Live data from Hacker News

Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

howiechong.com

61–70 of 94 posts

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#61

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…

> Just 2 months ago ... she can't hold a job or go to college Oh god. How severe was it? A traumatic brain injury is something I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy (and I know how frustrating it is. I went through a severe TBI myself). And keep in mind that the healing is just beginning. Hell, at two months I was barely out of the hospital and the recovery took a full two years. I would guess she's not healing and has…

Her injuries are very similar to what you describe experiencing. Thank goodness she's 18 and healing fast. A lot of the visible damage was healed after a couple months. However despite graduating early from high school the doctors don't want her to start college yet.

I think in 2 years she will be fine. She will probably be a different person unfortunately. But it could be much worse.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#62

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.

As much as I disagree with his entire premise, he does give the number per million hours travelled right after that statistic. Cyclist - 0.41 Pedestrian - 0.80 Motor vehicle occupant - 0.46 Motorcyclist - 7.66 This does not mean I agree with his argument at all, and in fact it is pretty flawed logic to not do something that gives you 85-88% less chance of serious brain injury just because other activities may be more…

Does this mean you will now wear a helmet while driving, because it gives you 85-88% less chance of serious brain injury?

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#63
post #45
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.

The fact that they require money, maintenance, and effort to use? It may be minimal but it is there.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#64
post #58
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 ;)

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

That may also be true, assuming that we have similar data showing that helmets help as much in cars as they do on bikes.

Considering that car incidents are vastly different however, I suspect a helmet in a car incident doesn't have quite the same affect on head injuries.

And even if they have proven to be useful, the studies are almost certainly with helmets that much more closely resemble a motorcycle helmet. In which a case the convenience and comfort helmet have a much more significant impact, which plays directly into my comment of "without a good reason"

Additionally, I'd really like to see the paper where that statistic came from, sadly it doesn't give the numbers in the abstract. And while it's totally anecdotal I know a non-zero amount of people (directly or indirectly) who have had a head injury cycling, yet zero as a pedestrian. Despite knowing vastly more people who spend vastly more time walking. Saying that you're more likely to get a head accident walking is a pretty strong claim. Thus I'd like to see strong evidence.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#65
One can pour over all the meta analysis and rationalization to support a view, but until one has experienced the reality of head trauma, talk is cheap.

Here's more cheap talk: http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001855/INJ_wearing-a-helmet-...

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD005401/INJ_bicycle-helmet-le...

Over 20 years ago, i rarely wore a helmet commuting, mountain biking. When you're young, life seems forever. Luckily, I had some sense to listen to my colleagues one day and wear my helmet while doing my usual run across some headlands. I was volunteering at a clinic at the time and frankly I was weary of the MD and NPs digging me for NOT wearing my helmet (they have seen it all). My styrofoam plastic encased ANSI helmet literally saved my life sustaining a rt temporal crushing cavitation that left me only with the standard clavicular fracture and embedded asphalt abrasions to my nasal bridge, upper and lower limbs that still reminds me today. Moreover, the logistics of the Nat. Park Service, the nearby public hospital emergency room, the public university insurance and my saviors at that free medical clinic further eased my burdens from this unfortunate accident.

Believe me, I applaud changes in public policy encouraging mass transportation with biking right up there in the fore, however, when it comes to health behavior/policy look at more data.

and maybe consider a seat belt and stop smoking, too.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#66
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I disagree with his entire premise, he does give the number per million hours travelled right after that statistic. Cyclist - 0.41 Pedestrian - 0.80 Motor vehicle occupant - 0.46 Motorcyclist - 7.66 This does not mean I agree with his argument at all, and in fact it is pretty flawed logic to not do something that gives you 85-88% less chance of serious brain injury just because other activities may be more…

Does this mean you will now wear a helmet while driving, because it gives you 85-88% less chance of serious brain injury?

I am thinking about it, actually. My wife's mother died from a head injury in a car (in the 90s with no air bags). I hadn't thought about wearing a helmet in a car much until reading this, but my car is also equipped with air bags both in front of and beside me. Most of the statistics in this article were before side curtain airbags were as common, and the pie chart is from the 70s when air bags were not very common at all. So I have basically purchased a vehicle that has a lot of the helmet functionality built in. I would guess wearing a helmet with full air bags is probably more dangerous than not wearing one.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#67

For fucks sake, no. This is a meme that will not die. Howie's evidence (as nice a guy as he is) is based on a single study by a professor at the University of Bath. (And there's a PLOS One paper which disputes his conclusions too which is worth reading: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna... ) There is no compelling evidence to recommend that you shouldn't wear a bike helmet and PLENTY of ver…

He also cites an Australian study, which concludes risk of head injury per million hours travelled: Cyclist 0.41, Pedestrian 0.80, Motor vehicle occupant 0.46, Motorcyclist 7.66.

So if you want to be consistent you should update your comment to:

If you are cycling or driving wear a helmet.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#68
I have sold thousands of helmets in my time, they are an easy $$$ upsell with a new bicycle. The sale is simple, people even know the FUD and have heard all of the anecdotes. However, I don't wear a helmet myself and, when I sell someone a helmet, there are a few things I do for them:

Sell them a hi-viz tabard or coat. These are cheap (tabard) or slightly more than an average helmet (coat). The thinking is prevention better than cure. If you can avoid the impact in the first place then that is a better place to be. Hi-viz works, there are studies from 3M and plenty of others to prove it (if you think 3M are biased). In real life I have been ticked off for not wearing a helmet by riders in black - you know the ones - male, black clothing, helmet, smart-arse attitude.

Make sure the helmet fits. There isn't a lot of point being strangled by a blob of polystyrene foam. The straps have to be done up tight for the helmet to do what it is supposed to do. Generally I point customers away from the American brands - Giro, Bell - and towards the European brands because the straps are much better on the proper European brand helmets. They lie flat with the face and don't have buckles that catch the skin. Again, the no-viz riders in black protected by their magic helmets rarely do the straps up and you can flip the helmet up off their heads with a single finger.

Sell trouser clips and sensible footwear. In the UK leisure cyclists need to be aware that a denim trouser caught in the chain (or a shoelace) will throw you straight over the bars head first onto the road. Trouser clips (and stiff-soled cycle-specific shoes) prevent that from happening.

Sell lights that work. The front light is probably more important than the back. Just a basic flasher will do. Drivers are used to seeing idiot cyclists on the road in front of them riding without lights, they are easy enough to pick up with headlights. However, overtaking drivers do not expect some cyclist coming the other way. So lights are vital particularly during the spring/autumn/winter months.

For me, with interactions with customers, the helmet is also part of a use scenario. Mountain biking? Doing back-flips on a BMX? Road-racing? Small child on trailer? We actually have specialist and different helmets for those scenarios. Same for people returning to cycling from having not been on a bike for a while, we have affordable and easy to adjust helmets for those folk too.

My message is that cycle safety isn't just about wearing a helmet. Wearing a helmet does not make you safe any more than an airbag makes a motorist safe. True safety is to be found elsewhere, by being properly visible to all other road users and in riding a bike that isn't going to self destruct due to some unanticipated interaction with clothing. It is also in having the skills to ride a bike in a way that is neither cowardly or cocky.

If you ride the same route every day and know every pot hole, recognise the plates on the cars that pass you every day and have never had the slightest chance of a mishap you do have to think 'why am I carrying this block of polystyrene with me every day? Am I doing this just to please my car-driving mother?'

Finally if made-in-China polystyrene was that great they would make the fronts of trucks from the stuff.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#69
post #67

For fucks sake, no. This is a meme that will not die. Howie's evidence (as nice a guy as he is) is based on a single study by a professor at the University of Bath. (And there's a PLOS One paper which disputes his conclusions too which is worth reading: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjourna... ) There is no compelling evidence to recommend that you shouldn't wear a bike helmet and PLENTY of ver…

He also cites an Australian study, which concludes risk of head injury per million hours travelled: Cyclist 0.41, Pedestrian 0.80, Motor vehicle occupant 0.46, Motorcyclist 7.66. So if you want to be consistent you should update your comment to: If you are cycling or driving wear a helmet.

Okay, how's this :P

Cars have other safety equipment that make them unlike bicycles. These include airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones and the like.

If you are a driving, you should employ those safety devices when you do so.

Post reply on HN