9 ms·
Why i’m done wearing a helmet
- wumbernang 11y agoJust watch fail army for ten minutes and play count the heads hitting the ground. No thanks.
- mberning 11y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9yL5usLFgY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9yL5usLFgY
- dawkins 11y agoEverybody thinking like the author should watch this video first.
- panglott 11y agoWhat on earth does some jerk goofing off on a skateboard have to do with normal travel at low speeds on flat roads in good weather by a competent cyclist? If you're doing tricks on gravel, or travelling on mud or snow, or goring really fast, you may fall, sure, wear a helmet.
- wumbernang 11y agoI've been cycling for 22 years. I've smashed my head on the ground 5 times now. NEVER was it my fault. Just because you're not a dick doesn't mean someone else isn't.
- danbee 11y agoI've been cycling on roads for 25 years and have never hit my head on the ground.
- dawkins 11y agoIt shows the benefits of wearing it. The guy in the video walks away totally unharmed. This kind of blow to the head can happen easily while riding a bike, specially in a city.
- e40 11y agoI walk a lot on well traveled streets. I recently noticed an interesting correlation: cyclists that wear helmets tend to follow the rules and ones that do not tend to break them. Rules like stopping at a stop light, not riding on the sidewalk, riding on the correct side of the street. It's not a perfect correlation, but it's very high.
- dagw 11y agoOne theory. People who wear helmets tend to be people who or less "into" biking and more insecure about biking and their biking skills. Thus they play it safe and default to following the rules. People without helmets tend be the ones who view themselves as better bikers and feel more secure in their biking skills and thus think the rules and more like guidelines and that they, with their superior skills, know better and can safely ignore them when they feel like it.
- wolfgke 11y agoI rather correlate helmet-wearing cyclists to be the "wilder" bikers - since they know that they'll drive dangerously, they better wear a helmet to (feel to?) reduce the most dangerous consequences. Or to put it in other words: you are more inclined to buy a helmet if you are know that sooner or later you'll surely need its protection. Or since you have a helmet, you know that you can do things at a (psychologically) acceptable risk that you wouldn't do otherwise (the latter phenomenon is called "risk compensation").
- panglott 11y agoThere are people who ride bikes because they love cycling (by choice) and there are people who ride bikes because they can't afford other means of transportion (by need). The latter tend not to wear helmets or follow traffic rules, the former tend to do at least one of them. Personally I almost never wear a helmet but scrupulously follow the rules: they are the only thing that protects me.
- wumbernang 11y agoIt's not about you following the rules. If someone else doesn't, your head is going to hit the ground.
- _nickwhite 11y agoLooks like his database server should have been wearing a helmet.
- daredevildave 11y agoSome of this reasoning doesn't make much sense when making a personal decision. "Helmet use may deter people from cycling", that doesn't affect whether or not you should wear one. "Benefits of biking out way the risks", you don't lose the benefits if you cycle with a helmet.
- jvanderbot 11y agoExactly, this is an argument against mandating helmet use, not against the personal decision to wear / not wear a helmet.
- ajuc 11y ago> that doesn't affect whether or not you should wear one. It does, indirectly (you may think that more people biking will make you safer in the long run for example).
- hyperbovine 11y agoHopefully you will find that thought comforting as they are scraping your grey matter off the tarmac.
- panglott 11y agoIf you decide to drive somewhere instead of cycling, because you don't have a helmet at hand, you haven't replaced a damaged helmet, or you don't want to have helmet hair, or you don't think that helmets complement your look, then you'll lose the exercise benefits of cycling that distance instead. The best use case for bicycle is not a 20-mile ride to work or on muddy trails, but a 1-mile ride to a local coffeeshop. And for a competent cyclist on flat roads in normal weather, a helmet is plain unnecessary.
- DanielStraight 11y agoThis is addressed in the article. "However, if potential cyclists see everyone else in their community wearing helmets while riding a bike, it communicates that biking is a dangerous activity that requires special protective gear." One of the author's reasons for not wearing a helmet is the image that wearing a helmet projects. The personal decision to wear or not wear a helmet affects the perception of non-cyclists, which in turn affects the number of cyclists. Or at least so goes the theory. As an aside, since a lot of people seem to not have noticed and assumed otherwise by default: The author is female.
- deedubaya 11y agoAn ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. But I guess if you're a public health professional, you'd rather have the pound of cure.
