Live data from Hacker News

To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

nytimes.com

31–40 of 212 posts

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#31
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we can solve this with a bulleted list: * Scare people off from using bikes * Uncomfortable * Supply excuse to not make biking safer * Expensive * Don't actually make you any safer

My mother worked in a head trauma unit while I was young, and I particularly take umbrage with that last bullet point. While wearing a helmet won't do you much good when you ignore a stop sign and get plowed over by an SUV, neither will a seat belt save your life if you lose control going 110 down a tree-lined rural highway.

When I was a kid, my best friend's brother died because he was not wearing a bike helmet. I do, in fact, always wear a bike helmet.

The argument is not whether, if hit in the head, you are more likely to get a head injury. It is clear that bike helmets reduce those injuries.

The question is, if we required everyone to wear helmets, or required everyone to not wear helmets, which would result in less injuries/fatalities. And secondarily, if it turns out that bike helmets reduce injuries and fatalities, has it been worth the cost, vs other things we could spend money on, say legally required non-slip surfaces for bathtubs.

There are multiple factors that could affect this, here are two such things:

  * http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html
  * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#32
post #6

What's so wrong with helmets?

I have a bike helmet but only wear it for some rides - i.e. the long-distance or fast ones. When I ride into town for shopping, I don't wear it. I hope it will always remain my personal choice.

Anyway, the arguments are:

a) Mandatory bike helmets mean you can't run a bike-share scheme because who wants to wear a much-used sweaty helmet? How can the people running the scheme sanitise them?

b) Mandatory bike helmets put people off riding. They are inconvenient to carry around with you if you cycle to get somewhere (work, meeting, lunch date, etc) rather than just for recreation. It's estimated that 30% of cyclists (in Melbourne, I think) stopped cycling when helmets became mandatory. This is hailed as a success by politicians in Australia because cycling fatalities also fell by 30%. Miracle!

c) They probably don't protect you that much - anything over 12mph or a collision with something other than the pavement, and they're not guaranteed to do anything to help you. (Specialized helmets are made to the older Snell standard, which is a bit safer; I have a Specialized.)

d) They give the impression that cycling is super-dangerous and you need all sorts of safety gear, which puts people off. In some areas, it is dangerous (I'm thinking parts of the US which seem actively cyclist-hostile) but the risks of inactivity (heart disease, diabetes, stroke, etc) outweigh the very slight risk of traumatic head injury, in many parts of Europe at least. So, get people on bikes regardless, you'll save lives as people become fitter from cycling.

e) More of a political point, but the main danger of riding a bike comes from reckless or distracted motorists. Helmets represent masking the symptoms rather than dealing with the real problem. They also shift the blame from dangerous drivers to cyclists: how many times do we see descriptions of car-on-bike collisions with the stock phrase "the cyclist was not wearing a helmet"? Victim blaming, especially in cases where the cyclist was crushed to death by a 30-ton vehicle (little bit of polystyrene won't fix that, sorry).

The main ways I protect myself when riding are visibility (always use bright lights, my back light can be seen even in bright sunlight) and safe, assertive riding (e.g. taking the lane when necessary, approaching a junction for example). So many cyclists fail badly at safe riding that I think mandatory training would be better than mandatory helmets. But really I don't support either. For me, cycling is a safe activity and a helmet is usually not needed.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#33
post #14

So i had one single bike accident in my life so far. Happened to be in a urban area. Happened that a car cut the way and i hit it, and the ground with the head. I have a permanent scar (its not so bad) on the side of my face. Without helmet it'd have something much worse (yeah i broke other body parts, the hit was rather violent - i can avoid a car going at regular speed, but if i'm going fast and the car is speeding…

the test that your helmet has to pass is a 12.5mph impact.

it's AFAIK 14mph, and motor bike helmets are tested at 17mph.

