common).
I assume anyone riding without lights at night is a gigantic moron. I barely notice people not wearing helmets, which is much more common (sadly, they are both fairly common).
Among cyclists, not having a light gets noticed, but the non-cyclist narrative about crashes in, say, a newspaper, is almost always "X was/was not wearing a helmet" and almost never "X was riding without lights in the dark."
That depends on where you are. I was stopped at 5am one morning cycling across Dublin city (my light died on the way) by the police.
I never considered the usage of lights, because I've never seen them used in Chicago.
Really? That's surprising. They're widely used in Minneapolis.
My suspicion is that its due to all of the streetlights in Chicago.
And police doesn't stop and ticket for that?
Traffic policing in the US is insane in general. Everyone driving takes the speed limit as a speed minimum that should be exceeded by 10-15 mph, and everyone runs red lights all the time (the drivers try to make the light and fail, while the cyclists at least stop to check and make sure there's no ongoing traffic).
It seems like police almost totally ignore cyclists, unless an individual cop wants to harass someone for being on the road at all.
In Louisville, when the police show up at an auto-bike collision, they think they cannot cite a driver unless they personally witness the accident, no matter how egregious or reckless the accident. http://bicyclingforlouisville.blogspot.com/2009/02/tour-de-f...
It seems like police almost totally ignore cyclists, unless an individual cop wants to harass someone for being on the road at all.
In Louisville, when the police show up at an auto-bike collision, they think they cannot cite a driver unless they personally witness the accident, no matter how egregious or reckless the accident. http://bicyclingforlouisville.blogspot.com/2009/02/tour-de-f...
Fwiw, in Germany in car vs anything squishier incidents the fault is assumed by default to be on the car driver, and only small percentages can be shifted to the other person.
Regardless of whatever obligations the other participants have, the car driver as the operator of the most powerful thing has the supreme obligation to pay attention.
Regardless of whatever obligations the other participants have, the car driver as the operator of the most powerful thing has the supreme obligation to pay attention.
This is of course the sane policy. But we don't even have universal pedestrian right of way.
Police RARELY ever ticket bikers. I've seen it only happen once, it was so surprising to the biker: the cop had to cut him off because he wouldn't pull over.
That is completely insane. Here in Germany cops will intentionally park themselves in the winter season on paths popular for kids to get to school to stop them and give them a talking-to if they rolled through without lights on. And adults without working lights will get ticketed, as well for much smaller offenses. (I once got ticketed for heaving radio ear plugs in on both sides.)
In Amsterdam, cops regularly organize a big light check point where they stop all bikers without lights, and let them choose between a stiff fine or buying (much cheaper) lights right there. Most people choose the lights, which goes a long way towards solving the problem.
We had a crowd of a dozen get tickets for blowing through a stop sign. Its embarrassing to responsible cyclists when clubs get an arrogant crew, above the rules of safety.
We need some HN readers from the Netherlands to chime in here.
"Although the Netherlands is probably the safest country in the world for cycling, helmet wearing among Dutch cyclists is rare. It has been estimated that only about 0.5 percent of cyclists in the Netherlands are helmeted"
Why are Dutch cyclists more likely to be injured if they wear helmets? - http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html
"Although the Netherlands is probably the safest country in the world for cycling, helmet wearing among Dutch cyclists is rare. It has been estimated that only about 0.5 percent of cyclists in the Netherlands are helmeted"
Why are Dutch cyclists more likely to be injured if they wear helmets? - http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html
Dutch guy here.
I haven't biked in the U.S, but from what I've seen, biking in the Netherlands is completely different.
- Cars drive slower. 50 km/h in city zones, many places that are restricted to 30 km/h.
- Our entire infrastructure is adapted to biking. Separate bike lanes, bikes get their own stoplights. We don't need to cut through four lanes of traffic just to make a left turn. We're not part of the normal car traffic on bigger roads.
- Motorists are used to people on bikes. At the very least they don't hate them like they seem to do in the U.S.
- Bikes are often considered equal to or even higher priority than cars. That means bikes get the right of way just as cars do. In many cases cars have to yield to bikes (roundabouts, etc).
There's simply no comparison to be made between the U.S and the Netherlands when it comes to road conditions for bikes. Making any claim that "the Dutch don't wear helmets so I don't need to either" is ridiculous¹
Other than that, when I see U.S bikers in full gear on their bikes, I always have to laugh a little. Spendex shorts, special shoes, helmet, fancy racing bike. I've said this before on HN, but I think they take biking way too serious. And, but this is just a guess, I wouldn't be surprised if fancy bike makes you go a lot faster than the old dinky bikes we ride around on. And speed == danger, which is why your link points out that most Dutch people getting into accidents are wearing helmets: because they're doing recreational biking on fancy fast bikes.
I don't think I'd ride a bike in a major U.S city. If I would, I'd wear a helmet.
¹) If my perception of biking in U.S cities is even slightly correct.
I haven't biked in the U.S, but from what I've seen, biking in the Netherlands is completely different.
- Cars drive slower. 50 km/h in city zones, many places that are restricted to 30 km/h.
- Our entire infrastructure is adapted to biking. Separate bike lanes, bikes get their own stoplights. We don't need to cut through four lanes of traffic just to make a left turn. We're not part of the normal car traffic on bigger roads.
- Motorists are used to people on bikes. At the very least they don't hate them like they seem to do in the U.S.
- Bikes are often considered equal to or even higher priority than cars. That means bikes get the right of way just as cars do. In many cases cars have to yield to bikes (roundabouts, etc).
There's simply no comparison to be made between the U.S and the Netherlands when it comes to road conditions for bikes. Making any claim that "the Dutch don't wear helmets so I don't need to either" is ridiculous¹
Other than that, when I see U.S bikers in full gear on their bikes, I always have to laugh a little. Spendex shorts, special shoes, helmet, fancy racing bike. I've said this before on HN, but I think they take biking way too serious. And, but this is just a guess, I wouldn't be surprised if fancy bike makes you go a lot faster than the old dinky bikes we ride around on. And speed == danger, which is why your link points out that most Dutch people getting into accidents are wearing helmets: because they're doing recreational biking on fancy fast bikes.
I don't think I'd ride a bike in a major U.S city. If I would, I'd wear a helmet.
¹) If my perception of biking in U.S cities is even slightly correct.
For a long time, you had to be pretty hardcore to cycle in traffic in the US. Politically radical, committed to fitness, whatever.
Even 10 years ago, drivers would scream insults out the window, throw things at me from moving cars, and then there's the genuinely life-threatening harassment. Just for daring to be on the road at all, instead of the sidewalk. This has changed radically in the last decade, in my experience.
On most roads at less than 30 mph, cycling at 10-15 mph is fine.
Even 10 years ago, drivers would scream insults out the window, throw things at me from moving cars, and then there's the genuinely life-threatening harassment. Just for daring to be on the road at all, instead of the sidewalk. This has changed radically in the last decade, in my experience.
On most roads at less than 30 mph, cycling at 10-15 mph is fine.
> Even 10 years ago, drivers would scream insults out the window, throw things at me from moving cars, and then there's the genuinely life-threatening harassment.
This is terrifying. I think removing idiot drivers from the road will do a lot more for bike safety than any helmet ever can.
This is terrifying. I think removing idiot drivers from the road will do a lot more for bike safety than any helmet ever can.
In my town, they started putting in unprotected bike lanes and sharrows, and it has made a very major difference in driver behavior. This happens to me only about once a year now, instead of once every week or two.
The behavior of road users is the most important element in safety, by far.
The behavior of road users is the most important element in safety, by far.
> I wouldn't be surprised if fancy bike makes you go a lot faster than the old dinky bikes we ride around on.
Most people riding on the roads in the US for transportation are riding 20-30 year old bikes that are just as crappy as Dutch bikes. Think college kids, recent immigrants, or young people. Even rich people who want to commute via bike will often buy a "beater bike" made out of salvaged parts from old bicycles. But unlike the Netherlands, you have to carry a bike lock with you because if you don't lock your bike, someone WILL steal it. I don't think I saw a bike lock the entire time I was in the Netherlands.
The guys riding the fast bikes with all the gear are cycling for sport. Though they may be more prevalent in the US as a percentage of cyclists because fewer people use bikes for transportation over here. Regardless, I wouldn't ride here without a helmet.
Most people riding on the roads in the US for transportation are riding 20-30 year old bikes that are just as crappy as Dutch bikes. Think college kids, recent immigrants, or young people. Even rich people who want to commute via bike will often buy a "beater bike" made out of salvaged parts from old bicycles. But unlike the Netherlands, you have to carry a bike lock with you because if you don't lock your bike, someone WILL steal it. I don't think I saw a bike lock the entire time I was in the Netherlands.
The guys riding the fast bikes with all the gear are cycling for sport. Though they may be more prevalent in the US as a percentage of cyclists because fewer people use bikes for transportation over here. Regardless, I wouldn't ride here without a helmet.
You probably saw that wrong, because almost every bike is locked and everyone has had his/her bike stolen at least once. Most locks are part of the bike though and not a chainlock.
> I wouldn't be surprised if fancy bike makes you go a lot faster than the old dinky bikes we ride around on.
The cyclist is a bigger factor than the bike. I overtake plenty of racing bikes on my cargo bike.
The cyclist is a bigger factor than the bike. I overtake plenty of racing bikes on my cargo bike.
