This is the OP. I'm a woman. I guess if you're an avid cyclist everyone assumes you're a man?
The article is the reason why I'm done wearing a helmet. I write my blog as a way to expose different viewpoints around cycling. I feel comfortable with this decision and will no longer be wearing a helmet. If they're not completely scientifically sound in your judgement, fine, keep wearing a helmet. I tried to use the data to the best of my ability, as I have a master's degree in public health. But then again, this blog is not for an academic audience, so I try not to make it too heavy.
The arguments I posted are those that have swayed me. What it comes down to is this: I believe biking is an inherently safe activity, on par with driving a car and walking. When I'm biking 12-14mph on bike paths and trails, as part of my daily regular activities, I feel there is no need to wear a helmet.
The guy sounds insane. Simple physics indicates that the longer the collision the less force applied will be.
The only reason that the individual states that wearing a helmet is a hinderence is:
1. You don't look as fashionable (the words are "less human")
2. Drivers see you more as a human when you're not wearing one.
I would venture to say that if a driver notices you not wearing a helmet, the assumption is that the biker is an idiot and they would be more cautious around them. (No one really wants to hit a biker) Additionally this doesn't really fix the problem. Many bikers get into an incident with cars for reasons such as:
1. The biker was not seen by the driver until it was too late. (Lack of awareness/being used to them on the road)
2. Biker cutting off the driver
3. Road rage (on the car's side): It happens but I would suggest it less common than claimed.
4. Biker not following the rules of the road. (Biking up the wrong way, ignoring stoplights/stopsigns etc)
We need some HN readers from the Netherlands to chime in here.
"Although the Netherlands is probably the safest country in the world for cycling, helmet wearing among Dutch cyclists is rare. It has been estimated that only about 0.5 percent of cyclists in the Netherlands are helmeted"
I haven't biked in the U.S, but from what I've seen, biking in the Netherlands is completely different.
- Cars drive slower. 50 km/h in city zones, many places that are restricted to 30 km/h.
- Our entire infrastructure is adapted to biking. Separate bike lanes, bikes get their own stoplights. We don't need to cut through four lanes of traffic just to make a left turn. We're not part of the normal car traffic on bigger roads.
- Motorists are used to people on bikes. At the very least they don't hate them like they seem to do in the U.S.
- Bikes are often considered equal to or even higher priority than cars. That means bikes get the right of way just as cars do. In many cases cars have to yield to bikes (roundabouts, etc).
There's simply no comparison to be made between the U.S and the Netherlands when it comes to road conditions for bikes. Making any claim that "the Dutch don't wear helmets so I don't need to either" is ridiculous¹
Other than that, when I see U.S bikers in full gear on their bikes, I always have to laugh a little. Spendex shorts, special shoes, helmet, fancy racing bike. I've said this before on HN, but I think they take biking way too serious. And, but this is just a guess, I wouldn't be surprised if fancy bike makes you go a lot faster than the old dinky bikes we ride around on. And speed == danger, which is why your link points out that most Dutch people getting into accidents are wearing helmets: because they're doing recreational biking on fancy fast bikes.
I don't think I'd ride a bike in a major U.S city. If I would, I'd wear a helmet.
¹) If my perception of biking in U.S cities is even slightly correct.
Being from The Netherlands, this article confirms my initial suspicion.
Here, the only cyclists who wear a helmet are tourists (much more likely to get into an accident due to inexperience) and people riding a racing bike for exercise (much more likely to get into an accident due to high speed). Wearing a helmet while riding to work or something similar is completely unnecessary.
I mostly agree with the OP, but there's one difference that might be important: we are raised to ride bicycles at a very young age. When I was in high school I was often trying to ride home without using my hands, through traffic, intersections etc., and I usually succeeded. I don't think I would ever be this comfortable on a bike if I learned riding it at a later age. I did ride a bike in New York a year ago and I didn't feel unsafe at all, but when I see tourists ride bikes through Amsterdam, that's a different story.
For me, the experience of the cyclists is the most important factor for safety, and subsequently if wearing a helmet or not is warranted.
What's there to say? Like the article you linked to said: almost no one but sport bikers and tourists wear helmets.
I think the high safety in the Netherlands is mostly due to the driver education (In Holland, spending 40 hours training for your drivers license is not unusual, and you spend a lot of time in the most difficult situations around).
Another reason is that if someone gets killed on an intersection, people will have a good look if the safety in that spot can be improved. So a lot of the most dangerous places have been changed to make it safer.
