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.

[Anonymous Coward]

and then society has to pay higher hospital bills and health insurance to pay for your health care as you live the rest of your post-car-crash life as a vegetable. So yes, society does have a material interest in having you not act like an idiot.

same goes for smoking, seat belts, and suicide. you're being selfish if you just think its only about you.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[CodeheadUK]

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.

However, I make my kids wear helmets because they wobble around at low speed and have no road sense. When they're old enough they can make an informed choice too.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[dingen]

You realize that is just a temporary problem which doesn't need a permanent fix? If you ditch the need for helmets, more people would start cycling, which will make motorists more aware of them. It might take a generation to get fully adjusted, but there are lots of European countries where drivers are fully used to having to watch out for people riding bicycles (and small scooters by the way).

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.

[xaxa]

Cyclists should wear helmets because it can save their life if hit by a car.

That's exactly the kind of injury that cycle helmets aren't much use at preventing -- the speeds are too high.

Also, some research showed that drivers overtook helmeted cyclists with less room compared to unhelmeted cyclists, i.e. the drivers take a higher risk because they assume the helmet is protecting the cyclist.

not to stop a bruise when they fall over at traffic lights because their fancy shoes didn't unclip

That's the kind of injury the helmet might help with, and people cycling for sport should probably wear helmets. (Just like people driving for sport wear helmets.)

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you realize you just posted that on an article about a group of doctors claiming the costs or requiring helmets outweigh the benefits? Theres a point where you are no longer caring about "the greater good" and are actually just being an overbearing asshole. Helmet laws are way, way past that point.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[xaxa]

The difference in countries that don't have mandatory helmet laws is that there is already a culture of people sharing the footpath/sidewalk with bicycles. So it is alright for people to ride around at medium speed. If you live in a country that doesn't have this sort of culture then you are screwed! You have to share the road with cars. This makes wearing a helmet mandatory.

You don't know what you're writing about.

Plenty of European cyclists use the road for some or all of their journeys, yet helmets are not mandatory (except for children, in some countries).

Australia has mandatory helmets, and very low levels of cycling to go with it.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

It might take a generation to get fully adjusted

Great, so we only have to deal with tens of thousands of people with brain injuries until everyone is adjusted. I have a better idea. Wear helmets, train (and punish if necessary) drivers, and build bike paths at the same time. And by the time everyone is fully adjusted, bike helmets will be the norm and the added safety margin from helmets will remain.

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.

[dingen]

That would be a good idea even without the cyclists. Proper instructions are key to making roads safe. Look at Germany: no speed limits, yet because of decent training, the Autobahn is less dangerous than the roads are in a lot of other countries.

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.

[mvdwege]

No, you cannot make that comparison. The class of injuries prevented by seatbelts is wider and more common than the extremely rare head injuries suffered by bicyclists.

Mart

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[L4t3r4lu5]

I'm all for this. In fact, I think it should be mandatory to ride a moped for at least one year before you can drive a car. You can ride a moped at 16 in the UK after taking a £100 day course, meaning you could start to drive at 17 as you can now. Not only will it make you more aware of how traffic reacts to smaller vehicles, but it gives you invaluable experience of how handling changes in the wet, which isn't always obvious to a new car driver (We don't do skid-pan training here).
Then again, I also think drivers should be retested every 10 years until their 60th birthday, then every 5 years. I see yuppies swerving in and out of traffic on the motorway daily, but a pensioner pulling out of the wrong side of a junction into oncoming traffic is something else.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[dingen]

The reality is that you'll be seriously injured anyway if you are hit by a car while driving a bicycle, helmet or not.

By the way, in the Netherlands (where as you might now cycling is very common on the roads) the person driving the car is always liable in a car-bicycle collision. It doesn't matter if the cyclist was running a red light, it doesn't matter if it was on the wrong side of the road: if a car hits a bicycle, it's the car's fault. Always. This makes motorist very aware of cyclists, so despite of everyone cycling everywhere, accidents involving cars aren't actually that common at all.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Splab]

When you get hit by a car, your helmet wont do didly, unless you happen to be very lucky and fall just right.
When you are run over by a car, you will most likely be pushed ahead and subsequently be run over - Helmets help cases like my sister, who for some reason is unable to fend off the oncoming ground with her arms and thus always lands head first (3 concussions and counting, still wont wear her helmet).

And I believe the researchers conclusion is wrong, helmets wont make something that is basically safe look less so. Here in Copenhagen, their conclusion is, wearing a helmet causes the wearer to take more chances, as they belive themselves to be protected by their helmet.

As a regular driver in the suicide squadrons (150+ people sharing about 100m of dual bikelane road is suicidal) in central Copenhagen, my own observation is, most offenders of running red lights and driving with their head firmly up their buttocks are either wearing a helmet or using their phone.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[ag0ny]

You have no idea about what you're talking about. I live in Tokyo. Here hundreds of thousands take their bicycles everyday to go just about everywhere. If what you say was true, then thousands would die every year from bike accidents because wearing helmets is completely voluntary.

Guess what? That isn't happening. People aren't dying left and right.

I can't speak for others, but I can tell you that *I* wouldn't ride my bike as often if I had to carry an annoying helmet with me every time I went somewhere.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[reboot246]

We have too many assholes here in the U.S. who are looking for any reason to sue somebody and hit the lawsuit lottery. The lawyers would love it and they would be advertising 24/7 for clients.

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.

[ISoldMyLowIdOnEbay]

A car pulled out in front of me when I was doing about 15mph along an urban road. I hit the side of it and flew over the top of the windscreen, landing on the road the other side. I had a few scrapes, a torn jacket, and a broken cycle helmet. If I hadn't been wearing one, it would have been my head that hit the road and scraped along it. Having said that, wearing or not wearing a helmet shouldn't be a matter of compulsion if the evidence is not conclusive. I will continue to wear one, though.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[HungryHobo]

there's also an element of risk compensation.

http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html

Drivers percieve cyclists wearing helmets as less fragile and drive closer to them and take more risks when overtaking. this of course means that they're more likely to hit and kill them.

As always the problem can be summed up as:"Bad Drivers"

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[dingen]

I do believe that removing unneeded hassles, people will be more inclined to do something. In countries where cycling is common (Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan) people regard riding a bicycle as common as taking a walk. Would you walk as much if you had to wear a helmet?

And in these same countries where cycling is common, cyclists aren't hit by cars at all on a large scale. How could that be? Could it be those people are actually smarter or better at driving, or does it make more sense to assume these motorists are simply used to having cyclists on the road? And if they can become used to it, why couldn't people in other countries as well?

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[WillKemp]

I've been cycling for about 40 years. Iin that time i've come off my bike about 4 times - and never come close to hitting my head. In most parts of Australia it's compulsory to wear a helmet, but i never have.

Wearing a helmet is much more dangerous than not wearing one. No helmets ever have wide brims - for very good reasons. That means, if you wear a helmet, you have a much higher risk of getting skin cancer than you would have of getting a head injury if you didn't. I wear a wide brimmed hat.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[slim]

Also, some research showed that drivers overtook helmeted cyclists with less room compared to unhelmeted cyclists, i.e. the drivers take a higher risk because they assume the helmet is protecting the cyclist.

I get the impression that a number of car drivers are more hostile towards "serious" cyclists than "casual" cyclists (my choice of words). That is, they resent lycra-clad, helmet-wearing cyclists going fast on racing bikes, and are more accepting towards people in ordinary clothes on modest bikes. That might partially explain the result you report.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[dingen]

You don't know what you're talking about. For starters, there isn't such a thing as a European standard speed limit. In France it's 130 km/h, in Belgium it's 120 km/h, in the UK it's 70 m/h (about 113 km/h). Every country sets their own rules, as I believe do the States of the US.

Now about the German Autobahn: nationwide there is no mandatory speed limit. There is a "recommended" speed limit of 130 km/h, but you are free to go over that if you like. Now as the population has been increasing and the roads were getting busier and cities larger, some parts of some roads did get a speed limit. That's mainly near large cities, on roads with heavy traffic or on roads with poor far-field vision (lots of bends and hills). Also limits may apply in certain conditions, such as when it rains and the roads are wet. But in general, all Autobahns are still completely speed unlimited.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that is a common misunderstanding (in the Netherlands). It's not true, obviously. What _is_ true, is this: with every car-bike accident police involvement is obligatory (police have to make a "proces verbaal" or a "written account"). This is because car drivers would get involved in an accident with an cyclist, and would try to make amends by offering apologies and/or a small amount of money. Especially youngsters would accept money in these cases.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[fnj]

... in the Netherlands ... if a car hits a bicycle, it's the car's fault. Always.

I am not in a position to dispute the factual accuracy of this assertion, so I won't do so. But laws and regulations couched in such simplistic terms are offensive to me as a rational thinker. They do not allow judging each situation on its own merit. Now, had you said "the motor vehicle driver is always presumed to be at fault, pending evaluation of the special circumstances of the individual case leading to a contrary finding", I would not as a rational thinker have any objection.

The motor vehicle driver, given that he is operating equipment with great potential to cause bodily harm to others, does bear a heavy responsibility. But pedestrians and cyclists also have a responsibility not to act in flagrant defiance of safety. Example: the pedestrian in a crosswalk has the presumptive right of way, but that does not mean he should be held faultless if he rushes into the crosswalk in a blind entrance between two tall parked vehicles without paying any attention to vehicular traffic which is already too close to the crosswalk to possibly stop in time. Another example: a cyclist abruptly and carelessly turning across the path of motor vehicle traffic or lurching wildly into the path of a motor vehicle should be held to be at contributory or primary fault.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[telchine]

Cyclists should wear helmets because it can save their life if hit by a car

[Citation Needed]

There's no evidence to suggest that a helmet offers protection in a collision with a car.