- monksy 11y agoThe guy sounds insane. Simple physics indicates that the longer the collision the less force applied will be. The only reason that the individual states that wearing a helmet is a hinderence is: 1. You don't look as fashionable (the words are "less human") 2. Drivers see you more as a human when you're not wearing one. I would venture to say that if a driver notices you not wearing a helmet, the assumption is that the biker is an idiot and they would be more cautious around them. (No one really wants to hit a biker) Additionally this doesn't really fix the problem. Many bikers get into an incident with cars for reasons such as: 1. The biker was not seen by the driver until it was too late. (Lack of awareness/being used to them on the road) 2. Biker cutting off the driver 3. Road rage (on the car's side): It happens but I would suggest it less common than claimed. 4. Biker not following the rules of the road. (Biking up the wrong way, ignoring stoplights/stopsigns etc)
- ch4s3 11y agoI think the key points are: >and increase the likelihood of other injuries (those to the neck). >There is some evidence[1] that cars may pass cyclists closer if they are wearing a helmet. [1]http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf *edit for formatting
- beat 11y agoAccidents don't happen when cars are passing cyclists, though. Drivers notice this because they're inconvenienced, but it's actually pretty safe. Accidents happen at intersections, due to cars turning in front of bikes, or not being aware of bikes that are turning. As for neck injuries... if a helmet increases my chance of a neck injury because it decreased my chance of a fractured skull, i'll take the trade.
- jokr004 11y agoThat was my thought too when I read the claim about neck injuries. Does a helmet really increase the risk of neck injury, or does it just increase the likelihood of surviving the blow to the head that caused the neck injury? Wearing a helmet should have no way of affecting your neck unless you're being stuck in the head, in which case I would definitely prefer to be wearing one.
- Lewton 11y ago>But helmets are not supposed to shatter. When a helmet protects your head from a serious injury, the styrofoam inside will be compressed and stay that way Is this correct? It sounds very wrong to me. I got the impression that shattering is a great way to redirect kinetic energy away from your head
- oldmanpants 11y agoYes the foam in the helmet is supposed to shatter. Like OP's other points, this one is made up.
- kolektiv 11y agoAlso, (can't read the article but assuming some kind of context), even if the styro compressed rather than shattering - that's still energy being used for something which isn't cracking your skull. It still seems like it would be beneficial. If the author is claiming that once it's compressed it won't be as good next time, then that's insane - helmets aren't supposed to be re-used after accidents (whether bike, motorbike, or car racing - I've had to sadly replace my motor racing helmet after an incident, and it's a lot more than buying a new bike lid - but you still do it without flinching because it's your brain on the line here).
- Lewton 11y agoFull paragraph: "People will so often put up photos on social media of obliterated helmets and say, “Holy crap, look at my helmet! It saved my life!” But helmets are not supposed to shatter. When a helmet protects your head from a serious injury, the styrofoam inside will be compressed and stay that way. Most of the pictures I’ve seen are of helmets that have broken apart. It’s likely that the helmet did not protect someone from a severe injury."
- kolektiv 11y agoIn which case yes, just a very misinformed original author. Shattering, cracking, etc. are all known, planned features of a helmet impact - anything which can absorb energy in the helmet and not the head is a good thing (with some obvious caveats of course).
- steveax 11y agoPretty much my sentiments. I've been cycling for over 40 years and have gone from never wearing one, to always wearing one, to seldom wearing one.
- nodata 11y agoHe doesn't make very strong arguments ("the numbers are hard to get, I don't have any"). In my mind I see myself falling to the ground and smashing my head on the ground. I'd like to avoid that if possible. Is he saying thinner/better helmets are needed to avoid neck injuries?
- butwhy 11y agoShould have focused on data and studies relating to the idea that most crashes involved with people wearing non-full-face helmets do not result in helmets saving their head from serious injury.
- ronnier 11y agoI've noticed very few cyclists wearing helmets in Tokyo. Would be interesting to compare to a city were helmets are more prevalent.
- varjag 11y ago> People will so often put up photos on social media of obliterated helmets and say, “Holy crap, look at my helmet! It saved my life!” But helmets are not supposed to shatter. When a helmet protects your head from a serious injury, the styrofoam inside will be compressed and stay that way. Most of the pictures I’ve seen are of helmets that have broken apart. Just.. what? Any sort of mechanical deformation is essentially an energy release. Be it compression, cracking or what else. The energy that went to cracking the polycarbonate shell is the energy that didn't reach your skull.
- upofadown 11y agoBut cracking involves a very small amount of energy absorption. Once the crack starts it tends to propagate with very little required force.