Dutchie reporting in! Nobody wears a helmet here when they're riding their bike to work, schools, stores, etc. The average speed will be somewhere between 15-20 km/h and is relatively slow, next to that most bike paths are separated from the road so you'll only come in to contact with cars at crossings (and this is where most accidents probably occur).
When people get on their MT/Racing bikes the speed increases dramatically to 30+ km/h (and most people wear a helmet) and other people on the road don't always expect those speeds coming from bike lanes so that's why you'll see more accidents. To summarize: Fix your infrastructure and you won't really need a helmet.
Northern German here: The reason is simple, the only people who wear helmets are the ones who know they are at risk anyway. Correlation != Causation.
EDIT: Yup, article confirms it.
In my city, the amount of trips taken by bike is over 26%, with another 12% public transport, and most younger people use bikes several times a day – but most don’t wear helmets, and most never had an issue with it, yet.
that's probably because the streets in the Netherlands are much safer. they often have cycle lanes segregated from traffic. and there is less congestion than other major cities. so bikes come into direct contact with cars far less often
"Helmet use may deter people from cycling" I remember one of the studies where that was cited. The argument was basically that having a large number of bikes on the road changed the behavior of traffic and made it safer for all cyclists. Thus deterring other people from cycling actually makes it more dangerous for the cyclist wearing a helmet, beyond the marginal increase in protection given by the helmet.
"However, if potential cyclists see everyone else in their community wearing helmets while riding a bike, it communicates that biking is a dangerous activity that requires special protective gear."
One of the author's reasons for not wearing a helmet is the image that wearing a helmet projects. The personal decision to wear or not wear a helmet affects the perception of non-cyclists, which in turn affects the number of cyclists. Or at least so goes the theory.
As an aside, since a lot of people seem to not have noticed and assumed otherwise by default: The author is female.
If you decide to drive somewhere instead of cycling, because you don't have a helmet at hand, you haven't replaced a damaged helmet, or you don't want to have helmet hair, or you don't think that helmets complement your look, then you'll lose the exercise benefits of cycling that distance instead.
The best use case for bicycle is not a 20-mile ride to work or on muddy trails, but a 1-mile ride to a local coffeeshop. And for a competent cyclist on flat roads in normal weather, a helmet is plain unnecessary.
Yeah. I think there are some serious flaws in this article. Here's another:
In concluding that studies about the efficacy of helmet use are unreliable, the author claims "The people who wear helmets are likely more safety-conscious than those who don’t, which makes comparing the two groups very difficult and will make it appear that helmets are more protective than they actually are."
But then, only a few sentences later, the author's agenda shifts to arguing that wearing a helmet causes other drivers to incorrectly conclude you are a safer cyclist and give you less space: "Just because someone wears a helmet doesn’t mean they’re a safer cyclist. It seems like a lot of people use helmet use as a proxy for caring about safety, and that’s just not true."
I can't see how both of these things could be true. Either the studies are not confounded as the author claims, or drivers giving cyclists less space is not the problem he thinks it is because those cyclists are actually safer cyclists. This is not to say that one or both of these arguments are totally incorrect -- there is probably a grain of truth to both of them -- but I suspect at least one of these claims is exaggerated somewhat.
If the author's argument were that localities should not mandate helmet use, I think I would agree. But it wouldn't be because of his tendentious arguments about helmet-wearing signalling that cycling is dangerous, or that drivers take more risks around helmeted cyclists. It is very very hard to believe that either of these dynamics, if they exist at all, outweigh the undisputed benefit of wearing a helmet in preventing serious head injuries. Rather, I think localities shouldn't mandate helmet use simply because helmets discourage cycling and, on balance, cycling is a very safe activity with or without a helmet, and its social benefits outweigh the risks of cycling without a helmet. (An argument which, to be fair, the author also makes.)
Exactly: conditional on you already being a cyclist, it is much much safer to wear a helmet. Astoundingly, this fallacy accompanies every one of these "I quit helmets (and so should you!)" posts that I have ever read.
A common misconception is that bicycle helmets protect you in a serious crash. They don't: if you get hit going 30 mph, anything less than a motorcycle helmet isn't going to help you much. But most bike crashes aren't serious; they're minor, low-speed crashes where the rider is knocked from the bicycle or bumped just hard enough to lose balance. Because the center of gravity on a bicycle is high, it's easy to hit your head in these types of crashes -- hard.
