Helmets save more damage than they cause during accidents
Actually even that isn’t entirely clear. It’s clear that case studies don’t match population studies, but it’s not clear whether that’s because helmets cause as much damage as the prevent, or because they cause more accidents.
We also know that if unhelmeted cyclists died as often as helmeted cyclists claim that a helmet saved their life, then more cyclists would die than actually do. But we don’t know if that’s just because the “helmet saved my life” anecdotes overwhelming over-estimate the protective value of helmets (A helmet saved my life!), or because unhelmeted cyclists ride more safely, or because car drivers behave worse around helmeted cyclists. And in the latter case, we can’t always distinguish cause and effect - more cyclists wear helmets in places where drivers are more of a threat, as well as individual drivers (possibly) reacting differently to individual cyclists.
equation end up in favour of an overall benefit from helmet laws
helmets are so much more comfortable than in the early late 80s
Though there’s some evidence that the newer designs are less protective. But as with so much else, it’s unclear. It might just be that studies done in the 80s were more likely to over-estimate protection.
i’m an urban bike commuter in Chicago, and i can tell you that while wearing a bike helmet hasn’t prevented damage from a face plant, it does provide a high profile visual indicator to motorized vehicles that i am a biker. i replace my helmet every couple of years( the high impact foam that offers protection in bike and motorcycle helmets do degrade over time), and my preference is for bright fluorescent orange. one day while riding in the rain, a CTA bus pulls up next to me as if to pass me, the driver opens the door and shout out “i like your helmet! i can see you three blocks away!” before passing my up.
part of being safe when biking in an urban environment is being seen. if that means wearing a helmet and flashing lights, i’m happy to be visually obnoxious.
Biking is clearly more dangerous than walking. Bikes easily go more than 5mph/8kph and regularly go double that speed or more. They coast down hills picking up speed on their own. People have to learn to ride a device that works via a combination of balance, and the standard posture on road bikes is where your head is even with your bum. If you do go around a corner or obstacle and lose your balance, you have a large metal contraption to deal with as you fall, one that requires your hands to be on it (in most cases) to go forward.
I have a friend who I was biking with on a rails-to-trails path – no cars, few pedestrians, no obstacles, and by its nature of a rails-to-trails course there were some portions where the original rails were still flush with the asphalt. She was going a little slower than usual and went over this portion, which was about 40 deg offset from the direction of the trail. The angle caught her front wheel and she fell over. Nothing broken, bike and rider were fine other than a scrape, but when she landed her head hit the pavement because she landed on her shoulder and, well, necks are flexible. So her head whacked into the ground on a straight horizontal fall, and she ended up with a big dent in her helmet.
I have another friend who was biking on the street, in the “gutter” to avoid traffic, when a lady walked in front of him. He swerved to avoid her and due to the angle, he ended up being thrown somewhat and his head hit a streetsign. His temple hit the bolt that was holding the streetsign to the post, and although he’s alive and with no lasting injury, he was rushed to the hospital and reported remembering nothing of the 6 hours or so prior to the accident. He was not wearing a helmet because he was just doing a short trip (5 blocks) to work, something he’d done every day without even thinking about the risk.
We can have accidents all the time. Bikes are machines that introduce a new set of risks, and they have their own safety devices, one of which is a lightweight helmet. I’ve never heard arguments against helmets that amount to anything more than “I look dumb,” to which I always respond “You’re sitting on a bicycle, we all look kind of dumb on one.” My wife is harsher – “You’ll look pretty dumb when you’re a vegetable in the hospital.”
I figure it all comes down to money. If you teach people the dangers of traffic, they won’t participate in it. Less fuel, fewer vehicles, less money in the personal transport system. Ford, Shell, Castrol, Bridgestone, RainX - they’re all going to be unhappy with that. So most people live in happy ignorance, vaguely recalling in a semi-hypnotised state that they’ve read an accident statistic somewhere.