AFAIK, the only credible research implicates that there may be some benefit in a low speed (aprox ~15mph) impact.

There's a good write-up of all the issues surronding bicycle helmets here:

http://chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Cycle_helmet_debate

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Paul Jakma]

Good meta-studies (i.e. a study which systematically searches the literature for primary research on a topic, and then aggregates the results - in order to cancel out biases) suggest there is no significant overall injury/death mitigation benefit to cyclists from wearing helmets. There is a benefit in terms of head trauma, however it appears to be cancelled out by increases in other trauma. See: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145751100008X (and unfortunately, you need to pay to read the full text or have access to a university subscription, but you can see the blob-charts for free).

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.

[dingen]

It's article 185 of the "Wegenverkeerswet" which is the Dutch traffic law.

The exact text (in Dutch of course) can be found here: http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0006622/HoofdstukXII/Artikel185/geldigheidsdatum_02-10-2012
An explanation of the law is on Wikipedia (also in Dutch): http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artikel_185_Wegenverkeerswet

The law states that when a motorist and a non-motorist collide on the road, it is always the fault of the motorist, unless "overmacht" can be proven, which is a Dutch legal term meaning the motorist could not in any conceivable way have prevented the incident. So if you drive a car and hit a cyclist and it was absolutely impossible for you at any point to either brake or steer around the cyclist, then you go free. Otherwise, it's your fault.

Of course this isn't "fair" per se, but the law is there to protect the cyclists, who are perceived "weak users of the road" from motor vehicles, which are "strong users of the road". And I can tell you it works very well in practice.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[fearofcarpet]

And in these same countries where cycling is common, cyclists aren't hit by cars at all on a large scale. How could that be? Could it be those people are actually smarter or better at driving, or does it make more sense to assume these motorists are simply used to having cyclists on the road? And if they can become used to it, why couldn't people in other countries as well?

In the Netherlands, if you see a car with a "D" on the license plate (or almost anything other than "NL"), ride defensively. The difference between Dutch drivers' awareness of cyclists and foreigners is immense, not because they are better drivers, but because they're so used to bikes (and most drivers are cyclists, too). They instinctively look to the right before making a turn, slow down to let bikes through, don't crowd, don't pass too close, and leave space for bikes when they are stopped at a light or in traffic. (Which is particularly surprising considering the total disregard cyclists seem to have for the rules.)

Contrast that to (my experience biking in) the US where motorists angrily accelerate around you, often giving you a dirty look for inconveniencing them with your stupid bike as they narrowly miss you with their side-view mirror. And where they just suddenly veer right, into a parking spot, even if there is a bike lane (which they love to double park in) without noticing the cyclist that almost face-plants on their trunk. I've lived in a few big cities in the US, and it was a common joke that you're not really a cyclist until you've been hit by a car (I went completely through a windshield). I've also lived in a few small towns, where you'd have to be crazy to bike because everything is 20 miles apart and uphill and motorists treat you with an odd reverence.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

"...in every country where helmets are mandatory, cycling isn't very popular." -- > what a ridiculous generalization! Here in NZ. biking is very popular and one hardly sees a rider without a helmet and other safety / visibility aids. Helmets make good sense. If _you_ can be dissuaded from riding a bike by the fact that helmets are mandatory, please stay the fuck off, I don't want to have to swerve to miss your unconscious corpse because of your fashion hangups.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[xenobyte]

... but there are lots of European countries where drivers are fully used to having to watch out for people riding bicycles (and small scooters by the way).

"Watch out" is right. Here in Copenhagen the traffic is a nightmare for everybody else than the cyclists because the cyclists have zero respect for the traffic laws and the other parts of traffic. Red lights are routinely ignored by a majority (95% turn right on red and 50-60% ride straight through intersections on red) and if you're driving a car, expect cyclists from every direction in intersections, regardless of the light. People in buses routinely get hurt due to emergency braking as a result of cyclists doing suicidal stuff in front of the bus.

Oh, and they continue to be a nuisance when parked as well because most bike riders seem deadly afraid of walking which results in huge piles of seemingly discarded bicycles packed tightly around entrances to malls, stations and similar. There will be bikes parked against almost all lamp posts, traffic signs, free-standing trees and walls.

The police did a raid a few months ago at a major intersection. They were in uniform and had marked cars with flashing lights parked nearby, and yet they actually managed to run out of fines, writing up over 500 cyclists in less than an hour, most for running the red light or riding on the pavement or crosswalk. Some actually claimed that it used to be legal to ignore the red light, or that the traffic lights plain and simple didn't apply to bicyclists...

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[jeti]

1. Bikes don't belong on the sidewalk. That's incredibly dangerous. They belong on the road and in most European countries they are not allowed to use the sidewalk.

2. Two years after Australia made helmets for cyclists mandatory, the number of cyclists was cut in half. The total number of severe accidents involving cyclists stayed the same. The net effect was therefore to make cycling twice as dangerous.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[dehuit]

Bzzzt: Wrong. Cyclists are protected a bit, e.g. liability has to be proven by the motorist. But I still had to pay when I crashed head-first into an oncoming car a few years ago. Which by the way was quite a crash. If I had worn a helmet I would probably have claimed it had saved my life....

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Razgorov Prikazka]

> 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.

This is a correlation, not necessarily a causality.
There is (for example) also the cultural difference to take into account. In (large parts of) Yurp nearly everyone had a bicycle, long before cars were common. So drivers were (from the beginning, say the 30's onwards) used to have cyclists and little mopeds / scooters sharing their road. In the US this was different.

Besides, I wonder if regulation alone would discourage people. Are there less people using a car since seatbelts and/or head restraints became mandatory?
Although I must say that mandatory helmets would make me sell my bike (and I am a vivid cyclist)! FU to anyone trying to shove that down my throat!

To grandparent:
>> It might take a generation to get fully adjusted [...]

I HOPE NOT!!! First of all a good driver is one who anticipates on all kind of situations. Besides, if a school is build somewhere (and there is the possibility of children darting off onto the road)... and it takes a whole generation before drivers are adjusted to the new situation in the neighbourhood... mmmnot so good!

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[BigZee]

yes, you're right, a collision involving a car could well involve a serious injury to pretty much any part of the body. However, although I could (very reluctantly) live with a missing arm or leg, I'm pretty sure medical science hasn't got to the stage yet where I can exist without a head. I cycle to work every day. I don't want to die from a head injury or exist in a mental state less than I do today, hence I wear a helmet.

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.

[Gavagai80]

I don't know about other states, but in California adults are not required to wear helmets. That freedom hasn't caused everyone to start biking around here.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[pjabardo]

Of course the injuries depend a lot on drivers' attitude. But this can change *very* fast. Just as an example, I live in São Paulo, Brazil. About 1-2 years ago, it was extremely rare for drivers to stop at pedestrian lanes (in places that did not have a red light). You could walk all day long for weeks and no driver would stop so that you could cross a street. Now, after a safety campaign (not anything out of this world), drivers respect for pedestrians has improved a lot. It is far from perfect, perhaps far from good but it happens often. And this was a change that took a little more than 1 year.

I ride my bike to work and buses were a weapon of mass destruction. After 2 accidents that killed bikers in a very important avenue and bikers made very intelligent (and noisy) protests, buses are no longer as dangerous as they used to be.

I started riding my bike to work about 5 years ago. At that time seeing anothe bicycle on the way was kind of rare and I used to hear about once a week drivers yelling at me that they paid car taxes, implying that I should move out of the street. I haven't heard this sort of remark for years and today on the same route I see a large number of bicycles. Deaths haven't increased (they may have decreased actually) and helmet use doesn't appear to have changed (just plain observation no real stats). As a side note, I should mention that in poor neighborhoods bicycles were always common and that's where most of the deaths used to ocurr (and still does) but in middle class regions bicycles were considered either toys or sport.

The thing is, what makes cycling safe is numbers. Drivers get used to bicycles and know what to expect. And a bicycling culture helps a lot. People talk and suggest better and safer routes, safer riding strategies and if an accident happens we can make sure everyone knows about it.

By the way, I wear a helmet but think that imposing them would be the worst thing for bicycle commuters.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Havenwar]

Now you know of one!

Well, technically I don't have to wear a helmet. See, the law here in Sweden says it's mandatory for people up to 15 years of age to wear helmets. Since I hadn't ridden a bike since about that time I had no idea it wasn't mandatory, so for years I was thinking of all the use I could have had of a bicycle but found ways to work around it - mainly walking a lot - because it's too awkward to carry around a bicycle helmet everywhere. It's too expensive to leave on a clothes rack, too bulky to carry around easily. A real annoyance. Of course that's not the case if you ONLY ride for sport, or if you ONLY ride to and from work where you have a locker or whatnot... but if you use a bike as your main transportation you find yourself carrying a helmet with you to cafés, meetings, shops, the cinema, concerts, and so on.

Actually I've seen a guy being refused entry to a concert because he had a bike helmet with him. Apparently the day before someone had swung one around by the straps and smashed someone's face in. So I guess they do have their uses... but really. No.

Anyway, now that I've found out I don't need to wear a helmet, a bicycle is a much more interesting option, that would increase how far from my home I could travel, and let me get to cheaper stores further away and so on. Of course by some coincidence now I live in a place where everything is in walking distance... but if that changes, I'll be getting myself a bicycle. As long as they don't change the law.

If helmets become mandatory, I'll stick to walking and public transport. It's less inconvenient.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[JohhnyTHM]

Come and live in Yorkshire. Everything is uphill both ways. In the snow.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[TheRaven64]

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.

