There's so many cyclists everywhere that you're always prepared for the dumbest cyclist ever to exist, which means you're always on guard and making sure there's not some guy trying to overtake...
There's so many cyclists everywhere that you're always prepared for the dumbest cyclist ever to exist, which means you're always on guard and making sure there's not some guy trying to overtake you from the right side while you are trying to turn right.
Also a terrible idea because other bikes won't be able to pass. I have found the best safety device is a bike trailer. It hangs out behind and is wider than you so a car would have to crush your...
Also a terrible idea because other bikes won't be able to pass. I have found the best safety device is a bike trailer. It hangs out behind and is wider than you so a car would have to crush your trailer before hitting you and they won't because they think the trailer has kids in it.
One thing I gleaned out of this, is how the took back their streets. We have (or had) a group called "Critical Mass" in our city that did exactly what they did, rode big, and snarled traffic,...
One thing I gleaned out of this, is how the took back their streets. We have (or had) a group called "Critical Mass" in our city that did exactly what they did, rode big, and snarled traffic, while traveling completely legally, just en masse.
Afterwards, new infrastructure was also built to accomodate bikes. Our planners have the design of bike paths down to a fine art. Currently, there's an active policy to increase the number of...
Afterwards, new infrastructure was also built to accomodate bikes. Our planners have the design of bike paths down to a fine art. Currently, there's an active policy to increase the number of 'cycling highways' between residential areas to facilitate better 20-40 minute commutes. I bike to my work in 25 minutes, of which almost 20 are over one of these perfectly smooth, bike-only asphalt roads :).
About the helmets: Also here [edit: in the Netherlands], kids are increasingly wearing helmets. And some parents seem to be increasingly wearing them as well (because the kids won't accept that...
About the helmets:
Also here [edit: in the Netherlands], kids are increasingly wearing helmets. And some parents seem to be increasingly wearing them as well (because the kids won't accept that only they need to wear them, I guess :-P). The increase of fast e-bikes is also contributing to more helmets.
Here (Australia) helmets are mandatory. I’ve been fined before for not wearing one. It is a frustrating issue, because stats show that the number of bike riders dropped when the helmet laws were...
Here (Australia) helmets are mandatory. I’ve been fined before for not wearing one.
It is a frustrating issue, because stats show that the number of bike riders dropped when the helmet laws were introduced, and more bike riders on the road is really the best thing for improving safety for everyone. Also, some studies show that drivers are more careful around cyclists who don’t have a helmet.
The weird thing is, if you ride in Australia without a helmet, strangers will regularly lecture you about it as well. It’s built into the culture now.
The thing is, even if every road I rode was bike-only and lovely and smooth (and how I wish it were) - I'd still wear a helmet. If I do fall off, I don't really want to bounce my unprotected head...
The thing is, even if every road I rode was bike-only and lovely and smooth (and how I wish it were) - I'd still wear a helmet. If I do fall off, I don't really want to bounce my unprotected head off tarmac even at low speeds, let alone at 40mph.
It's a bit like being afraid of sharks if you're swimming in water which has sharks in, so you make sure you don't have any open cuts before you get in the water and you've got your shark...
It's a bit like being afraid of sharks if you're swimming in water which has sharks in, so you make sure you don't have any open cuts before you get in the water and you've got your shark repellent handy. It's entirely rational to be scared of sharks when you're going somewhere sharks are, and take sensible steps to make sure they don't bite your leg off. So I wear a helmet.
Just because other, unrelated, activities also should wear helmets (and if I did any of those I'd wear a helmet then too) doesn't change the fact that bike helmets save lives.
Eh, that's a very incomplete study. Too many factors not being considered there. Also they offer no comment made on which is the more useful metric, fatalities/time or fatalities/distance, because...
Eh, that's a very incomplete study. Too many factors not being considered there. Also they offer no comment made on which is the more useful metric, fatalities/time or fatalities/distance, because they give very different results.
Also I suspect that as a means of avoiding injury and/or death, not stepping in front of cars is probably a more effective approach, as a pedestrian. It's fairly easy to not get run over most of the time, whereas many more things which might cause crashes are out of my control as a cyclist, so a helmet makes more sense there.
Although as it happens yes, I often do wear a helmet when walking around the city. Because I've generally cycled there and I quite often just keep it on because I'm getting back on my bike in a few minutes anyway, so de-gearing seems a bit pointless. Good to know I'm being that extra bit safer, eh?
The point is, the “danger” of head injuries from bike riding is usually overstated. It’s actually on a very similar level to the danger of walking. Which one is technically more dangerous isn’t...