Those are the crashes that bike helmets are designed for. Let's say you were waiting at a light, and the light just changed. A car mirror clips you just as you're pushing off and getting your balance, you fall over and hit your head on a curb. If you have a helmet on, you walk away with a headache and maybe a skinned elbow. Without a helmet on, you crack your head open and potentially die.
>But helmets are not supposed to shatter. When a helmet protects your head from a serious injury, the styrofoam inside will be compressed and stay that way
Is this correct? It sounds very wrong to me. I got the impression that shattering is a great way to redirect kinetic energy away from your head
It doesn't appear anyone read the Author's linked article about the compression of the helmet and which forces it is designed to prevent. So here is a short snippet :
"If the styrofoam does not compress, it cannot reduce linear acceleration of the brain. The most protection that it can give to the wearer is to prevent focal damage of the skull and prevent minor wounds to the scalp. It is not likely to prevent serious brain injury.
This helmet has split along the ventilation slots, which is common. However, the thickness of the styrofoam has not been compressed.
It most likely gave no more than superficial protection.
Some dissipation of impact force might occur from the action of a helmet breaking, but in most cases this is likely to be small. Helmet standards require the foam to start to compress at a level of force less than that which might be expected to lead to brain injury. While it is known that many helmets do not actually meet the standards to which they are supposed to be accredited (BHRF, 1081), it follows that if the styrofoam does not compress at all, the direct linear force on the helmet was minimal and it's quite possible that the cyclist would not have received any injury if the helmet had not been worn.
Back when crushable foam helmets first came out, there was just an elastic cover wrapped around a foam helmet. The effect of the helmet impact was that it always broke apart; the helmet cover just kept the pieces together after impact.
Most helmets now have a plastic skin over the foam which provides some structural integrity while the foam is being crushed [1]. But you are correct, the helmet only works because the kinetic energy is being absorbed by a material whose composition (closed cells) will naturally break apart into smaller pieces when enough kinetic energy is applied.
As long as the styrofoam gets bent/compressed (but does not break), it takes a lot of energy from the fall. As soon as it breaks, it can't absorb much energy anymore, thus it impacts your head a lot more.
That's the reason, why after a crash the helmet should be replaced, whether there can be seen damages or not (the shell internally breaks when it absorbs energy this way, but this can hardly be seen (except when, say, you use X-ray analysis or something similar).
Yeah this is mostly correct. Helmets should not shatter but they will deform during a crash. Often times you will see a flat part where the helmet hit and slid on the road.
Also, (can't read the article but assuming some kind of context), even if the styro compressed rather than shattering - that's still energy being used for something which isn't cracking your skull. It still seems like it would be beneficial.
If the author is claiming that once it's compressed it won't be as good next time, then that's insane - helmets aren't supposed to be re-used after accidents (whether bike, motorbike, or car racing - I've had to sadly replace my motor racing helmet after an incident, and it's a lot more than buying a new bike lid - but you still do it without flinching because it's your brain on the line here).
Absolutely, this is why I rarely/never wear a helmet. People think of them as essential safety gear in case you get hit by a car, but they offer almost no protection against this risk. They are designed to protect your head if you spontaneously fall off a stationary bicycle. In good weather, at low speeds, on flat, clean roads, these accidents will be very rare for competent cyclists.
Cycling is simply a safe, fun means of travel. And you don't need special protective gear unless you're doing something weird.
Children? Mountain bikers? People cycling in snow or mud? People doing tricks or trying to show off to girls? Yea, they should probably wear a helmet.
A friend of mine once compared ordinary commuting in a helmet to wearing a condom all day: it's useful if you're doing something risky, but otherwise it's just uncomfortable.
Helmets are uncomfortable and goofy, and I probably would ride less on the bike if I had to wear one all the time, as with a mandatory helmet law. The exercise benefits of regular cycling outweigh the marginal risk of head injury.
By the same logic of the helmet-shamers, we should shame motorists and pedestrians for not wearing a helmet for routine travel. But nobody seems to take that idea seriously for some reason.
More important safety equipment than helmets: bike lights, mirrors, bells, basic repair gear, and fenders.
Some bits in here make me seriously question the author's judegment.
"Many more motorists and pedestrians die in traffic collisions per year than do bicyclists. We don’t see them wearing helmets."
Doesn't this support the opposite argument of what the author is claiming? Further, I would expect as much anyway simply because so many fewer people bike than motorcycle or drive a car.
"If not wanting to wear a helmet deters someone from riding a bike, that sucks, because biking is healthy and awesome."