There was an article on Slashdot a couple of years ago that was a large study that refuted the idea that helmets increase safety. They made three conclusions:

• If you are involved in a collision without a helmet then you are marginally (but not statistically significantly) more likely to die (there's a fairly small range of accident types where a helmet can protect your head and you won't be killed by anything else).
• If you are involved in a collision with a helmet then you are significantly more likely to suffer spinal damage and permanent paralysis (bike helmets are badly designed and unless you are hit directly from the top typically just translate the force into a shear across the top of the spine. The amount of force required to do this is significantly less than the force required to crack a skull).
• If you wear a helmet then you are significantly more likely to be involved in an accident.

There are several reasons for the last point. Cyclists wearing helmets subconsciously think that they are safer and take more risks. Drivers drive closer to cyclists with helmets because they perceive them as less fragile. Helmets upset the airflow around your head and so reduce your spacial and situational awareness.

I do see a lot of people driving at dusk without lights around here though, and there are lots of studies that show that this significantly increases your chance of being in an accident.

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.

[JoeMerchant]

Even though we have much fewer cyclists in the US, it is the same with their disrespect for traffic laws.

When getting your driving license, they make it abundantly clear that all the same laws that apply to motor vehicles apply equally to bicycles. But, there is no license process for bicyclists, and the first thing they learn here is that they should squish over to the right hand side of a lane to let cars pass freely... nothing to do with legal, it's just how the motor drivers behave that creates this situation. After that, they assume they are free to ride on sidewalks, run red lights and stop signs, etc. etc. mostly because there is zero enforcement of these laws, too.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[ShnowDoggie]

Where I live most of the kids do not ride bikes. When I was kid we all did. Seems less common now.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[DeathElk]

In Australia, the first country to federally mandate compulsory bicycle helmets, cycling has seen a dramatic per capita decline since the introduction of MHL. You did't bother quoting figures, so neither will I.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[rullywowr]

>

I run 40 miles a month, bike about 100 and kayak 2 hours a week, i.e. I'm more fit than the huge majority of people my age (or any age, for that matter)

And apparently modest too!!!

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[JoeMerchant]

Dunno, in college I rode one of the early mountain bikes (granted, with center-rib tires that had relatively low rolling resistance), but I loved it - rode all over the county. Friend of mine with a road bike asked where I went, I told him, he rode the same "bike path" on his road bike the next week and ended up walking 5 miles to a friend's house because he blew out a tire on one of the thousands of rocks on the path.

In a velodrome, road bikes are the thing. In any urban/sub-urban cycling situation I have ridden (including cross-country in Germany, Denmark, Netherlands and Belgium), there's at least one situation per day (and sometimes hundreds) where I'm glad I have those fat tires.

So, I cruise upright at ~12mi(~20km) per hour instead of ~18(30) in an aerodynamic hunch-over, does that really matter? Same exercise for less distance covered, less repetition going around the same loop more times, or simply safer routes because I'm not looking for 50% more distance to cover. And, back to OP topic, in 10,000+ miles ridden, no head injuries - maybe a dozen "serious" crashes of one kind or another, but at 12mph it's much easier to land on your feet.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[SternisheFan]

About 30 years back, long before there were helmet laws I was in a serious bicycle accident, suffered serious head injury. I've long since recovered, though the facial scars remain, and I'll always have a titanium wire keeping one piece of my skull connected to the other part. And no other vehicle was involved, on a dark road my 10 speed bikes tire got caught in a sewer grating, propelling me forward and off the bike. My head impacted with the I-beam that guard rails are comnnected to. Lost the lower 'orbit' of my right eye, that is what supports the eyeball. I was fortunate that my eye 'fell back' and I did not lose vision in that eye. A rib graft was done by the great doctor's of Manhattan Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat to replace the 'orbit'. I went through about 3 years of going to doctors and undergoing operations before I felt good enough to go back to work. And I feel that, compared to othersm I got off easy. No lasting traumatic brain injury. So I feel I am 'qualified' to comment on this topic.

Protective gear in any sport or recreational activity is the intelligent way to go. Whether or not laws force people to protect themselves from serious injury, I say this... Wear the damn helmets people! It's better to risk looking a little 'dorky' than to risk your health and future. In my humble opinion.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[drooling-dog]

I've also had a couple of biking accidents where my helmet didn't play a role, but if you get thrown from your bike it's not hard to see that your head is extremely vulnerable. My GF works with traumatic brain injury patients at a local hospital, and words can hardly describe how devastating these injuries can be, or how instantly your life can change forever. So other people can do what they want, but I'm not going out biking without the helmet. It takes all of 5 seconds.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Dark$ide]

There's a good write-up of all the issues surronding bicycle helmets here:

http://chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Cycle_helmet_debate

MOD PARENT UP.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[drinkypoo]

That's why I drive a German car on US roads... Germany has a nifty little invention called suspension, the US automakers should perhaps consider implementing it. They have it figured out in Japan, too.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[dingen]

Sure if there were bike lanes etc everywhere or at least a wide paved shoulder for them to ride on, or maybe if I lived in a magical place where all of the roads are straight. However I've twice now almost run over a bike around a blind corner going up a hill.

If you can't stop in time to avoid oncoming traffic, you are taking the corner too fast. Simple as that.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[slim]

I would happily welcome you to my neighborhood. Where I'm from (Pittsburgh, PA), many bicyclists don't use hand signals or stop at red lights - They buzz right through. I was almost nailed by one of these cycle delivery guys while walking across a street, with a walk signal. It sometimes seems like traffic laws are just for automobiles, while cyclists can run wild like wolves. (Although I've never been bitten by one.)

I don't defend cyclists who don't obey the rules of the road, but note that you wrote "many" not "all". What upsets me is that lots of the comments here attack *all* cyclists, because of some bad apples.

And, there's this idea that they can ride on any road, even if it's clearly only meant for automobiles, like an entry lane to an expressway. There are bicycle lanes in some neighborhoods, but I sometimes get the couple who want to ride side-by-side, even if that means that they are in the traffic lane. Smug superiority abounds.

We (Americans) collectively suck at driving, be it cars or cycles.

I don't know about the US, but here in the UK, bikes are traffic. Except for motorways, a bike can go anywhere a car can. The highway code explicitly says it's OK to ride bicycles two-abreast. If you're a car behind them, then you should stay behind them until there's room to overtake, just as if they were a slow car.

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.

[Electricity Likes Me]

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.

When I was a kid we cycled everywhere, and helmets were mandatory. People seemed to ride bikes everywhere, because we all kids and legally allowed to ride on the footpath. The exact day I stopped cycling was at the age this became illegal - 12.

This helmet thing is complete stupidity being perpetrated by people who should know better. What we need is good, separated cycling infrastructure - the sidewalk felt safe. Being on the road has never felt safe.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[slim]

No, most of Europe drives on the right.

What has confused you is that in Europe right-turn-on-red is not allowed. Not for cars, not for bikes. Red means stop, with no exceptions.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

I fell off a ladder and hit my head on a bucket, severely fracturing my skull. I slipped in the bath and hit my head on the shower pipe, severely fracturing my skull. I walked across the road and was hit by a car, severely fracturing my skull when I bounced off onto the pavement. I was walking down the stairs and slipped on a wet patch, fell face first and severely fractured my skull.

Your experience sucked but is not statistically relevant. If it is, as the article claims, less likely that you are going to suffer the kind of accident that would cause head injury on a bike than while doing many other activities, then you should indeed wear a helmet while climbing into the bath, or not wear a helmet while biking.

Don't get me wrong, I feel like it's sensible to wear a helmet as well, if it's not too inconvenient. But it is basically paranoia, a paranoia that people typically don't exhibit in many other dangerous areas of their lives. My gut feeling is that pedestrians walking around with headphones in staring at their phones are probably doing something far, far more risky than biking without a helmet. Nobody seems to care about that though.

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.

[CastrTroy]

Kids going outside seems less common now too. I am a parent, so this is something I have noticed a lot. Me and a couple of my neighbors always take our kids outside to play on the weekends. They are all 6 and under, so we still stick around outside, but give them freedom to roam a bit. Or we take them to the park. But there are a lot of kids in the neighbourhood who you never see outside. We only know they exist because you see them going form their front door to the car. Otherwise, they never go outside. That park is almost always empty, except for my kinds and my neighbours.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[drinkypoo]

a pedestrian deciding to rush into a road does bear some responsibility as they are deemed temporary users of the road, as in they should stay off it as much as possible.

Well that's a bit daft, there were roads before there were any of those other users, save maybe horsemen.

A bicycle, however, is entitled to use all of the assigned carriageway, just like a horse, motorbike, car, truck, tractor, tank, whatever.

Indeed? The whole thing?

If both bicycle and vehicle are travelling in the same direction then there is no "path" for them to lurch wildly into.

That is a patently false statement. A moving object has a path.

A reason they would lurch sideways is to avoid potholes / raised metalwork. Which they are entitled to do (you do the same in a car, don't you?).

I'm entitled to do that, but I'm not entitled to cross into another carriageway to do it if someone else is there. Where I live (California) I am legally obligated to hit whatever is there rather than deviate into another vehicle's right-of-way. Well, that's stretching the truth a bit. I am legally obligated to drive in such a manner that I not hit something there. I am required to drive slow enough to be safe for the conditions. That means that if I drive so fast that I cannot observe a pothole (or other road damage, or an obstruction) that I must avoid then I am essentially automatically at fault for whatever comes next. I would be shocked and amazed if you did not have the same responsibility. Part of that is that I must not cause accidents. Therefore, if I am on a cycle and there is a pothole which I want to avoid, but doing so would cause me to move into the path of oncoming traffic, that I should instead stop and wait for that traffic to pass as I have the option to do so. However, at the same time, if a motorist does not have room to pass a cyclist on a turn or whatever, the motorist is required to yield the lane until there is available space, at which time they are to go around them.

