I never understood why adults in the US wear a helmet when they bike (I'm from Holland, no one does that) but now that I've been cycling in LA for a while… I understand. The roads are not built for bicyclists (this "bike map" exemplifies the issue: http://cl.ly/image/1L3E2H063l1u) and drivers are simply not aware. I dutifully wear the helmet here, while my Dutch friends laugh at me.
Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet
31–40 of 94 posts
Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet
#32One 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.
It's hard to tell from the abstract alone...
9.2 (95% CI = 7.5–11.3) for pedestrians, 6.4 (95% CI = 4.7–8.8) for un-helmeted cyclists
chance of traumatic brain injury as a pedestrian in an accident = 1.4 x the change of traumatic brain injury as a un-helmeted cyclist in an accident.
This seems to not at all take into account the probability of getting into the accident in the first place, which really makes the argument pretty moot.
Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet
#33For the past couple months, I've thought about John Gruber's stance against helmets. After thinking it over, I'm inclined to believe it matters what type of biking you're doing. Your helmet usage should vary if you're riding in the Tour de France or taking a NiceRide bike (rent by hour deal) around town. Ditto for riding in an area that very bicycle conscious (bike lanes, many bikers) vs not (busy street, curbed, etc).
If you're just beginning cycling, please use roads that are bicycle friendly. Use a road with a wide shoulder or a bike lane and slow traffic. Don't use the busiest curbed downtown street.
I speak as a severe traumatic brain injury survivor. I don't take any unnecessary risk, explicitly to avoid the chance of re-injury. Growing up around helmets as the son of two ski patrollers, wearing a helmet is a part of life. It does not inhibit my riding and while drivers might be less careful around me, I won't take that risk.
> Children and toddlers on foot are far more likely to receive traumatic brain injuries than cyclists
A traumatic brain injury is, at best, a severe concussion[1] and worst case can result in death or a coma that lasts for months. I would just like to make that clear.
[1]:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_brain_injury#Severit...
Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet
#34There 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?
"compulsory bicycle helmet laws reduce the overall quality of life" So...compulsory seat belt laws reduce the overall quality of life? Say what?
Why did you ignore the next part?
"(with the main mechanism being reduction of physical activity, and resultant deterioration in health)."
Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet
#35[deleted]
Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet
#36One 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.
If I understand correctly, your counter-argument is that this statistic is has no bearing because they fail to divide the total number of Traumatic Brain Injuries by the total number of cyclists, making the comparison of total TBIs for cyclists being 1.4x more than TBIs for pedestrians useless because there are more peds than cyclists.
If that's what you're saying, you didn't read the actual study before posting! In the second paragraph of the abstract for the 2006 french study, they clearly state "The annual incidence and mortality of severe TBI were 6.4 PER 100,000 (95% CI = 4.7–8.8) for un-helmeted cyclists"
The important part being: PER 100,000. Making your counter-argument invalid.
Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet
#37As ridership in a given community increases, everyone's quality of life goes up. In such cases, increased driver awareness and reduced biker isolation increases safety for everyone -- drivers and pedestrians included.
Slowing cars down on streets where bikers and pedestrians are present will save many lives, mostly those in cars, additionally some who are not.
Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet
#383D PIE CHART!!!!
Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet
#39One 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.
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…
THEY DO CONTROL FOR PERCENTAGE!
read the paper he quoted (emphasis mine):
"The severe TBI of 1238 patients were described. The annual incidence and mortality of severe TBI were, respectively, 13.7 per 100,000 and 5.3 per 100,000. The fatality rate increased from 20% in childhood to 71% over 75-year-old. Compared to restrained car occupants, the odds ratio for having a severe TBI was 18.1 (95% confidence interval, CI = 12.8–25.5) for un-helmeted motorcyclists, 9.2 (95% CI = 7.5–11.3) for pedestrians, 6.4 (95% CI = 4.7–8.8) for un-helmeted cyclists, 3.9 (95% CI = 3.1–4.8) for unrestrained car occupants and 2.8 (95% CI = 2.2–3.5) for helmeted motorcyclists."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457505...
Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You supplied pejoratives, but not a single counterargument.