This is a silly argument. It could just as easily be said, "If wearing a helmet deters someone from riding a bike, that sucks, because wearing a helmet protects your head."
"I don’t want to hide my head behind a helmet, I want drivers to pass me on the street and see that I am a person, a human, just like them."
Nobody said that wearing a helmet was supposed to make a person more attractive. Would the author universally agree to "I don't wear protective gear $x because I want people to see that I'm a human being?" Probably not.
Ultimately, I don't think anybody can argue that having a protective shell around your head is somehow less safe or equally safe to having nothing there at all.
I think the argument is that if helmets are not mandated by law, more people will ride. If more people ride, that will raise more awareness of bikers and their safety in relation to motor vehicle drivers. Therefore, in aggregate, the safety of the whole bike riding herd will be better.
Anectdata: I work on a large business campus which has bike sharing bikes scattered around. Helmets are mandatory (whether that's due to law or local policy, I am uncertain). My light whispy hair will irrecoverably look like shit after being subjected to a helmet, especially during the hot/humid months. As such, I opt to walk or drive more often than I would if I could simply hop on a bike for many on-campus jaunts for various duties.
It equally supports the argument that people should wear protective headgear when they're driving or walking, but nobody takes that argument seriously for some reason.
To the extent that our helmet obsession dissuades people from cycling instead of driving, it is on average harmful, because the exercise benefits of cycling outweigh the head-injury risk.
> People will so often put up photos on social media of obliterated helmets and say, “Holy crap, look at my helmet! It saved my life!” But helmets are not supposed to shatter. When a helmet protects your head from a serious injury, the styrofoam inside will be compressed and stay that way. Most of the pictures I’ve seen are of helmets that have broken apart.
Just.. what?
Any sort of mechanical deformation is essentially an energy release. Be it compression, cracking or what else. The energy that went to cracking the polycarbonate shell is the energy that didn't reach your skull.
This seems like a serious case of Black Swan reasoning. In other words, she seems to be taking an apparent lack of evidence that helmets prevent injury as evidence that helmets don't prevent injury. Just remember, you wear a helmet 99.9% of the time for no reason to prevent serious injury on that 0.1% incident because that's all it takes. We all know that slamming your head on pavement is bad and having a shell to protect your head is preferable to not having one. She seems to be assuming that because nothing bad has happened to her yet that she is safe with no helmet.
Put differently- I wonder if you told the author a brick was going to fall on her head and then asked given the option to wear a helmet or not wear one which she would pick.
I used to ride without a helmet too. I though I'd as soon get directly killed than get a brain injury. But then you do get a brain injury and not get killed and your life turns into hell, especially if your brain is the one thing you've always depended on the most. I recommend paying a visit to http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/forum92.html to catch a glimpse how splendidly well (where's my sarcasm sign?) people with brain injuries have been doing. I didn't get mine from a bike accident (collapsed scaffolding), but it's been a constant source of joy for the whole last year and I still have some minor issues to deal with (and that was a mild one as far as brain injuries go). I always wear a helmet on larger bike trips now. Anything that mitigates or reduces the chances of a brain injury is very much worth it. If you want to take reckless risks, at least don't write idiotic blog posts about it.
I'm most likely alive right now because of a helmet. Long story short, I had a crash that resulted in me whipping the back of my head into the ground. I ended up with a very bad concussion, an iffy memory for a couple of months, and a destroyed helmet. I'll keep wearing a helmet.
This anecdote would be a lot more useful if it were long story long (e..g., were you cycling casually or racing?). The lack of details makes it hard to draw any useful lessons about when helmet wearing is appropriate.
Many safety standards have surprisingly little science behind them. That is not always a bad thing. Trial and error can work if there is the possibility of changing the design. Once the body of experience is codified into a standard then development stops.
The current bike helmet standards are a good example of what happens in the absence of both good theory and experience. We have a design that prevents an injury that almost never happens (skull fracture) and that fails to protect against a common injury (concussion). The current standards make it impossible to improve things much but there are people out there that are trying:
It seems that people missed the fact that the article has plenty of links supporting his claims. Unfortunately the link colour is almost the same as the text colour.
One of the most compelling studies is from New Zealand [1]:
"The New Zealand Medical Journal published Evaluation of New Zealand's bicycle helmet law ... showing a massive plunge in cycling levels and a 20% higher accident rate since helmet law enforcement."
Also, there was a study showing that cyclists with helmets receive less space from passing cars than those without.
"Helmet use was associated with reduced risk of head injury in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles of up to 74%, and the more severe the injury considered, the greater the reduction."