So in the US (and this varies state to state to some degree but anyway) the basic assumption is that whoever can yield does. In California if you have five people behind you you're legally obligated to pull over and let them pass, whether you're on a bicycle or driving a car, and you're required to do so wherever it is safe. So if a cyclist is holding up five cars going up (or down!) a hill, they're required to pull over right away (as there is basically always room for this) and let them go by. It really ought to be one car, because the penalty for a stop on a bicycle is minimal if you know how to operate it, but anyway.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[dollar99]

Drivers who hit and kill cyclists never saw them in the first place, helmet or not. I had this debate with an anti-helmet buddy of mine who two weeks later was hit by a car and suffered a major concussion. The driver thought she hit a squirrel. He still has problems concentrating. I don't agree with helmet laws forcing people to not be stupid, but I know as many bikers who've been hit as I do that haven't.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[drinkypoo]

However I've twice now almost run over a bike around a blind corner going up a hill.

You do not understand driving in hill country. Never outdrive your vision or your brakes. You can come around a corner and find a tree or a rock the size of a car in the middle of your lane. Blind corners are called blind corners for a reason, because you can't see what you're doing. If you operate a car such that you can't see what you're doing, you're a hazard to all those around you and you should have your license revoked. And further, you've admitted it as a matter of public record! What a genius!

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[crazyjj]

Darwinian speed limit

Still way slower than the Einsteinian speed limit.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[nine-times]

Here's the problem with your example: You could injure yourself crossing the street, too. You could trip and fall. You could get hit by a car. Your story could have just as easily been about when you tripped and fell down the stairs and hit your head on a radiator.

Does that mean we should wear protective gear everywhere at all times? Or could we maybe accept that life isn't a completely safe activity?

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[BlackSnake112]

The roads were made for cars and truck to ride on not bikes. How many cyclists do you see on an major interstate? How many roads have a 5-6 inch shoulder? Many by me where is the room that a cyclist can ride? It is not there. Share the road with a cyclist? Sharing goes both ways. I have seen too many cyclists make turns that cross traffic without using any kind of signal. They ride in the lane forcing cars to pile up behind them. I do mean the middle of the lane, not the side. They ignore traffic sign and lights. They ride up between cars stopped at a light then cross against the red light. This is the DC area. There are bike paths here. Where the bike paths cross roads there are stop signs on the bike path. The bike path has a stop sign while the road does not have a stop sign. Do the cyclists stop for the stop sign? Nope. They cruse right on through forcing the cars/truck to swerve to avoid them or slam on their breaks to avoid them. I see this about 15-20 times every week. It is not gotten better at all in the last five years. It has gotten worse.

You want cyclists to be respected, start by respecting the traffic laws that are there. Cyclists see them selves as above the traffic laws. Sharing the road is one thing. But when we share the road and cyclists do not follow the rules and still bitch about not getting what they want, sorry cyclists are not above the law.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Anonymous Coward]

Drivers who hit and kill cyclists never saw them in the first place, helmet or not. I had this debate with an anti-helmet buddy of mine who two weeks later was hit by a car and suffered a major concussion. The driver thought she hit a squirrel. He still has problems concentrating.
I don't agree with helmet laws forcing people to not be stupid, but I know as many bikers who've been hit as I do that haven't.

Seconded! I will never understand the anti-helmet crowd, there are more ways to get hurt while cycling than falling off your damn bike. I've been run over by a car twice while cycling (call me unlucky but the way I see it I'm actually quite lucky, I know of several cyclists and motor-bikers who did not survive being run over by a car just once). The first time it happened it was because a driver decided that a yield sign did not apply to him and the second time I was rammed by a guy who did not feel obligated to observe a red light at a pedestrian crossing. If anybody still has doubts about the value of bicycle helmets, trust me, when you are tumbling over the hood of a moving car with your head banging into glass and metal you appreciate the value of head protection. People have died from banging their head into the windshield wipers of a slow moving car or by smashing their scull on the asphalt on landing. If you are wearing a helmet both of those are survivable. Helmets are no magic bullet, they won't protect you from suffering spinal injury for example, but they sure do help.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[RaceProUK]

I rode a bike for the first 20 years of life without a helmet and lived.

Irrelevant - your changes of being in an accident remain the same now as they did 20 years ago, give or take a couple of percentage points.

I know how to AVOID CARS.

But do the cars know how to avoid you?

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[serviscope_minor]

Oh man, you sound like a smug douchebag.

to spare their fifty dollar tires the agony of rolling over gravel because we don't sweep the roads for anything but construction around here.

You hould be pleased. If you've ever had the pleasure of riding over stones on a racing tire, you will be aware that every minute or so the tires will send a stone flying out sideways very fast. Those stones will be hitting your car.

You sound so whiny with your "this is my road" attitude. Get over yourself. It's their road too. And you have no particular right to pass a cyclist going slowly.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[serviscope_minor]

My Solution: Stop the bike traffic.

Stopping the car traffic would work just as well.

Your solution: Do 2-3mph around every single low-visibility turn, or spend millions fixing them.

It would be poetic justice to you to die driving smack into the back of a lorry which broke down just after the turn.

I really don't understand your attitude. In my driving instruction it was driled into me that your stopping distance must never exceed your visibility. If so, you risk driving into a broken down vehicle or unmarked hole in the ground (rare, but it happens).

You're blaming cyclists for your own idiocy. Like with so many things, it's your fault, not theirs.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[BlackSnake112]

I think the other poster meant that a generation to get adjusted to wearing helmets not adjusting the kids on bikes doing whatever. Look at cars and seat belts. It did take a generation to wear them all the time. People who grew up with cars that had no seat belts did not wear them. My grandparents did not wear them at all until they died (not in a car crash either). It took years for my parents to start wearing seat belts. Seat belts were not the law when they started driving. It became the law when I was a little kid. My generation has had seat belt laws. Previous ones did not. Those generations had adjustment problems.

You do not want to wear a helmet that is fine. Your choice. Personally I feel that helmets should be worn by all kids. Where a kid is 16 and under. After that helmets should be determined by speed and activity. Regular everyday bikes are not going 30+ MPH down the road. The speed bikes and people who are doing 20-50+ miles a day are the ones that should wear a helmet. Also the off road bikers should wear a helmet since they are more likely to wipe out and hit a tree, rock, or something. The people that are taking a slow ride down a bike path, they can skip the helmet. Those people are going slow 10 MPH or less usually.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[doctorfaustus]

I'm glad someone said this. The real problem is the failure to apply traffic regulations to bicyclists. Our legislators should take care to make sure all traffic rules apply to bicyclists, to make sure the police enforce the rules against bicyclists, and to make sure the fines and penalties are the same for violators on bikes as for others. We'd have far fewer bicyclists going through stop signs if they had to pay a $400 fine when they're caught.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[bluefoxlucid]

That's because the Japanese AREN'T ASSHOLES! It's a major part of their culture, being packed on a tiny island. They developed a concept that roughly equates to "don't annoy other people." In the US, we let kids run around in supermarkets throwing shit around.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[drinkypoo]

If the cyclist "swerves" in front of the car, then the car was too close. That is entirely the driver's fault.

Bullshit. It's called passing, and regularly you pass near by while a cyclist has their own lane. If they have a bike lane they need to use it. If they don't then I need to wait until I have room to go around them. When I have a lane, I have to use it. Why should it be any different for cyclists? If there's a problem in my lane, I don't just get to swerve into the bike lane without checking for a cyclist.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[OhHellWithIt]

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.

From what I've seen, bike helmet laws aren't ever enforced, anyway. Virginia has a law allowing localities to enact helmet laws for sub-16-year-olds, and my county has one, but I see more kids without helmets than with them. Unfortunately, the state law also says that failure to wear a helmet can't be treated as contributory negligence, so if I hit one of these kids, my liability may go up because of the parents' failure to police their kids. It basically boils down to statutory parental advice, which is a waste, in my opinion. They could devote an entire section of the Code of Virginia to parental advice and still be incomplete.

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

As a long-time cycling enthusiast, I'm mostly convinced that helmets are worthwhile, since in addition to reducing head injury in severe crashes, they can also prevent a minor fall from resulting in an expensive emergency room visit. On the other hand, I'll also say that you're right, driving a bicycle correctly is the bigger factor. I seem to end up on the pavement every couple of years or so, but it's been stuff that had nothing to do with other vehicles (apart from the time I overlapped my daughter's bike wheel). My first collision with a motor vehicle was last year, after more than 60,000 miles of riding. I attribute this to following the rules of the road -- on the road -- and people I know who use sidepaths have a much worse record. Whether one wears a helmet or not, acting like the rest of the vehicles on the road does the most to promote survival. It's called responsibility.

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:But that's not the real problem.

[FatAlb3rt]

For me, I'm wearing the helmet. Catastrophic frame failure two months ago - the head tube separated from the top tube and down tube while riding on flat, smooth road. Knocked me unconscious briefly - I took the brunt of the fall on my left temple and it turned that side of my face into goulash.

Two things worked for me - I wasn't going real fast (<15 mph) and I was wearing a helmet. I shudder to think what I could have been up against had my head hit the concrete directly.

I'll probably never have this happen again, nor am I likely to meet someone who has it happen to them (oddly, this bike had about 6000 miles on it). But the inconvenience of wearing the helmet is inconsequential when compared to the benefit.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[OhHellWithIt]

The roads were made for cars and truck to ride on not bikes. How many cyclists do you see on an major interstate? How many roads have a 5-6 inch shoulder? Many by me where is the room that a cyclist can ride? It is not there.