Being from The Netherlands, this article confirms my initial suspicion.
Here, the only cyclists who wear a helmet are tourists (much more likely to get into an accident due to inexperience) and people riding a racing bike for exercise (much more likely to get into an accident due to high speed). Wearing a helmet while riding to work or something similar is completely unnecessary.
I mostly agree with the OP, but there's one difference that might be important: we are raised to ride bicycles at a very young age. When I was in high school I was often trying to ride home without using my hands, through traffic, intersections etc., and I usually succeeded. I don't think I would ever be this comfortable on a bike if I learned riding it at a later age. I did ride a bike in New York a year ago and I didn't feel unsafe at all, but when I see tourists ride bikes through Amsterdam, that's a different story.
For me, the experience of the cyclists is the most important factor for safety, and subsequently if wearing a helmet or not is warranted.
Here, the only cyclists who wear a helmet are tourists (much more likely to get into an accident due to inexperience) and people riding a racing bike for exercise (much more likely to get into an accident due to high speed). Wearing a helmet while riding to work or something similar is completely unnecessary.
I mostly agree with the OP, but there's one difference that might be important: we are raised to ride bicycles at a very young age. When I was in high school I was often trying to ride home without using my hands, through traffic, intersections etc., and I usually succeeded. I don't think I would ever be this comfortable on a bike if I learned riding it at a later age. I did ride a bike in New York a year ago and I didn't feel unsafe at all, but when I see tourists ride bikes through Amsterdam, that's a different story.
For me, the experience of the cyclists is the most important factor for safety, and subsequently if wearing a helmet or not is warranted.
What's there to say? Like the article you linked to said: almost no one but sport bikers and tourists wear helmets.
I think the high safety in the Netherlands is mostly due to the driver education (In Holland, spending 40 hours training for your drivers license is not unusual, and you spend a lot of time in the most difficult situations around).
Another reason is that if someone gets killed on an intersection, people will have a good look if the safety in that spot can be improved. So a lot of the most dangerous places have been changed to make it safer.
I think the high safety in the Netherlands is mostly due to the driver education (In Holland, spending 40 hours training for your drivers license is not unusual, and you spend a lot of time in the most difficult situations around).
Another reason is that if someone gets killed on an intersection, people will have a good look if the safety in that spot can be improved. So a lot of the most dangerous places have been changed to make it safer.
Dutchie reporting in! Nobody wears a helmet here when they're riding their bike to work, schools, stores, etc. The average speed will be somewhere between 15-20 km/h and is relatively slow, next to that most bike paths are separated from the road so you'll only come in to contact with cars at crossings (and this is where most accidents probably occur).
When people get on their MT/Racing bikes the speed increases dramatically to 30+ km/h (and most people wear a helmet) and other people on the road don't always expect those speeds coming from bike lanes so that's why you'll see more accidents. To summarize: Fix your infrastructure and you won't really need a helmet.
Northern German here: The reason is simple, the only people who wear helmets are the ones who know they are at risk anyway. Correlation != Causation.
EDIT: Yup, article confirms it.
In my city, the amount of trips taken by bike is over 26%, with another 12% public transport, and most younger people use bikes several times a day – but most don’t wear helmets, and most never had an issue with it, yet.
EDIT: Yup, article confirms it.
In my city, the amount of trips taken by bike is over 26%, with another 12% public transport, and most younger people use bikes several times a day – but most don’t wear helmets, and most never had an issue with it, yet.
that's probably because the streets in the Netherlands are much safer. they often have cycle lanes segregated from traffic. and there is less congestion than other major cities. so bikes come into direct contact with cars far less often
Some of this reasoning doesn't make much sense when making a personal decision.
"Helmet use may deter people from cycling", that doesn't affect whether or not you should wear one.
"Benefits of biking out way the risks", you don't lose the benefits if you cycle with a helmet.
"Helmet use may deter people from cycling", that doesn't affect whether or not you should wear one.
"Benefits of biking out way the risks", you don't lose the benefits if you cycle with a helmet.
"Helmet use may deter people from cycling" I remember one of the studies where that was cited. The argument was basically that having a large number of bikes on the road changed the behavior of traffic and made it safer for all cyclists. Thus deterring other people from cycling actually makes it more dangerous for the cyclist wearing a helmet, beyond the marginal increase in protection given by the helmet.
This is addressed in the article.
"However, if potential cyclists see everyone else in their community wearing helmets while riding a bike, it communicates that biking is a dangerous activity that requires special protective gear."
One of the author's reasons for not wearing a helmet is the image that wearing a helmet projects. The personal decision to wear or not wear a helmet affects the perception of non-cyclists, which in turn affects the number of cyclists. Or at least so goes the theory.
As an aside, since a lot of people seem to not have noticed and assumed otherwise by default: The author is female.
"However, if potential cyclists see everyone else in their community wearing helmets while riding a bike, it communicates that biking is a dangerous activity that requires special protective gear."
One of the author's reasons for not wearing a helmet is the image that wearing a helmet projects. The personal decision to wear or not wear a helmet affects the perception of non-cyclists, which in turn affects the number of cyclists. Or at least so goes the theory.
As an aside, since a lot of people seem to not have noticed and assumed otherwise by default: The author is female.
If you decide to drive somewhere instead of cycling, because you don't have a helmet at hand, you haven't replaced a damaged helmet, or you don't want to have helmet hair, or you don't think that helmets complement your look, then you'll lose the exercise benefits of cycling that distance instead.
The best use case for bicycle is not a 20-mile ride to work or on muddy trails, but a 1-mile ride to a local coffeeshop. And for a competent cyclist on flat roads in normal weather, a helmet is plain unnecessary.
The best use case for bicycle is not a 20-mile ride to work or on muddy trails, but a 1-mile ride to a local coffeeshop. And for a competent cyclist on flat roads in normal weather, a helmet is plain unnecessary.
Exactly, this is an argument against mandating helmet use, not against the personal decision to wear / not wear a helmet.
Yeah. I think there are some serious flaws in this article. Here's another:
In concluding that studies about the efficacy of helmet use are unreliable, the author claims "The people who wear helmets are likely more safety-conscious than those who don’t, which makes comparing the two groups very difficult and will make it appear that helmets are more protective than they actually are."
But then, only a few sentences later, the author's agenda shifts to arguing that wearing a helmet causes other drivers to incorrectly conclude you are a safer cyclist and give you less space: "Just because someone wears a helmet doesn’t mean they’re a safer cyclist. It seems like a lot of people use helmet use as a proxy for caring about safety, and that’s just not true."
I can't see how both of these things could be true. Either the studies are not confounded as the author claims, or drivers giving cyclists less space is not the problem he thinks it is because those cyclists are actually safer cyclists. This is not to say that one or both of these arguments are totally incorrect -- there is probably a grain of truth to both of them -- but I suspect at least one of these claims is exaggerated somewhat.
If the author's argument were that localities should not mandate helmet use, I think I would agree. But it wouldn't be because of his tendentious arguments about helmet-wearing signalling that cycling is dangerous, or that drivers take more risks around helmeted cyclists. It is very very hard to believe that either of these dynamics, if they exist at all, outweigh the undisputed benefit of wearing a helmet in preventing serious head injuries. Rather, I think localities shouldn't mandate helmet use simply because helmets discourage cycling and, on balance, cycling is a very safe activity with or without a helmet, and its social benefits outweigh the risks of cycling without a helmet. (An argument which, to be fair, the author also makes.)
In concluding that studies about the efficacy of helmet use are unreliable, the author claims "The people who wear helmets are likely more safety-conscious than those who don’t, which makes comparing the two groups very difficult and will make it appear that helmets are more protective than they actually are."
But then, only a few sentences later, the author's agenda shifts to arguing that wearing a helmet causes other drivers to incorrectly conclude you are a safer cyclist and give you less space: "Just because someone wears a helmet doesn’t mean they’re a safer cyclist. It seems like a lot of people use helmet use as a proxy for caring about safety, and that’s just not true."
I can't see how both of these things could be true. Either the studies are not confounded as the author claims, or drivers giving cyclists less space is not the problem he thinks it is because those cyclists are actually safer cyclists. This is not to say that one or both of these arguments are totally incorrect -- there is probably a grain of truth to both of them -- but I suspect at least one of these claims is exaggerated somewhat.
If the author's argument were that localities should not mandate helmet use, I think I would agree. But it wouldn't be because of his tendentious arguments about helmet-wearing signalling that cycling is dangerous, or that drivers take more risks around helmeted cyclists. It is very very hard to believe that either of these dynamics, if they exist at all, outweigh the undisputed benefit of wearing a helmet in preventing serious head injuries. Rather, I think localities shouldn't mandate helmet use simply because helmets discourage cycling and, on balance, cycling is a very safe activity with or without a helmet, and its social benefits outweigh the risks of cycling without a helmet. (An argument which, to be fair, the author also makes.)
There's cyclist safety-consciousness and then there's driver perception of cyclist safety consciousness. These are separate things.
I never wear spandex, almost never wear a helmet, but I always have lights and mirrors, and I never, never run a red light (unless it is sensor-driven and won't change for me). Plenty of spandex'ed and helmeted cyclists will run a red light after checking to make sure there's no oncoming traffic. Yet drivers are almost certain to assume that the spandex'ed and helmeted cyclist is more safety-conscious than me. Even if helmets are much lower down on the list of what keeps cyclists safe than traffic norms and behavior, road choice (arterial vs. nonarterial), lights, mirrors, &c.