- varjag 11y agoThe process once it gets going is pretty quick but the energy buildup required is fairly substantial and is defined by material properties (shear modulus).
- upofadown 11y agoTo absorb energy in a useful way you need both force and distance. The idea is to reduce peak G force ... not that just reducing peak G force is all we need to do...
- collyw 11y agoExactly. What would there head have looked like if the helmet didn't save it.
- imaginenore 11y agoThis guy should not be a health professional. "But helmets are not supposed to shatter" - not true. Many bike helmets are designed to shatter on impact, that's how they absorb the energy. http://www.bhsi.org/standard.htm http://www.bhsi.org/standard.htm
- joezydeco 11y agoWe need some HN readers from the Netherlands to chime in here. "Although the Netherlands is probably the safest country in the world for cycling, helmet wearing among Dutch cyclists is rare. It has been estimated that only about 0.5 percent of cyclists in the Netherlands are helmeted" Why are Dutch cyclists more likely to be injured if they wear helmets? - http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html
- KJasper 11y agoDutchie reporting in! Nobody wears a helmet here when they're riding their bike to work, schools, stores, etc. The average speed will be somewhere between 15-20 km/h and is relatively slow, next to that most bike paths are separated from the road so you'll only come in to contact with cars at crossings (and this is where most accidents probably occur). When people get on their MT/Racing bikes the speed increases dramatically to 30+ km/h (and most people wear a helmet) and other people on the road don't always expect those speeds coming from bike lanes so that's why you'll see more accidents. To summarize: Fix your infrastructure and you won't really need a helmet.
- kuschku 11y agoNorthern German here: The reason is simple, the only people who wear helmets are the ones who know they are at risk anyway. Correlation != Causation. EDIT: Yup, article confirms it. In my city, the amount of trips taken by bike is over 26%, with another 12% public transport, and most younger people use bikes several times a day – but most don’t wear helmets, and most never had an issue with it, yet.
- elsjaako 11y agoWhat's there to say? Like the article you linked to said: almost no one but sport bikers and tourists wear helmets. I think the high safety in the Netherlands is mostly due to the driver education (In Holland, spending 40 hours training for your drivers license is not unusual, and you spend a lot of time in the most difficult situations around). Another reason is that if someone gets killed on an intersection, people will have a good look if the safety in that spot can be improved. So a lot of the most dangerous places have been changed to make it safer.
- sergiotapia 11y agoRebuttal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttjr6I5qZoo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttjr6I5qZoo
- guiomie 11y agoThe guy is long boarding, not biking. One is considered an extreme sport, not the other.
- tempodox 11y agoI've had my share of accidents riding my bike, and in none of them would a helmet have helped anything. So much for anecdotal confirmation. There are certainly conditions that make the use of a helmet advisable, but that depends on the situation. Anything more than that is just the result of lobbying & PR by the helmet-making industry.
- truthsayer1980 11y agoI've never seen a black swan.
- tempodox 11y agoPoint well taken. Of course you're free to determine your personal level of risk tolerance. Just don't force others to convert their homes to nuclear shelters (after all, one nuclear explosion can ruin your whole compile).
- Retra 11y agoThis is pretty dumb and naive, and loaded with non-sequiturs and other obvious fallacies. Like this gem: >"Many more motorists and pedestrians die in traffic collisions per year than do bicyclists. We don’t see them wearing helmets." Hey. Maybe if they did wear helmets, fewer of them would die. Ever think of that?
- kolektiv 11y agoYes, madness. Given expected likelihood/severity of potential accidents, one seems more worthwhile than the other. In situations where the risks are raised for some reason, you will find that people do wear helmets. I will never, for example, do 100mph in a kart without a helmet (plus various other safety additions).
- panglott 11y agoHow is a 10 mph bike ride around the block even remotely comparable to karting at 100-mph?
- kolektiv 11y agoI'm not saying they're the same thing - I'm pointing out that as risk increases, you add safety features. Drivers in certain situations (racing, for example) do wear helmets, as the risk is now judged to be sufficient. A 10mph ride around the block may well be safe - but the 10mph part isn't so relevant - it's the idiot in a car doing 60mph who doesn't look for cyclists that is probably the significant part of the risk. So...
- panglott 11y agoA bike helmet is not designed to protect your head if you are hit by a car at 60 mph. The best way to protect yourself for the 60-mph-auto-collision is to not get hit by a car at 60 mph.