Cyclists don't ride on the interstate because it's not allowed, but they would be plenty safe there. Interstates have wide lanes and decent shoulders, and there aren't distractions like driveways, side streets, and unnecessary signage. That other roads weren't designed to accomodate motor vehicles and cyclists is a failure of policy. Legally, cyclists have a right to be there, as does a guy with a horse and buggy or someone driving a backhoe or tractor. And if everyone involved exercises some responsibility and due care, the road can be shared just fine by everyone.

Share the road with a cyclist? Sharing goes both ways. I have seen too many cyclists make turns that cross traffic without using any kind of signal. They ride in the lane forcing cars to pile up behind them. I do mean the middle of the lane, not the side. They ignore traffic sign and lights. They ride up between cars stopped at a light then cross against the red light. This is the DC area. There are bike paths here.

I agree with you, there are jerks on bikes, and I won't attempt to excuse their behavior. It's interesting to see, though, that cyclists are just doing the same thing that motorists do. I keep in my Blackberry a copy of an AT&T Worldnet poll from 10 years ago that asked "What motor vehicle violation do you commit most often without being caught?" Five percent of the people admitted to "rolling stop at stop signs", and 57% admitted to "speeding 1-10 mph over the limit". I'd say that both motorists and cyclists make no bones about what they regard as insignificant violations of the law; they figure they're not likely to hurt anyone. And one more thing from that poll was that only 11% of respondents selected "None".

One more thing that may be useful for you to know is that in some cases, it is safest for a bicyclist to ride in the center of the lane. If the lane isn't wide enough for motor vehicles to safely pass the bicycle, the cyclist should "take the lane" for his own safety. This maneuver is expressly allowed under Code of Virginia section 46.2-905. So please don't begrudge the cyclist his place on the road -- direct your complaints to the legislators who don't build the road wide enough for the traffic it's intended to support.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[NeutronCowboy]

The difference is that when biking, you reach speeds that can easily have deadly consequences just by hitting an oily patch, a badly placed sewer grate (I hate American sewer grates - it's like they were designed as bicycle traps), or some odd gravel on the road. Walking, not so much.

To some extent, the bicycle helmet exists because people reach speeds that aren't safe anymore for the standard human body. So, no we don't have to wear protective gear everywhere. Just when we engage in activities our bodies really weren't designed to handle.

Or do you hike naked in the Himalayas, too?

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[RDW]

Good meta-studies...suggest there is no significant overall injury/death mitigation benefit to cyclists from wearing helmets.

According to the excellent Cochrane meta-analyis and review:

'Wearing a helmet dramatically reduces the risk of head and facial injuries for bicyclists involved in a crash, even if it involves a motor vehicle...Head injuries are responsible for around three-quarters of deaths among bicyclists involved in crashes. Facial injuries are also common. The review found that wearing a helmet reduced the risk of head or brain injury by approximately two-thirds or more, regardless of whether the crash involved a motor vehicle. Injuries to the mid and upper face were also markedly reduced, although helmets did not prevent lower facial injuries.'

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001855/wearing-a-helmet-dramatically-reduces-the-risk-of-head-and-facial-injuries-for-bicyclists-involved-in-a-crash-even-if-it-involves-a-motor-vehicle

In another review from the Cochrane Collaboration:

'Although the results of the review support bicycle helmet legislation for reducing head injuries, the evidence is currently insufficient to either support or negate the claims of bicycle helmet opponents that helmet laws may discourage cycling.'

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD005401/bicycle-helmet-legislation-for-the-uptake-of-helmet-use-and-prevention-of-head-injuries

Together, these reviews suggest that an individual would be well-advised to wear a helmet, but the jury's still out on whether mandating helmet use discourages cycling (with its potential health benefits for the population).

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Paul Jakma]

The meta-study I cited noted the difference in its findings with the Thompson Cochrane review. It also notes the Thompson 2009 meta-study may have suffered from selection bias, as several of the included studies were by the authors (none of the excluded studies were):

Four of the seven studies that were included were performed by the same researchers as the Cochrane review. In short, Thompson et al. (2009) classified four of their own studies as good enough to be included in the meta-analysis, but excluded eight studies, none of which they were involved in. Littell et al. (2008) regard involvement in the conduct of one or more studies included in a review, or publication of a previous review on the same topic as a case of conflict of interest. This conflict of interest is relevant for the Cochrane review reported by Thompson et al. (2009). They were themselves authors of four of the seven studies included and had performed a similar Cochrane review twice before (in 2003 and 2006). To their credit, however, Thompson et al. (2009) included a very comprehensive section discussing criticisms of their review.

The meta-study I cited is attempting to be more inclusive, and avoid this possible source of selection bias.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[violasvegas]

The roads were made for cars and truck to ride on not bikes.

And originally they were made of cobblestone or mud and designed for horse drawn carriages. Things change. People adapt.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[smellsofbikes]

Roads were made for bicycles, in a very literal sense. In the 1890's, cyclists pushed for legislation to get the first prepared-surface roads put in place. That's how the League of American Cyclists got started: as a lobbying group for getting better roads for cycling.
Cars then came along and took over those roads.
And yeah, ever since gas prices went through the roof more people are riding bikes. That trend is going to increase.
For the record, when I'm on a bike I stop for every stopsign and stoplight, and I've been hit twice by cars that didn't do the same. (Which is a large part of why I stop for every stopsign and stoplight.) Cars regularly violate traffic laws. So do bikes. One difference is that cyclists very rarely kill people when they violate traffic laws. That doesn't make it right, but part of the underlying cyclist/motorist tension is that cyclists think they're not going to hurt anyone by running lights, while the same action by motorists is seen as being murderous behavior, and as such motorists resent the hell out of seeing cyclists do it. (and that's another reason I don't run lights: because it pisses people off.)

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[BoberFett]

Oh, so you're the smelly cubicle I walk past every day...

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Anarchy24]

I live in New York City and am an avid cyclist and amateur racer. I know how to handle a bicycle. I commute daily to work, 6 miles each way. I love it. I have also smashed two helmets in the past year, and I have no doubt that they have protected me from serious injury. The rest of my body was pretty badly injured, but besides a slight headache, my head was fine. I follow all rules of the road: stop for red lights and cross when it is safe, stop before the crosswalk, don't block traffic, stop for pedestrians, don't cut people off... the only thing I control on the road is ME. I had three crashes last year: one because of an aggressive taxi driver (the ONLY time that has happened), once by someone who threw their car door open (broke my collarbone), and once by an oblivious idiot driver who turned into me in an intersection while I was in the bike lane - we were both stopped at a red light and I was standing right next to his window in bright blue and orange and made eye contact with him (broke my hip). Bicycle lanes are the MOST DANGEROUS place for a cyclist to be - nobody respects them. Pedestrians walk in them, package delivery people and street vendors push their carts in them, people park in them, cops park in them, pedestrians don't bother looking while crossing them, couriers and Chinese delivery people compulsively ride against traffic.... The safest place to be is in traffic, as far to the right as possible, 4 feet away from the parked cars. Unfortunately, NYC by law requires cyclists to be in the bike lane when one is provided... although that is enforced about as often as speeding is: never. Speed limit in town is 30mph, and if I get up to that speed, cars are still zooming past me. Taxis are actually the safest drivers on the road! They know to look for cyclists. It is the out-of-towners who are the most dangerous (like the guy who hit me in the intersection). There was an article in yesterday's newspaper about how 176 cyclists have been killed already this year in NYC... and of course that article was reporting on the latest fatality. Riding on the sidewalk is illegal, unsafe, and just plain annoying. Another barrier to cycling is that, outside of NYC, many drivers (especially in NJ) feel that the road is theirs, and will harrass cyclists and sometimes hit them intentionally. Bike helmets shouldn't be optional, they should be MANDATORY. Maybe people don't want to wear one because it isn't fashionable. But when they smash their head open on the pavement, I'll bet they regret that decision.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[krakelohm]

http://www.iihs.org/laws/HelmetUseCurrent.aspx

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[cayenne8]

Kids going outside seems less common now too. I am a parent, so this is something I have noticed a lot. Me and a couple of my neighbors always take our kids outside to play on the weekends. They are all 6 and under, so we still stick around outside, but give them freedom to roam a bit. Or we take them to the park. But there are a lot of kids in the neighbourhood who you never see outside. We only know they exist because you see them going form their front door to the car. Otherwise, they never go outside. That park is almost always empty, except for my kinds and my neighbours.

I recently saw on the new...multiple channels...where this lady, who I guess was in a bit of a feud with a neighbor over dog crap in her yard one day....had said neighbor call child protective services on her...for "letting her kids play in the front yard and the street" in the cul-de-sac they lived on....and the freakin cops arrested her....even though she had been sitting there watching them the whole time.

I just can't believe this...hell, I'd not have though you'd have to sit and watch your kids even doing this?

Lord...I guess my parents...and all my friends' parents would have been locked up for life for the child abuse they'd been accused of in this day in time.

Lets see...during the summers (and both my parents worked), when I was in about 7th-8th grade or so, my typical day was....get up..get on my bike/skateboard...and run around by myself or with my neighborhood friends....ALL day, unsupervised. When I was really young, my basic only rule was to call home from a friend's house every 2-3 hours to check in. As I got older..didn't have to do that any more.

In one neighborhood, it was a newer subdivision...our street dead ended and for years..we had woods to play in before they developed it about a decade later....we'd run wild through the woods..build forts...shoot bb and pellet guns....etc.

I supposed we'd all be in foster care these days...what gives? What happened to letting a kid be a kid and go outside and fucking play...with other children in the neighborhood?