Ask random strangers how many people died or were seriously injured in vehicles last year. I bet no-one gets close.
Here riding without a helmet is good indicator of riding habits: you’ll find them going against traffic, in pedestrian walkways, cutting off cars, not signaling, etc.
Mostly the young and reckless or old and ignorant. I’m just waiting for natural selection.
This is another great example of perceived risk vs actual risk. What is “acceptable” risk? Should my definition out weigh yours? Look at the numbers objectively, is there really enough harm being done to pass laws, regulate this or that, etc. Do such law make any actual impact?
Personally, I think one should always wear a helmet on a motorcycle, and depending on where you are, a bicycle. But I don’t think we need a law for it. We are keeping the slow people artificially in the gene pool longer with nanny laws.
Sounds like a good idea, but the difference in cycling and general road culture would imo introduce many biases. I cycled for 15 years in NL and because almost everyone driving a car also rides a bike, drivers are more aware of bikes. There are more bikes on the road, so it’s easy to remember to look out for them. Driver education (learning to drive) is heavy on looking for bikes when you turn and when you open your door, etc. Also, cyclists in Holland are mostly not the “serious cyclist” mentioned in the article. We bike at a relatively sedate manner and mostly stop for red lights, etc. There are separate cycle paths almost everywhere in NL.
It’s actually hard to find the data! No clear, simple summary anywhere.
This though for 2012 Great Britain:
1,754 killed, and pedal cyclists increased their death rate, while motorbike deaths fell (education!)
23,039 seriously injured
195,723 casualties reported to the police
So 5 dead per day, 63 seriously injured, 535 injured in some way or other.
Well again, this is about the tradeoffs between safety and convenience. Modern cars already have a number of safety features built in: crumple zones that absorb impact, multiple airbags, and across the shoulder seatbelts. They do a reasonable job of protecting people (you will no longer fly out of your windshield) while still being comfortable enough for everyday use. This is similar to the compromise of an open face helmet. Also, if you want to look cool and splurge, you can just buy an airbag for your head and have an invisible helmet: http://www.hovding.com/en/how_it_works/
When you increase the risk, say at a track day or other motoring event, all participants are required to wear full face, fireproof helmets (usually snell certified). Take it a notch further and amateur/pro racing setups use: a full roll cage with foam padding, 5 or 6 point racing harness, (no airbags), hans device, helmet and fireproof racing suit. (Also, if you ever install a roll cage in your car, because it’s also your daily driver guess what? You need to wear a helmet all the time, as you can easily hit your head against the metal bars in a crash.)
Boris Johnson is a d**khead as far as I’m concerned. His blue lanes are pathetic, ineffectual and dangerous.
Bit I’m not talking about his half-assed advocacy, I’m talking about real, joined up, big government thinking about transport, urban planning, the environment.
For instance tell me why in many Scandinavian countries, people regularly take their kids to school and do the weekly shopping on bikes with trailers.
In the UK, if you carry 10 bags of groceries from Tescos in a bike trailer, people will think you’re some kind of loon.
Also, why do Londoners have to share the same roadspace with hulking 18 wheeled lorries. Surely this makes no logical sense, apart from the fact we don’t have any real pro-cycling policies in place at all?
It’s factual though. Contrast with the decline in motorcyclist deaths - they’re being more and more thoroughly educated in how to avoid being a KSI on the road. Cyclists aren’t.
You’re spot on. Boris I half admire because he’s such an adept vote-winner, despite what he does.
The blue-lane headlines etc are nicey-nicey feelings broadcast by the media to assist the big guy, rather than any kind of reflection of the cycling population. The whole cycling community story isn’t designed to get people cycling, it’s designed to win votes.
It’s utter insanity that 18 wheelers crunch around our streets.
It’s what Daneyul said: “So all the people who lobby for them, many citing personal tragedy, are all lying sacks of cynical shit. Got it.” & Why your arguments fall flat on their face.