Meanwhile passing too closely is very dangerous. =/
I never wear spandex, almost never wear a helmet, but I always have lights and mirrors, and I never, never run a red light (unless it is sensor-driven and won't change for me). Plenty of spandex'ed and helmeted cyclists will run a red light after checking to make sure there's no oncoming traffic. Yet drivers are almost certain to assume that the spandex'ed and helmeted cyclist is more safety-conscious than me. Even if helmets are much lower down on the list of what keeps cyclists safe than traffic norms and behavior, road choice (arterial vs. nonarterial), lights, mirrors, &c.
Meanwhile passing too closely is very dangerous. =/
>Either the studies are not confounded as the author claims, or drivers giving cyclists less space is not the problem he thinks it is because those cyclists are actually safer cyclists.
mm, I think you missed something here -- It is always a bad thing for a car to give a cyclist less space. Even if a cyclist wearing a helmet is more likely to be a safer cyclist, giving that cyclist less space is dangerous. It doesn't matter if the cyclist is a safer rider than most -- what matters is that the driver may _think_ the cyclist is a safe rider because of the helmet, and so may give the cyclist less space.
mm, I think you missed something here -- It is always a bad thing for a car to give a cyclist less space. Even if a cyclist wearing a helmet is more likely to be a safer cyclist, giving that cyclist less space is dangerous. It doesn't matter if the cyclist is a safer rider than most -- what matters is that the driver may _think_ the cyclist is a safe rider because of the helmet, and so may give the cyclist less space.
> that doesn't affect whether or not you should wear one.
It does, indirectly (you may think that more people biking will make you safer in the long run for example).
It does, indirectly (you may think that more people biking will make you safer in the long run for example).
Hopefully you will find that thought comforting as they are scraping your grey matter off the tarmac.
Exactly: conditional on you already being a cyclist, it is much much safer to wear a helmet. Astoundingly, this fallacy accompanies every one of these "I quit helmets (and so should you!)" posts that I have ever read.
IOW, helmets are worthwhile as long as there as zero (or near-zero) marginal impact on cycling.
Of course, there is not zero marginal impact on cycling. Helmet advocates never seem to try to estimate what cost there is to cycling rates.
I suspect that even among committed cyclists, there is a marginal cost in the number and frequency of trips by bicycle to wearing a helmet, and this cost is much greater for more marginal cyclists.
Of course, there is not zero marginal impact on cycling. Helmet advocates never seem to try to estimate what cost there is to cycling rates.
I suspect that even among committed cyclists, there is a marginal cost in the number and frequency of trips by bicycle to wearing a helmet, and this cost is much greater for more marginal cyclists.
You are making a point which is orthogonal to mine in that if you are conditioning on somebody cycling then they are by definition not on the margin. But no matter; the distinction is academic. I consider myself a "committed cyclist" and there is absolutely no cost to me of wearing a helmet. None. I feel naked and vulnerable without one, and these days pretty much won't ride sans casque, and that's the extent of it. (The thing about being a member of said group is, you've spent enough time in the saddle to see so many people doing so many stupid things on a bike, and a few of them pay dearly for it.)
I think the argument is "I as a cyclist will be safer if there are more cyclists total because drivers will become more accustomed to them, and if I wear a helmet I foster the perception amongst other prospective cyclists that cycling is unsafe and they will thus be less likely to ride, so I'm better off trying to improve my safety via safety-in-numbers by projecting the image of cycling as a non-dangerous activity than I am in trying improving my safety via a helmet of questionable protective value." You can agree with that or not, but I don't think it's founded on a fundamental logical fallacy.
A common misconception is that bicycle helmets protect you in a serious crash. They don't: if you get hit going 30 mph, anything less than a motorcycle helmet isn't going to help you much. But most bike crashes aren't serious; they're minor, low-speed crashes where the rider is knocked from the bicycle or bumped just hard enough to lose balance. Because the center of gravity on a bicycle is high, it's easy to hit your head in these types of crashes -- hard.
Those are the crashes that bike helmets are designed for. Let's say you were waiting at a light, and the light just changed. A car mirror clips you just as you're pushing off and getting your balance, you fall over and hit your head on a curb. If you have a helmet on, you walk away with a headache and maybe a skinned elbow. Without a helmet on, you crack your head open and potentially die.
Those are the crashes that bike helmets are designed for. Let's say you were waiting at a light, and the light just changed. A car mirror clips you just as you're pushing off and getting your balance, you fall over and hit your head on a curb. If you have a helmet on, you walk away with a headache and maybe a skinned elbow. Without a helmet on, you crack your head open and potentially die.
>But helmets are not supposed to shatter. When a helmet protects your head from a serious injury, the styrofoam inside will be compressed and stay that way
Is this correct? It sounds very wrong to me. I got the impression that shattering is a great way to redirect kinetic energy away from your head
Is this correct? It sounds very wrong to me. I got the impression that shattering is a great way to redirect kinetic energy away from your head
It doesn't appear anyone read the Author's linked article about the compression of the helmet and which forces it is designed to prevent. So here is a short snippet :
"If the styrofoam does not compress, it cannot reduce linear acceleration of the brain. The most protection that it can give to the wearer is to prevent focal damage of the skull and prevent minor wounds to the scalp. It is not likely to prevent serious brain injury.
This helmet has split along the ventilation slots, which is common. However, the thickness of the styrofoam has not been compressed. It most likely gave no more than superficial protection.
Some dissipation of impact force might occur from the action of a helmet breaking, but in most cases this is likely to be small. Helmet standards require the foam to start to compress at a level of force less than that which might be expected to lead to brain injury. While it is known that many helmets do not actually meet the standards to which they are supposed to be accredited (BHRF, 1081), it follows that if the styrofoam does not compress at all, the direct linear force on the helmet was minimal and it's quite possible that the cyclist would not have received any injury if the helmet had not been worn.
"If the styrofoam does not compress, it cannot reduce linear acceleration of the brain. The most protection that it can give to the wearer is to prevent focal damage of the skull and prevent minor wounds to the scalp. It is not likely to prevent serious brain injury.
This helmet has split along the ventilation slots, which is common. However, the thickness of the styrofoam has not been compressed. It most likely gave no more than superficial protection.
Some dissipation of impact force might occur from the action of a helmet breaking, but in most cases this is likely to be small. Helmet standards require the foam to start to compress at a level of force less than that which might be expected to lead to brain injury. While it is known that many helmets do not actually meet the standards to which they are supposed to be accredited (BHRF, 1081), it follows that if the styrofoam does not compress at all, the direct linear force on the helmet was minimal and it's quite possible that the cyclist would not have received any injury if the helmet had not been worn.
Back when crushable foam helmets first came out, there was just an elastic cover wrapped around a foam helmet. The effect of the helmet impact was that it always broke apart; the helmet cover just kept the pieces together after impact.
Most helmets now have a plastic skin over the foam which provides some structural integrity while the foam is being crushed [1]. But you are correct, the helmet only works because the kinetic energy is being absorbed by a material whose composition (closed cells) will naturally break apart into smaller pieces when enough kinetic energy is applied.
[1] http://www.bhsi.org/general.htm
Most helmets now have a plastic skin over the foam which provides some structural integrity while the foam is being crushed [1]. But you are correct, the helmet only works because the kinetic energy is being absorbed by a material whose composition (closed cells) will naturally break apart into smaller pieces when enough kinetic energy is applied.
[1] http://www.bhsi.org/general.htm
About ~20 years ago I had a nasty accident that left my helmet as a cover containing small chunks of foam - given I was knocked out in the process I hate to think what would have happened if I hadn't been wearing a helmet.
[NB Accident was completely self inflicted on a forest track]
[NB Accident was completely self inflicted on a forest track]
Similar - two years ago, caught the edge of a gravel track going downhill, tried to steer out of it; woke up in the middle of the road with not-quite two piece helmet but no lasting damage (except a twingy knee).
I was bombing down a track in the twilight, didn't see a gate that was basically a single post across the road until the last minute, jammed on my brakes and bike fell sideways, I skidded along on my side (still attached to bike by SPDs) and my head hit one of the gate posts.
I was out for quite bit, woke up cold and with trousers shredded on left side. Was in a lot of pain for a couple of days and ended up with a spectacular giant hematoma on my left hip.
My first reaction on coming round after being knocked out was, of course, "I hope nobody saw that" :-)
Edit: I kept the helmet (or remains of the helmet) for years to show other people.
I was out for quite bit, woke up cold and with trousers shredded on left side. Was in a lot of pain for a couple of days and ended up with a spectacular giant hematoma on my left hip.
My first reaction on coming round after being knocked out was, of course, "I hope nobody saw that" :-)
Edit: I kept the helmet (or remains of the helmet) for years to show other people.
Hah, my first reaction was "damn, we don't have cameras!" - I wanted to see just how quick things happened and what I could/should have done differently.
Otherwise basically the same for me (I'm told) - bike slammed over onto the right, walloped me into the road, and then skidded along the ground with me still attached and out cold. Knee and right shoulder blade were skinned but that was it.
Otherwise basically the same for me (I'm told) - bike slammed over onto the right, walloped me into the road, and then skidded along the ground with me still attached and out cold. Knee and right shoulder blade were skinned but that was it.