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[csubi]

As I wrote somewhere above, I had a similar accident - fork broke above the crown.
Two teeth gone, passed out, face bruised over an area comparable to an average palm.

I did not wear a helmet. Your statement that the "helmet saved your life" is simply not verifiable - you should ride the same speed, same bike at the same spot and have the bike fail the same way dozens of times, while wearing a helmet or not, and look at the statistics of survival in order to be able to state that.

I still ride without a helmet; have been working in the US for the last few years and I can tell you, the most dangerous thing in biking here is the morons driving cars you have to share the road with.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[csubi]

Funny, I have the exact opposite experience.

I commute by bike all year round in the northern suburbs of Washington DC, without a helmet.

My impression is that apart myself, most people - everybody wears a helmet where I commute - don't respect stopsigns, redlights and often do not have adequate lightning in the evening.

As for wearing it because why not : then why not put helmets on all babies once they start sitting up and then learn to walk? They keep falling all the time...

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Will.Woodhull]

I ride in Portland, Oregon-- the best bicycle city in the USA.

About half the riders I see wear helmets. It is more common on the bike paths in the residential areas. Close to 100% of the cyclists in costume-- spandex, clipon footwear, etc-- are in helmets. Downtown there are many more without helmets and most of those are not in costume and are not riding fancy bikes. IIRC, about 7% of the downtown work force commute by bike. That is expected to increase to 11% over the next year or so.

I wear a helmet on my workout rides, but not always when I'm running errands. I know their value: a couple of years ago a pickup truck hit me from behind hard enough that I now have a titanium cage holding my broken spine together. I also had a severe concussion, and by the way the back of my helmet was crushed, I would have had a skull fracture if it had not absorbed the impact.

That said, for basic daily riding like commuting and errands I don't think a helmet is necessary. The crash I was involved in was because I was out after dark which I had not planned for, dressed in dark clothes, using only one tail light, and probably not being as careful as I should have been at a bad intersection where the lane markings were all worn away. The helmet prevented the crash from being worse than it was, but a reflective jacket and lighting up my bike like a christmas tree would have prevented the crash. That intersection has now been completely re-engineered (N Willamette and Bryant).

I currently wear a bike helmet mostly because I overheard a preschool kid say to her mother "That man is not wearing a helmet." So I do it for the kids.

For all but high speed recreational riding or hazardous conditions, a helmet has no value for a typical adult rider. But for several reasons kids should wear helmets, and if they see grandfather figures wearing them, I think it is more likely that they will do so, too.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Cederic]

I live in the UK. AFAIK it is illegal for *any* vehicle to pass on the left (including cycles). Not that anyone pays attention to this.

Hmm. Check rules 163 and 268 of the Highway Code, both of which explicitly allow undertaking by cars.

Note also rule 72 which (while not explicitly permitting it) acknowledges that cyclists do undertake.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Goat of Death]

Non-professional cyclists should follow regular pedestrian laws - moving against traffic, etc.

Actually moving against traffic on the sidewalk is the MOST dangerous way a bike can travel. Cars pulling out from side streets to make right turns do not see these cyclists. Riding in the road on the right side of the street is the actually safest. Even riding on the sidewalk going the correct direction is more dangerous for a cyclist than being in the road. Again, because people pull out of side streets and driveways and don't check the sidewalk, yet they always check the road.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Dahamma]

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.

I'd never bike if I had to wear a helmet! And I stopped driving once they made seat belts mandatory. In fact, I stopped walking as well after a cop told me I had to wear pants outside. Now I pretty much just sit at home doing nothing. But at least I don't have to wear pants.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[Bryansix]

Just in my county, one cyclist is killed a month. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/cyclists-372241-killed-year.html That doesn't account for the hundreds of injuries a year. Quite frankly in all the times I have thought about getting on my bike, not a single time did wearing a helmet deter me. I think that is the problem with this idea. The notion that helmets deter ridership. I am more deterred by having to put on special shoes or the thought of getting off my lazy ass for once.

The second issue is that people in this country rarely if ever bike for transportation. They bike for Recreation. If they are going to be biking recreationally, they should do it OFF the road entirely. In my county there are at least 15 different bike paths which have right of ways that never see vehicle traffic. Yet people daily choose to ride paths on the street for recreational purposes. I'll never understand why.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[mjwx]

This is a correlation, not necessarily a causality.

It's not even a correlation.

In Australia, New Zealand, Holland and quite a few other places, cycling is quite popular despite mandatory helmet laws.

Cycling is unpopular in the US because the cities in the US are designed for cars and there are few, if any bike routes.

Re:But that's not the real problem.

[kinnell]

The problem I have is that all the issues you raise also apply to pedestrians, yet suggest to a pro-helmet cyclist that they should wear a helmet when walking across the road and they just laugh. I have no problem with people wearing helmets, in fact I would encourage it, but I want the choice for myself.

Can't agree more

[dargaud]

If you fall by yourself off a bike (losing grip too fast in a curve, hitting the side of a sidewalk), you are more likely to injure your wrists or scrape your legs. There won't be much difference for the head. But if you get hit by a car, a cm of Styrofoam is not going to make much of a difference. And I say this as someone who wears a helmet mountain biking and takes it off on the bike lanes.

The US is absurd: you don't have to wear a helmet on a motorbike, but you need one on a pedal bike ?!?

Re:Can't agree more

[elhefe38]

But if you get hit by a car, a cm of Styrofoam is not going to make much of a difference. And I say this as someone who wears a helmet mountain biking and takes it off on the bike lanes.

I know at least 5 cases where this cm of styrofoam *made* a difference between a light injury and a very severe one. The latest case did not involved a car at all. I guess you will find out you are wrong the hard way, although I do not wish that to you...

Re:Can't agree more

[RanCossack]

The US is absurd: you don't have to wear a helmet on a motorbike, but you need one on a pedal bike ?!?

I don't think that's the law; a least in my state, you have to wear a helmet until you turn 18, after which it is your choice.

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?

Re:Can't agree more

[Anonymous Coward]

You "know" ?

Can you prove it? Or you THINK it made a difference? Or do you LIKE to believe it?

Re:Can't agree more

[Chuck Chunder]

You "know" ?

Yes, he has invented a machine that allows him to travel alternate timelines in parallel universes. He uses this machine solely for arguing on the internet.

Either that or the damage done to the helmets indicates a level of force best not applied to a naked head.

Re:Can't agree more

[hoboroadie]

I crash on a regular enough schedule that I prefer a skater's helmet so I don't have to replace it every time. Wearing the helmet allows me to tumble (gracefully?) and save the parts of my body that aren't my head from an awful lot of hard use. (id est wrists, elbows, knees.)
Here in the People's Republic of California, AFAIK there is a law requiring anyone under 18 years of age on anything with wheels to wear helmets, but apparently its pretty much a secret known to but a few. We have a helmet law for motorcycles here, as well.
I tried wearing a helmet in the car, but it was too embarrassing for my friends and family so I gave it up. I hope I live.

Re:Can't agree more

[hoboroadie]

If you get hit by a car, you're doing it wrong. Actually, I hit a car door once, my sternum hurt for about a year, but I'm pretty sure my helmet interfaced with the cement when I bounced off and hit the ground. Now I eschew the door zone.
If you presume homicidal intent, it is fairly easy to avoid the cars.

Re:Can't agree more

[dunkelfalke]

Football players don't wear helmets. Handegg players do.

Re:Can't agree more

[hey!]

Either that or the damage done to the helmets indicates a level of force best not applied to a naked head.

WARNING, IMPORTANT!!! YOU CANNOT TELL WHETHER A HELMET HAS SUSTAINED DAMAGE BY LOOKING AT IT. ALWAYS DISCARD A HELMET AFTER AN IMPACT OR SEND IT BACK TO THE MANUFACTURER.

Bike helmets absorb damage by deforming permanently, but the deformation is usually beneath the surface of the polycarbonate shell, in the interior of the foam. The only way to assess the damage is to cut the helmet apart with special tools.

Imagine you're a two hundred and twenty pound man crouched with your hands tied behind your back on the hood of a car traveling at 15 mph. The driver slams on the brakes and you fly forward, striking the pavement on the crown of your head. I've had two bike accidents that approximate that, and in both cases I rode away with no injury whatsoever aside from a few scrapes. I'd *almost certainly* have been seriously injured without a helmet. If I gave you $20, would you dive head first off the top of your front steps onto the sidewalk with your hands behind your back? Would you need an alternate universe to know that you'd be seriously hurt?

In both those accident the helmets *looked* perfectly fine. The damage was beneath the shell. The shell, by the way, is a critical element in that head-against-pavement accident. It spreads the force of the impact, and also allows the head to slide over the pavement instead of being snapped back by the friction of your scalp being abraded away. I prefer a helmet that is rounded for that reason, and in the winter I use a snowboarding helmet without holes that meets EU standards that are nearly identical to the bicycle standards.

Australia

[Alioth]

Australia is an oft-cited example. Many Australian territories passed mandatory helmet laws for cycling. Off the top of my head, cycling fell by about 40% in the aftermath, and the injury rate went *up*. (Of course the injury rate may have gone up because the people who were helmet wearers in the first place, and didn't stop cycling, were higher risk takers - and removing the other 40% who were not risk takers from the cycling pool made the accident rate go up - note rate, not absolute value).

Another experiment someone did in Britain was to fit an ultrasonic measuring system to a bicycle to measure how close cars were passing. They tried riding in various different manners, for example further from the kerb (tr.US: curb), with helmet, without helmet, dressed as a woman etc. He found that as a hemetless woman, cars gave him the greatest amount of room, and as a helmeted man, the least amount of room. http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf

There's also the theory that the more cyclists on the road, the lower the accident *rate* (absolute numbers may go up) because car drivers are just more used to seeing them. Holland has probably the highest rate of regular cycling, probably the lowest rate of helmet wearing, and probably the lowest cycle accident rate.