- panglott 11y agoThe logic is clear, but whenever I suggest that drivers and pedestrians actually wear the helmets, somehow I get downvoted for trolling ;)
- lasermike026 11y agoHead injuries are no joke especially if your in tech. Wear the helmet.
- mrgoldenbrown 11y agoYou are assuming the accepted, but unproven wisdom that helmets will prevent more injuries than they cause. Did you read the meta study cited in the article that shows a lack of evidence for such an assumption? Have you read about the standards used to "certify" bike helmets, which don't simulate bike crashes very well?
- bthrn 11y agoSome bits in here make me seriously question the author's judegment. "Many more motorists and pedestrians die in traffic collisions per year than do bicyclists. We don’t see them wearing helmets." Doesn't this support the opposite argument of what the author is claiming? Further, I would expect as much anyway simply because so many fewer people bike than motorcycle or drive a car. "If not wanting to wear a helmet deters someone from riding a bike, that sucks, because biking is healthy and awesome." This is a silly argument. It could just as easily be said, "If wearing a helmet deters someone from riding a bike, that sucks, because wearing a helmet protects your head." "I don’t want to hide my head behind a helmet, I want drivers to pass me on the street and see that I am a person, a human, just like them." Nobody said that wearing a helmet was supposed to make a person more attractive. Would the author universally agree to "I don't wear protective gear $x because I want people to see that I'm a human being?" Probably not. Ultimately, I don't think anybody can argue that having a protective shell around your head is somehow less safe or equally safe to having nothing there at all.
- panglott 11y agoIt equally supports the argument that people should wear protective headgear when they're driving or walking, but nobody takes that argument seriously for some reason. To the extent that our helmet obsession dissuades people from cycling instead of driving, it is on average harmful, because the exercise benefits of cycling outweigh the head-injury risk.
- fizgig 11y agoI think the argument is that if helmets are not mandated by law, more people will ride. If more people ride, that will raise more awareness of bikers and their safety in relation to motor vehicle drivers. Therefore, in aggregate, the safety of the whole bike riding herd will be better. Anectdata: I work on a large business campus which has bike sharing bikes scattered around. Helmets are mandatory (whether that's due to law or local policy, I am uncertain). My light whispy hair will irrecoverably look like shit after being subjected to a helmet, especially during the hot/humid months. As such, I opt to walk or drive more often than I would if I could simply hop on a bike for many on-campus jaunts for various duties.
- chalgo 11y agoI bet he drives without a seatbelt too.
- lordnacho 11y agoThis might be useful for my main gripe, which is the sweating: http://www.hovding.com/videos http://www.hovding.com/videos It's a helmet/airbag. Looks pretty cool, but I've never met anyone who had one.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- venomsnake 11y agoI doubt the bike helmets are effective (motorcycle ones are fine, but the glorified yarmulke that is the biking hat is doubtful)
- whistlerbrk 11y agoI'm sorry but this post mentions there isn't any good data and then dives into anecdotes. "But helmets are not supposed to shatter." Yes, they are. After any crash with a helmet you're support to discard it and purchase a new one. It absorbed, hopefully, the vast majority of the energy of the impact, not your skull. "Cyclists don’t die from just falling off their bikes, they die because they are hit by cars." Doubtless, but this is one of the few cases in which there are statistics available because it involves motor vehicles... and death. "Learning safe riding skills, being visible, and being attentive are the things we all can do to prevent an accident." Yes, absolutely. Ride defensively and assume NO ONE can see you and knows where you are at ALL times even and sometimes especially in a bike lane. "I replaced my road bike’s drop handlebars with swept back bars, for a more upright riding position" The observation of mountain/flat bars being a better city / casual riding position is true. But you don't need to ditch your drops if you ride on the tops when appropriate. Many people have a second pair of brake levers accessible from the tops as well as their integrated levers at the hoods. What I'm most surprised about is that the author doesn't mention a study where drivers on average, apparently, drive 3 inches closer to cyclists WITH helmets on because they perceive them to be protected. All this said: WEAR A HELMET. I'll provide an anecdote: the wheel coming off of a front fork after someone tried to steal their wheel earlier in the day (unlocking the quick release). I found the man with his face smashed on the ground, his left eye caved in on the Manhattan Bridge. Route 9W, bottom of the first major hill, debris collected from over winter. Many cyclists repairing flats, another one who got taken away in an ambulance, helmet shattered and knee "destroyed". He would have certainly died if he had not been wearing a helmet. The point is saying that helmets don't protect you from crashes is like saying seatbelts don't protect you from crashes. Yes! It's true, but they protect you from hurting yourself too badly if and when you DO crash.
