If some riders choose to not wear a helmet, that may be fine, but prohibiting helmets is irresponsible. Riders have a much higher cumulative risk of accidents that are not their fault than customers. It's a workplace safety issue.
If some riders choose to not wear a helmet, that may be fine, but prohibiting helmets is irresponsible. Riders have a much higher cumulative risk of accidents that are not their fault than customers. It's a workplace safety issue.
> If some riders choose to not wear a helmet [...]
...we take their board from them, until they show up with one.
This sport is almost completely unregulated (outside of official events), but somehow the community has developed an incredibly strong culture of keeping both yourself and the others around you safe. I guess something about being a niche sport, perhaps a bit of natural selection.
If e.g. a sponsor (hypothetically - I'm nowhere near good enough to get sponsorship) told me not to wear any particular piece of safety gear, I'd laugh them out of the room, and likely the entire local crew would join in the laughing. It's a small sport, once the word gets out, that company would also likely no longer be getting many sales either.
The only correct move for the Pedal Me riders is to go pedal for someone else.
The safety gear allows you to just walk away from some otherwise life-ending accidents like nothing happened.
Reminds me of a blessedly terse reminder on the entry to a building site: "No hat no boots no job"
I'm confused what this means. So you steal their board? Or are they borrowing/using someone else's board and they forfeit the right to use it?
I've never actually seen this threat "executed": the rules are all unwritten, but most people get a clue when reminded or lectured. My friend once wanted to skate in a broken helmet - it literally saved his life a few days before. We had a cute argument, he said it's not really broken if he only hit his head very lightly (so "lightly", he actually had a slight neck pain). I told him I'd buy that broken helmet from him at a full price, just so he doesn't use it, he wouldn't believe me until I took €150 out of my pocket. Eventually he agreed to not be an idiot ;)
If you'd insist on not wearing a helmet? On an official event, you'd probably get removed, possibly banned from future events. You need a sticker with your number on the helmet, so you wouldn't make it as far as the start line. I guess on an unofficial freeride, you just wouldn't get invited again - it's all invite only to begin with, and doesn't make much sense unless you have at least 3-4 people participating; someone needs to shuttle, you split the gas cost, sometimes you need spotters, etc. Randoms on a local spot? You either already know them (so you are allowed to yell at them), or they're new, so you make friends and they get a mentor.
Watching the olympics this summer, it was amazing to watch the street skating events with none of the competitors wearing any sort of protective gear. And it’s not like they didn’t need it either. They were getting wrecked in falls to the point where some of the couldn’t even finish the competition.
It was nuts watching it, since my last exposure to the sport was from the 90s where Tony Hawk would be padded out to the nines while standing around giving an interview by the side of the park.
What is going on that made helmets so uncool that you wouldn’t even wear one if you knew you were going to fall on your head?
That alone makes safety gear much more essential for downhill.
In addition, if someone shows up to a spot without adequate gear, crashes and badly hurts themselves, it can cause the spot to be blown for other riders. Downhill skateboarding is much easier when you’re on the good side of local residents and police.
Also, since DH communities tend to be very small and tight-knit, if someone gets hurt you hear about it. I’ve personally witnessed multiple incidents leading to broken spines, countless minor injuries, and have had one friend die while skating. Either you take safety seriously or pay the piper.
There are more factors than this, would probably make for an interesting sociology dissertation.
it's all context, no?
You wouldn't try to trick over a 17ft drop on a longboard, either. [0]
[0]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/kzn58e/the-leap-of-faith-was...
The 17ft drop is equivalent to the 80mph example in my post, and should definitely involve a helmet, gloves and impact padding (which can be worn under clothes).
Bombing a hill is very different from skating a stair set. The speed at which you do tricks is manageable to be able to tumble your body correctly if you fall (and you’re ready for that fall usually) but bombing a hill is an enormous amount of speed and you can’t prepare yourself for an unknown rock that throws you off.
That’s another somewhat important difference too with street skating, for big tricks you triple check the area and often sweep it because of those tiny rocks.