Minneapolis is arguably the best city in the US for bicycling (in competition with Portland). That said, biking here can be incredibly dangerous, and cyclists are killed every year. The streets and intersections around town have numerous "ghost bikes", white bicycles locked in places where a cyclist was killed by a car.
The author's point doesn't stand to reason. First, not all injuries are created equal. Head injuries are more likely to kill or permanently impair a cyclist than any other injury. Second, regardless of the results of studies and confirmation bias, it's obvious that helmets do absorb a great deal of impact - impact that can kill or permanently injure you.
Beyond that, though, helmets aren't the #1 thing that can be done to protect cyclists. Improving car drivers is the #1 thing. Malicious drivers who openly hate cyclists aren't the worst - neglectful ones are. You know, the ones who turn right in front of a bicycle, or lane change into a bicycle. They don't know the cyclist is there. Often, they don't know how close they came to killing someone, as they text away obliviously.
The next thing that can be done is better urban planning, with bicycle-friendly streets. That doesn't mean sidewalk "bike lanes" that are 10mph and shared with moms pushing strollers. That means relatively safe road design where bicyclists can either integrate into the traffic flow or be around it with less danger. These designs are often flawed, though, built mostly to keep bicycles from inconveniencing cars rather than keeping cyclists safe (the "bike lanes" of downtown Minneapolis, which completely hide cyclists from cars turning in front of them, are the ultimate example).
I think the point is that most people think that the best way to improve cyclist safety is to get cyclists to wear helmets. This is quite wrong, helmets are way down the list behind driver education, bike lanes, bike lights, &c. &c.
However, cyclists get regularly shamed for not wearing a helmet. Where's the shame for the lack of complete streets traffic planning? The shame for drivers speeding and running red lights all the time?
I've had my share of accidents riding my bike, and in none of them would a helmet have helped anything. So much for anecdotal confirmation.
There are certainly conditions that make the use of a helmet advisable, but that depends on the situation. Anything more than that is just the result of lobbying & PR by the helmet-making industry.
[+] [-] bikinginmpls|10 years ago|reply
The article is the reason why I'm done wearing a helmet. I write my blog as a way to expose different viewpoints around cycling. I feel comfortable with this decision and will no longer be wearing a helmet. If they're not completely scientifically sound in your judgement, fine, keep wearing a helmet. I tried to use the data to the best of my ability, as I have a master's degree in public health. But then again, this blog is not for an academic audience, so I try not to make it too heavy.
The arguments I posted are those that have swayed me. What it comes down to is this: I believe biking is an inherently safe activity, on par with driving a car and walking. When I'm biking 12-14mph on bike paths and trails, as part of my daily regular activities, I feel there is no need to wear a helmet.
[+] [-] monksy|10 years ago|reply
The only reason that the individual states that wearing a helmet is a hinderence is:
1. You don't look as fashionable (the words are "less human")
2. Drivers see you more as a human when you're not wearing one.
I would venture to say that if a driver notices you not wearing a helmet, the assumption is that the biker is an idiot and they would be more cautious around them. (No one really wants to hit a biker) Additionally this doesn't really fix the problem. Many bikers get into an incident with cars for reasons such as:
1. The biker was not seen by the driver until it was too late. (Lack of awareness/being used to them on the road)
2. Biker cutting off the driver
3. Road rage (on the car's side): It happens but I would suggest it less common than claimed.
4. Biker not following the rules of the road. (Biking up the wrong way, ignoring stoplights/stopsigns etc)
[+] [-] joezydeco|10 years ago|reply
"Although the Netherlands is probably the safest country in the world for cycling, helmet wearing among Dutch cyclists is rare. It has been estimated that only about 0.5 percent of cyclists in the Netherlands are helmeted"
Why are Dutch cyclists more likely to be injured if they wear helmets? - http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html
[+] [-] otherusername2|10 years ago|reply
I haven't biked in the U.S, but from what I've seen, biking in the Netherlands is completely different.
- Cars drive slower. 50 km/h in city zones, many places that are restricted to 30 km/h.
- Our entire infrastructure is adapted to biking. Separate bike lanes, bikes get their own stoplights. We don't need to cut through four lanes of traffic just to make a left turn. We're not part of the normal car traffic on bigger roads.
- Motorists are used to people on bikes. At the very least they don't hate them like they seem to do in the U.S.
- Bikes are often considered equal to or even higher priority than cars. That means bikes get the right of way just as cars do. In many cases cars have to yield to bikes (roundabouts, etc).
