Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet • Hacker News Board

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#51

Post by Tomte » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:06 AM UTC

stevenh wrote: post #40

Tomte wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I did: having your skull cracked open and your brain distributed on the pavement is certainly worse than having some strain put on your neck.

Both can be lethal. The former is very much so, the latter usually not.

No-helmet crowd claims the severity is the the other way around.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#52

Post by fsloth » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:06 AM UTC

jackvalentine wrote: post #34

brianbarker wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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)."

I call bullshit on helmet use reducing physical activity. I would claim any helmet related issues as excuses for lazyness.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#53

Post by jrockway » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:06 AM UTC

nikisweeting wrote: post #36

mkonecny wrote: post #11

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.

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…

"PER 100,000" doesn't cover the number of hours spent performing each activity.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#54

Post by justinpaulson » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:07 AM UTC

> Let’s first get one thing out of the way: if you get into a serious accident, wearing a helmet will probably save your life.

Well thanks for wrapping up the debate in the first sentence after your intro! If a helmet will save your life then why would you not wear it? It seems like your argument for wearing a helmet in the car is a lot better than your argument against wearing a bike helmet.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#55

Post by sdrothrock » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:08 AM UTC

nikisweeting wrote: post #48

sdrothrock wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ah, but this is the tricky moral question, do we enact a law that may decrease a large population's quality of life significantly, or do we enact one that doesn't, but allows for the death of a few? Arguably, the greater good is done by not enforcing helmet laws, because vastly more people will bike, and thus get more exercise, outweighing the few major accidents per year.

> do we enact a law that may decrease a large population's quality of life significantly

Before asking that question, I wonder how many people don't bike because of the helmet versus how many say that they don't bike because of the helmet but really would take any excuse.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#56

Post by Arelius » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:09 AM UTC

Among others, these two points scream of grasping at anything to throw at the argument:

> wearing a helmet may create a false sense of security and induce risk-taking that cyclists without head protection might not make.

> Bike helmets discourage cycling

We are not discussing if not wearing a helmet should be legal, A competent adult should be able to go base jumping, ride a motorcycle, or just bang their head against the pavement if they please, but that doesn't mean your not an idiot for doing it without any good reason.

But as he opens,

> Several of them asked me: Where is your bike helmet?

We're clearly discussing the validity of the choice as an individual to choose to not wear a helmet, and the argument that it induces risk-taking? Well consider that fact, and use your head and don't take extra-risk.

Or about discouraging cycling? Does the existence of helmets discourage cycling? Does me, or you wearing helmets discourage other people from cycling? The study at least says that mandatory helmet laws discourage cycling.

Now, if you choose to go base jumping for the adrenaline, to ride a motorcycle for the freedom, and thrill, fully aware and accepting of the risk, that's great, and better to you.

Similarly, if you want to ride without a helmet because it you think it makes you look cooler, you like the wind in your hair, prefer the convenience to the safety, or even if you are just trying to be different, a contrarian. Sure, do what you want. But stop fucking pretending it's because "It's safer".

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#57

Post by rdtsc » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:17 AM UTC

melvinmt wrote: post #31

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.

Exactly. Comparing Holland to US is like night and day (well with regional variations -- some cities try at least to build bike lanes).

> I dutifully wear the helmet here, while my Dutch friends laugh at me.

Better to be laughed at wearing a helmet than being laughed at while being a vegetable.

> The roads are not built for bicyclists

There is another more insidious element -- in some parts of the country, there is a negative aspect of motorist culture where motorists are irritated by and hate bicyclists. Really doesn't make any sense but if you go on tours through rural parts on a road bike, be prepared to be honked at and have beer cans thrown at you. I wouldn't be too shocked to hear that on a secluded country road you might end being a target and be specifically clipped or pushed off road.

That probably sounds totally ridiculous to our but that happened to two of my coworkers.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#58

Post by xxgreg » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:17 AM UTC

Arelius wrote: post #56

Among others, these two points scream of grasping at anything to throw at the argument: > wearing a helmet may create a false sense of security and induce risk-taking that cyclists without head protection might not make. > Bike helmets discourage cycling We are not discussing if not wearing a helmet should be legal, A competent adult should be able to go base jumping, ride a motorcycle, or just bang their head agains…

Did you read this bit:

Risk of head injury per million hours travelled

Cyclist - 0.41 Pedestrian - 0.80 Motor vehicle occupant - 0.46 Motorcyclist - 7.66

"but that doesn't mean your not an idiot for doing it without any good reason."

So by this logic someone not wearing a helmet while in a car is also an idiot ;)

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#59

Post by andrewfong » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:17 AM UTC

skierscott wrote: post #33

For 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…

> After thinking it over, I'm inclined to believe it matters what type of biking you're doing.

You should wear a helmet regardless. It's easy to misjudge. I remember seeing a cyclist at U.C. Berkeley laying on the ground with blood pooling around his head. No helmet. From what I can tell, he was zipping downhill and hit a water fountain. You might think that the middle of a college campus is a fairly safe place to bike given the lack of cars, but in truth, it can get dangerous pretty quickly. Lots of student walking around not paying attention and, in Berkeley's case, steep hills.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#60

Post by tempestn » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:18 AM UTC

fsloth wrote: post #45

D_Alex wrote: 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?

In what way does the need to wear a helmet reduce your capability of cycling? Last time I checked helmets were sold in the same shops as bikes.

Slight inconveniences most likely. If you commute by bike, you then need to carry the helmet around with you or risk it being stolen. You have helmet hair, which sounds trivial, but might be an issue for some people riding to work and such. Things like that. Nothing huge that I can think of, but I'm sure these things discourage cycling to some extent, for some people.