In summary, I don't think helmets ever should be made mandatory, and may actually have the unintended consequence of making the remaining cyclists less safe.

Re:Australia

[Chrisq]

They tried riding in various different manners, for example further from the kerb (tr.US: curb), with helmet, without helmet, dressed as a woman etc. He found that as a hemetless woman, cars gave him the greatest amount of room, and as a helmeted man, the least amount of room.

So rather than a helmet law there should be a law that cyclists should dress as women. I could go with that!

Re:Australia

[Spacejock]

I quit cycling and sold my bike when they introduced mandatory helmet laws in Australia. Many years (and quite a few kg) later I caved in and bought a bike, but it still seems ridiculous that I have to wear a helmet to cycle 500 metres to the local shops. On the other hand, when I'm riding 40-50km distances on my road bike I'd rather wear a helmet and gloves because I ride faster and travel on a lot of roads with traffic.

Re:Australia

[Chuck Chunder]

Off the top of my head, cycling fell by about 40% in the aftermath,

It should perhaps be noted that approved helmets at the time looked like this.

Re:Australia

[thegarbz]

So rather than a helmet law there should be a law that cyclists should dress as women. I could go with that!

Cyclists don't need such a law for motivation.

*ducks and runs from an angry tight licra wearing leg shaving mob*

I would not start to wear a helmet

[avanhel]

I ride my bike to work every day, in the Netherlands. For the most part I ride on specific bike paths. If I had to wear a helmet, I would probably use a different form of transport in the future. The attitude of the car drivers is different here because people expect people on a bike, which makes it safer.

Re:Ivory tower intellectuals

[Dr La]

Creating bicycle lanes is a much better way to safety for bicylers, than helmet laws. The Netherlands where I live, one of the most bicycle-intense countries in the world, started to create bicycle lanes in the early '70-ies in order to reduce the number of bicycle casualties. And it worked. And we don't wear helmets here (if you see bicyclers with helmets in the Netherlands, it are either racing bicyclers, or foreigners, seldom average cyclers).

Re:It's called a bike path.

[Anonymous Coward]

"car's part of the road" ???

This is a mistake. Where does it say the road belongs to cars?

View from a Surgical ICU

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sitting right now in the Surgical ICU of a level 1 trauma center. 3 of our 34 patients have serious intracranial hemorrhages from bicycle crashes.

Bad understanding of risk

[thsths]

> "maybe we should wear helmets when we climb ladders or get into a bath"

Of course we should wear a helmet (or better a harness and a safety rope) when climbing ladders. It is know to be one of the most dangerous activities in a normal household.

But you also have to look at the context. Free-climbing for example is technically much more dangerous than climbing a ladder, but people are typically skilled and very concentrated when they do it. Average folk climbing a ladder are inexperienced and often distracted. This combination can make any activity dangerous.

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:Brains are Fucking Expensive

[joss]

Here's two reasons:

1. Helmets give the cyclist a false sense of security.
2. Helmets give drivers a false sense of security.

You may think [1] does not apply to you, and possibly it doesn't but people are incredibly bad at judging that kind of thing. It's very likely that you take more risks when wearing a helment.

The second point is far more important and it's not something you as a cyclist can do anything about. Studies have shown that cars pass closer and faster to bikes when the cyclist is wearing a helmet. On some subconscious level they see the cyclist as being less vulnerable and hence they drive more dangerously around them.

For these reasons I discourage my three daughters from riding helmets when they cycle and I don't wear them myself.

However, even if one discounted both these reasons, mandatory helmets are horrible on principle. Its my own life I may be putting in danger, so if you want to wear a helmet, go ahead, if you want to tell other people to wear a helmet, go fuck yourself.

Re:It's called a bike path.

[N Monkey]

"car's part of the road" ???

This is a mistake. Where does it say the road belongs to cars?

It seems to be etched into the brains of some of the car and, worse, truck drivers around here. One on-coming driver even thought it'd be amusing to veer over to my side of the road to give me a surprise. nice.

Coase costs and the interface between cars/bikes

[hughbar]

I ride a bike in London, don't own a car and am in my 60s, to declare interest. I don't wear a helmet and am unwilling to do so.

The arguments that I citing in the heading are summarised here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Problem_of_Social_Cost that is, neither car nor bike is particularly 'wrong' about any of this. The best thing [that we don't really have in London] is safe bike lanes.

However there's also more economics that probably shows that safety features make activities more unsafe by making the operators more reckless: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Peltzman the younger bikers who run lights seem to prove this.

Finally I like to appear as a soft, helmetless pink squishy thing with white hair, I suspect these signals make motorists more careful around me. But, for certain, the debate tends to be emotion rather than reason and statistics.

Re:It's called a bike path.

[dingen]

I believe in the Netherlands, the first tarmac roads were actually placed for cyclist.

Re:Ivory tower intellectuals

[Kell Bengal]

people who've never lived in anything other than a wonderland of privilege

Oh, how I wish academia was like that. It's 8 pm and I'm still at work. When I go home in half an hour, I will keep on working until I can't work anymore. If I'm lucky, I might get to see my family on the weekend. If I don't work this hard, I won't get tenure and I won't have a job. Academia is no wonderland of privilage and it hasn't been since the 18th century, when the only people who had time to think about things were the idle nobility. Anybody in academia today has worked hard to get there and continues to work hard to stay there. Why do we want to stay there? Because it's the only way we can study things we're really passionate about, rather than what people force us to. But at 8 pm after a long day of teaching, I wonder if I really do want to be here afterall...

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.

Non sequitur

[dutchd00d]

Yes, Amsterdam has lots of bikes, but it also has many dedicated cycle paths and car drivers who are conditioned to expect cyclists everywhere. I doubt that the relatively low number of cyclists with head injuries is due to them not wearing helmets.

(BTW: protip, dear tourist: if you are in the Netherlands and the pavement under your feet has a reddish-brown color, you are probably standing on a cycle path. Get off unless you enjoy non-helmet wearing cyclists swearing at you).

Re:Brains are Fucking Expensive

[pla]

I never understood people who don't wear helmets when cycling.

Because, with literally thousand of hours biking as a (helmetless) kid growing up in the pre-nanny era, even riding about two miles to and from school every day (no, not an exaggerated memory, thanks to the magic of Google maps I can actually trace the route) - I took plenty of falls off my bike.

And a helmet wouldn't have done a hell of a lot to protect the one part of me that got injured over and over in those falls, my knees.


If I can reduce the chance of damage to literally the most valuable thing in my life by wearing a $25 helmet OF COURSE I'M GOING TO WEAR A HELMET DO YOU THINK I'M STUPID?

Yep, I kinda do - Because falls not related to a car hitting you won't affect your head, and if you do get hit by a car on a bike, that little eggshell won't do much to help you when the rest of your body gets smeared across the pavement like so much squirrel.


Free tip for all the Lance-wannabes out there - Quit "clipping in". When you can actually move your limbs to catch yourself falling, nothing short of getting run over should give you much worse than a bit of road-rash. Maybe a broken wrist if you go down hard.

Re:"...causing obesity..."?

[dunkelfalke]

Two hours of biking uphill are equal to two thirds of my BMR, so you are quite wrong.

Re:Ivory tower intellectuals

[MartinSchou]

I'm not a racer, but I do want the helmet on my head.

No, I don't think it will save me if a car plows into me, but I've had enough solo accidents involving head injuries, that would have been mitigated by a helmet, that I really, really want to wear one.

And yes, I do in fact have brain damage as a result of one of those accidents.

Real bike lanes -- that's the solution

[Markov]

I moved from the US to The Netherlands four years ago and traded in my 30 minute commute on the highway for a 7 seven minute commute on a bike and it has proven to be the best part about the move. It took some time to adjust to not wearing a helmet (you do tend to stick out if you ride around with one on.) The biggest issue in terms of safety is not the helmet but having dedicated, physically separate bicycle lanes. I mean *real* bicycle lanes, not just lines painted on the road. It feels like here that they plan the bicycle lanes first and then try to fit in the car lane in what is left over. It the US it always seemed that there was never enough room to add a proper bicycle lane because no one was thinking about that when the road was planned.

Countries with large bicycle networks: Experience

[nomad-9]

Here's my personal experience and ensuing opinion:

I live in Barcelona, Spain, where I have been using the city official bicycle network (bicing.com) as main public transportation for a couple of years now. The city has build bicycle lanes all over the place, an extensive network of stations where you can pick/station a city bike, using a simple card (yearly subscription).The city and company that built the physical & It infrastructure also provides free mobile apps ( for Android, iOS and Windows phones - I have the Android one), which gives you real-time info on available stations (slots to release the bicycle, or available bicycles to pick) , geo-location, hot line, etc.

Although the bicycle network had initial problems, it works quite nicely now. I have seen similar settings in other cities in Spain, like Seville, and others in different countries I visited, like France or Italy.

The adoption of the bicycle as a means of transportation seems to have been a success. Now, to the point: riding these bicycles is pretty safe. You don't need to wear helmets (nobody does), the bicycles have dedicated lanes and accidents are rare. The biggest problem here are motorcycles accidents, and yes, there, wearing a helmet is mandatory

Seems to me that any legislation on wearing bicycle helmets needs to be based on actual statistics, and a number of facts:

• 1) The percentage of bicycle users victim of serious accidents is significant
• 2) From 1), the percentage of bicycle accidents with head injuries is significant
• 3) From 2), there is proof that wearing (tested) helmets could prevent a significant portion of those head injuries
• 4) Possible negative side effects of the legislation, as outlined in the subject article

Otherwise the State only infantilizes its citizens, and meddles yet again with their freedom to decide for themselves.

