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

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#91

Post by Jemaclus » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 4:05 PM UTC

nikisweeting wrote: post #39

Jemaclus wrote: post #15

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…

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,…

Per 100,000 what? People who cycle? People in general? Patients with head injuries?

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#92

Post by Jemaclus » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 4:08 PM 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 what? Per 100,000 people in the general population? Per 100,000 un-helmeted cyclists? Per 100,000 cyclists in general?

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#93

Post by Shorel » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 7:44 PM UTC

I would wear a helmet all day if it had an oculus rift integrated.

Re: Why it makes sense to bike without a helmet

#94

Post by freiheit » Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 11:28 PM 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.

Forget the theories and look at the data. When governments (such as Australia) have passed laws making helmet use mandatory, bicycling rates have gone down.