So context does matter. I’m not advocating against helmets but these are incredibly different things.
Edit: and fwiw I’ve hurt myself far more bombing hills than I have skating something like the big four in ATL. Notice how they fall: https://youtu.be/Ban0D24Aip4
(And the reason they aren’t making this trick is ironically they are not going quite fast enough)
Edit 2: and because I’m reminiscing a bit, the big four is hard because the run up is pretty short. You need good bearings and small wheels to gather the speed required. The only time I’ve ever seriously hurt myself in 15+ years of skating was doing a dumb trick in a standing position. Helmets are important for things like vert for sure where it’s lots of speed and lots of height, and if my kids and I go out and skate we wear helmets (they’re small and I want to set a good example). But most of street skating can be treated as though you’re a trained stuntman (because you basically are)
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I wonder what the velocity of one's head hitting the pavement is if you just stand still and fall over.
That's 0MPH, but it still seems like it'd be enough to do damage.
So yeah, that can be enough (might have been a heart attack as a result of the shock, I am NOT a doctor, but he was gone by the time the ambulance arrived).
Also, one of the reasons street fighting is so dangerous has nothing to do with MMA dudes, it's when someone falls down and hits their head. This happens all the time. They sometimes die from the fall.
I had a friend who fell while ice skating at the speed of a slow stroll, and hit the back of his head. He was dead a week later.
And just getting a concussion can result in measurably decreased mental capabilities for months.
Dad time: you’ve got one brain for your entire life. Stop relying on luck to keep it in working order.
Permanently, not months. All concussions result in some permanent damage, some moreso than others.
long answer: branding
anecdotally, am a daily skateboarder and long time snowboarder who is guilty of having an ego, and even wear pads to protect a couple massive contusions (swellbos) but i never wear a helmet, so ill frame it like this: 95% of the time i am not that much at risk for serious head injury when skating, and even though i take it for granted, there is an element of knowing how to fall/bail early and skating just within my means.
however on a snowboard, i am much more acutely aware of the consequence -- my casual and super comfort "resting" level is like 25-35+ mph, which is a car accident, which is almost always a threat for serious head injury.
there is a huge difference between tripping at about walking/jogging speed and hitting your head versus at 35mph, and this realization happened after 15 winters of safe riding without a helmet.
the reality is, i am just not that worried about it -- ego or no ego, except when i snowboard, which i will not do without a helmet anymore.
./shrug
After 2009: at least 80% of adult skiers in Austria and Germany wear helmets, from the looks of things. Most frequent non-wearers are very old, permanently tanned Austrian men who literally have 5000+ ski days behind them or young ladies with nicely-done hair and make-up much more interested in getting good pictures for Instagram than actually skiing.
What happened in 2009? The Ministerpräsident (think US state governor) of Thuringia, Dieter Althaus, was flying down a black (expert) slope, turned onto a blue (beginner) slope with enough momentum behind him to go up it and crash into a lady from Slovakia.
He was in the hospital for weeks, living to earn a criminal judgment for negligent homicide, paying tens of thousands of Euro.
She died on the way to the hospital.
He was wearing a helmet.
She wasn't.
The absolute crush of helmet sales then and continued rates since are sometimes called the "Althaus-Effekt".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Richardson#Injury_and_...
Widdershin's response is excellent, but I'll add a bit more context: the physical similarities between a skateboard and a longboard are very superficial (we can barely trade any hardware at all); that extends to the respective communities, which also have disjoint histories.
Longboarders trace their roots to surfers; likely someone bored of waiting for a good wave has put skateboard trucks on their surfboard. Some niche longboarding cultures/disciplines were inspired by surfing/SUP (surfskate, pumptrack, land paddle), and one major longboarding discipline is a lot about moving on and around the board ("dancing" on it).
In these other longboarding communities (perhaps except pumptrack), you will see people using helmets and other safety gear much less often, and it's probably fair. But I've never, ever been dissed by any of these people for wearing a helmet, even if just cruising.
You just don’t look “cool” switch back smithing down hollywoood 16 wearing a helmet.