Note that in both cases you can still die from head injuries while wearing one. And in both cases accidents happen at a much higher speed than the tested speed (also they do resist much greater impacts)

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#34
post #17
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we can solve this with a bulleted list: * Scare people off from using bikes * Uncomfortable * Supply excuse to not make biking safer * Expensive * Don't actually make you any safer

The first point just begs the question. The third one is questionable at best. The last two are just incorrect. I think the "no helmet" thing is just a weird bit of biker culture that's going to eventually die out, much like smoker culture is dying out in the US.

Maybe, I always wear a helmet myself. And it's true that europeans smoke more, so maybe it makes sense that they don't wear helmets.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#35
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the test that your helmet has to pass is a 12.5mph impact.

it's AFAIK 14mph, and motor bike helmets are tested at 17mph. Note that in both cases you can still die from head injuries while wearing one. And in both cases accidents happen at a much higher speed than the tested speed (also they do resist much greater impacts)

http://freemoviesite24.com/2012/09/journey-2-the-mysterious-...

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#36
post #30
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be much more compelling if you could bring some statistics into the argument rather than tell a personal story and then, basically, guess.

Statistic of how many head injuries you get if your head is smashed against a car door or the ground at high speed? I suggest you make the experiment, because, I can only guess it hurts every time, and uhm, that's not backed by any statistic. -- I'm not allowed to reply because this has been down-voted, so i'll reply here: the study you linked is a net result of people NOT riding bicycles because they don't want to r…

This study claims that there is a substantial net increase in deaths from a law that would require helmets:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1231.html

Where's your evidence that helmets result in a net decrease in risk overall?

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#37
post #18

As a kid in the 1970s, I rode my bike everywhere, never wore a helmet (nobody did), and here I am today. Of course helmets can help avoid head injury, not riding bikes probably helps even more. I mean where do you draw the line on the fear vs. the actual chance of something happening. On the subject of community shared bicycles, our town tried that about 10 years ago, all the bicycles were stolen within the first mon…

Survivor bias, perhaps? All those kids that died in the 70's from no helmets, falling out of pickups and going through the windshield of cars[1] aren't really here to say "I didn't make it."

I think we in the US tend to make things more scary than they really are in our efforts to protect ourselves from everything. However, I think the worst argument we can make is "I survived, so it is OK." There are good arguments that can be made for not wearing helmets, like how valuable it is to just get off your butt.

1. I am one of those kids (well, not the dead part). I managed to make it between the dash board and the solid metal mirror of a Volkswagon beetle from the back seat when I was four years old. A slightly different set of conditions would have had my skull turned inside out.

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#39
Cycling is extremely appealing if you separate roads for cars from roads for bikes. Boulder is a city that gets this right. As a cyclist in Boulder, you can get almost anywhere in town with minimal riding on a normal street. The network of bike/pedestrian paths is so well integrated into the city.

I loved biking everywhere in Boulder. In Austin or New York I would rather walk and take public transit. NYC and the Connecticut shoreline are keeping me enthralled for now but I will move back to Boulder for the bike paths (and the general paradise vibe) at some point.

Nostalgia is taking hold now. Warm memories of a satisfied ride with a Flat Iron mountain backdrop. In my backpack was just a modest check, but it was a check for the sale of my first venture, and we were happy, and living in Boulder and the future was ours for the taking...

Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets

#40
post #6

What's so wrong with helmets?

I commute to work by bike in Philadelphia, and not just in the good weather. In the last year I've missed three days--once the day after I cracked a rib going down in snow and twice when I woke up to a flat tire and didn't have time to swap it out and make it to work on time. (I've got better tires and am much better at replacing a tube, now.)

You know the old saying, cheap/good/fast, pick two? With bike helmets it's attractive, comfortable, or cheap: pick one. You can get a sweaty, dorky Bell for $30, or you can get a sweaty, cool Bern for $70, or you can get a comfortable, dorky Rudy Project for $200.

Post reply on HN