Keyword is "mature urban cycling systems"

[SwedishPenguin]

The keyword here is "mature urban cycling systems". I'm pretty sure no US cities can even remotely compare to Amsterdam or Copenhagen (I've biked in both and you really notice that the bike is considered the equal of the car, not an afterthought as is so common), neither can my city (Stockholm). When bikes interact with cars to such a large extent and the bike network tends to suddenly disappear, leaving cyclists to biking on roads with motorists who tend not to notice cyclists. This is a big problem in Stockholm and I recently biked in San Francisco where it seems to be an even bigger problem, a motorist completely cut me off in order to park when I was coming fast in the bike lane, I was barely able to brake in time, this is even worse than I've ever experienced in Stockholm where motorists like to use bike lanes as "temporary" parking spots, but at least look around first when driving into a bike lane. In an environment like this, I would never leave the helmet unless I knew I was not going to interact with cars at all during my trip.

Re:"...causing obesity..."?

[erroneus]

Many of the most healthy foods and additives are limited or outright banned thanks to lobbying and FDA hackery. Meanwhile HFCS runs rampant all over the place. The government ALREADY controls and limits. They are just doing it wrong.

Meanwhile, other nations are doing it right and their obesity rates are nerly zero compared to the US.

Re:It's called a bike path.

[hawkinspeter]

I cycle quite a bit and I have to say that I do deliberately try to impede cars that think it is their god-given right to overtake cyclists even if there is clearly no room or they're going round a blind corner.
By the way, here's a penny to compensate for all the damage my bike does to the roads.

By the way, do you think horses (with riders) shouldn't be allowed on the road? They don't pay any road tax either. Do you angrily overtake them without giving them enough room?

Re:"...causing obesity..."?

[Chris Mattern]

The majority of calories burned each day whether you are an exercise nut or a couch potato is spent while sleeping and otherwise just living.

100% wrong. On average, a 75-kg body burns 75 kilocalories an hour just sitting. Walking at 6 km/hr burns 375 kilocalories an hour. Biking at 20 km/hr burns *600 kilocalories an hour*.

Seriousness of the risk is not obvious

[Attila the Bun]

If the risk was obvious, I would agree. However I'm not sure that one's vulnerability when cycling is really appreciated - just as people didn't used to feel vulnerable when driving without seatbelts. Even a minor fall onto hard pavement can easily break bones, and if the broken bone happens to be the skull then you can be in real trouble.

A little while ago I took a tumble when a startled animal ran into my bike. I landed on my helmet, which cracked, and was dazed enough to earn a day in hospital. Later, when a road safety group visited my workplace, I got a chance to find out roughly what kind of impact I had taken. They took the remains of my helmet and hit it with a hammer on an undamaged area until it showed damage similar to the original fall. It required quite a serious blow with a heavy hammer. They then delivered a similar blow to a force-measuring stand, which indicated that the force delivered was far more than that needed to break a skull.

In short, even on an empty country lane an unlucky fall can kill you. Until recently I didn't know that, and I suspect lots of other people don't know it either.

Re:It's called a bike path.

[jeremyp]

Road tax is not hypothecated. It's not like a TV Licence where the revenue specifically goes to the BBC.

In the UK, tax payers in general pay for the roads, not just the car owners.

Other activities

[VorpalRodent]

I'm just glad someone is finally remarking how silly this is. I've been saying for years that ladder helmets are necessary. My kids, before doing any dangerous activity, go to the closet and get their helmet out. Whether that be their ladder-climbing helmet, their swing set helmet, or their swimming pool slide helmet, they know that being safe is better than being dead. Anything that requires being more than standing height from the ground requires a helmet. The kids are excited about it, too - for their birthdays this year, they know they'll be getting new "going down the stairs" helmets.

Correlation is correlation

[hoboroadie]

Basically, the thing you're measuring (damage to the safety device) has no correlation with the protective abilities of that device. Thus to argue the thing you've measured shows the latter lacks any rational basis.

Laughable, that is.
I crash often enough I don't bother with bicycle helmets which are designed to disintegrate ablatively. I wear a skater's helmet, which I could bang with a hammer, &c., without damage. When it has gravel embedded into the hard plastic shell and major paint removal all over the surface after I've somersaulted the handlebers I don't feel the need for G-force sensor readings. I have many years of experience crashing bicycles and such, both with and without helmets. I'm pretty sure that the Shoei helmet I cracked flipping over the bars of my RD-400 and landing head-first @ 55mph was a life-saver, but you can continue in this chickenshit debate about data validity if you don't care for my anecdotal evidence. I am fairly sure that most of the damage I've done on bicycle mishaps wouldn't have been fatal, but I absolutely know that I'd have been badly hurt many times if I had not worn a helmet. One benefit in particular is the ability to protect other body parts when I'm tumbling and skidding because the helmet has the head covered, so it allows more options.
I'm sorry if my anecdotal data is too imprecise for you to engage in rational thought.

Early education

[OldSport]

AFAICT, in the US, most kids don't ride bikes that much from an early age, the result being that there isn't an ingrained consciousness about biking as they grow up. They end up being drivers who don't really think about biking as a valid mode of transportation. Contrast this to Japan, where it's common for the parents in a household to commute by bike, shop by bike, and do everything by bike, and the kids are riding bikes to school when they're five, so the "bike consciousness" is developed from an early age.

The other issue that keeps people from riding bikes in the US is that you are forced to share the road with cars, rather than ride on sidewalks. I haven't bought a bike since moving back to the US for that very reason; I don't trust the drivers around me enough to watch out for me. It has nothing to do with a helmet. If the US infrastructure wasn't so hopelessly automobile-oriented, and was more accommodating for bikes (wider sidewalks, bike lanes, etc.), I would buy one in a second.

Stiffer penalties for drivers

[bogibear]

As an experienced bicyclist and mortorcyclist (I put several thousand miles on each every year), I have had my share of close calls with motor vehicles over the years. Last summer alone, I had two friends that were hit by cars and an acquaintance that was killed. The driver that killed the cyclist got a small fine of less than $200US. She and her husband were riding on a tandem bicycle, close to the right shoulder on a country road. The driver hit them so hard, that it sheared both seatposts off the bike. It was mid-morning, the sun was out, the riders were riding as close as possible to the shoulder and for some unexplained reason, the driver in his shiny corvette killed one and seriously injured the other.

Rather than giving out small penalties (seriously, less than $200 for a death!), we should be making examples of drivers that commit this kind of mayhem. Put them in jail or make them pay a substantial fine (how much is a life worth?). We need to be prudent about it, so we don't penalize drivers for something that's the fault of a cyclist.

For the record, I have had my share of run-ins with drivers, while riding my bicycle. I'm a Lance "wannabe". I clip in. I wear a helmet. I wear the silly spandex kit. I have had soda bottles, coins (mostly handfuls of pennies), trash, and cigarette butts thrown at me. I have been yelled at, honked at, and sworn at (for a while I thought my name was "get your ass on the sidewalk") on so many occasions, I wouldn't attempt to count. Yet I still ride (this year, over 3000 miles). This is the whole rotten apple thing. You get a few drivers that do some really stupid things, and the rest try to give you plenty of room.

I mitigate some of the risk by riding defensively. I don't give drivers the opportunity to hit me. I ride a lot of suburban and rural roads, which by nature are less trafficked. If a car is coming from behind me and another car is oncoming on a two-lane road, I take the lane to prevent the car behind me from passing. I use hand signals to let cars know what I'm doing, and if I have one stuck behind me on a curve in the road, I'll wave them around when it's clear to go. OK, I blow stop signs when there are no cars. I ride two abreast. I ride at breakneck speeds down hills (whee!).

Down to brass tacks
1. The government shouldn't force me to wear a helmet. I agree, but I choose to because I've done the risk analysis and figured it's worth the expense and since I've forgone hair, it doesn't mess with my 'do.
2. There should be stronger penalties for drivers that though neglect or malice, severely injure or kill cyclists. They should be made an example of (just like texting drivers have been of late).
3. If you don't think you need a helmet, then you probably don't.

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.

Public roads were demanded by cyclists

[bigtrike]

Do you even know any drivers who attempt to not exceed posted speed limits on roads by 5-10mph? This may be anecdotal, but almost all people I've met who bitch about cyclists have a history of rear ending other drivers and causing accidents, meaning they are terrible drivers.

You want cyclists to respect cars? Start by respecting the traffic laws. This works both ways.

Further, roads were originally built for cyclists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Roads_Movement

Re:Public roads were demanded by cyclists

[bigtrike]

Regarding recreation vs. transit, it really depends on where you live. Bicycles (and farm implements) are already banned from highways in most states, so you shouldn't see them there. In Chicago, I know far more people that commute by bike than by car. Many of them earn 6 figures, own homes and pay plenty of property taxes, so they're paying just as much for city roads as the drivers, without putting nearly as much wear and tear on them. Some of us live close enough to work that this is easy. Cars on the roads really slow down us bike commuters quite a bit. Bike commuters slow down cars quite a bit. Busses slow down cars. Car traffic slows down busses. Why should one taxpayers choice of commute get preferential treatment over another?

Re:Public roads were demanded by cyclists

[Cederic]

Since a bicycle is largely for recreational exercise, and not a serious mode of transportation for most people and most peoples' lifestyles in the US

What the fuck does 'most people' have to do with it?

we need to reconsider allowing non-motorized traffic on main thoroughfares

..or consider implementing a modern and considerate transportation network that doesn't demean people fit enough to get to work without driving a smelly inefficient expensive car.