6 ms·

You seem to be interested in this question: "If I bike without a helmet, how much more likely am I to be injured than if I bike with a helmet?". And of course,

You seem to be interested in this question: "If I bike without a helmet, how much more likely am I to be injured than if I bike with a helmet?". And of course, the answer is that you are safer with a helmet. But the article is interested in a different question: "If I bike, how likely am I to be injured?". This question is very heavily influenced by the ratio of bikes to cars on the road. More bikes leads to lower chance of injury for bicyclists.

AlbertCory 4y ago
"overall traffic safety" is not a goal for MHLs for bikes, or motorcyclists; or seatbelt laws for car riders. Your first paragraph's question is the only relevant part of that.
- shwestrick 4y ago
  That's not a useful perspective. It doesn't matter what the goal of the law is; it matters what effect the law has.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  But, that's not correct either. MHLs could increase my overall risk of cycling accident enough to offset any gain from wearing the helmet. There are studies that show drivers go faster and closer to cyclists wearing helmets (vs those without helmets). That alone could increase the risk of deadly car-bike interaction enough to offset the gains from wearing the helmet. https://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet-cyclists-less-room/ https://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet... Edit - either way, I'm all for separate, protecetetd bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. That's the "real" solution here - get bikes and cars onto different roads and what drivers do or don't do ceases to be a problem (almost, we still get drunken idiots driving down our protected bike paths outside DC).
pdonis 4y ago
I would put it this way: the article's information might be useful if you are trying to decide whether or not to bike. But if you have decided to bike, the article's information in no way means you should not wear a helmet. Unfortunately, the clickbait headline mixes up these two very different things.
- hyperpape 4y ago
  As I see the title (just in case it has been changed), it is "Turns Out, Mandatory Helmet Laws Make Cyclists Less Safe". This simply doesn't indicate that wearing a helmet makes cycling less safe. Perhaps someone might misread it that way, but that would be a mistake in terms of both logic and rhetoric.
- welshwelsh 4y ago
  The article isn't for either of those things. Mandatory helmet laws are a matter of public policy, they have nothing to do with individual people making individual decisions. The article's information is useful if you are a voter or a politician trying to decide whether mandatory helmet laws will help to make your city a safe place for cyclists.
  - pdonis 4y ago
    > The article isn't for either of those things. You'd never know it from the clickbait headline. > Mandatory helmet laws are a matter of public policy, they have nothing to do with individual people making individual decisions. Public policy doesn't do anything by itself; all it does is determine the incentives that people face when making individual decisions to do or not do things. So correctly describing the effects of a public policy is very important to individual people trying to make individual decisions.
    - substation13 4y ago
      > all it does is determine the incentives You say that like it's not a HUGE thing. Incentives will determine the entire transport ratios of a region. Biking on freeways is for misfits and weirdos :)
      - pdonis 4y ago
        > You say that like it's not a HUGE thing. I said no such thing. Obviously incentives are important. I'm just pointing out that incentives act on individuals making individual decisions. So to claim, as the GGP (not you) did, that public policy has nothing to do with individual decisions is simply wrong.
wizofaus 4y ago
But that problem can be addressed in other ways - primarily better infrastructure (though I'd like to see better driver education too, e.g. as per the Netherlands where drivers are encouraged to open doors while parked in a manner that ensures they see any oncoming cyclists before doing so). We have MHL where I live and while I think there's a good argument for relaxing them at least for certain cases, I am grateful for having grown up in a culture where wearing a helmet is expected/ normal while riding a bike - they've certainly saved me from more serious injuries multiple times (including cases where I've hit the top of my head on branches etc. while riding!). But the fact that so few places in the world do have such legislation is telling - if a law truly is effective with limited downsides it tends to get adopted far more universally.
- stingrae 4y ago
  The infrastructure doesn't get built until you have large demand from existing cyclists.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    Building out better infrastructure is usually the most effective way to increase the number of people cycling (and to make it safer for those already doing so).
    - jackbravo 4y ago
      Politicians usually don't do anything unless they see a demand for it on their citizenship. Just hoping they will build better infrastructure is naive. And if you want to increase the number of cyclists, laws that make it harder, like helmet requirements, will of course slow the demand.
      - wizofaus 4y ago
        Politicians have access to the studies showing that such infrastructure when built has the desired effect, and studies showing that the number one reason people don't cycle more is that they feel unsafe riding among traffic, regardless of helmets. Governments have the job of providing infrastructure to enable cities to function, and in many cases better bicycle infrastructure is the cheapest way to achieve it.
Cpoll 4y ago
> And of course, the answer is that you are safer with a helmet. I'm not claiming you're wrong, just that it's not a home-run "of course": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

