To Encourage Biking, Lose the Helmets

Hugh Pickens writes in about the detrimental effects of mandatory helmet laws (at least as applied to adults): "Elisabeth Rosenthal writes that in the United States the notion that bike helmets promote health and safety by preventing head injuries is taken as pretty near God's truth but many European health experts have taken a very different view. 'Yes, there are studies that show that if you fall off a bicycle at a certain speed and hit your head, a helmet can reduce your risk of serious head injury,' writes Rosenthal. 'But such falls off bikes are rare — exceedingly so in mature urban cycling systems.' On the other hand, many researchers say, if you force people to wear helmets, you discourage them from riding bicycles causing more health problems like obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. Bicycling advocates say that the problem with pushing helmets isn't practicality but that helmets make a basically safe activity seem really dangerous, which makes it harder to develop a safe bicycling network like the one in New York City, where a bike-sharing program is to open next year. The safest biking cities are places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, where middle-aged commuters are mainstay riders and the fraction of adults in helmets is minuscule. 'Pushing helmets really kills cycling and bike-sharing in particular because it promotes a sense of danger that just isn't justified — in fact, cycling has many health benefits,' says Piet de Jong. 'Statistically, if we wear helmets for cycling, maybe we should wear helmets when we climb ladders or get into a bath, because there are lots more injuries during those activities.'"

Comments

But that's not the real problem.

[mosb1000]

The real problem is that I'm an adult and I can decide for myself whether or not I will wear a helmet. The government doesn't need to make this decision for me.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[L4t3r4lu5]

No, the real problem is cyclists are small and drivers aren't given enough experience when learning to drive to identify small targets; They learn that pedestrian-sized obstacles are on pavements.

Cyclists should wear helmets because it can save their life if hit by a car, not to stop a bruise when they fall over at traffic lights because their fancy shoes didn't unclip.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[mwvdlee]

Then perhaps US drivers should get the same type of driving instructions given in, say, Amsterdam and Copenhagen.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[dingen]

Cycling will never become mainstream while helmet laws are enforced. In none of the countries where cycling is common it is required to where helmets and in every country where helmets are mandatory, cycling isn't very popular.

So lose the helmets and learn to drive. It's the only way.

I do agree with the bike lanes, but that's really an added extra, not a substitute for the above.

And why is it such a problem to have to sit through a generation to profoundly improve something? The lack of long term solutions is exactly what is wrong with the world. Everyone wants everything now and that's just not feasible. The reality is that short term solutions generally make things worse in the long term, not better.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Joce640k]

Did you miss the bit in the summary about cycling saving money by making people healthier?

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[deoxyribonucleose]

Agreed.

I've cycled to work for over 20 years and never worn a helmet. In that time, I've been knocked off twice by stupid car drivers. A helmet would have made no difference at all on either occasion.

Of course, had you hit your head, you probably wouldn't be posting this. The anthropic principle as applied to safety... or why anecdotal evidence is a contradiction in terms.

I used to bike helmetless everywhere, but started wearing one five years ago, since I feel safer if my wife does, and don't want to be a hypocrite. It's not that high price to pay for a slightly reduced risk. Mandatory helmet laws, however, are counterproductive. I seem to recall a similar analysis a couple of years back.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Maury Markowitz]

"If you ditch the need for helmets, more people would start cycling"

I simply don't believe this.

I don't know a single person that doesn't bike because they have to wear a helmet. And I suspect anyone that reports such is just looking for a socially acceptable reason for their lack of exercise.

"You realize that is just a temporary problem"

So we'll just let people get hit by cars until the cars stop being dumb?

Great plan. I've been waiting 100 years for that to happen. Maybe Google will finally solve it.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Alioth]

If having to slow down for a few moments to safely pass a bicycle makes you border on psychotic rage, you aren't fit to be driving a car.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Hadlock]

If you ditch the need for helmets, more people would start cycling,

No, if Walmart, Target and Toys'R'Us would stop selling 900 variety of mountain bikes and more road/commuter bikes, more people would start cycling. The problem is that you get a crappy mountain bike with terrible fat high rolling resistance tires that roll to a stop in about 20 ft. You put up with it as a kid because hey - at least you can go more than three blocks from the house in an hour. It's not like you can drive. Americans grow up thinking that bicycles are these awful, miserable mechanical contraptions designed to wear out childen. Most Americans have never ridden a proper bicycle with smooth tires and geometry designed to go more than five miles. Walmart and Target both only sell one road bike, it's that awful yellow GMC Yukon with the grip shifters (go look at it some time, it's in every big box store in america) and occasionally, very recently they have started carrying some "fixie" bikes.
 
Put real, rideable bikes back in big box stores and you'll see a resurgence in bicycle commters... in about 15 years. I see tons of illegal immigrants huffing and puffing around Dallas on walmart brand (Nexus, Magma) mountain bikes, simply because they can't find adult road bikes that fit their smaller stature. If you head over to your LBS you can find good road bikes, but joe average doesn't typically drop $600 on a road bike for little jimmy who is going to outgrow it anyways.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[LoztInSpace]

WTF? You do not need to carry your helmet anywhere you don't carry your bike. I lock up my helmet with my bike. If I'm on the bike I have the helmet on. If I'm in the bar/restaurant/shopping centre/office/cinema/swimming pool/squash court/supermarket/KFC/whatever, I don't.
Same way I don't carry my airbag with me when I park the car.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[HanzoSpam]

Bullshit.

Cycling was as common when I was a kid as it is now. But cycle helmets were not mandatory then. By your logic, cycling should have got less popular over time. It hasnt.

Where I live (US), it's certainly less popular. When I was a kid, people, and mostly other kids, would cycle everywhere. Every kid I knew had a bicycle, and it was their primary form of transportation. Now, I rarely see someone cycling, and when I do, it's usually an adult, and usually on a designated bike trail, not on the streets or sidewalks.

That's not just an anecdotal observation on my part either. I no longer see bike racks installed for parking bikes near schools or stores anymore, they used to be common. If you watch any old children's TV shows from the '50s or '60s, you can see how ingrained the bicycle was in the culture (almost as common as smoking!).

Of course, in those days when you wanted to ride your bike, you just jumped on it and off you went. If we'd had to dress up like quarterbacks every time we wanted to run to the store or a friend's house, we probably would have lost our taste for bicycling, too.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

I don't know a single person that doesn't bike because they have to wear a helmet.

You don't know ANY women?

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[richlv]

if i'm reading that right, a helmet would have not helped you in any way, though. your face would still be as unprotected as without a helmet

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Cinder6]

I really question whether helmets are the main reason people don't ride (no, I did not RTFA). Many states (almost half, I believe) don't require helmet use after 18. Three other reasons seem more likely:

1. You are more exposed to the elements (extreme heat, extreme cold, rain, etc.)
2. You are going shopping, and need more storage space than a backpack or basket
3. You are too damned lazy

I've worked (and previously lived) in a university town that bills itself as the "bike capital of the world", apparently never having heard of Amsterdam. In a given day, I will pass around a dozen bicyclists while driving to work. More than half don't wear helmets. The thing I've noticed is that the people who don't wear helmets are precisely the ones that should, as they tend to act like blithering idiots.

I cannot count the number of times I've seen a helmetless rider race through a busy intersection out-of-turn. Even more alarming, I can't count the number of times I've had to swerve to avoid a bicyclist who, at night on a street without street lights, decided it was a great idea to dart in front of my car without even a light or reflectors (my brother actually hit someone that did this; luckily, the guy wasn't hurt and didn't press charges).

Riders that wear helmets, on the other hand, tend to be much more courteous. They wait their turn at intersections and generally follow the law better than those who don't wear them. For myself, I wear a helmet simply because I don't see a reason not to. It's like seat belts in cars. I'd rather wear a helmet and not need it than not wear one and need it.

Re:Can't agree more

[Anonymous Coward]

And a motorcycle helmet actually illustrates your point really well. To make "being hit by a car" OK on a pedal bicycle you would need a motorcyle style helmet, but obviously no-one is going to wear one of those to ride a bike, they're heavy and awkward and expensive. So they have these smaller, lighter helmets. And they're certified, they have logos on and everything. But wait, what are they certified for?

Well they're certified for falling off the bike and hitting your head on the ground. Low speed impact simulated by a device that thumps the helmet. No crash dummies, no tonne of steel crashing into the cyclist, just a small metal piston and a guy with a clipboard. And those sort of impacts do happen... if you're five and still learning to ride, or if you're a BMX stunt cyclist, or maybe if you're mountain biking. But does it happen on the roads? Not really. No, on the roads what happens is that cyclists get mown down by inatttentive drivers turning across their path, or they ride into a suddenly opened car door, that sort of thing and the helmet doesn't do shit. So why bother with it?

Driver's education

[Anonymous Coward]

In The Netherlands, part of the success is in the fact that sharing the road with bicycles is considered an important part of driver education (and has been for a long time). In cities with (almost) all bicycle lanes separate from the main road, no driving exams are done (example: Almere, the 6th city of the Netherlands has no possibility to do driving exams). Any mistake where a bicyclist is not given the space and care (s)he deserves results in failing the exam, so this part is taken very seriously. In additions, drivers are always held responsible in accidents invoolving bicycles.

As a result, car drivers are very careful around bicyclists and they need not wear helmets. Cycling is considered safe. These factors make more people want to use the bicycle.

Re:Correlation

[hoboroadie]

I find the dents and gouges in my helmet to be pretty compelling evidence of injuries and pain that didn't occur.
YMMV, Science Guy.

So wrong

[istartedi]

These box stores sell what customers want. The problem with cycling for most of us is that RACERS KILLED IT:

1. We don't want toe clips. 2. We don't want handlebars that force you to hunch over. 3. We don't want tires that will go out of true after 200 miles on potholed roads. 4. We don't want to spend any more than $500. 5. Steel is fine. Really. Sturdiness is hella more important than saving a few blasted kg. Yes. I said kg. Not grams. 6. We want a seat you can actually sit on..

Anyway, you see a lot of steel cruisers here with fat tires (but they are slick usually), wide handlebars, steel frames, and AFAIK most have on gear but they have handle brakes. People don't want overpricd finicky racing machines that cost as much as a car. We're not Lance Armstrong.