The point is, the “danger” of head injuries from bike riding is usually overstated. It’s actually on a very similar level to the danger of walking. Which one is technically more dangerous isn’t really the point. The point is that no one considers walking to be a dangerous activity, but people do see riding as a dangerous activity.
That’s why I think the other comment comparing wearing a helmet to being afraid of sharks was a valid point.
I’m not trying to talk you out of wearing a helmet. I’m just arguing against mandatory helmet laws.
Who said walking wasn't dangerous? Of course it is, the numbers are very clear on that. It's not as dangerous as cycling, but any activity where squishy humans share space with, or are even...
Who said walking wasn't dangerous? Of course it is, the numbers are very clear on that. It's not as dangerous as cycling, but any activity where squishy humans share space with, or are even adjacent to, cars is very obviously dangerous. Almost every pedestrian knows this, because the majority of people don't wander into the road without looking. They know they're in danger. It's entirely different to being scared of sharks.
But it's not a question of how people see risks, it's about how that risk is manifest. Cycling isn't really that dangerous, relatively, but the risk you do take on a bike can be vastly reduced by wearing a helmet. It's a sensible and easy means of risk reduction, why would anyone not wear one? 37% of cyclists from this study could have survived if they'd been wearing a helmet
Same way crossing the road as a pedestrian isn't dangerous provided you take sensible risk reduction steps while doing so. When crossing the road the sensible move isn't wearing a helmet - because as the 'study' you initially linked says, most pedestrians don't die from head injuries but from 'multiple injuries' - it's checking carefully before stepping out so you don't get hit by a car in the first place. That doesn't work so well while cycling because the risks are different. If you trip over while walking you're not getting a concussion (or worse), if I stack my bike at even 25mph that's a very different situation.
I didn't think you were trying to talk me out of anything, btw. Not that I'd listen. :)
Also, just for the sake of argument - if you want a rationale for mandatory helmet laws, the treatment of your largely avoidable head injuries in a bike crash would get paid for by my taxes (well, not me personally, I live on the other side of the world, but you know what I mean). You could say that means you owe it to society to reduce your risk in any reasonable way, and society has a right to demand you do so if you don't volunteer to. Bike helmets are cheap and easy to use and they significantly reduce injury rates.
I feel like this narrative where helmets are 'easy to use' and 'cost nothing', and 'why would anyone not wear one' just does not take into consideration the lived experiences of women. I am very...
I feel like this narrative where helmets are 'easy to use' and 'cost nothing', and 'why would anyone not wear one' just does not take into consideration the lived experiences of women.
I am very conscious that this argument will sound vain, but the simple fact is that society places different expectations on women than men when it comes to styling our hair - especially in an office setting.
I am absolutely not saying that women care about their looks and men don't. I know men who had to shave their faces for the safety face-masks they wear for work, and they were extremely unhappy about it as well. Historians also believe that some ancient Chinese soldiers refused to wear pants on horses (because in their culture pants looked dumb), even when it came to fighting for their survival (source ).
It is human to want to look good, the only gender difference in this case is that, generally speaking, the male idea of 'looking good' works well with helmets. If helmets were as inconvenient for men as they are for women, I bet we'd be seeing a different culture around helmet use and/or bike riding.
Of course, the way some women keep their hair won't be affected by a helmet. But in general, for people who want bikes to be a day-to-day commuting option, helmets are an obstacle that women need to work around that men don't even have to think about.
Also, just for the sake of argument - if you want a rationale for mandatory helmet laws, the treatment of your largely avoidable head injuries in a bike crash would get paid for by my taxes (well, not me personally, I live on the other side of the world, but you know what I mean). You could say that means you owe it to society to reduce your risk in any reasonable way, and society has a right to demand you do so if you don't volunteer to. Bike helmets are cheap and easy to use and they significantly reduce injury rates.
I would be fine with this argument if the same rationale were applied to car use. You owe it to society to reduce the risk of injury (to both yourself, and to others) and the overall health of the city (via air pollution) to not drive a car unless it is completely necessary.
Hairstyle should not be the reason not to wear a helmet. I personally know men and women with long hair who (seemingly) easily deal with their hair. Most often a ponytail or a buff/scarf. A quick...
Hairstyle should not be the reason not to wear a helmet. I personally know men and women with long hair who (seemingly) easily deal with their hair. Most often a ponytail or a buff/scarf.
A quick search also brings up lots of articles on this topic.
It's bizzare that looks should take precedent over safety. I knew an old gentleman who made a similar "inconvenience" argument about seat belts and never wore one. This is exactly analogous.
