I once read a convincing argument that, in some cases, American's resistance to helmets caused helmet laws to have a net negative effect on health. The author claimed that the laws caused enough of a reduction in ridership that the lost exercise outweighed the reduction in injury. I've attempted to find the paper again, but I can't seem to track it down.
back
4 comments
De Jong, Piet, The Health Impact of Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Laws (February 24, 2010). Risk Analysis, 2012, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1368064 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1368064
That's the one! From the conclusions: "A (positive) net health benefit emerges only in dangerous bicycling environments under optimistic assumptions as to the efficacy of helmets and a minor behavioral response."
Yes and it's mind-blowing that municipalities are still trying to enact that crap. Most recently:
Nearly half of Seattle’s helmet citations go to homeless people https://crosscut.com/news/2020/12/nearly-half-seattles-helme...
I believe you're thinking of Australia. There are very few (if any?) places in the US with helmet laws for adults.
King county Washington[1].
[1] https://www.kingcounty.gov/depts/health/violence-injury-prev...!
It seems to be very rarely enforced. I ride in Seattle without a helmet all the time and have never had a problem.
A stark difference to Sydney, Australia.
I regularly see commuters getting fined cycling without helmets.
The police favorite one is fining all the tourists on rental bikes. Most of the rental bikes don't have helmets as they go missing and as a tourist they are oblivious it's law to need a helmet while cycling in Australia. A big fine to!
Most get tricked in to the relaxed tourism marketing image portrayed without realising Australia is one of the most litigious places in the world and bit of a nanny country.
It seems to be selectively enforced against certain demographics. There was a discussion[1] in /r/Seattle earlier
1. https://old.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/kebyab/nearly_half...
Like most laws in Seattle, they are rarely enforced, and if you do get arrested or cited, current prosecutors aren't actually interested in doing their job very much either.
It's like the law where if you ride your bike on the road or sidewalk. It's 100% up to how busy the cop is that day and if he REALLY wants to write you a ticket.
Also, because this is the US, and Seattle in particular, police discretion means that some populations get the brunt of enforcement.
Nearly half of helmet citations in Seattle are against homeless people. And that was where they could corroborate homelessness using easily identifiable records (noted in press, police reports, or the address on file was a homeless shelter) https://crosscut.com/news/2020/12/nearly-half-seattles-helme...
Out of curiosity: why do you ride without a helmet?
Do you wear a helmet while driving a car? Head injuries are a top cause of death in vehicle accidents something that helmets would significantly reduce.
The truth is that you never even considered wearing a helmet while drivi g because driving is an ordinary activity that doesn't seem to require special equipment. In places where cycling is an ordinary activity people feel the same.
It's not about statistics or the actual effectiveness of safety equipment. If it were you would start wearing a driving helmet tomorrow.
Your comment seems to presuppose that I am advocating for helmet-wearing, when I have done no such thing.
Helmets are big unwieldy things. They're not easy to carry, and are shaped such that even if you had a bag big enough for one, it would probably crowd out a lot of things that might also go in the bag (e.g. very few bags might hold a 15-in laptop and also a helmet) It is inconvenient to take spontaneous or quick bike rides if you have to lug a helmet around everywhere.
Also, there is at least some debate about whether or not wearing a helmet actually makes drivers less careful around you, since it looks like you're better protected. https://qz.com/1474671/scientists-are-still-debating-whether...
Personal anecdote, probably irrelevant. When we were kids in the 80s, we bicycled to school. My parents heard about bike helmets (which were pretty new at that time) and bought them for us. I kept mine on the back rack, because I thought they were utterly uncool.
Then one day, a guy wasn't paying attention, ran a stop-sign at high speed when we were still in the intersection, and hit my sister's bike's front wheel. There was no way she could have gotten out of his way.
I can still hear the THWACK of her helmet hitting the pavement. The helmet did its job, and absorbed the impact by cracking. She got out of the experience with a few days of pain.
I've always worn a helmet after that.
I don't think anyone argues that in specific incidents helmets are safer.
The question is whether or not the second order effects of compulsory helmets outweigh the benefits for the individual, namely;
- helmets make biking more inconvenient and compulsory usage of helmets suppresses cycling rates. In addition to the argument that is is a net negative because people get less exercise, there is also a second argument; because cyclists are less common, drivers are less familiar with how to interact with them, which leads to poorer judgement and more accidents per capita for the people still cycling. (In some cases, unfamiliarity also breeds anger and resentment; many a cyclist has a story of getting run off the road, drivers rolling coal at them, etc.)
- drivers are generally overestimating confidence and safety when it comes to cycling. They may generally act more dangerously around people who look like they know what they're doing (e.g. the stereotype of the Lycra-clad road biker), which leads to more and deadlier accidents.
As far as your sister's accident goes, there are two modes of thinking about it. One is to create more regulation, which generally tends to encumber the more vulnerable user (e.g. mandatory helmets), and depends on pretty much constant, vigilant enforcment; the other is to physically engineer a road environment where a high-speed intersection collision is less likely, if at all possible. (This may involve things like a tight roundabout to force slow speeds and paying attention; raising the crosswalks or even the entire intersection; narrowing the road and installing chicanes so that one cannot speed in a straight line down a road; or creating a shared space by removing all curbs and road markings so that one must pay attention because the environment is so uncertain and confusing.)
The university of Bath study was barely scientific. The researcher was his own subject, and it has never been replicated. Yet it is now accepted as the Truth.
A vastly better way to study the issue would be to analyze video footage from roadways where there are both cars and bikes.
I suspect the greatest danger to cyclists is when the driver isn't paying attention at all, or is not controlling their vehicle, in which case I doubt there's a special mental circuit that triggers an unconscious behavioral response when it detects a helmet.
> e.g. very few bags might hold a 15-in laptop and also a helmet
I clip the helmet to the backpack straps.
I have a hard time imagining this. To the front or under the bag? Also, wouldn't it just bang into you as you walked?
Put the helmet on the bike?
Not particularly secure (unless you go to the expense of getting a second lock for the bike helmet) and depending on the configuration of the bike parking where you are, may not fit with other bikes parked.
Philosophically, I believe that personal responsibility cannot exist without without the freedom to make bad decisions; and that freedom cannot exist without at least sometimes being exercised.
I think a person should have the right to cycle without a helmet regardless of the fact it may be inadvisable - just like they should have the right to take up skateboarding or skiing or boxing or cheerleading, even if that's even less advisable.
And because I think it's an important right I'm going to exercise it, because a right that exists in theory but not in practice is a right that does not exist.
If one leaves it up to the law, it's easy. If not, it's basically an expression of personal weights assigned to a whole lot of fuzzy things.
Can you draw a clear line between when you wear a helmet and when you don't? Is it perfectly obvious or more up to habit? Would it be influenced by a change in laws? Or if there were helmets available marketed for the specific activity?
Is it obvious where riding a bike fits in between riding a car a car, climbing a tree, playing soccer with the kids, having a shower, walking up a staircase, cooking in your kitchen, walking near a pool, hiking in the hills... Your head can be hurt in so many ways. Wearing a helmet might save you. So why don't you do it more often?
At least among certain demographics in the US, a very clear orthodoxy has emerged between uses where you must wear helmets vs. where helmet use would seem pretty silly for the most part. There's some logic in the categorization but almost certainly not the clear line that some people would like to think exists.
That sounds like a strawman argument. If you don't wear a helment while doing activity A, why wear it while doing activity B.
To answer your question, perhaps because the common factor in all of these activities is that I am moving relatively slowly and my surroundings are basically stationary. These factors are void if I am riding a bike (or a motorcycle), where I might be moving at a few mph and there could be vehicles around me that might be moving even faster.
Because they do not improve outcomes when a driver runs you over, the speeds involved are simply too high. When you do mountainbiking, a helmet protects you, speeds are lower, but not on the public roads.
I cycle in a city and a know several people who have been hit by cars. None of them went under the car’s wheels. Half of them believe their helmet saved their life. It’s not as though you automatically die upon contact with a car, and of course it helps to have your head protected.
But it protects you if you fall off your bike.
That happens almost never.
In cities many accidents actually happen at relatively low speeds, e.g. the right hook, or dooring, or slipping on oil or wet leaves.
In my case, it's because the store is a few blocks away along a carefully chosen route. Otherwise, I wear one. It's saved me a couple times.
Because I have a narrow head and they make me look like a dork.
could be on the books but not enforced. in my city helmets are required when riding those electric scooters. you're also exposed to the same DUI laws that apply to actual cars. doesn't stop a bunch of drunk college kids from riding them around with no helmet every night.
There are more head traumas from car occupants than cyclists, it’s odd that there aren’t laws mandating helmets for drivers - 20% of Traumatic brain injuries Resulting in hospitalisation were caused by car crashes - about 1,000 a week.
I think the relevant statistic would be head trauma per miles traveled. But cars do get a lot of exceptions to standards society expects from other situations.
Given the wildly different rates of speed involved, incidents per unit of time would perhaps be more directly comparable.
I think that what it does is that it reduces casual "biking to go shopping, work, school" trips. The safest ones and the ones that do good for health.
It does not reduces sport "I am going to get workout now" trips - the most dangerous ones. (But still pretty safe!)