> I skidded along on my side (still attached to bike by SPDs)
You mean you can't use your legs to save you because they're attached to your pedals? That sounds incredibly dangerous.
You mean you can't use your legs to save you because they're attached to your pedals? That sounds incredibly dangerous.
I didn't have time to react to get my shoes unclipped - SPD pedals are actually very easy to unclip from. I don't think it would have made any difference if I had unclipped - I was still going to be in trouble one way or another...
NB The accident was completely my own fault (tired, went cycling after a 250 mile drive, getting dark, out alone...)
NB The accident was completely my own fault (tired, went cycling after a 250 mile drive, getting dark, out alone...)
As long as the styrofoam gets bent/compressed (but does not break), it takes a lot of energy from the fall. As soon as it breaks, it can't absorb much energy anymore, thus it impacts your head a lot more.
That's the reason, why after a crash the helmet should be replaced, whether there can be seen damages or not (the shell internally breaks when it absorbs energy this way, but this can hardly be seen (except when, say, you use X-ray analysis or something similar).
That's the reason, why after a crash the helmet should be replaced, whether there can be seen damages or not (the shell internally breaks when it absorbs energy this way, but this can hardly be seen (except when, say, you use X-ray analysis or something similar).
> s soon as it breaks, it can't absorb much energy anymore, thus it impacts your head a lot more.
But it has still absorbed the energy that it took to crack the helmet. If the strength of the impact is exactly the same as the strength of the helmet, then the helmet will simply crack, and leave your skull intact. However if you're not wearing the helmet, your head receives the full force of the impact.
But it has still absorbed the energy that it took to crack the helmet. If the strength of the impact is exactly the same as the strength of the helmet, then the helmet will simply crack, and leave your skull intact. However if you're not wearing the helmet, your head receives the full force of the impact.
Yeah this is mostly correct. Helmets should not shatter but they will deform during a crash. Often times you will see a flat part where the helmet hit and slid on the road.
Shattering, bending, compressing, all these take energy, which reduced the energy your skull has to absorb.
Also, (can't read the article but assuming some kind of context), even if the styro compressed rather than shattering - that's still energy being used for something which isn't cracking your skull. It still seems like it would be beneficial.
If the author is claiming that once it's compressed it won't be as good next time, then that's insane - helmets aren't supposed to be re-used after accidents (whether bike, motorbike, or car racing - I've had to sadly replace my motor racing helmet after an incident, and it's a lot more than buying a new bike lid - but you still do it without flinching because it's your brain on the line here).
If the author is claiming that once it's compressed it won't be as good next time, then that's insane - helmets aren't supposed to be re-used after accidents (whether bike, motorbike, or car racing - I've had to sadly replace my motor racing helmet after an incident, and it's a lot more than buying a new bike lid - but you still do it without flinching because it's your brain on the line here).
If the author is claiming that once it's compressed it won't be as good next time, then that's insane - helmets aren't supposed to be re-used after accidents
Why is it insane to think it won't be as good next time? Isn't that exactly the reason you are not supposed to re-use them?
Why is it insane to think it won't be as good next time? Isn't that exactly the reason you are not supposed to re-use them?
Full paragraph:
"People will so often put up photos on social media of obliterated helmets and say, “Holy crap, look at my helmet! It saved my life!” But helmets are not supposed to shatter. When a helmet protects your head from a serious injury, the styrofoam inside will be compressed and stay that way. Most of the pictures I’ve seen are of helmets that have broken apart. It’s likely that the helmet did not protect someone from a severe injury."
"People will so often put up photos on social media of obliterated helmets and say, “Holy crap, look at my helmet! It saved my life!” But helmets are not supposed to shatter. When a helmet protects your head from a serious injury, the styrofoam inside will be compressed and stay that way. Most of the pictures I’ve seen are of helmets that have broken apart. It’s likely that the helmet did not protect someone from a severe injury."
In which case yes, just a very misinformed original author. Shattering, cracking, etc. are all known, planned features of a helmet impact - anything which can absorb energy in the helmet and not the head is a good thing (with some obvious caveats of course).
Depends, depends... Fracturing of a flaw requires much less energy than plastic deformation. So it is really a question of whether it deformed first and then cracked, or fractured early. In the latter case, possibly caused by a flaw or very sharp impact, not much energy would be absorbed at all!
He refers to this article in that paragraph: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1209.html
Yes the foam in the helmet is supposed to shatter. Like OP's other points, this one is made up.
Absolutely, this is why I rarely/never wear a helmet. People think of them as essential safety gear in case you get hit by a car, but they offer almost no protection against this risk. They are designed to protect your head if you spontaneously fall off a stationary bicycle. In good weather, at low speeds, on flat, clean roads, these accidents will be very rare for competent cyclists.
Cycling is simply a safe, fun means of travel. And you don't need special protective gear unless you're doing something weird.
Children? Mountain bikers? People cycling in snow or mud? People doing tricks or trying to show off to girls? Yea, they should probably wear a helmet.
A friend of mine once compared ordinary commuting in a helmet to wearing a condom all day: it's useful if you're doing something risky, but otherwise it's just uncomfortable.
Helmets are uncomfortable and goofy, and I probably would ride less on the bike if I had to wear one all the time, as with a mandatory helmet law. The exercise benefits of regular cycling outweigh the marginal risk of head injury.
By the same logic of the helmet-shamers, we should shame motorists and pedestrians for not wearing a helmet for routine travel. But nobody seems to take that idea seriously for some reason.
More important safety equipment than helmets: bike lights, mirrors, bells, basic repair gear, and fenders.
Cycling is simply a safe, fun means of travel. And you don't need special protective gear unless you're doing something weird.
Children? Mountain bikers? People cycling in snow or mud? People doing tricks or trying to show off to girls? Yea, they should probably wear a helmet.
A friend of mine once compared ordinary commuting in a helmet to wearing a condom all day: it's useful if you're doing something risky, but otherwise it's just uncomfortable.
Helmets are uncomfortable and goofy, and I probably would ride less on the bike if I had to wear one all the time, as with a mandatory helmet law. The exercise benefits of regular cycling outweigh the marginal risk of head injury.
By the same logic of the helmet-shamers, we should shame motorists and pedestrians for not wearing a helmet for routine travel. But nobody seems to take that idea seriously for some reason.
More important safety equipment than helmets: bike lights, mirrors, bells, basic repair gear, and fenders.
Some bits in here make me seriously question the author's judegment.
"Many more motorists and pedestrians die in traffic collisions per year than do bicyclists. We don’t see them wearing helmets."
Doesn't this support the opposite argument of what the author is claiming? Further, I would expect as much anyway simply because so many fewer people bike than motorcycle or drive a car.
"If not wanting to wear a helmet deters someone from riding a bike, that sucks, because biking is healthy and awesome."
This is a silly argument. It could just as easily be said, "If wearing a helmet deters someone from riding a bike, that sucks, because wearing a helmet protects your head."
"I don’t want to hide my head behind a helmet, I want drivers to pass me on the street and see that I am a person, a human, just like them."
Nobody said that wearing a helmet was supposed to make a person more attractive. Would the author universally agree to "I don't wear protective gear $x because I want people to see that I'm a human being?" Probably not.
Ultimately, I don't think anybody can argue that having a protective shell around your head is somehow less safe or equally safe to having nothing there at all.
"Many more motorists and pedestrians die in traffic collisions per year than do bicyclists. We don’t see them wearing helmets."
Doesn't this support the opposite argument of what the author is claiming? Further, I would expect as much anyway simply because so many fewer people bike than motorcycle or drive a car.
"If not wanting to wear a helmet deters someone from riding a bike, that sucks, because biking is healthy and awesome."
This is a silly argument. It could just as easily be said, "If wearing a helmet deters someone from riding a bike, that sucks, because wearing a helmet protects your head."
"I don’t want to hide my head behind a helmet, I want drivers to pass me on the street and see that I am a person, a human, just like them."
Nobody said that wearing a helmet was supposed to make a person more attractive. Would the author universally agree to "I don't wear protective gear $x because I want people to see that I'm a human being?" Probably not.
Ultimately, I don't think anybody can argue that having a protective shell around your head is somehow less safe or equally safe to having nothing there at all.
I think the argument is that if helmets are not mandated by law, more people will ride. If more people ride, that will raise more awareness of bikers and their safety in relation to motor vehicle drivers. Therefore, in aggregate, the safety of the whole bike riding herd will be better.
Anectdata: I work on a large business campus which has bike sharing bikes scattered around. Helmets are mandatory (whether that's due to law or local policy, I am uncertain). My light whispy hair will irrecoverably look like shit after being subjected to a helmet, especially during the hot/humid months. As such, I opt to walk or drive more often than I would if I could simply hop on a bike for many on-campus jaunts for various duties.
Anectdata: I work on a large business campus which has bike sharing bikes scattered around. Helmets are mandatory (whether that's due to law or local policy, I am uncertain). My light whispy hair will irrecoverably look like shit after being subjected to a helmet, especially during the hot/humid months. As such, I opt to walk or drive more often than I would if I could simply hop on a bike for many on-campus jaunts for various duties.
It equally supports the argument that people should wear protective headgear when they're driving or walking, but nobody takes that argument seriously for some reason.
To the extent that our helmet obsession dissuades people from cycling instead of driving, it is on average harmful, because the exercise benefits of cycling outweigh the head-injury risk.