I skated a ton growing up and it was beaten into you at skateparks how dumb you looked wearing a helmet. No major head injuries but definitely had some close calls. I look back and cringe and how stupid that was.
Natural selection is rife.
https://www.treehugger.com/why-dutch-dont-wear-helmets-48581...
Sure you can still get in an accident. That's true of everything though. I don't go for a walk in a plastic bubble just in case a car hits me
https://www.google.com/search?q=cars+hitting+pedestrians&tbm...
I've had a few times where I slipped so fast I didn't even remember what happened but every time my arm was there protecting my head. Reflexes are awesome.
Accidents can happen sure but the added hassle doesn't seem worth it. Of course things are different when you do high speed cycling or mountain biking.
35m isn't an awful lot though. You can pick up a lot of speed from a bridge in the Netherlands too.
And it sounds to me like Pedal Me wants its riders to ride at a leisurely pace, rather than breakneck speeds.
That said, some cyclists here seem to be downright suicidal. Helmet or not, if you run a red light against traffic while watching your phone, you don't seem to be very attached to living. I've even seen parents direct their kids into ridiculously dangerous situations. Fortunately car drivers pay attention even to stupid cyclists here.
I see few if any helmets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbsMKxNORgQ
I find them very annoying, they tend to be very inconsiderate. Cycling on the road where bike lanes are available, and when they are on the bike lane they tend to be agressive to normal cyclists if they don't move along as fast as they want.
They're not all like that but many of them are, which leaves a bad taste as soon as you spot these groups of wannabe lance armstrongs :P
Also, anecdotally, I am occasionally road cycling for sports and do wear a helmet at all times. However, I am certainly not doing that because of aerodynamics.
Edit for clarity.
Another way of looking at it is deaths / trip; a quick search shows 4,800,000,000 bicycle trips in 2019 for a rate of 48 deaths / billion trips and 229 deaths versus 3,600,000,000 car trips and 610 deaths or 169 deaths per billion trips.
The average trip length in the US is apparently something like 10-15m which might make the number of automotive deaths per billion trips something like 130-200. Maybe. (I can't find an actual estimate of the number of trips.)
Another way is deaths per population, see one of my other comments.
Also, it's something that is only a risk to the rider themselves so leaving it to their discretion is warranted IMO.
(Correction: They would not. There were ~610 auto deaths in NL in 2020. That gives 3.5 per 100,000.)
In the US, 2020 had 11.7 automotive deaths per 100,000 people and 0.38 bicycle deaths per 100,000.
isn't this a good example of confirmation bias? it worked for you, so it must work for everyone the same as it did for you each time they require it.
its your brain, I guess. and you do have that social health network to cover you when medical issues arise. guess it doesn't matter your quality of life post-brain injury :-)
https://www.lawfirms.com/resources/personal-injury/slip-and-...
What body/head armor are you wearing when you take a shower?
> A study conducted by the Consumer Affairs Agency based in part on these statistics estimates that around 19,000 people lose their lives every year in accidents while bathing
Your odds of dying as a pedestrian appear to be 7x more than cycling. Why are you not wearing armor while walking? Clearly it's irresponsible not to.
https://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm
Are you ready to live in a society where it's expected you'll wear a helmet except when sleeping? You certainly don't want to be one of those people that slipped in your house and died. I don't. But, I'm also not willing to wear a helmet just to exist.
Am I stupid? In 2050 will everyone be wearing helmets for walking and people like me will be considered needlessly risking death for not wearing one?
Though there are some problems, like if you start running the race safety gear, you need to go all out--you can't have a bucket seat and a race harness without also using a helmet and HANS, your head is vulnerable, and if you run a roll cage without a helmet your head is vulnerable. But in race events a lot of people run "cool" safety gear and people have a good attitude towards it.
Longboarding is risky, downhill longboarding is riskier, doing it without a helmet slightly moreso, doing it naked probably slightly moreso.
Why is it okay for you to set the acceptable risk bar and steal boards from anyone that doesn't agree? Should people that think that downhill longboarding with a helmet is risky steal your board?