There's simply no comparison to be made between the U.S and the Netherlands when it comes to road conditions for bikes. Making any claim that "the Dutch don't wear helmets so I don't need to either" is ridiculous¹
Other than that, when I see U.S bikers in full gear on their bikes, I always have to laugh a little. Spendex shorts, special shoes, helmet, fancy racing bike. I've said this before on HN, but I think they take biking way too serious. And, but this is just a guess, I wouldn't be surprised if fancy bike makes you go a lot faster than the old dinky bikes we ride around on. And speed == danger, which is why your link points out that most Dutch people getting into accidents are wearing helmets: because they're doing recreational biking on fancy fast bikes.
I don't think I'd ride a bike in a major U.S city. If I would, I'd wear a helmet.
¹) If my perception of biking in U.S cities is even slightly correct.
[+] [-] joopxiv|10 years ago|reply
Here, the only cyclists who wear a helmet are tourists (much more likely to get into an accident due to inexperience) and people riding a racing bike for exercise (much more likely to get into an accident due to high speed). Wearing a helmet while riding to work or something similar is completely unnecessary.
I mostly agree with the OP, but there's one difference that might be important: we are raised to ride bicycles at a very young age. When I was in high school I was often trying to ride home without using my hands, through traffic, intersections etc., and I usually succeeded. I don't think I would ever be this comfortable on a bike if I learned riding it at a later age. I did ride a bike in New York a year ago and I didn't feel unsafe at all, but when I see tourists ride bikes through Amsterdam, that's a different story.
For me, the experience of the cyclists is the most important factor for safety, and subsequently if wearing a helmet or not is warranted.
[+] [-] elsjaako|10 years ago|reply
I think the high safety in the Netherlands is mostly due to the driver education (In Holland, spending 40 hours training for your drivers license is not unusual, and you spend a lot of time in the most difficult situations around).
Another reason is that if someone gets killed on an intersection, people will have a good look if the safety in that spot can be improved. So a lot of the most dangerous places have been changed to make it safer.
[+] [-] KJasper|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kuschku|10 years ago|reply
EDIT: Yup, article confirms it.
In my city, the amount of trips taken by bike is over 26%, with another 12% public transport, and most younger people use bikes several times a day – but most don’t wear helmets, and most never had an issue with it, yet.
[+] [-] Roonerelli|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daredevildave|10 years ago|reply
"Helmet use may deter people from cycling", that doesn't affect whether or not you should wear one.
"Benefits of biking out way the risks", you don't lose the benefits if you cycle with a helmet.
[+] [-] bobochan|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DanielStraight|10 years ago|reply
"However, if potential cyclists see everyone else in their community wearing helmets while riding a bike, it communicates that biking is a dangerous activity that requires special protective gear."
One of the author's reasons for not wearing a helmet is the image that wearing a helmet projects. The personal decision to wear or not wear a helmet affects the perception of non-cyclists, which in turn affects the number of cyclists. Or at least so goes the theory.
As an aside, since a lot of people seem to not have noticed and assumed otherwise by default: The author is female.
[+] [-] panglott|10 years ago|reply
The best use case for bicycle is not a 20-mile ride to work or on muddy trails, but a 1-mile ride to a local coffeeshop. And for a competent cyclist on flat roads in normal weather, a helmet is plain unnecessary.
[+] [-] jvanderbot|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pdabbadabba|10 years ago|reply
In concluding that studies about the efficacy of helmet use are unreliable, the author claims "The people who wear helmets are likely more safety-conscious than those who don’t, which makes comparing the two groups very difficult and will make it appear that helmets are more protective than they actually are."
But then, only a few sentences later, the author's agenda shifts to arguing that wearing a helmet causes other drivers to incorrectly conclude you are a safer cyclist and give you less space: "Just because someone wears a helmet doesn’t mean they’re a safer cyclist. It seems like a lot of people use helmet use as a proxy for caring about safety, and that’s just not true."
I can't see how both of these things could be true. Either the studies are not confounded as the author claims, or drivers giving cyclists less space is not the problem he thinks it is because those cyclists are actually safer cyclists. This is not to say that one or both of these arguments are totally incorrect -- there is probably a grain of truth to both of them -- but I suspect at least one of these claims is exaggerated somewhat.