Your 5/6 paragraphs are about how it's more inconvenient for women than men to wear a helmet. If you're making another point, it is unclear. Can you state it as a single clause?
Your 5/6 paragraphs are about how it's more inconvenient for women than men to wear a helmet. If you're making another point, it is unclear. Can you state it as a single clause?
I struggled immensely with my hair and helmet use. There was no way once I got to work to make my hair look professional again unless I wanted to wet it down and start from scratch, which I was...
I struggled immensely with my hair and helmet use. There was no way once I got to work to make my hair look professional again unless I wanted to wet it down and start from scratch, which I was unable to do at my place of work. There has been a lot written on the subject precisely because it is a big problem for women.
I'm assuming you didn't read that article beyond the abstract... because even with paid access to it it's only an abstract, so we have no idea what that study actually did or what the authors...
I'm assuming you didn't read that article beyond the abstract... because even with paid access to it it's only an abstract, so we have no idea what that study actually did or what the authors thoughts were.
edit: and here's another one: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2018.06.002
Conclusions
Head injuries in cyclists are often considered to be an important cause of road travel death, but this depends on the metric used for assessing importance. Pedestrians and drivers account for five and four times the number of fatal head injuries as cyclists. No-one is calling for pedestrians to wear helmets although the fatal head injury rates are similar for cyclists and pedestrians. The rate is higher for cyclists than pedestrians by time travelled and is higher for pedestrians than cyclists using distance travelled.
edit: and here's another one:
4.5. Conclusions
The answer to the question ‘Are head injuries to cyclists an important cause of death in road travel fatalities?’ is ‘it depends’. If the intention is reduce the number of fatal head injuries, the focus should be on pedestrians and drivers, who account for five and four times as many deaths respectively from head injuries as cyclists. Overall, fatality rates from head injuries are no more important in cyclists than in pedestrians, depending on whether time or distance is used as the denominator. If the focus is to reduce the fatality rate from head injury – or indeed from any other type of road travel injury– then road danger reduction for all road users should be the goal.
If cherry-picking doesn't work the first time, try, try again! No individual study, let alone a concluding paragraph—in any discipline—is sufficient to base policy on. It's a strawman to base...
If cherry-picking doesn't work the first time, try, try again! No individual study, let alone a concluding paragraph—in any discipline—is sufficient to base policy on.
It's a strawman to base safety/health solely on fatalities from head injuries. That's an extreme case where only engineering for prevention can be effective. There's a whole range of other trauma to acknowledge.
This thread was about the perceived safety of bike riding, not public policy. You are right - policy is a far broader issue. But I don't really have any interest in discussing it with you any...
This thread was about the perceived safety of bike riding, not public policy. You are right - policy is a far broader issue. But I don't really have any interest in discussing it with you any further. There's no point, you aren't reading my posts properly, and you've already dug in your heels.
Except that your first comment in this comment thread referred to Australian bike helmet laws... Please reflect on your hypocrisy—you've dug your heels in against several others here.
This thread was about the perceived safety of bike riding, not public policy.
Except that your first comment in this comment thread referred to Australian bike helmet laws...
Here (Australia) helmets are mandatory. I’ve been fined before for not wearing one.
It is a frustrating issue, because stats show that the number of bike riders dropped when the helmet laws were introduced [...]
Please reflect on your hypocrisy—you've dug your heels in against several others here.
Sure, but nobody is saying that helmets can replace safe practices. Helmets won't prevent a concussion (maybe reduce the severity) but it certainly will reduce the damage to you e.g. scraping or...
Sure, but nobody is saying that helmets can replace safe practices. Helmets won't prevent a concussion (maybe reduce the severity) but it certainly will reduce the damage to you e.g. scraping or puncturing from sharp or rough objects. Head injuries are not limited to the most severe type.
That’s fine, but I find them extremely unnecessary when all I want to do is ride at relatively low speeds along a cycle way, and I resent the government for forcing me to wear one
That’s fine, but I find them extremely unnecessary when all I want to do is ride at relatively low speeds along a cycle way, and I resent the government for forcing me to wear one
That does seem counterproductive. The fewer barriers to biking, the better. I'm glad the policy of choice here is mainly to make the bike lanes safer (separation from cars, improved visibility for...
That does seem counterproductive. The fewer barriers to biking, the better.
I'm glad the policy of choice here is mainly to make the bike lanes safer (separation from cars, improved visibility for bikers and car drivers on intersections, traffic lights with wait-indicators, etc.).
I can understand the argument against legislating mandatory helmet usage (though I'm not sure exactly where I fall on the issue), but on an individual level I feel the same way I feel about...
