Live data from Hacker News

Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

howiechong.com

21–30 of 94 posts

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#21
Since we're passing around flawed statistics, I'd like to share some anecdotes:

1. Just 2 months ago, my little sister was riding on a bike with no helmet. She was struck by a car. She flew off the bike, puncturing a lung, breaking a clavicle, several bones in her face, ribs, road rash, etc. She stopped breathing at the scene. After 1 week on the ventilator, she began breathing on her own. We knew there would likely be brain damage. She woke up confused and showing most of the signs of traumatic brain injury. Fortunately just a couple months later she's done with physical therapy. Due to nerve damage she will always have a little trouble walking, but most people won't notice it. Her face didn't need surgery since the fractures healed within millimeters of their original positions. The brain is the last thing to heal, and she is a different person than she used to be, most people who didn't know her before won't notice. She can't yet hold a job or go to college. If she had been wearing a helmet it's almost certain that she "only" would have to deal with the punctured lung and a few broken bones. Her not wearing a helment not only derailed her life, but it caused major problems in the lives of everyone around her. She has 250k in medical bills and the legal minumum on liability insurance here is 25k.

2. I snowboard regularly, I've seen people without helmets die on the groomed trails. I've hit my head a few times on logs that I really wouldn't want to be running into w/o a helmet. I've never seen someone who was wearing a helmet permanently disabled by an accident.

I used to think that if you didn't want to wear a helmet it was nobody's business but your own. But when one of those cars hits you, somebody's going to pay for those hundreds of thousands in medical bills, so if you don't wear a helmet please file a DNR ahead of time.

On a "lighter" note, I tend to agree that as a society we should focus on the most dangerous things first. Right now I have a feeling that's the intersection of driving and cell phones. We can probably save the most lives by focusing on driving safety.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Came here to point this out. This is a wildly popular argument for no-helmeters, but it's just flat out inaccurate. If you control for the percentage of people who drive, walk, and cycle, the percentage of head injuries from walking would pale in comparison to head injuries from cycling. This is like the statistic that says that 80% of all automobile accidents happen within 10 miles of home. It's not because the area…

no-helmeters?? Of course something like that exists. Of course there's a group of people up in arms over helmet use. Of course. Fuck me, nothing should surprise me anymore.

They are a rather big and rabid group on Germany.

Another argument by them: sure, having your skull split open when falling and hitting the head on the pavement is bad, but it's really bad when you're falling and instead of a clean hit, your neck is subjected to particularly strong rotational forces due to the helmet enlarging your head, thus moving the point of impact outwards.

They are a nasty bunch.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#23

Do you bike faster than you can run? Would you run, as fast as you can, head-first into a concrete wall? No, it does not make sense to bike without a helmet.

"Bad things only happen to other people. I would never crash my bike," is the idea, I think.

Statistically correct, I guess, but I'm a pessimist so wear a helmet anyway.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#24

One of the arguments is flawed: > According to a 2006 French study, pedestrians are 1.4 times more likely to receive a traumatic brain injury than unhelmeted cyclists. To fails to take into account that almost everyone walks, but very few cycle. The fact that it's only 1.4 times greater goes to show how common cycling head injuries actually are.

The usual control is "number of accidents per person-hour". It's really irresponsible to give data without that context.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#25

One of the arguments is flawed: > According to a 2006 French study, pedestrians are 1.4 times more likely to receive a traumatic brain injury than unhelmeted cyclists. To fails to take into account that almost everyone walks, but very few cycle. The fact that it's only 1.4 times greater goes to show how common cycling head injuries actually are.

I don't glean the same meaning you do. To be clear, you seem to be interpreting that statement as:

number of pedestrians injured = 1.4 × number of cyclists injured

while it reads to me as:

chance of injury while walking = 1.4 × chance of injury while cycling

which invalidates your point.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#26
Seems like there are lots of huge implicit qualifiers for this advice (I disagree with it pretty much completely, but this stuck out to me): The writer is in a country with one of the best road systems around, in a college town, in a town with lots of people that bike.

This is terrible terrible advice for any place that doesn't fit that criteria, and might as well be bad advice in the town that DOES fit this criteria.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#27
We're all missing the most important point here:

>> Bike helmets discourage cycling.

Yes! We should require all CAR drivers to wear helmets. Imagine how less likely drivers are to engage in road rage when they're wearing dorky helmets, not to mention safety on the road.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#28

Fascinating ideas... I was astounded to hear that drivers pass closer to bicyclers wearing a helmet. I'd be prone to do so myself, as they do induce a false sense of security for both parties. I also agree that perhaps drivers and pedestrians should wear helmets as well.

It could be that bare headed cyclists get noticed more? Where I live has mandatory helmet laws, so a helmeted cyclist is normal. If I see a bare headed cyclist, it strikes me as an unusual thing to see, and my attention is automatically drawn to him, and I will then carefully pass. If all cyclists were bare headed, maybe they wouldn't get noticed as much and the passing distance might reduce?

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#29

Fascinating ideas... I was astounded to hear that drivers pass closer to bicyclers wearing a helmet. I'd be prone to do so myself, as they do induce a false sense of security for both parties. I also agree that perhaps drivers and pedestrians should wear helmets as well.

If it's true (there are others here who say it's disputed), I would bet it is more because the driver trusts the cyclist more. The more the cyclist looks like she is a competent, experienced cyclist, the less you worry she will swerve toward you suddenly, fall over, or do some other random thing. The less you worry about that, the closer you feel you can get.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#30
post #2

There appears to be strong - IMO, conclusive - evidence that compulsory bicycle helmet laws reduce the overall quality of life (with the main mechanism being reduction of physical activity, and resultant deterioration in health). But repealing such laws seems hard, politically. Any ideas on how to support such a repeal?

I feel like being dead or brain damaged also reduces the overall quality of life.
Post reply on HN