Traumatic brain injury is real, completely life debilitating and can happen at very slow speeds. Many parts of your brain are protected only by soft tissue. Brains do not grow back like a broken arm/leg. Imagine permanently losing 100 IQ points by not paying attention for the wrong five seconds. Cyclists are extremely vulnerable on streets shared by cars. Think slow moving ~<180lb two wheeled bean bags vs. 1500+lb high speed steel boxes. It's pretty irresponsible and absurd for the NYT to print articles like this. I suppose we shouldn't use seatbelts or car bumpers either based on mean effects? Helmet safety is totally cheap (basic, OK helmets are $20-30) and easy to use. Although I would certainly like to make everyone "healthy" and build a cycling utopia, the fitness argument this article makes is completely absurd. Obese, unhealthy people casually cycling for ten or fifteen minutes across a city are unlikely to receive any significantly health benefit (reach aerobic thresholds) and are the the most likely to experience falls and collisions since they are inexperienced.
To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
101–110 of 212 posts
Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
#102Folks in the US need to start demanding bike lanes from their elected officials. They're super cheap to build and so it's more of an issue of simply having the political will to remove a lane of traffic from exclusive car use. Such political bravery can pay off. Vancouver BC's Gregor Robertson (and his councillor slate) has been elected twice with strong mandates in large part because of his commitment to bike lanes.
> Folks in the US need to start demanding bike lanes from their elected officials.
North American bike lanes, as they're currently implemented, in general, are easily criticized because they don't actually buy a safer ride for cyclists. They buy the illusion of a safer ride[1].
Some of the problems:
* Bicycles going straight through an intersection are encouraged to overtake cars
that are turning right on their right side. The motor vehicle can turn into the
path of the overtaking cyclist.
* Bicycles going straight through an intersection are encouraged to stay close to
the curb, where they can be hidden from the view of drivers turning left into
their path by cars that are traveling in the same direction and slightly
ahead of them. The left-turning car then turns behind the car travelling in
the same direction as the cyclist and into the cyclist.
* Bicycle lanes widen the travel lane, encouraging drivers to travel
at higher speeds.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bike_lane#Crash_types.2C_junct...
Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
#103As a keen cyclist (I'm building http://www.cyclinganalytics.com/), I wish we didn't have mandatory helmet laws, but there are a lot of points on both sides of the argument worth pondering.
* Making helmets mandatory makes cycling look dangerous. What other things do you wear a helmet while doing? Between this, ruining peoples' hair, not looking as chic, and the inconvenience of it, helmets discourage people from cycling.
* Although it is possible to get seriously injured on a bicycle, the research that I've seen suggests that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risk of injury considerably (even when not wearing helmets), so, from a public health point of view, it makes sense to encourage cycling, and even cycling without wearing a helmet.
* Therefore, it seems that helmets directly save lives (in crashes, although, for my own anecdotal evidence, they haven't helped me in any of the crashes I've had), but they cost lives indirectly by discouraging people from cycling in the first place. This makes it harder to sell.
* Laws are not about making things as safe as humanly possible. It would save more lives to have people in cars wearing helmets, but we don't do that (yes, I know more people travel by car). For that matter, it's legal to drive cars that would be considered death-traps by modern safety standards. Even if helmet laws did save lives, that doesn't automatically mean they should become laws.
* The drivers in different countries have different attitudes towards cyclists. In Australia (and probably America), we have a strong driving culture, and a very "us vs. them" view of the whole thing. Earlier this year, Shane Warne (one of the most famous Australian sportsmen of the last decade) had an altercation with a cyclist on a busy Melbourne road which led him to comment on Twitter about how cyclists should pay registration and show license plates. Views like that are very common amongst the general public, and often stem from the view that "bikes are okay for a gentle Sunday ride with the family to the park, but they shouldn't be used as serious transportation devices". Compare that with the attitude of the average driver in many European countries (from what I've heard), and you might be able to make a case that we aren't ready for scrapping mandatory helmet laws, because cycling really is more dangerous.
Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the "anti-helmet" studies and arguments I've seen aren't particularly anti-helmet in principle, but rather just make the case that the benefits of wearing a helmet apply equally to pedestrians and automobile drivers/passengers. The argument isn't that helmets can prevent head injuries while riding a bike. The argument is that if there are laws or social stigma around bicycle helmets, then they should apply eq…
> the benefits of wearing a helmet apply equally to pedestrians and automobile drivers/passengers Cycling is about six times more likely to kill you, per hour, than driving. So while helmets in cars would help some, the case for them on bikes is stronger.
Cite for that statement please?
Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
#105I am a physician, and was surprised by the NY Times article. Here is a review of older literature you might find helpful:
Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only traffic that actually poses a regular challenge because of their erratic movements and tendency to step into the road without looking are American tourists on foot... Was that really necessary? The racial stereotype detracts from your your argument, and frankly, one erratic pedestrian looks the same as another to a fast moving cyclist, much as one erratic cyclist looks the same as another to a driver.
"American" is not a race. If anything it's the opposite.
And that's assuming that the word "race" has any value at all when describing humans.
Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
#107As a keen cyclist (I'm building http://www.cyclinganalytics.com/ ), I wish we didn't have mandatory helmet laws, but there are a lot of points on both sides of the argument worth pondering. * Making helmets mandatory makes cycling look dangerous. What other things do you wear a helmet while doing? Between this, ruining peoples' hair, not looking as chic, and the inconvenience of it, helmets discourage people from cyc…
In regards to your last point:
http://bikeportland.org/2012/09/05/bob-huckaby-moves-forward...
Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the "anti-helmet" studies and arguments I've seen aren't particularly anti-helmet in principle, but rather just make the case that the benefits of wearing a helmet apply equally to pedestrians and automobile drivers/passengers. The argument isn't that helmets can prevent head injuries while riding a bike. The argument is that if there are laws or social stigma around bicycle helmets, then they should apply eq…
> the benefits of wearing a helmet apply equally to pedestrians and automobile drivers/passengers Cycling is about six times more likely to kill you, per hour, than driving. So while helmets in cars would help some, the case for them on bikes is stronger.
I would also like to see some evidence for this wild claim.
Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
#109Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't say they're widespread in Europe, but I moved from the SF Bay Area to Copenhagen, and they're certainly a big factor here. The "bicycle highways", completely separated and wide lanes that form major arteries through the city, make it much easier to bike to work from most places, without danger of car interference, or of being "doored" by parked cars opening their doors. Some other efforts: 1) the traffic l…
Doesn't Copenhagen also structure its traffic protocols around bicycle commuters? For instance, letting cyclists go on a green light several seconds before cars, in order to ensure that nearby drivers can see them? Copenhagen has done studies [1] indicating that every mile driven accounts for some net economic loss (due to the harmful health effects of sedentary lifestyles, pollution, the cost to the commuter of gas/…
The government has an economic incentive, since it's financially responsible for the health care costs for all of it's citizens. The US isn't fully responsible.
Re: To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The only traffic that actually poses a regular challenge because of their erratic movements and tendency to step into the road without looking are American tourists on foot... Was that really necessary? The racial stereotype detracts from your your argument, and frankly, one erratic pedestrian looks the same as another to a fast moving cyclist, much as one erratic cyclist looks the same as another to a driver.
"American" is not a race. If anything it's the opposite.
It's definitely a culture! In america although, the concept of race still persists everywhere, including government forums which split people's choices into appearance strains and not ethnicities or cultures.