I can understand the argument against legislating mandatory helmet usage (though I'm not sure exactly where I fall on the issue), but on an individual level I feel the same way I feel about wearing a car seatbelt: It takes very, very, very little effort to wear a bike helmet, and it dramatically reduces likelihood of fatal or otherwise serious head and brain injuries.
It was weird to me that not wearing a helmet was such a large part of cycling culture in the Netherlands, so I am glad to hear that kids are starting to wear them more. I can understand wanting to feel like you don't have to cycle defensively (and I'm used to cycling on a road bike, so maybe the city cruisers are also conducive to lower rates of serious injury?), but it seems odd to me to so casually toss away such simple, inexpensive, and effective safety equipment.
EDIT: I guess I should mention I'm writing from New York, where it is mandatory that all riders under 14 wear helmets, but adult bike helmets are a bit of a polarizing subject.
Cycling in the Netherlands is very different from anywhere in the states, even in big cities. Especially in big cities, I'd say, because also there most of the bike-lanes are separated from car...
Cycling in the Netherlands is very different from anywhere in the states, even in big cities. Especially in big cities, I'd say, because also there most of the bike-lanes are separated from car traffic, relatively wide, well paved, etc.
The difference between a helmet and not is sort of the difference between free plastic bags with your shopping and them costing $0,05. It's not a significant difference, but it is a HUGE difference.
We just step out, step on, and go. Literally nothing to prepare or think about. We go to school, work, to dates, anywhere. You want to arrive at the bar for a date with your hair smushed under a helmet? I don't. And I don't want to carry a helmet when I'm in the supermarket. Plus, many rides are 5 or 10 minutes. Getting and stashing your gear starts to become a longer task, relatively, then when you only bike for serious trips. And I may get on and off 5-10 times on an eventful saturday, in all different kinds of places. A helmet would suck big time.
All this is compounded by the fact that in a safer environment, the risk of head-injury is so low that the cost-benefit analysis shifts quite a bit anyway. I know literally no-one who injured themselves seriously by falling off their bike or getting hit by a car.
Eh, I don't care really... I wear my helmet while cycling at high speeds for the same reason I wear seatbelts, wear a helmet when skiing, wear safety glasses when launching model rockets or...
You want to arrive at the bar for a date with your hair smushed under a helmet? I don't.
Eh, I don't care really... I wear my helmet while cycling at high speeds for the same reason I wear seatbelts, wear a helmet when skiing, wear safety glasses when launching model rockets or soldering.
The risks of any of those activities is low... But, when that very rare incident does happen, it's with catastrophic results, ie I like my cognitive functions, and I like my eyesight.
For what it's worth, I'd guess the risk to an averagely competent biker in the Netherlands is way lower than for any of those activities. I wouldn't be surprised if more people get seriously hurt...
The risks of any of those activities is low
For what it's worth, I'd guess the risk to an averagely competent biker in the Netherlands is way lower than for any of those activities. I wouldn't be surprised if more people get seriously hurt falling of chairs and ladders inside the home. I don't put on a helmet when I'm DIYing either :-P
The risk of getting a blob of solder in the eye is pretty low, but all it takes is once to lose an eye... So, I wear goggles when soldering. I wear a helmet when I'm hoisting antennas... The risk...
The risk of getting a blob of solder in the eye is pretty low, but all it takes is once to lose an eye... So, I wear goggles when soldering.
I wear a helmet when I'm hoisting antennas... The risk of the antenna falling on me is pretty close to nil, but it only takes once to lose a good amount of cognitive function.
I guess this actually basically is enough to explain it for me. I know a number of people personally who've either fallen at high speeds or been hit by a car and only saved by a helmet (and...
I know literally no-one who injured themselves seriously by falling off their bike or getting hit by a car.
I guess this actually basically is enough to explain it for me. I know a number of people personally who've either fallen at high speeds or been hit by a car and only saved by a helmet (and presumably you know a lot more people that consistently bike than I do!); it seems like infrastructure and culture really does make a lot more of a difference than I was anticipating.
It takes little effort for men to wear bike helmets. For women (depending on how long our hair is and how we prefer to style it) helmets can be a serious inconvenience if we want to use a bike to...
but on an individual level I feel the same way I feel about wearing a car seatbelt: It takes very, very, very little effort to wear a bike helmet, and it dramatically reduces likelihood of fatal or otherwise serious head and brain injuries.
It takes little effort for men to wear bike helmets. For women (depending on how long our hair is and how we prefer to style it) helmets can be a serious inconvenience if we want to use a bike to commute day-to-day.