- matt_morgan 11y ago"The people who wear helmets are likely more safety-conscious than those who don’t, which makes comparing the two groups very difficult and will make it appear that helmets are more protective than they actually are." Unless the act of wearing a helmet is part of what reminds you to be more safety-conscious. Bucking my child into the car has the same effect. BTW the author does mention that study about drivers coming closer to bikers with helmets.
- jbrooksuk 11y agoThis article is completely crazy. I'd 100% prefer safety over fashion any day of the week. Have you been in a car crash? Thank god for seat belts!
- coreymgilmore 11y agoI completely disagree with this article. Yes, helmets may increase the risk of other injuries (not inclusive of "I am hearing a helmet, I am a invincible" injuries), but the benefit of reduced head injury vastly outweigh the increase in other injuries. On another note, there has been quite a bit of development into helmets in the last 5 or so years. Check out MIPS system [1]. It basically allows the head to move independently of the helmet increasing the "time" of the impact and also reducing oblique forces on the brain. Does it 100% work? Who knows. Is my head priceless, yes. [1] http://www.mipshelmet.com/#what-is-mips http://www.mipshelmet.com/#what-is-mips (fyi, slow website)
- emj 11y agoThe greatest share of accidents are because of infrastructure, so put all your effort into getting better road for foot and cycle traffic, it's more effective to prevent accidents than injuries. I've never hurt my head while on a bike, yet the first thing you hear when I've been in a crash is: "Did you have a helmet?". Statistically helmets help in rare but severe cases, compared to a seat belts and airbags that helps against almost all injuries in cars from mild to serious..
- joshdance 11y agoTLDR - author doesn't like wearing helmets. Mentions one or two studies. Mostly personal opinion piece with anecdotal evidence.
- vaadu 11y agoThe helmet is no more a hindrance than a seatbelt. If you choose not to wear a helmet so be it, you are an adult. But don't expect me to pay for your medical bills if you have a head injury while cycling and you were not wearing helmet. I also have to wonder if the increased neck injuries cited go back to when helmets were not designed to skid when impacting the ground.
- someear 11y agoThe author should have led with "it’s glorious to feel the wind in my hair", because pretty much every other point in this post is useless.
- WizzleKake 11y agoHere's some data: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists/fatalityfacts/bicycles http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists... Also, the link in the article about health benefits doesn't point to anything on the web.
- vesrah 11y agoI'm most likely alive right now because of a helmet. Long story short, I had a crash that resulted in me whipping the back of my head into the ground. I ended up with a very bad concussion, an iffy memory for a couple of months, and a destroyed helmet. I'll keep wearing a helmet.
- auntienomen 11y agoThis anecdote would be a lot more useful if it were long story long (e..g., were you cycling casually or racing?). The lack of details makes it hard to draw any useful lessons about when helmet wearing is appropriate.
- teh_klev 11y agoDoes it matter, point being made is that their helmet was destroyed rather than their skull.
- itsybitsycoder 11y agoI'm sure there are people who have cracked their heads open and died while running, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone travelling on foot needs to wear a helmet.
- upofadown 11y agoSo you are saying that the helmet failed (broke) and you ended up with a brain injury? That somehow counts as a success?
- S_A_P 11y agoThis is like saying "Im done wearing a bullet proof vest as it only prevents certain types of gunshot wounds, is uncomfortable to wear and not fashionable."
- panglott 11y agoAre most people expected to wear a bulletproof vest under normal conditions? Fun times when people get shamed for not wearing a bulletproof vest to go to the grocery store.
- panglott 11y agoAre most people expected to wear a bulletproof vest under normal conditions? Fun times when people get shamed for not wearing a bulletproof vest to go to the grocery store.
- mcv 11y agoI understand you always wear a bullet proof vest when you go outside? Your dedication to your personal safety is commendable, but I hope you do realize that most people have reasons not to wear bullet proof vests.