If the author's argument were that localities should not mandate helmet use, I think I would agree. But it wouldn't be because of his tendentious arguments about helmet-wearing signalling that cycling is dangerous, or that drivers take more risks around helmeted cyclists. It is very very hard to believe that either of these dynamics, if they exist at all, outweigh the undisputed benefit of wearing a helmet in preventing serious head injuries. Rather, I think localities shouldn't mandate helmet use simply because helmets discourage cycling and, on balance, cycling is a very safe activity with or without a helmet, and its social benefits outweigh the risks of cycling without a helmet. (An argument which, to be fair, the author also makes.)
[+] [-] ajuc|10 years ago|reply
It does, indirectly (you may think that more people biking will make you safer in the long run for example).
[+] [-] hyperbovine|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] exelius|10 years ago|reply
Those are the crashes that bike helmets are designed for. Let's say you were waiting at a light, and the light just changed. A car mirror clips you just as you're pushing off and getting your balance, you fall over and hit your head on a curb. If you have a helmet on, you walk away with a headache and maybe a skinned elbow. Without a helmet on, you crack your head open and potentially die.
[+] [-] Lewton|10 years ago|reply
Is this correct? It sounds very wrong to me. I got the impression that shattering is a great way to redirect kinetic energy away from your head
[+] [-] brwnll|10 years ago|reply
"If the styrofoam does not compress, it cannot reduce linear acceleration of the brain. The most protection that it can give to the wearer is to prevent focal damage of the skull and prevent minor wounds to the scalp. It is not likely to prevent serious brain injury.
This helmet has split along the ventilation slots, which is common. However, the thickness of the styrofoam has not been compressed. It most likely gave no more than superficial protection.
Some dissipation of impact force might occur from the action of a helmet breaking, but in most cases this is likely to be small. Helmet standards require the foam to start to compress at a level of force less than that which might be expected to lead to brain injury. While it is known that many helmets do not actually meet the standards to which they are supposed to be accredited (BHRF, 1081), it follows that if the styrofoam does not compress at all, the direct linear force on the helmet was minimal and it's quite possible that the cyclist would not have received any injury if the helmet had not been worn.
[+] [-] tres|10 years ago|reply
Most helmets now have a plastic skin over the foam which provides some structural integrity while the foam is being crushed [1]. But you are correct, the helmet only works because the kinetic energy is being absorbed by a material whose composition (closed cells) will naturally break apart into smaller pieces when enough kinetic energy is applied.
[1] http://www.bhsi.org/general.htm
[+] [-] wolfgke|10 years ago|reply
That's the reason, why after a crash the helmet should be replaced, whether there can be seen damages or not (the shell internally breaks when it absorbs energy this way, but this can hardly be seen (except when, say, you use X-ray analysis or something similar).
[+] [-] bweitzman|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshdance|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kolektiv|10 years ago|reply
If the author is claiming that once it's compressed it won't be as good next time, then that's insane - helmets aren't supposed to be re-used after accidents (whether bike, motorbike, or car racing - I've had to sadly replace my motor racing helmet after an incident, and it's a lot more than buying a new bike lid - but you still do it without flinching because it's your brain on the line here).
[+] [-] morsch|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oldmanpants|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] panglott|10 years ago|reply
Cycling is simply a safe, fun means of travel. And you don't need special protective gear unless you're doing something weird.
Children? Mountain bikers? People cycling in snow or mud? People doing tricks or trying to show off to girls? Yea, they should probably wear a helmet.
A friend of mine once compared ordinary commuting in a helmet to wearing a condom all day: it's useful if you're doing something risky, but otherwise it's just uncomfortable.
Helmets are uncomfortable and goofy, and I probably would ride less on the bike if I had to wear one all the time, as with a mandatory helmet law. The exercise benefits of regular cycling outweigh the marginal risk of head injury.
By the same logic of the helmet-shamers, we should shame motorists and pedestrians for not wearing a helmet for routine travel. But nobody seems to take that idea seriously for some reason.
More important safety equipment than helmets: bike lights, mirrors, bells, basic repair gear, and fenders.
[+] [-] bthrn|10 years ago|reply
"Many more motorists and pedestrians die in traffic collisions per year than do bicyclists. We don’t see them wearing helmets."
Doesn't this support the opposite argument of what the author is claiming? Further, I would expect as much anyway simply because so many fewer people bike than motorcycle or drive a car.
"If not wanting to wear a helmet deters someone from riding a bike, that sucks, because biking is healthy and awesome."
This is a silly argument. It could just as easily be said, "If wearing a helmet deters someone from riding a bike, that sucks, because wearing a helmet protects your head."