Also, I prefer to compare bike helmets to wearing a helmet in a car, not to seatbelts, since a lot of stats suggest that people in car accidents account for most head injuries. All arguments for helmets on bikes apply to helmets in cars.
This is an absurd argument and a complete lack of understanding of basic physics. Head injuries are not limited to the most severe traumas. On a bike, your head is completely exposed to the...
Also, I prefer to compare bike helmets to wearing a helmet in a car, not to seatbelts, since a lot of stats suggest that people in car accidents account for most head injuries.
This is an absurd argument and a complete lack of understanding of basic physics. Head injuries are not limited to the most severe traumas. On a bike, your head is completely exposed to the environment; in a car, you have a durable shell to protect you, not to mention a crumple zone and an airbag to reduce the impact. With or without a helmet, in the case of an impact, you're getting a concussion, that is guaranteed.
Having your raw head hit a rock/asphalt/car vs having the force greatly reduced (via absorption by the helmet fracturing) makes a massive difference. Let alone having glass and other debris embedded in your skull/tearing through your scalp.
I'm all for choice, but I wish choices were reflected in the kind of health care coverage people get.
Sorry, I think it's very rude to accuse me of a 'a complete lack of understanding of basic physics', when you go on to talk about the 'durable shell' of a car protecting people vs. bike riders...
Sorry, I think it's very rude to accuse me of a 'a complete lack of understanding of basic physics', when you go on to talk about the 'durable shell' of a car protecting people vs. bike riders hitting their head on the outside environment.
The 'durable shell' of a car is what passengers hit their heads on. Physics doesn't care if you hit your head on the inside of a car vs. the outside environment.
Helmets are worn in cars when they are raced for sport. They are valid protective gear for car driving.
I don't want to get dragged into defending a point I never made. I never said that the risk for riding and the risk for driving is the same. But both modes of transport involve a risk of head injury, and car passengers do account for most head injuries.
And so I completely stand by my point. You shouldn't compare wearing a bike helmet to putting on a seatbelt in a car, you should compare it to wearing a helmet in a car.
No, that's what airbags are for, especially side-impact. You are also omitting the part about seatbelts that keep you in your seat (at least when moving forward, back and up), and also crumple...
The 'durable shell' of a car is what passengers hit their heads on. Physics doesn't care if you hit your head on the inside of a car vs. the outside environment.
No, that's what airbags are for, especially side-impact. You are also omitting the part about seatbelts that keep you in your seat (at least when moving forward, back and up), and also crumple zones—there's a reason why modern sports cars disintegrate when they're in a car crash and why electric vehicles (or mid-engine?) are safer: crumple zones. Your helmet has the same function. It reduces the force to the brain. My comment on physics stands.
I don't want to get dragged into defending a point I never made. I never said that the risk for riding and the risk for driving is the same. But both modes of transport involve a risk of head injury, and car passengers do account for most head injuries.
I too made no such point. I was referring to your ridiculous argument that cars+helmets vs helmets is a valid comparison.
I'm coming at this from a dutch perspective so it can be different in your country. If you fall you won't necessarily hit your head though. On a bike you can quite easily break your fall. Sure...
I'm coming at this from a dutch perspective so it can be different in your country.
If you fall you won't necessarily hit your head though.
On a bike you can quite easily break your fall.
Sure it's safer to wear a helmet, but the added safety is not worth the extra hassle.
When driving your car it would be safer to not drive on the highway, since you will keep your speed down thus reducing the amount of force during a collision making it safer.
However taking the slower longer route is probably not worth the hassle.
Just like having to drag around a helmet all day, isn't worth it for most Dutch people.
From the article:
This is key. It's just as much the Dutch style of driving cars as the way we ride our bikes.
There's so many cyclists everywhere that you're always prepared for the dumbest cyclist ever to exist, which means you're always on guard and making sure there's not some guy trying to overtake you from the right side while you are trying to turn right.
I feel for you. That sounds like so much trouble to go through.
Have you ever visited The Netherlands or are you planning to?
That is brilliant!
Also a terrible idea because other bikes won't be able to pass. I have found the best safety device is a bike trailer. It hangs out behind and is wider than you so a car would have to crush your trailer before hitting you and they won't because they think the trailer has kids in it.
One thing I gleaned out of this, is how the took back their streets. We have (or had) a group called "Critical Mass" in our city that did exactly what they did, rode big, and snarled traffic, while traveling completely legally, just en masse.
Afterwards, new infrastructure was also built to accomodate bikes. Our planners have the design of bike paths down to a fine art. Currently, there's an active policy to increase the number of 'cycling highways' between residential areas to facilitate better 20-40 minute commutes. I bike to my work in 25 minutes, of which almost 20 are over one of these perfectly smooth, bike-only asphalt roads :).
About the helmets:
Also here [edit: in the Netherlands], kids are increasingly wearing helmets. And some parents seem to be increasingly wearing them as well (because the kids won't accept that only they need to wear them, I guess :-P). The increase of fast e-bikes is also contributing to more helmets.
Here (Australia) helmets are mandatory. I’ve been fined before for not wearing one.
It is a frustrating issue, because stats show that the number of bike riders dropped when the helmet laws were introduced, and more bike riders on the road is really the best thing for improving safety for everyone. Also, some studies show that drivers are more careful around cyclists who don’t have a helmet.
The weird thing is, if you ride in Australia without a helmet, strangers will regularly lecture you about it as well. It’s built into the culture now.
The thing is, even if every road I rode was bike-only and lovely and smooth (and how I wish it were) - I'd still wear a helmet. If I do fall off, I don't really want to bounce my unprotected head off tarmac even at low speeds, let alone at 40mph.
Helmets aren't just for protection from cars.
It's a bit like being afraid of sharks if you're swimming in water which has sharks in, so you make sure you don't have any open cuts before you get in the water and you've got your shark repellent handy. It's entirely rational to be scared of sharks when you're going somewhere sharks are, and take sensible steps to make sure they don't bite your leg off. So I wear a helmet.
Just because other, unrelated, activities also should wear helmets (and if I did any of those I'd wear a helmet then too) doesn't change the fact that bike helmets save lives.
Studies have shown that pedestrians have comparable rates of head injuries to cyclists. Would you wear a helmet to walk around the city?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140518302731
Eh, that's a very incomplete study. Too many factors not being considered there. Also they offer no comment made on which is the more useful metric, fatalities/time or fatalities/distance, because they give very different results.
Also I suspect that as a means of avoiding injury and/or death, not stepping in front of cars is probably a more effective approach, as a pedestrian. It's fairly easy to not get run over most of the time, whereas many more things which might cause crashes are out of my control as a cyclist, so a helmet makes more sense there.
Although as it happens yes, I often do wear a helmet when walking around the city. Because I've generally cycled there and I quite often just keep it on because I'm getting back on my bike in a few minutes anyway, so de-gearing seems a bit pointless. Good to know I'm being that extra bit safer, eh?
The point is, the “danger” of head injuries from bike riding is usually overstated. It’s actually on a very similar level to the danger of walking. Which one is technically more dangerous isn’t really the point. The point is that no one considers walking to be a dangerous activity, but people do see riding as a dangerous activity.
That’s why I think the other comment comparing wearing a helmet to being afraid of sharks was a valid point.
I’m not trying to talk you out of wearing a helmet. I’m just arguing against mandatory helmet laws.
Who said walking wasn't dangerous? Of course it is, the numbers are very clear on that. It's not as dangerous as cycling, but any activity where squishy humans share space with, or are even adjacent to, cars is very obviously dangerous. Almost every pedestrian knows this, because the majority of people don't wander into the road without looking. They know they're in danger. It's entirely different to being scared of sharks.
But it's not a question of how people see risks, it's about how that risk is manifest. Cycling isn't really that dangerous, relatively, but the risk you do take on a bike can be vastly reduced by wearing a helmet. It's a sensible and easy means of risk reduction, why would anyone not wear one? 37% of cyclists from this study could have survived if they'd been wearing a helmet
Same way crossing the road as a pedestrian isn't dangerous provided you take sensible risk reduction steps while doing so. When crossing the road the sensible move isn't wearing a helmet - because as the 'study' you initially linked says, most pedestrians don't die from head injuries but from 'multiple injuries' - it's checking carefully before stepping out so you don't get hit by a car in the first place. That doesn't work so well while cycling because the risks are different. If you trip over while walking you're not getting a concussion (or worse), if I stack my bike at even 25mph that's a very different situation.
I didn't think you were trying to talk me out of anything, btw. Not that I'd listen. :)
Also, just for the sake of argument - if you want a rationale for mandatory helmet laws, the treatment of your largely avoidable head injuries in a bike crash would get paid for by my taxes (well, not me personally, I live on the other side of the world, but you know what I mean). You could say that means you owe it to society to reduce your risk in any reasonable way, and society has a right to demand you do so if you don't volunteer to. Bike helmets are cheap and easy to use and they significantly reduce injury rates.
I feel like this narrative where helmets are 'easy to use' and 'cost nothing', and 'why would anyone not wear one' just does not take into consideration the lived experiences of women.