- istvan__ 11y agoThat is great, evolution always find its ways to get rid off the weaker population. Wearing a helmet (a good one) can save your life. Some details: "Is there evidence that helmets protect brains and heads? We have a statistics page that may help you research that. Don't miss the recent New York City data showing that 97% of their dead cyclists had no helmet." I know what a data scientist would say, correlation is not causation. More details, lots os studies and numbers here: http://www.bhsi.org/shouldi.htm http://www.bhsi.org/shouldi.htm A good video in the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=CLbpXkSoM2A https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=CLbpXkSoM2A
- exabrial 11y agoBicycle helmets are worthless, as well as equestrian half helmets. How often in a bike wreck do you hit the exact top of your head vs the sides, your chin, your face, or the back of your neck? The only type of helmet that can actually prevent injury is a full face motorcycle helmet with solid chinbar.
- frogpelt 11y agoI stopped reading when the author said a shattered helmet didn't protect from a head injury. You're telling the same forces that shattered the helmet wouldn't have damaged the head? Nonsense.
- woodchuck64 11y agoHere's a 2013 Australian study: "The effectiveness of helmets in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles: A case–control study": http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457513000183 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457513... "Helmet use was associated with reduced risk of head injury in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles of up to 74%, and the more severe the injury considered, the greater the reduction." Is there some reason to doubt this?
- snowpanda 11y agoHere is the article for those who can't access the page (Database Error) https://www.anony.ws/i/2015/06/15/helmet.png https://www.anony.ws/i/2015/06/15/helmet.png (Click image to zoom)
- sklogic 11y agoAs for me, my main reason not to wear a helmet is that it limits my field of vision and an ability to hear (including low frequencies) to such an extent that I feel blindfolded. I cannot tolerate even a hat for the same reason.
- Mister_Snuggles 11y agoWhere I live there is a bridge over the river which has a multi-use trail (basically, a shared bike/walk/rollerblade/whatever path) on both sides of it. This trail is separated from the traffic on the bridge by a railing and large girders. The bridge was built to carry rail traffic on the top deck and car traffic below. On the south end of the bridge, the road and multi-use trails jog eastward and up a slope, while the rail portion of the bridge continues south towards a tunnel. This results in a spot on one of the trails where there are low-hanging girders. If you are walking, these are fine, if you are biking these are very dangerous and cyclists who weren't wearing helmets have been killed by failing to duck. Since the impact was directly to the head, these deaths would have likely been prevented by a helmet. Cyclists who veer too far towards the girders alongside the trail have also been killed, again an impact directly to the head where a helmet would help.
- emj 11y agoCycle paths with low hanging girders is not a problem that is solved by helmets.
- beat 11y agoMinneapolis is arguably the best city in the US for bicycling (in competition with Portland). That said, biking here can be incredibly dangerous, and cyclists are killed every year. The streets and intersections around town have numerous "ghost bikes", white bicycles locked in places where a cyclist was killed by a car. The author's point doesn't stand to reason. First, not all injuries are created equal. Head injuries are more likely to kill or permanently impair a cyclist than any other injury. Second, regardless of the results of studies and confirmation bias, it's obvious that helmets do absorb a great deal of impact - impact that can kill or permanently injure you. Beyond that, though, helmets aren't the #1 thing that can be done to protect cyclists. Improving car drivers is the #1 thing. Malicious drivers who openly hate cyclists aren't the worst - neglectful ones are. You know, the ones who turn right in front of a bicycle, or lane change into a bicycle. They don't know the cyclist is there. Often, they don't know how close they came to killing someone, as they text away obliviously. The next thing that can be done is better urban planning, with bicycle-friendly streets. That doesn't mean sidewalk "bike lanes" that are 10mph and shared with moms pushing strollers. That means relatively safe road design where bicyclists can either integrate into the traffic flow or be around it with less danger. These designs are often flawed, though, built mostly to keep bicycles from inconveniencing cars rather than keeping cyclists safe (the "bike lanes" of downtown Minneapolis, which completely hide cyclists from cars turning in front of them, are the ultimate example). At any rate, the article is quite wrong.
- mattmanser 11y agoregardless of the results of studies and confirmation bias, it's obvious... You might as well have just said "I'm not listening to that gosh darn evolution nonsense".
- beat 11y agoJust because you're inclined to believe something doesn't make it not true. That's the flip side of confirmation bias. The author points to a single study that's been discredited. Good enough. But simple logic, as well as anecdotal evidence (with all its confirmation bias), suggests that you're more likely to have a good outcome from a head impact if you're wearing a helmet than if you're not. That, or the entire helmet industry is snake oil, and you might as well just wear a baseball cap. The comparison to evolution is bogus. Those who reject evolution are generally rejecting both evidence and reason. But evidence and reason strongly suggest that helmets work better than no helmets.