For the same reason we enforce seatbelts in cars: Enough people died. Then those who saw them die decided on these rules so we don't need to go through the same pain. The fact that you don't get this shows that the rules work.
I mean to say, riders overwhelmingly want to be safe and it seems to be both self-selecting and self-reinforcing. Outlaw riders are free to ride alone.
Especially if measured by any objective metric like fatality risk per passenger mile.
It's not fully objective. We're emotional humans, and that's ok. We're going to do things that are risky, and some people are going to get hurt or killed doing them. But that doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and give up. We can still make it less likely people will get hurt doing those activities by requiring some safety measures must be taken.
Most states brought on mandatory seat belt laws in the mid-1980s--mid-1990s. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_laws_in_the_United_S...)
1981 was the last year with motor vehicle fatalities over 3.0 per billion miles. By 2000 it was 1.53 and 2019 it was 1.10. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...)
I can only find pedestrian fatality numbers from 1994. (https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/pedestr...) It decreased from 5584 in 1995 to 4109 in 2009 and increased to 6272 in 2019.
In 1995, there were 2,423 billion vehicle miles traveled; in 2009, 2,957; in 2019, 3,248. Doing the division, that works out to 2.3 pedestrian deaths / BVMT in 1995; 1.4 in 2009, and 1.9 in 2019.
Interesting.
In this example, If people start getting hurt on a hill - sooner or later using that hill gets banned.
If it is a group activity the group sets the acceptable behaviour. Don't like it? Demand your board back and go play with another group, rather than expecting this group to accept your risk assessment which doesn't agree with their's.
This is especially true if the group is in any way more formal than a bunch of people arbitrarily meeting up.
I always find takes like this a little weird. This is something we do all the time in society. Seat belt laws. Bicycle and motorcycle helmet laws. All sorts of safety regulations and laws around sports, transportation, health, etc.
We as a society often decide to "protect people from themselves". Some of it is out of an understanding that humans are notoriously bad at risk assessment and will do unsafe things. Sure, that's a bit paternalistic, but... that's life. But some of it is also because severe injury and death don't just hurt the person injured or killed. The emotional toll of those effects are felt widely. The economic effects are felt widely too.
Certainly there are lines to be drawn, and there's plenty of reasonable debate as to where those lines should be drawn. Some possible safety measures might be very difficult, burdensome, or expensive; sometimes in those cases we can't require things like those without causing other types of harm. But others... not so much.
> Why is it okay for you to set the acceptable risk bar and steal boards from anyone that doesn't agree?
Because it's not just about the individual in question. It's about the entire community. The community of longboarders don't want severe injury and death on their hands, so they develop social norms that include requiring helmets. That's entirely within their right to do so, as it is their right to ostracize those who do not conform. (For the record, I think "steal their boards" was hyperbole. I doubt people's boards actually get taken. I expect it's more likely that they get shunned and ejected from the community.)
> Should people that think that downhill longboarding with a helmet is risky steal your board?
If the community consensus is there, then maybe that's reasonable. (In the "eject from community" sense, that is, not necessarily the literal "steal their board" sense.)
Certainly all of these sorts of decisions should be based on research as to what actually makes people safer. Humans are imperfect and don't always follow the science, but the hope is that, on a long enough time scale, with enough people weighing in, we'll get it right most of the time.
It's not a conclusive argument, of course, and I have no axe to grind on this issue. It's just that I think that you might not have taken in to account what they are saying.
By this logic, there should be no life boats on ships.
> And I imagine you would agree that you are less safe wearing a helmet and going downhill longboarding than not wearing a helmet and not going downhill longboarding?
And by this logic, we should just never leave the port.
Of course I come at this from the perspective from a country where there's more miles of cycle lane than miles of car-only roads. Who knows which way the balance tips if you need to mix bicycle and car traffic. To be honest I would simply not ride a bicycle if that was required of me on a regular basis.