"I don’t want to hide my head behind a helmet, I want drivers to pass me on the street and see that I am a person, a human, just like them."
Nobody said that wearing a helmet was supposed to make a person more attractive. Would the author universally agree to "I don't wear protective gear $x because I want people to see that I'm a human being?" Probably not.
Ultimately, I don't think anybody can argue that having a protective shell around your head is somehow less safe or equally safe to having nothing there at all.
[+] [-] fizgig|10 years ago|reply
Anectdata: I work on a large business campus which has bike sharing bikes scattered around. Helmets are mandatory (whether that's due to law or local policy, I am uncertain). My light whispy hair will irrecoverably look like shit after being subjected to a helmet, especially during the hot/humid months. As such, I opt to walk or drive more often than I would if I could simply hop on a bike for many on-campus jaunts for various duties.
[+] [-] panglott|10 years ago|reply
To the extent that our helmet obsession dissuades people from cycling instead of driving, it is on average harmful, because the exercise benefits of cycling outweigh the head-injury risk.
[+] [-] varjag|10 years ago|reply
Just.. what?
Any sort of mechanical deformation is essentially an energy release. Be it compression, cracking or what else. The energy that went to cracking the polycarbonate shell is the energy that didn't reach your skull.
[+] [-] upofadown|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] collyw|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] steveax|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Retra|10 years ago|reply
>"Many more motorists and pedestrians die in traffic collisions per year than do bicyclists. We don’t see them wearing helmets."
Hey. Maybe if they did wear helmets, fewer of them would die. Ever think of that?
[+] [-] dkrich|10 years ago|reply
Put differently- I wonder if you told the author a brick was going to fall on her head and then asked given the option to wear a helmet or not wear one which she would pick.
[+] [-] someear|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pskocik|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vesrah|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] auntienomen|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] upofadown|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] upofadown|10 years ago|reply
The current bike helmet standards are a good example of what happens in the absence of both good theory and experience. We have a design that prevents an injury that almost never happens (skull fracture) and that fails to protect against a common injury (concussion). The current standards make it impossible to improve things much but there are people out there that are trying:
http://www.helmets.org/liners.htm#cone-head
[+] [-] mathgenius|10 years ago|reply
One of the most compelling studies is from New Zealand [1]: "The New Zealand Medical Journal published Evaluation of New Zealand's bicycle helmet law ... showing a massive plunge in cycling levels and a 20% higher accident rate since helmet law enforcement."
Also, there was a study showing that cyclists with helmets receive less space from passing cars than those without.
[1] http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html
[+] [-] kyberias|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] woodchuck64|10 years ago|reply
"Helmet use was associated with reduced risk of head injury in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles of up to 74%, and the more severe the injury considered, the greater the reduction."
Is there some reason to doubt this?
[+] [-] beat|10 years ago|reply
The author's point doesn't stand to reason. First, not all injuries are created equal. Head injuries are more likely to kill or permanently impair a cyclist than any other injury. Second, regardless of the results of studies and confirmation bias, it's obvious that helmets do absorb a great deal of impact - impact that can kill or permanently injure you.
Beyond that, though, helmets aren't the #1 thing that can be done to protect cyclists. Improving car drivers is the #1 thing. Malicious drivers who openly hate cyclists aren't the worst - neglectful ones are. You know, the ones who turn right in front of a bicycle, or lane change into a bicycle. They don't know the cyclist is there. Often, they don't know how close they came to killing someone, as they text away obliviously.
The next thing that can be done is better urban planning, with bicycle-friendly streets. That doesn't mean sidewalk "bike lanes" that are 10mph and shared with moms pushing strollers. That means relatively safe road design where bicyclists can either integrate into the traffic flow or be around it with less danger. These designs are often flawed, though, built mostly to keep bicycles from inconveniencing cars rather than keeping cyclists safe (the "bike lanes" of downtown Minneapolis, which completely hide cyclists from cars turning in front of them, are the ultimate example).
At any rate, the article is quite wrong.
[+] [-] panglott|10 years ago|reply
However, cyclists get regularly shamed for not wearing a helmet. Where's the shame for the lack of complete streets traffic planning? The shame for drivers speeding and running red lights all the time?
[+] [-] mattmanser|10 years ago|reply
You might as well have just said "I'm not listening to that gosh darn evolution nonsense".
[+] [-] tempodox|10 years ago|reply
There are certainly conditions that make the use of a helmet advisable, but that depends on the situation. Anything more than that is just the result of lobbying & PR by the helmet-making industry.