- exelius 11y agoA common misconception is that bicycle helmets protect you in a serious crash. They don't: if you get hit going 30 mph, anything less than a motorcycle helmet isn't going to help you much. But most bike crashes aren't serious; they're minor, low-speed crashes where the rider is knocked from the bicycle or bumped just hard enough to lose balance. Because the center of gravity on a bicycle is high, it's easy to hit your head in these types of crashes -- hard. Those are the crashes that bike helmets are designed for. Let's say you were waiting at a light, and the light just changed. A car mirror clips you just as you're pushing off and getting your balance, you fall over and hit your head on a curb. If you have a helmet on, you walk away with a headache and maybe a skinned elbow. Without a helmet on, you crack your head open and potentially die.
- mathgenius 11y agoIt seems that people missed the fact that the article has plenty of links supporting his claims. Unfortunately the link colour is almost the same as the text colour. One of the most compelling studies is from New Zealand [1]: "The New Zealand Medical Journal published Evaluation of New Zealand's bicycle helmet law ... showing a massive plunge in cycling levels and a 20% higher accident rate since helmet law enforcement." Also, there was a study showing that cyclists with helmets receive less space from passing cars than those without. [1] http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html
- kyberias 11y agoDid you really analyze whether the study provides good data? Does correlation imply causation?
- kyberias 11y agoIs she a nominee for the Darwin Award?
- bikinginmpls 11y agoThis is the OP. I'm a woman. I guess if you're an avid cyclist everyone assumes you're a man? The article is the reason why I'm done wearing a helmet. I write my blog as a way to expose different viewpoints around cycling. I feel comfortable with this decision and will no longer be wearing a helmet. If they're not completely scientifically sound in your judgement, fine, keep wearing a helmet. I tried to use the data to the best of my ability, as I have a master's degree in public health. But then again, this blog is not for an academic audience, so I try not to make it too heavy. The arguments I posted are those that have swayed me. What it comes down to is this: I believe biking is an inherently safe activity, on par with driving a car and walking. When I'm biking 12-14mph on bike paths and trails, as part of my daily regular activities, I feel there is no need to wear a helmet.
- brookside 11y ago'Expose different viewpoints' seems along the lines of the 'I'm hoping to encourage a debate' line that people taking on 'hot-take' positions like to hide behind. 'I have a masters degree' is, of course, ad-hominem fallacy. It's great that you yourself 'feel' safe but the position you are advocating is not well reasoned and reckless to promote to others.
- bikinginmpls 11y agoYes, I do seek to explore the experience of biking. My blog is made up of interviewing cyclists in Minneapolis to explore how they started biking and the way they experience life on two wheels, along with documenting bike events around town, and some opinion pieces. I mention that I have a degree to point out that I understand how to evaluate research, that doesn't mean that I've read and synthesized all the research out there. Many studies people point to to indicate the efficacy of helmet use are both old and flawed, newer research has been showing a trend of less efficacy. If a compelling, well done meta-analysis came out indicating an incredible beneficial effect of helmets for people who cycle casually, I would probably be swayed by that. The problem is, such research is not currently available. How is it reckless? I don't see compelling public health evidence that supports helmet use. Additionally, there is evidence that helmet use may increase other risky behaviors (like close motorist passing, and risk-taking among cyclists) and can also make the environment less conducive to cycling safety (fewer bikers on the road = more danger).
- mcv 11y agoThe article doesn't say from which part of the world it is (though clearly outside Europe), but where it's from matters a lot. Dutch media, for example, do not focus on helmet use at all, because it's a non-issue. Well, mostly. Almost nobody here wears a helmet (though increasing numbers of children do), simply because it's not necessary. Then again, Dutch traffic is designed with cyclists in mind. In other countries, that's not the case. You need to know what your local cycling situation is, and whether that does or doesn't require a helmet.
- joesb 11y agoThis is why people should not wear seat belt, or be required to have driver license. It deters more people from driving a car and it communicates that driving car is a dangerous activity and require protective gear and license.
- mcv 11y agoI've heard it argued (in jest, I hope) that replacing the air bag in steering wheels with a sharp, steel spike would make people drive a lot more carefully.
- dkrich 11y agoThis seems like a serious case of Black Swan reasoning. In other words, she seems to be taking an apparent lack of evidence that helmets prevent injury as evidence that helmets don't prevent injury. Just remember, you wear a helmet 99.9% of the time for no reason to prevent serious injury on that 0.1% incident because that's all it takes. We all know that slamming your head on pavement is bad and having a shell to protect your head is preferable to not having one. She seems to be assuming that because nothing bad has happened to her yet that she is safe with no helmet. Put differently- I wonder if you told the author a brick was going to fall on her head and then asked given the option to wear a helmet or not wear one which she would pick.