To the extent that our helmet obsession dissuades people from cycling instead of driving, it is on average harmful, because the exercise benefits of cycling outweigh the head-injury risk.
> People will so often put up photos on social media of obliterated helmets and say, “Holy crap, look at my helmet! It saved my life!” But helmets are not supposed to shatter. When a helmet protects your head from a serious injury, the styrofoam inside will be compressed and stay that way. Most of the pictures I’ve seen are of helmets that have broken apart.
Just.. what?
Any sort of mechanical deformation is essentially an energy release. Be it compression, cracking or what else. The energy that went to cracking the polycarbonate shell is the energy that didn't reach your skull.
Just.. what?
Any sort of mechanical deformation is essentially an energy release. Be it compression, cracking or what else. The energy that went to cracking the polycarbonate shell is the energy that didn't reach your skull.
But cracking involves a very small amount of energy absorption. Once the crack starts it tends to propagate with very little required force.
The process once it gets going is pretty quick but the energy buildup required is fairly substantial and is defined by material properties (shear modulus).
To absorb energy in a useful way you need both force and distance. The idea is to reduce peak G force ... not that just reducing peak G force is all we need to do...
Exactly. What would there head have looked like if the helmet didn't save it.
Pretty much my sentiments. I've been cycling for over 40 years and have gone from never wearing one, to always wearing one, to seldom wearing one.
This is pretty dumb and naive, and loaded with non-sequiturs and other obvious fallacies. Like this gem:
>"Many more motorists and pedestrians die in traffic collisions per year than do bicyclists. We don’t see them wearing helmets."
Hey. Maybe if they did wear helmets, fewer of them would die. Ever think of that?
>"Many more motorists and pedestrians die in traffic collisions per year than do bicyclists. We don’t see them wearing helmets."
Hey. Maybe if they did wear helmets, fewer of them would die. Ever think of that?
Here are the stats: http://streets.mn/2014/07/01/bicycling-relative-safe/
TLDR: 5x more dangerous in car than bikes per billion km. Less dangerous in countries with more bikes per capita, despite fewer helmets.
So, I agree with OP's point that perhaps cyclists are being over regulated. I bet that there is a high correlation between type of bike and deaths. Perhaps we should be all required to ride one of these: http://www.denmanbikeshop.com/thebikeshopblog/wp-content/upl... Fewer deaths would ensue.
TLDR: 5x more dangerous in car than bikes per billion km. Less dangerous in countries with more bikes per capita, despite fewer helmets.
So, I agree with OP's point that perhaps cyclists are being over regulated. I bet that there is a high correlation between type of bike and deaths. Perhaps we should be all required to ride one of these: http://www.denmanbikeshop.com/thebikeshopblog/wp-content/upl... Fewer deaths would ensue.
The logic is clear, but whenever I suggest that drivers and pedestrians actually wear the helmets, somehow I get downvoted for trolling ;)
Author should also clarify that they're referring to a very, very specific type of riding—commuter and/or casual biking in good weather (sort of mentions this last part).
The most interesting quasi-claim is buried: helmets protect your head, but cause more damage to your neck. That's an empirical claim that I doubt, but at least it's better than "I don't think I look good in a helmet."
The most interesting quasi-claim is buried: helmets protect your head, but cause more damage to your neck. That's an empirical claim that I doubt, but at least it's better than "I don't think I look good in a helmet."
Yes, madness. Given expected likelihood/severity of potential accidents, one seems more worthwhile than the other. In situations where the risks are raised for some reason, you will find that people do wear helmets. I will never, for example, do 100mph in a kart without a helmet (plus various other safety additions).
How is a 10 mph bike ride around the block even remotely comparable to karting at 100-mph?
I'm not saying they're the same thing - I'm pointing out that as risk increases, you add safety features. Drivers in certain situations (racing, for example) do wear helmets, as the risk is now judged to be sufficient. A 10mph ride around the block may well be safe - but the 10mph part isn't so relevant - it's the idiot in a car doing 60mph who doesn't look for cyclists that is probably the significant part of the risk. So...
A bike helmet is not designed to protect your head if you are hit by a car at 60 mph.
The best way to protect yourself for the 60-mph-auto-collision is to not get hit by a car at 60 mph.
The best way to protect yourself for the 60-mph-auto-collision is to not get hit by a car at 60 mph.
[deleted]
This seems like a serious case of Black Swan reasoning. In other words, she seems to be taking an apparent lack of evidence that helmets prevent injury as evidence that helmets don't prevent injury. Just remember, you wear a helmet 99.9% of the time for no reason to prevent serious injury on that 0.1% incident because that's all it takes. We all know that slamming your head on pavement is bad and having a shell to protect your head is preferable to not having one. She seems to be assuming that because nothing bad has happened to her yet that she is safe with no helmet.
Put differently- I wonder if you told the author a brick was going to fall on her head and then asked given the option to wear a helmet or not wear one which she would pick.
Put differently- I wonder if you told the author a brick was going to fall on her head and then asked given the option to wear a helmet or not wear one which she would pick.
The point is that ordinary commuter cycling in normal weather on flat, clean roads is a lot less dangerous than standing around while people throw bricks at your head.
And there's a health tradeoff between the exercise benefits of physical activity and the risk of injury. Convincing people that cycling is so dangerous (like people throwing bricks at your head) that you need to wear some goofy-looking, uncomfortable contraption dissuades them from getting the exercise and the fun of cycling around their neighborhood.
And there's a health tradeoff between the exercise benefits of physical activity and the risk of injury. Convincing people that cycling is so dangerous (like people throwing bricks at your head) that you need to wear some goofy-looking, uncomfortable contraption dissuades them from getting the exercise and the fun of cycling around their neighborhood.
> The point is that ordinary commuter cycling in normal weather on flat, clean roads is a lot less dangerous than standing around while people throw bricks at your head.
This is true until you fall off the bike and your head hits the pavement. Then having a brick thrown at your head might well be safer. It's only the lower expected probability of having one event occur than the other that gives the illusion that it's safe. But if you ride a bike everyday, even in the safest of conditions, your odds of having an accident at some point are actually pretty high given all of the variables involved. So you should wear a helmet every time you ride with the assumption that it will do nothing for you if you don't have an accident.
This is true until you fall off the bike and your head hits the pavement. Then having a brick thrown at your head might well be safer. It's only the lower expected probability of having one event occur than the other that gives the illusion that it's safe. But if you ride a bike everyday, even in the safest of conditions, your odds of having an accident at some point are actually pretty high given all of the variables involved. So you should wear a helmet every time you ride with the assumption that it will do nothing for you if you don't have an accident.
If cycling is so dangerous that people throwing bricks at you is safer, wouldn't the most reasonable course be to not cycle at all?
The point is that if the author of the article got on a bicycle with 100% certainty of being involved in an accident, I seriously doubt she would get on it without a helmet or some protective gear, despite her claims that wearing a helmet actually increases your risk of injury. Obviously if you knew you would get in an accident you wouldn't get on the bike. I'm convinced that it's the not knowing (and erroneous assumption that she is safe) that makes her comfortable not wearing a helmet, not a ironclad case that not wearing a helmet is safer than wearing one. If put in a position where she absolutely had to decide whether she would be in an accident with or without a helmet, I do not believe she would back up her claim and go sans helmet.
It's really not that different than most risks we take, such as unhealthy eating or exposing ourselves to ultraviolet radiation. We're immune to the danger until we're not.
It's really not that different than most risks we take, such as unhealthy eating or exposing ourselves to ultraviolet radiation. We're immune to the danger until we're not.
As a person who doesn't wear/trust bike helmets, if the certainty of an accident on a particular ride was increased to 100%, I would choose to not ride the bike rather than trust the helmet to protect me in a collision. If I knew a brick was to dropped on my head at a certain time, I would reach for a steel helmet before a styrofoam one, but first endeavor to not be at the appointed place and time for a braining.
That's tragic, because this debate is about a tradeoff: a moderate benefits of exercise vs. a small risk of injury. I am a very regular bike commuter, and it is my main form of exercise, but collisions are very, very dangerous. I would not get on a bike in the case of 100% certainty of an accident. Helmet advocates focus on the risk of injury and tend not to consider the benefits they're trading off against, or consider how they are dissuading people from the benefits of cycling.
It seems like this boils down to an argument not to cycle as much as to wear a helmet.
That's tragic, because this debate is about a tradeoff: a moderate benefits of exercise vs. a small risk of injury. I am a very regular bike commuter, and it is my main form of exercise, but collisions are very, very dangerous. I would not get on a bike in the case of 100% certainty of an accident. Helmet advocates focus on the risk of injury and tend not to consider the benefits they're trading off against, or consider how they are dissuading people from the benefits of cycling.
It seems like this boils down to an argument not to cycle as much as to wear a helmet.
"We all know" lots of things that don't turn out to be true. The only way to be sure is to look at actual accident statistics.
And ultimately, helmets are just a tiny fraction of the factors that influence safety.
And ultimately, helmets are just a tiny fraction of the factors that influence safety.
You are disputing that blunt force trauma to your head causes injury? Or that having a barrier between your head and the point of impact prevents severity of injury? Which part exactly are you saying isn't true?
And actually, looking at actual accident statistics doesn't do a whole lot of good due to all of the variables involved (this point was actually made by the author and is about the only one that I agree with).
And actually, looking at actual accident statistics doesn't do a whole lot of good due to all of the variables involved (this point was actually made by the author and is about the only one that I agree with).