I am very conscious that this argument will sound vain, but the simple fact is that society places different expectations on women than men when it comes to styling our hair - especially in an office setting.
I am absolutely not saying that women care about their looks and men don't. I know men who had to shave their faces for the safety face-masks they wear for work, and they were extremely unhappy about it as well. Historians also believe that some ancient Chinese soldiers refused to wear pants on horses (because in their culture pants looked dumb), even when it came to fighting for their survival (source ).
It is human to want to look good, the only gender difference in this case is that, generally speaking, the male idea of 'looking good' works well with helmets. If helmets were as inconvenient for men as they are for women, I bet we'd be seeing a different culture around helmet use and/or bike riding.
Of course, the way some women keep their hair won't be affected by a helmet. But in general, for people who want bikes to be a day-to-day commuting option, helmets are an obstacle that women need to work around that men don't even have to think about.
I would be fine with this argument if the same rationale were applied to car use. You owe it to society to reduce the risk of injury (to both yourself, and to others) and the overall health of the city (via air pollution) to not drive a car unless it is completely necessary.
Hairstyle should not be the reason not to wear a helmet. I personally know men and women with long hair who (seemingly) easily deal with their hair. Most often a ponytail or a buff/scarf.
A quick search also brings up lots of articles on this topic.
It's bizzare that looks should take precedent over safety. I knew an old gentleman who made a similar "inconvenience" argument about seat belts and never wore one. This is exactly analogous.
Read my comment again. You have misunderstood my point, and I'm not going to repeat it.
Your 5/6 paragraphs are about how it's more inconvenient for women than men to wear a helmet. If you're making another point, it is unclear. Can you state it as a single clause?
I struggled immensely with my hair and helmet use. There was no way once I got to work to make my hair look professional again unless I wanted to wet it down and start from scratch, which I was unable to do at my place of work. There has been a lot written on the subject precisely because it is a big problem for women.
I'm assuming you didn't read that article beyond the abstract... because even with paid access to it it's only an abstract, so we have no idea what that study actually did or what the authors thoughts were.
edit: and here's another one:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2018.06.002
If cherry-picking doesn't work the first time, try, try again! No individual study, let alone a concluding paragraph—in any discipline—is sufficient to base policy on.
It's a strawman to base safety/health solely on fatalities from head injuries. That's an extreme case where only engineering for prevention can be effective. There's a whole range of other trauma to acknowledge.
This thread was about the perceived safety of bike riding, not public policy. You are right - policy is a far broader issue. But I don't really have any interest in discussing it with you any further. There's no point, you aren't reading my posts properly, and you've already dug in your heels.
Except that your first comment in this comment thread referred to Australian bike helmet laws...
Please reflect on your hypocrisy—you've dug your heels in against several others here.
Sure, but nobody is saying that helmets can replace safe practices. Helmets won't prevent a concussion (maybe reduce the severity) but it certainly will reduce the damage to you e.g. scraping or puncturing from sharp or rough objects. Head injuries are not limited to the most severe type.
That’s fine, but I find them extremely unnecessary when all I want to do is ride at relatively low speeds along a cycle way, and I resent the government for forcing me to wear one
That does seem counterproductive. The fewer barriers to biking, the better.
I'm glad the policy of choice here is mainly to make the bike lanes safer (separation from cars, improved visibility for bikers and car drivers on intersections, traffic lights with wait-indicators, etc.).
I can understand the argument against legislating mandatory helmet usage (though I'm not sure exactly where I fall on the issue), but on an individual level I feel the same way I feel about wearing a car seatbelt: It takes very, very, very little effort to wear a bike helmet, and it dramatically reduces likelihood of fatal or otherwise serious head and brain injuries.
It was weird to me that not wearing a helmet was such a large part of cycling culture in the Netherlands, so I am glad to hear that kids are starting to wear them more. I can understand wanting to feel like you don't have to cycle defensively (and I'm used to cycling on a road bike, so maybe the city cruisers are also conducive to lower rates of serious injury?), but it seems odd to me to so casually toss away such simple, inexpensive, and effective safety equipment.
EDIT: I guess I should mention I'm writing from New York, where it is mandatory that all riders under 14 wear helmets, but adult bike helmets are a bit of a polarizing subject.
Cycling in the Netherlands is very different from anywhere in the states, even in big cities. Especially in big cities, I'd say, because also there most of the bike-lanes are separated from car traffic, relatively wide, well paved, etc.
The difference between a helmet and not is sort of the difference between free plastic bags with your shopping and them costing $0,05. It's not a significant difference, but it is a HUGE difference.
We just step out, step on, and go. Literally nothing to prepare or think about. We go to school, work, to dates, anywhere. You want to arrive at the bar for a date with your hair smushed under a helmet? I don't. And I don't want to carry a helmet when I'm in the supermarket. Plus, many rides are 5 or 10 minutes. Getting and stashing your gear starts to become a longer task, relatively, then when you only bike for serious trips. And I may get on and off 5-10 times on an eventful saturday, in all different kinds of places. A helmet would suck big time.
All this is compounded by the fact that in a safer environment, the risk of head-injury is so low that the cost-benefit analysis shifts quite a bit anyway. I know literally no-one who injured themselves seriously by falling off their bike or getting hit by a car.
Eh, I don't care really... I wear my helmet while cycling at high speeds for the same reason I wear seatbelts, wear a helmet when skiing, wear safety glasses when launching model rockets or soldering.
The risks of any of those activities is low... But, when that very rare incident does happen, it's with catastrophic results, ie I like my cognitive functions, and I like my eyesight.
For what it's worth, I'd guess the risk to an averagely competent biker in the Netherlands is way lower than for any of those activities. I wouldn't be surprised if more people get seriously hurt falling of chairs and ladders inside the home. I don't put on a helmet when I'm DIYing either :-P
The risk of getting a blob of solder in the eye is pretty low, but all it takes is once to lose an eye... So, I wear goggles when soldering.
I wear a helmet when I'm hoisting antennas... The risk of the antenna falling on me is pretty close to nil, but it only takes once to lose a good amount of cognitive function.
I guess this actually basically is enough to explain it for me. I know a number of people personally who've either fallen at high speeds or been hit by a car and only saved by a helmet (and presumably you know a lot more people that consistently bike than I do!); it seems like infrastructure and culture really does make a lot more of a difference than I was anticipating.
It takes little effort for men to wear bike helmets. For women (depending on how long our hair is and how we prefer to style it) helmets can be a serious inconvenience if we want to use a bike to commute day-to-day.
Also, I prefer to compare bike helmets to wearing a helmet in a car, not to seatbelts, since a lot of stats suggest that people in car accidents account for most head injuries. All arguments for helmets on bikes apply to helmets in cars.
This is an absurd argument and a complete lack of understanding of basic physics. Head injuries are not limited to the most severe traumas. On a bike, your head is completely exposed to the environment; in a car, you have a durable shell to protect you, not to mention a crumple zone and an airbag to reduce the impact. With or without a helmet, in the case of an impact, you're getting a concussion, that is guaranteed.
Having your raw head hit a rock/asphalt/car vs having the force greatly reduced (via absorption by the helmet fracturing) makes a massive difference. Let alone having glass and other debris embedded in your skull/tearing through your scalp.
I'm all for choice, but I wish choices were reflected in the kind of health care coverage people get.
Sorry, I think it's very rude to accuse me of a 'a complete lack of understanding of basic physics', when you go on to talk about the 'durable shell' of a car protecting people vs. bike riders hitting their head on the outside environment.
The 'durable shell' of a car is what passengers hit their heads on. Physics doesn't care if you hit your head on the inside of a car vs. the outside environment.
Helmets are worn in cars when they are raced for sport. They are valid protective gear for car driving.
I don't want to get dragged into defending a point I never made. I never said that the risk for riding and the risk for driving is the same. But both modes of transport involve a risk of head injury, and car passengers do account for most head injuries.
And so I completely stand by my point. You shouldn't compare wearing a bike helmet to putting on a seatbelt in a car, you should compare it to wearing a helmet in a car.
No, that's what airbags are for, especially side-impact. You are also omitting the part about seatbelts that keep you in your seat (at least when moving forward, back and up), and also crumple zones—there's a reason why modern sports cars disintegrate when they're in a car crash and why electric vehicles (or mid-engine?) are safer: crumple zones. Your helmet has the same function. It reduces the force to the brain. My comment on physics stands.
I too made no such point. I was referring to your ridiculous argument that cars+helmets vs helmets is a valid comparison.
I'm coming at this from a dutch perspective so it can be different in your country.
If you fall you won't necessarily hit your head though.
On a bike you can quite easily break your fall.
Sure it's safer to wear a helmet, but the added safety is not worth the extra hassle.
When driving your car it would be safer to not drive on the highway, since you will keep your speed down thus reducing the amount of force during a collision making it safer.
However taking the slower longer route is probably not worth the hassle.
Just like having to drag around a helmet all day, isn't worth it for most Dutch people.
Well written article!
As a Dutchman, these kind of articles always remind me how much we take our style of living for granted!
Yes. It's nice to still be a 'guide nation' on at least this point :).