- mcv 11y ago"We all know" lots of things that don't turn out to be true. The only way to be sure is to look at actual accident statistics. And ultimately, helmets are just a tiny fraction of the factors that influence safety.
- dkrich 11y agoYou are disputing that blunt force trauma to your head causes injury? Or that having a barrier between your head and the point of impact prevents severity of injury? Which part exactly are you saying isn't true? And actually, looking at actual accident statistics doesn't do a whole lot of good due to all of the variables involved (this point was actually made by the author and is about the only one that I agree with).
- mcv 11y ago> You are disputing that blunt force trauma to your head causes injury? No, I'm disputing that the majority of bike accidents involve blunt trauma to the head. And looking at real data is the only way you can determine both the causes and results of real accidents, as opposed to artificial lab setups.
- panglott 11y agoThe point is that ordinary commuter cycling in normal weather on flat, clean roads is a lot less dangerous than standing around while people throw bricks at your head. And there's a health tradeoff between the exercise benefits of physical activity and the risk of injury. Convincing people that cycling is so dangerous (like people throwing bricks at your head) that you need to wear some goofy-looking, uncomfortable contraption dissuades them from getting the exercise and the fun of cycling around their neighborhood.
- panglott 11y agoAbsolutely, this is why I rarely/never wear a helmet. People think of them as essential safety gear in case you get hit by a car, but they offer almost no protection against this risk. They are designed to protect your head if you spontaneously fall off a stationary bicycle. In good weather, at low speeds, on flat, clean roads, these accidents will be very rare for competent cyclists. Cycling is simply a safe, fun means of travel. And you don't need special protective gear unless you're doing something weird. Children? Mountain bikers? People cycling in snow or mud? People doing tricks or trying to show off to girls? Yea, they should probably wear a helmet. A friend of mine once compared ordinary commuting in a helmet to wearing a condom all day: it's useful if you're doing something risky, but otherwise it's just uncomfortable. Helmets are uncomfortable and goofy, and I probably would ride less on the bike if I had to wear one all the time, as with a mandatory helmet law. The exercise benefits of regular cycling outweigh the marginal risk of head injury. By the same logic of the helmet-shamers, we should shame motorists and pedestrians for not wearing a helmet for routine travel. But nobody seems to take that idea seriously for some reason. More important safety equipment than helmets: bike lights, mirrors, bells, basic repair gear, and fenders.
- upofadown 11y agoMany safety standards have surprisingly little science behind them. That is not always a bad thing. Trial and error can work if there is the possibility of changing the design. Once the body of experience is codified into a standard then development stops. The current bike helmet standards are a good example of what happens in the absence of both good theory and experience. We have a design that prevents an injury that almost never happens (skull fracture) and that fails to protect against a common injury (concussion). The current standards make it impossible to improve things much but there are people out there that are trying: http://www.helmets.org/liners.htm#cone-head http://www.helmets.org/liners.htm#cone-head
- pskocik 11y agoI used to ride without a helmet too. I though I'd as soon get directly killed than get a brain injury. But then you do get a brain injury and not get killed and your life turns into hell, especially if your brain is the one thing you've always depended on the most. I recommend paying a visit to http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/forum92.html http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/forum92.html to catch a glimpse how splendidly well (where's my sarcasm sign?) people with brain injuries have been doing. I didn't get mine from a bike accident (collapsed scaffolding), but it's been a constant source of joy for the whole last year and I still have some minor issues to deal with (and that was a mild one as far as brain injuries go). I always wear a helmet on larger bike trips now. Anything that mitigates or reduces the chances of a brain injury is very much worth it. If you want to take reckless risks, at least don't write idiotic blog posts about it.
- bikempls2 11y agoI agree with most of these points, however, anecdotally I will say that my helmet prevented some pretty nasty facial road rash when I was doored a few years ago. I tipped and hit my head, and then slid ~10 feet. My helmet prevented my face/ear from taking the initial impact as well as the subsequent slide across the dirty urban asphalt. Helmets don't just protect from massive TBIs.
- jbgreer 11y agoDo you have any information that shows the effectiveness of helmet use in crashes that don't involve cars? I've read that approximately half of all bike crashes do not involve cars. [ looking for a citation ]