> You are disputing that blunt force trauma to your head causes injury?
No, I'm disputing that the majority of bike accidents involve blunt trauma to the head.
And looking at real data is the only way you can determine both the causes and results of real accidents, as opposed to artificial lab setups.
No, I'm disputing that the majority of bike accidents involve blunt trauma to the head.
And looking at real data is the only way you can determine both the causes and results of real accidents, as opposed to artificial lab setups.
The author should have led with "it’s glorious to feel the wind in my hair", because pretty much every other point in this post is useless.
I used to ride without a helmet too. I though I'd as soon get directly killed than get a brain injury. But then you do get a brain injury and not get killed and your life turns into hell, especially if your brain is the one thing you've always depended on the most. I recommend paying a visit to http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/forum92.html to catch a glimpse how splendidly well (where's my sarcasm sign?) people with brain injuries have been doing. I didn't get mine from a bike accident (collapsed scaffolding), but it's been a constant source of joy for the whole last year and I still have some minor issues to deal with (and that was a mild one as far as brain injuries go). I always wear a helmet on larger bike trips now. Anything that mitigates or reduces the chances of a brain injury is very much worth it. If you want to take reckless risks, at least don't write idiotic blog posts about it.
I'm most likely alive right now because of a helmet. Long story short, I had a crash that resulted in me whipping the back of my head into the ground. I ended up with a very bad concussion, an iffy memory for a couple of months, and a destroyed helmet. I'll keep wearing a helmet.
So you are saying that the helmet failed (broke) and you ended up with a brain injury? That somehow counts as a success?
This anecdote would be a lot more useful if it were long story long (e..g., were you cycling casually or racing?). The lack of details makes it hard to draw any useful lessons about when helmet wearing is appropriate.
Does it matter, point being made is that their helmet was destroyed rather than their skull.
I'm sure there are people who have cracked their heads open and died while running, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone travelling on foot needs to wear a helmet.
Many safety standards have surprisingly little science behind them. That is not always a bad thing. Trial and error can work if there is the possibility of changing the design. Once the body of experience is codified into a standard then development stops.
The current bike helmet standards are a good example of what happens in the absence of both good theory and experience. We have a design that prevents an injury that almost never happens (skull fracture) and that fails to protect against a common injury (concussion). The current standards make it impossible to improve things much but there are people out there that are trying:
http://www.helmets.org/liners.htm#cone-head
The current bike helmet standards are a good example of what happens in the absence of both good theory and experience. We have a design that prevents an injury that almost never happens (skull fracture) and that fails to protect against a common injury (concussion). The current standards make it impossible to improve things much but there are people out there that are trying:
http://www.helmets.org/liners.htm#cone-head
It seems that people missed the fact that the article has plenty of links supporting his claims. Unfortunately the link colour is almost the same as the text colour.
One of the most compelling studies is from New Zealand [1]: "The New Zealand Medical Journal published Evaluation of New Zealand's bicycle helmet law ... showing a massive plunge in cycling levels and a 20% higher accident rate since helmet law enforcement."
Also, there was a study showing that cyclists with helmets receive less space from passing cars than those without.
[1] http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html
One of the most compelling studies is from New Zealand [1]: "The New Zealand Medical Journal published Evaluation of New Zealand's bicycle helmet law ... showing a massive plunge in cycling levels and a 20% higher accident rate since helmet law enforcement."
Also, there was a study showing that cyclists with helmets receive less space from passing cars than those without.
[1] http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html
Did you really analyze whether the study provides good data? Does correlation imply causation?
Here's a 2013 Australian study: "The effectiveness of helmets in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles: A case–control study": http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457513...
"Helmet use was associated with reduced risk of head injury in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles of up to 74%, and the more severe the injury considered, the greater the reduction."
Is there some reason to doubt this?
"Helmet use was associated with reduced risk of head injury in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles of up to 74%, and the more severe the injury considered, the greater the reduction."
Is there some reason to doubt this?
Minneapolis is arguably the best city in the US for bicycling (in competition with Portland). That said, biking here can be incredibly dangerous, and cyclists are killed every year. The streets and intersections around town have numerous "ghost bikes", white bicycles locked in places where a cyclist was killed by a car.
The author's point doesn't stand to reason. First, not all injuries are created equal. Head injuries are more likely to kill or permanently impair a cyclist than any other injury. Second, regardless of the results of studies and confirmation bias, it's obvious that helmets do absorb a great deal of impact - impact that can kill or permanently injure you.
Beyond that, though, helmets aren't the #1 thing that can be done to protect cyclists. Improving car drivers is the #1 thing. Malicious drivers who openly hate cyclists aren't the worst - neglectful ones are. You know, the ones who turn right in front of a bicycle, or lane change into a bicycle. They don't know the cyclist is there. Often, they don't know how close they came to killing someone, as they text away obliviously.
The next thing that can be done is better urban planning, with bicycle-friendly streets. That doesn't mean sidewalk "bike lanes" that are 10mph and shared with moms pushing strollers. That means relatively safe road design where bicyclists can either integrate into the traffic flow or be around it with less danger. These designs are often flawed, though, built mostly to keep bicycles from inconveniencing cars rather than keeping cyclists safe (the "bike lanes" of downtown Minneapolis, which completely hide cyclists from cars turning in front of them, are the ultimate example).
At any rate, the article is quite wrong.
The author's point doesn't stand to reason. First, not all injuries are created equal. Head injuries are more likely to kill or permanently impair a cyclist than any other injury. Second, regardless of the results of studies and confirmation bias, it's obvious that helmets do absorb a great deal of impact - impact that can kill or permanently injure you.
Beyond that, though, helmets aren't the #1 thing that can be done to protect cyclists. Improving car drivers is the #1 thing. Malicious drivers who openly hate cyclists aren't the worst - neglectful ones are. You know, the ones who turn right in front of a bicycle, or lane change into a bicycle. They don't know the cyclist is there. Often, they don't know how close they came to killing someone, as they text away obliviously.
The next thing that can be done is better urban planning, with bicycle-friendly streets. That doesn't mean sidewalk "bike lanes" that are 10mph and shared with moms pushing strollers. That means relatively safe road design where bicyclists can either integrate into the traffic flow or be around it with less danger. These designs are often flawed, though, built mostly to keep bicycles from inconveniencing cars rather than keeping cyclists safe (the "bike lanes" of downtown Minneapolis, which completely hide cyclists from cars turning in front of them, are the ultimate example).
At any rate, the article is quite wrong.
I think the point is that most people think that the best way to improve cyclist safety is to get cyclists to wear helmets. This is quite wrong, helmets are way down the list behind driver education, bike lanes, bike lights, &c. &c.
However, cyclists get regularly shamed for not wearing a helmet. Where's the shame for the lack of complete streets traffic planning? The shame for drivers speeding and running red lights all the time?
However, cyclists get regularly shamed for not wearing a helmet. Where's the shame for the lack of complete streets traffic planning? The shame for drivers speeding and running red lights all the time?
regardless of the results of studies and confirmation bias, it's obvious...
You might as well have just said "I'm not listening to that gosh darn evolution nonsense".
You might as well have just said "I'm not listening to that gosh darn evolution nonsense".
Just because you're inclined to believe something doesn't make it not true. That's the flip side of confirmation bias.
The author points to a single study that's been discredited. Good enough. But simple logic, as well as anecdotal evidence (with all its confirmation bias), suggests that you're more likely to have a good outcome from a head impact if you're wearing a helmet than if you're not. That, or the entire helmet industry is snake oil, and you might as well just wear a baseball cap.
The comparison to evolution is bogus. Those who reject evolution are generally rejecting both evidence and reason. But evidence and reason strongly suggest that helmets work better than no helmets.
The author points to a single study that's been discredited. Good enough. But simple logic, as well as anecdotal evidence (with all its confirmation bias), suggests that you're more likely to have a good outcome from a head impact if you're wearing a helmet than if you're not. That, or the entire helmet industry is snake oil, and you might as well just wear a baseball cap.
The comparison to evolution is bogus. Those who reject evolution are generally rejecting both evidence and reason. But evidence and reason strongly suggest that helmets work better than no helmets.
Reason suggest that helmets work better than no helmets. _Evidence_ suggests that the benefits of wearing a helmet are actually surprisingly marginal for casual cyclists. Other factors, like biking infrastructure quality and vehicle operator education, have a much greater impact on safety. Which makes it a bit weird that people concerned with the safety of bicyclists talk so much about helmets.
I don't disagree with that, but that's not really the author's claim. He appears to be claiming that helmets aren't actually effective or cause other problems.
An accident avoided is better than an accident survived, yes. But an accident survived is better than an accident not survived.
An accident avoided is better than an accident survived, yes. But an accident survived is better than an accident not survived.
I've had my share of accidents riding my bike, and in none of them would a helmet have helped anything. So much for anecdotal confirmation.
There are certainly conditions that make the use of a helmet advisable, but that depends on the situation. Anything more than that is just the result of lobbying & PR by the helmet-making industry.
There are certainly conditions that make the use of a helmet advisable, but that depends on the situation. Anything more than that is just the result of lobbying & PR by the helmet-making industry.
I've never seen a black swan.
Point well taken. Of course you're free to determine your personal level of risk tolerance. Just don't force others to convert their homes to nuclear shelters (after all, one nuclear explosion can ruin your whole compile).
Looks like his database server should have been wearing a helmet.
Bicycle helmets are worthless, as well as equestrian half helmets. How often in a bike wreck do you hit the exact top of your head vs the sides, your chin, your face, or the back of your neck?
The only type of helmet that can actually prevent injury is a full face motorcycle helmet with solid chinbar.
The only type of helmet that can actually prevent injury is a full face motorcycle helmet with solid chinbar.
As for me, my main reason not to wear a helmet is that it limits my field of vision and an ability to hear (including low frequencies) to such an extent that I feel blindfolded. I cannot tolerate even a hat for the same reason.
[deleted]
The article doesn't say from which part of the world it is (though clearly outside Europe), but where it's from matters a lot.
Dutch media, for example, do not focus on helmet use at all, because it's a non-issue. Well, mostly. Almost nobody here wears a helmet (though increasing numbers of children do), simply because it's not necessary.
Then again, Dutch traffic is designed with cyclists in mind. In other countries, that's not the case. You need to know what your local cycling situation is, and whether that does or doesn't require a helmet.
Dutch media, for example, do not focus on helmet use at all, because it's a non-issue. Well, mostly. Almost nobody here wears a helmet (though increasing numbers of children do), simply because it's not necessary.
Then again, Dutch traffic is designed with cyclists in mind. In other countries, that's not the case. You need to know what your local cycling situation is, and whether that does or doesn't require a helmet.
Should have focused on data and studies relating to the idea that most crashes involved with people wearing non-full-face helmets do not result in helmets saving their head from serious injury.
Head injuries are no joke especially if your in tech. Wear the helmet.
You are assuming the accepted, but unproven wisdom that helmets will prevent more injuries than they cause. Did you read the meta study cited in the article that shows a lack of evidence for such an assumption? Have you read about the standards used to "certify" bike helmets, which don't simulate bike crashes very well?
I'm sorry but this post mentions there isn't any good data and then dives into anecdotes.
"But helmets are not supposed to shatter." Yes, they are. After any crash with a helmet you're support to discard it and purchase a new one. It absorbed, hopefully, the vast majority of the energy of the impact, not your skull.
"Cyclists don’t die from just falling off their bikes, they die because they are hit by cars."
Doubtless, but this is one of the few cases in which there are statistics available because it involves motor vehicles... and death.
"Learning safe riding skills, being visible, and being attentive are the things we all can do to prevent an accident."
Yes, absolutely. Ride defensively and assume NO ONE can see you and knows where you are at ALL times even and sometimes especially in a bike lane.
"I replaced my road bike’s drop handlebars with swept back bars, for a more upright riding position"
The observation of mountain/flat bars being a better city / casual riding position is true. But you don't need to ditch your drops if you ride on the tops when appropriate. Many people have a second pair of brake levers accessible from the tops as well as their integrated levers at the hoods.
What I'm most surprised about is that the author doesn't mention a study where drivers on average, apparently, drive 3 inches closer to cyclists WITH helmets on because they perceive them to be protected.
All this said: WEAR A HELMET. I'll provide an anecdote: the wheel coming off of a front fork after someone tried to steal their wheel earlier in the day (unlocking the quick release). I found the man with his face smashed on the ground, his left eye caved in on the Manhattan Bridge.
Route 9W, bottom of the first major hill, debris collected from over winter. Many cyclists repairing flats, another one who got taken away in an ambulance, helmet shattered and knee "destroyed". He would have certainly died if he had not been wearing a helmet.
The point is saying that helmets don't protect you from crashes is like saying seatbelts don't protect you from crashes. Yes! It's true, but they protect you from hurting yourself too badly if and when you DO crash.
"But helmets are not supposed to shatter." Yes, they are. After any crash with a helmet you're support to discard it and purchase a new one. It absorbed, hopefully, the vast majority of the energy of the impact, not your skull.
"Cyclists don’t die from just falling off their bikes, they die because they are hit by cars."
Doubtless, but this is one of the few cases in which there are statistics available because it involves motor vehicles... and death.
"Learning safe riding skills, being visible, and being attentive are the things we all can do to prevent an accident."
Yes, absolutely. Ride defensively and assume NO ONE can see you and knows where you are at ALL times even and sometimes especially in a bike lane.
"I replaced my road bike’s drop handlebars with swept back bars, for a more upright riding position"
The observation of mountain/flat bars being a better city / casual riding position is true. But you don't need to ditch your drops if you ride on the tops when appropriate. Many people have a second pair of brake levers accessible from the tops as well as their integrated levers at the hoods.
What I'm most surprised about is that the author doesn't mention a study where drivers on average, apparently, drive 3 inches closer to cyclists WITH helmets on because they perceive them to be protected.
All this said: WEAR A HELMET. I'll provide an anecdote: the wheel coming off of a front fork after someone tried to steal their wheel earlier in the day (unlocking the quick release). I found the man with his face smashed on the ground, his left eye caved in on the Manhattan Bridge.
Route 9W, bottom of the first major hill, debris collected from over winter. Many cyclists repairing flats, another one who got taken away in an ambulance, helmet shattered and knee "destroyed". He would have certainly died if he had not been wearing a helmet.
The point is saying that helmets don't protect you from crashes is like saying seatbelts don't protect you from crashes. Yes! It's true, but they protect you from hurting yourself too badly if and when you DO crash.
"The people who wear helmets are likely more safety-conscious than those who don’t, which makes comparing the two groups very difficult and will make it appear that helmets are more protective than they actually are."
Unless the act of wearing a helmet is part of what reminds you to be more safety-conscious. Bucking my child into the car has the same effect.
BTW the author does mention that study about drivers coming closer to bikers with helmets.
Unless the act of wearing a helmet is part of what reminds you to be more safety-conscious. Bucking my child into the car has the same effect.
BTW the author does mention that study about drivers coming closer to bikers with helmets.
> "But helmets are not supposed to shatter." Yes, they are. After any crash with a helmet you're support to discard it and purchase a new one. It absorbed, hopefully, the vast majority of the energy of the impact, not your skull.
Read the link. Hint: no, they aren't. The main absorbtion of energy is all in the styrofoam. If the shell shattered but the styrofoam didn't compress then no significant force dissipation happened. Some did, yes, but not enough to have prevented anything more than cuts & scrapes.
> What I'm most surprised about is that the author doesn't mention a study where drivers on average, apparently, drive 3 inches closer to cyclists WITH helmets on because they perceive them to be protected.
They did, actually. That was in the article.
Read the link. Hint: no, they aren't. The main absorbtion of energy is all in the styrofoam. If the shell shattered but the styrofoam didn't compress then no significant force dissipation happened. Some did, yes, but not enough to have prevented anything more than cuts & scrapes.
> What I'm most surprised about is that the author doesn't mention a study where drivers on average, apparently, drive 3 inches closer to cyclists WITH helmets on because they perceive them to be protected.
They did, actually. That was in the article.
I stopped reading when the author said a shattered helmet didn't protect from a head injury.
You're telling the same forces that shattered the helmet wouldn't have damaged the head?
Nonsense.
You're telling the same forces that shattered the helmet wouldn't have damaged the head?
Nonsense.
This is like saying "Im done wearing a bullet proof vest as it only prevents certain types of gunshot wounds, is uncomfortable to wear and not fashionable."
I understand you always wear a bullet proof vest when you go outside?
Your dedication to your personal safety is commendable, but I hope you do realize that most people have reasons not to wear bullet proof vests.
Your dedication to your personal safety is commendable, but I hope you do realize that most people have reasons not to wear bullet proof vests.
Are most people expected to wear a bulletproof vest under normal conditions?
Fun times when people get shamed for not wearing a bulletproof vest to go to the grocery store.
Fun times when people get shamed for not wearing a bulletproof vest to go to the grocery store.
I agree with most of these points, however, anecdotally I will say that my helmet prevented some pretty nasty facial road rash when I was doored a few years ago. I tipped and hit my head, and then slid ~10 feet. My helmet prevented my face/ear from taking the initial impact as well as the subsequent slide across the dirty urban asphalt.
Helmets don't just protect from massive TBIs.
Helmets don't just protect from massive TBIs.
I've noticed very few cyclists wearing helmets in Tokyo. Would be interesting to compare to a city were helmets are more prevalent.
Here's some data: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists...
Also, the link in the article about health benefits doesn't point to anything on the web.
Also, the link in the article about health benefits doesn't point to anything on the web.
I doubt the bike helmets are effective (motorcycle ones are fine, but the glorified yarmulke that is the biking hat is doubtful)
He doesn't make very strong arguments ("the numbers are hard to get, I don't have any"). In my mind I see myself falling to the ground and smashing my head on the ground. I'd like to avoid that if possible. Is he saying thinner/better helmets are needed to avoid neck injuries?
This guy should not be a health professional.
"But helmets are not supposed to shatter" - not true. Many bike helmets are designed to shatter on impact, that's how they absorb the energy.
http://www.bhsi.org/standard.htm
"But helmets are not supposed to shatter" - not true. Many bike helmets are designed to shatter on impact, that's how they absorb the energy.
http://www.bhsi.org/standard.htm
Where I live there is a bridge over the river which has a multi-use trail (basically, a shared bike/walk/rollerblade/whatever path) on both sides of it. This trail is separated from the traffic on the bridge by a railing and large girders. The bridge was built to carry rail traffic on the top deck and car traffic below.
On the south end of the bridge, the road and multi-use trails jog eastward and up a slope, while the rail portion of the bridge continues south towards a tunnel. This results in a spot on one of the trails where there are low-hanging girders. If you are walking, these are fine, if you are biking these are very dangerous and cyclists who weren't wearing helmets have been killed by failing to duck. Since the impact was directly to the head, these deaths would have likely been prevented by a helmet. Cyclists who veer too far towards the girders alongside the trail have also been killed, again an impact directly to the head where a helmet would help.
On the south end of the bridge, the road and multi-use trails jog eastward and up a slope, while the rail portion of the bridge continues south towards a tunnel. This results in a spot on one of the trails where there are low-hanging girders. If you are walking, these are fine, if you are biking these are very dangerous and cyclists who weren't wearing helmets have been killed by failing to duck. Since the impact was directly to the head, these deaths would have likely been prevented by a helmet. Cyclists who veer too far towards the girders alongside the trail have also been killed, again an impact directly to the head where a helmet would help.
Cycle paths with low hanging girders is not a problem that is solved by helmets.
Here is the article for those who can't access the page (Database Error)
https://www.anony.ws/i/2015/06/15/helmet.png
(Click image to zoom)
https://www.anony.ws/i/2015/06/15/helmet.png
(Click image to zoom)
This might be useful for my main gripe, which is the sweating:
http://www.hovding.com/videos
It's a helmet/airbag. Looks pretty cool, but I've never met anyone who had one.
http://www.hovding.com/videos
It's a helmet/airbag. Looks pretty cool, but I've never met anyone who had one.
Do you have any information that shows the effectiveness of helmet use in crashes that don't involve cars? I've read that approximately half of all bike crashes do not involve cars. [ looking for a citation ]
This is why people should not wear seat belt, or be required to have driver license.
It deters more people from driving a car and it communicates that driving car is a dangerous activity and require protective gear and license.
It deters more people from driving a car and it communicates that driving car is a dangerous activity and require protective gear and license.
I've heard it argued (in jest, I hope) that replacing the air bag in steering wheels with a sharp, steel spike would make people drive a lot more carefully.
That is great, evolution always find its ways to get rid off the weaker population. Wearing a helmet (a good one) can save your life.
Some details:
"Is there evidence that helmets protect brains and heads? We have a statistics page that may help you research that. Don't miss the recent New York City data showing that 97% of their dead cyclists had no helmet."
I know what a data scientist would say, correlation is not causation.
More details, lots os studies and numbers here: http://www.bhsi.org/shouldi.htm
A good video in the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=CLbpXkSoM2A
Some details:
"Is there evidence that helmets protect brains and heads? We have a statistics page that may help you research that. Don't miss the recent New York City data showing that 97% of their dead cyclists had no helmet."
I know what a data scientist would say, correlation is not causation.
More details, lots os studies and numbers here: http://www.bhsi.org/shouldi.htm
A good video in the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=CLbpXkSoM2A
The guy is long boarding, not biking. One is considered an extreme sport, not the other.
The helmet is no more a hindrance than a seatbelt. If you choose not to wear a helmet so be it, you are an adult. But don't expect me to pay for your medical bills if you have a head injury while cycling and you were not wearing helmet.
I also have to wonder if the increased neck injuries cited go back to when helmets were not designed to skid when impacting the ground.
I also have to wonder if the increased neck injuries cited go back to when helmets were not designed to skid when impacting the ground.
Is she a nominee for the Darwin Award?
TLDR - author doesn't like wearing helmets. Mentions one or two studies. Mostly personal opinion piece with anecdotal evidence.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
But I guess if you're a public health professional, you'd rather have the pound of cure.
But I guess if you're a public health professional, you'd rather have the pound of cure.
I bet he drives without a seatbelt too.
Just watch fail army for ten minutes and play count the heads hitting the ground. No thanks.
Everybody thinking like the author should watch this video first.
What on earth does some jerk goofing off on a skateboard have to do with normal travel at low speeds on flat roads in good weather by a competent cyclist?
If you're doing tricks on gravel, or travelling on mud or snow, or goring really fast, you may fall, sure, wear a helmet.
If you're doing tricks on gravel, or travelling on mud or snow, or goring really fast, you may fall, sure, wear a helmet.
It shows the benefits of wearing it. The guy in the video walks away totally unharmed. This kind of blow to the head can happen easily while riding a bike, specially in a city.
I've been cycling for 22 years. I've smashed my head on the ground 5 times now.
NEVER was it my fault. Just because you're not a dick doesn't mean someone else isn't.
NEVER was it my fault. Just because you're not a dick doesn't mean someone else isn't.
I've been cycling on roads for 25 years and have never hit my head on the ground.
I walk a lot on well traveled streets. I recently noticed an interesting correlation: cyclists that wear helmets tend to follow the rules and ones that do not tend to break them. Rules like stopping at a stop light, not riding on the sidewalk, riding on the correct side of the street.
It's not a perfect correlation, but it's very high.
It's not a perfect correlation, but it's very high.
I rather correlate helmet-wearing cyclists to be the "wilder" bikers - since they know that they'll drive dangerously, they better wear a helmet to (feel to?) reduce the most dangerous consequences.
Or to put it in other words: you are more inclined to buy a helmet if you are know that sooner or later you'll surely need its protection. Or since you have a helmet, you know that you can do things at a (psychologically) acceptable risk that you wouldn't do otherwise (the latter phenomenon is called "risk compensation").
Or to put it in other words: you are more inclined to buy a helmet if you are know that sooner or later you'll surely need its protection. Or since you have a helmet, you know that you can do things at a (psychologically) acceptable risk that you wouldn't do otherwise (the latter phenomenon is called "risk compensation").
One theory. People who wear helmets tend to be people who or less "into" biking and more insecure about biking and their biking skills. Thus they play it safe and default to following the rules. People without helmets tend be the ones who view themselves as better bikers and feel more secure in their biking skills and thus think the rules and more like guidelines and that they, with their superior skills, know better and can safely ignore them when they feel like it.
There are people who ride bikes because they love cycling (by choice) and there are people who ride bikes because they can't afford other means of transportion (by need). The latter tend not to wear helmets or follow traffic rules, the former tend to do at least one of them.
Personally I almost never wear a helmet but scrupulously follow the rules: they are the only thing that protects me.
Personally I almost never wear a helmet but scrupulously follow the rules: they are the only thing that protects me.
It's not about you following the rules. If someone else doesn't, your head is going to hit the ground.
I am very, very cautious. But bike helmets are simply not designed for high-speed collisions.
You're an idiot.
I've only ever bashed my head on the ground at very low speeds. You'd be surprised the damage you can do falling from head height. A bike merely increases the probability of that happening.
High speed; forget it. I drive a car now after I was totalled by a taxi.
I've only ever bashed my head on the ground at very low speeds. You'd be surprised the damage you can do falling from head height. A bike merely increases the probability of that happening.
High speed; forget it. I drive a car now after I was totalled by a taxi.
Ah, nothing is quite so good for your health as spending your time sitting in a car.
This article is completely crazy.
I'd 100% prefer safety over fashion any day of the week. Have you been in a car crash? Thank god for seat belts!
I'd 100% prefer safety over fashion any day of the week. Have you been in a car crash? Thank god for seat belts!
I completely disagree with this article. Yes, helmets may increase the risk of other injuries (not inclusive of "I am hearing a helmet, I am a invincible" injuries), but the benefit of reduced head injury vastly outweigh the increase in other injuries.
On another note, there has been quite a bit of development into helmets in the last 5 or so years. Check out MIPS system [1]. It basically allows the head to move independently of the helmet increasing the "time" of the impact and also reducing oblique forces on the brain. Does it 100% work? Who knows. Is my head priceless, yes.
[1] http://www.mipshelmet.com/#what-is-mips (fyi, slow website)
On another note, there has been quite a bit of development into helmets in the last 5 or so years. Check out MIPS system [1]. It basically allows the head to move independently of the helmet increasing the "time" of the impact and also reducing oblique forces on the brain. Does it 100% work? Who knows. Is my head priceless, yes.
[1] http://www.mipshelmet.com/#what-is-mips (fyi, slow website)
The greatest share of accidents are because of infrastructure, so put all your effort into getting better road for foot and cycle traffic, it's more effective to prevent accidents than injuries.
I've never hurt my head while on a bike, yet the first thing you hear when I've been in a crash is: "Did you have a helmet?". Statistically helmets help in rare but severe cases, compared to a seat belts and airbags that helps against almost all injuries in cars from mild to serious..
I've never hurt my head while on a bike, yet the first thing you hear when I've been in a crash is: "Did you have a helmet?". Statistically helmets help in rare but severe cases, compared to a seat belts and airbags that helps against almost all injuries in cars from mild to serious..
The article is the reason why I'm done wearing a helmet. I write my blog as a way to expose different viewpoints around cycling. I feel comfortable with this decision and will no longer be wearing a helmet. If they're not completely scientifically sound in your judgement, fine, keep wearing a helmet. I tried to use the data to the best of my ability, as I have a master's degree in public health. But then again, this blog is not for an academic audience, so I try not to make it too heavy.
The arguments I posted are those that have swayed me. What it comes down to is this: I believe biking is an inherently safe activity, on par with driving a car and walking. When I'm biking 12-14mph on bike paths and trails, as part of my daily regular activities, I feel there is no need to wear a helmet.