AlbertCory 4y ago

"overall traffic safety" is not a goal for MHLs for bikes, or motorcyclists; or seatbelt laws for car riders. Your first paragraph's question is the only relevant part of that.

shwestrick 4y ago
That's not a useful perspective. It doesn't matter what the goal of the law is; it matters what effect the law has.
alistairSH 4y ago
But, that's not correct either. MHLs could increase my overall risk of cycling accident enough to offset any gain from wearing the helmet. There are studies that show drivers go faster and closer to cyclists wearing helmets (vs those without helmets). That alone could increase the risk of deadly car-bike interaction enough to offset the gains from wearing the helmet. https://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet-cyclists-less-room/ https://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet... Edit - either way, I'm all for separate, protecetetd bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. That's the "real" solution here - get bikes and cars onto different roads and what drivers do or don't do ceases to be a problem (almost, we still get drunken idiots driving down our protected bike paths outside DC).

pdonis 4y ago

I would put it this way: the article's information might be useful if you are trying to decide whether or not to bike. But if you have decided to bike, the article's information in no way means you should not wear a helmet. Unfortunately, the clickbait headline mixes up these two very different things.

hyperpape 4y ago
As I see the title (just in case it has been changed), it is "Turns Out, Mandatory Helmet Laws Make Cyclists Less Safe". This simply doesn't indicate that wearing a helmet makes cycling less safe. Perhaps someone might misread it that way, but that would be a mistake in terms of both logic and rhetoric.
welshwelsh 4y ago
The article isn't for either of those things. Mandatory helmet laws are a matter of public policy, they have nothing to do with individual people making individual decisions. The article's information is useful if you are a voter or a politician trying to decide whether mandatory helmet laws will help to make your city a safe place for cyclists.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > The article isn't for either of those things. You'd never know it from the clickbait headline. > Mandatory helmet laws are a matter of public policy, they have nothing to do with individual people making individual decisions. Public policy doesn't do anything by itself; all it does is determine the incentives that people face when making individual decisions to do or not do things. So correctly describing the effects of a public policy is very important to individual people trying to make individual decisions.
  - substation13 4y ago
    > all it does is determine the incentives You say that like it's not a HUGE thing. Incentives will determine the entire transport ratios of a region. Biking on freeways is for misfits and weirdos :)
    - pdonis 4y ago
      > You say that like it's not a HUGE thing. I said no such thing. Obviously incentives are important. I'm just pointing out that incentives act on individuals making individual decisions. So to claim, as the GGP (not you) did, that public policy has nothing to do with individual decisions is simply wrong.

wizofaus 4y ago

But that problem can be addressed in other ways - primarily better infrastructure (though I'd like to see better driver education too, e.g. as per the Netherlands where drivers are encouraged to open doors while parked in a manner that ensures they see any oncoming cyclists before doing so). We have MHL where I live and while I think there's a good argument for relaxing them at least for certain cases, I am grateful for having grown up in a culture where wearing a helmet is expected/ normal while riding a bike - they've certainly saved me from more serious injuries multiple times (including cases where I've hit the top of my head on branches etc. while riding!). But the fact that so few places in the world do have such legislation is telling - if a law truly is effective with limited downsides it tends to get adopted far more universally.

stingrae 4y ago
The infrastructure doesn't get built until you have large demand from existing cyclists.
- wizofaus 4y ago
  Building out better infrastructure is usually the most effective way to increase the number of people cycling (and to make it safer for those already doing so).
  - jackbravo 4y ago
    Politicians usually don't do anything unless they see a demand for it on their citizenship. Just hoping they will build better infrastructure is naive. And if you want to increase the number of cyclists, laws that make it harder, like helmet requirements, will of course slow the demand.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      Politicians have access to the studies showing that such infrastructure when built has the desired effect, and studies showing that the number one reason people don't cycle more is that they feel unsafe riding among traffic, regardless of helmets. Governments have the job of providing infrastructure to enable cities to function, and in many cases better bicycle infrastructure is the cheapest way to achieve it.

Cpoll 4y ago

> And of course, the answer is that you are safer with a helmet. I'm not claiming you're wrong, just that it's not a home-run "of course": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation