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

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#41

Post by justinpaulson » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 4:59 AM UTC

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.

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 dangerous.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#42

Post by xxgreg » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 4:59 AM UTC

I think the title is wrong - it should be:

"Why it makes sense to drive wearing a helmet"

Based on:

We can also approach it from the perspective of injuries per million hours from a 1996 Australian study looking at head injury risk before the beginning of any helmet laws:

Risk of head injury per million hours travelled

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

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#43

Post by spacehome » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:00 AM UTC

nickhalfasleep wrote: post #7

This is like saying "If I drive a car without a seatbelt, I will drive safer!" When I ride I wear a helmet and I've broken (full failure mode absorption at impact) two in accidents; one was my fault, the other a slick spot at night that surprised me. I'll keep wearing my and put them on my kids too.

Sounds like both accidents were your fault.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#44

Post by tsmash » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:00 AM UTC

Aw, this is cute.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#45

Post by fsloth » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:01 AM UTC

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.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#46

Post by rflrob » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:02 AM UTC

sdrothrock wrote: post #30

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?

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

Of course it does. But presumably most people who bike will never have a potentially fatal brain injuring accident, while having a healthier, more environmentally friendly, cheaper life (gas is expensive!), and on balance, it's a net positive expected benefit, for some set of plausible weights of pros and cons.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#47

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:03 AM UTC

shanemhansen wrote: post #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…

[deleted]

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#48

Post by nikisweeting » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:04 AM UTC

sdrothrock wrote: post #30

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?

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.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#49

Post by skierscott » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:05 AM UTC

shanemhansen wrote: post #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…

> 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 a ways to go; those effects are likely not permanent.

> Due to nerve damage she will always have a little trouble walking, but most people won't notice it.

The physical ailments are the visible ailments, but there's many more invisible ailments (at least in my case). How you think almost defines who you are and if that gets messed up, it's almost impossible to see and much more of a loss. In my view, it seems almost pointless to mention the lasting physical ailments: they're just small things you live with. They don't change who you fundamentally are.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#50

Post by rdtsc » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 5:05 AM UTC

I think the real danger is that smart people will find very complicated and contrived reasons (twist statistics) to justify whatever they want to justify.

The real reasons are often personal, simple and embarrassing things like: "I don't want to wear a helmet cause it is not cool", "I want to be contrarian", "I will create controversy and get a lot of discussion focused around me". And then it is just a matter of finding some statistics or anecdotes to support the position.

This happens in every sphere of life.

It seems this is a case of that. The danger is now not only to himself to also others if anyone starts listening and stops wearing helmets.

But I think in this case they went to far and the message contains its own destruction so to speak. They tried to hard to justify it and they appear too irrational to hopefully anyone take their advice to heart.