Their underlying point is we don't have a major problem with people falling off their bikes randomly, we have a problem with multi ton vehicles slamming into bikes and pedestrians. Did you know most bike helmets (not motorcycle ones) aren't tested for the force of car/truck hitting a bike? We need to stop pretending that if people put a helmet on their safe and we can go back to our lives. We need safer separate infrastructure, and if we had that you'd probably not worry so much about helmets.
> Cycling on roads with cars is dangerous, even when there is a dedicated bike lane.
My brother in law passed just two weeks ago when a sanitation truck entered his bike lane. 35 years old, left a pregnant wife (my sister) behind.Don't trust the motor vehicles to keep you safe. That's your job.
One thing I've noticed is that it doesn't really matter whether cars indicate or not, you should just treat them as hostile whether they are going to intersect with you or whether it seems like they won't.
When I first moved there I didn’t realize that a yellow was treated as if left turners now owned the intersection. Had a few close calls when I would go straight on a yellow while left turners were trying to turn.
This is a good realization for others to have before it takes a near death experience to change the view.
For precisely this reason, whenever I'm teaching aircraft right-of-way I always emphasize that you do not want to be "dead right."
Since then I always were a helmet when out training. However I don't wear a helmet when dropping off the kids with my cargo bike. It's true that drivers are more aggressive towards helmet wearers, moreover I can't think of an accident where a helmet would help when I'm on the cargo bike.
Citation, please?
> can't think of an accident where a helmet would help when I'm on the cargo bike.
Right hook.
"After re-analysis of Walker's data, helmet wearing is not associated with close motor vehicle passing"
It's a small sample size, so take with a pinch of salt.
Olivier and Walter re-analysed the same data in 2013 and claimed helmet wearing was not associated with close vehicle passing. Here we show how Olivier and Walter’s analysis addressed a subtly, but importantly, different question than Walker’s. Their conclusion was based on omitting information about variability in driver behaviour and instead dividing overtakes into two binary categories of ‘close’ and ‘not close’; we demonstrate that they did not justify or address the implications of this choice, did not have sufficient statistical power for their approach, and moreover show that slightly adjusting their definition of ‘close’ would reverse their conclusions. We then present a new analysis of the original dataset, measuring directly the extent to which drivers changed their behaviour in response to helmet wearing. This analysis confirms that drivers did, overall, get closer when the rider wore a helmet.
My friend was cycling up a hill on a cycle route and his handlebars fell apart. Not sure why, think it was metal fatigue - they split down the fork. He woke up on the floor with his helmet in tens of pieces and with no idea what happened.
Things can just go wrong quickly on two wheels, and the outcome is often smashing your head on something.
If you could demonstrate that the helmet was splitting and taking energy with it maybe you could make an argument for splitting, but it seems unlikely that this is a mode of operation.
Also, there are various degrees of helmets, from a simple polystyrene to a mountain bike one to a motorcycle helmet.
You can always go to the next level if you want more protection. The polystyrene one is not supposed to be the end all of protection, just to be better than nothing with minimal inconvenience.
I don't like the concept of requiring PPE for a relatively safe activity as cycling as it makes cycling seem like a far more risky activity than it is and there's also the problem of "helmet hair" which can dissuade commuters. It's telling that countries where bike helmets were mandated had a sharp downturn in the numbers of cyclists.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/wp/2016/05/12/how-saf...
I'm with you on the mandatory helmet issue, I don't like it either, but mostly because I don't like needlessly restricting ones freedoms, if you want to risk your life, that's fine with me as long as you don't risk others lives too.
Just throwing your hands up and not asking for change is a sure way to not improve things.
More seriously, you can easily hit a rock or something and go over the handlebars on a bike path.
So, yes, physics.
When cycling for sport you should always wear a helmet.
When I spent time in a French hospital after bike helmet use (not involving a car by the way, except for the ambulance that called the helicopter), I was really curious if I would continue that pattern or become of of those "helmet even on civilian clothes rides" people. Was expecting the latter, but nope, would still feel as alien as putting on a helmet to drive.
Now you can decide you want to bike faster, and by all means (and I would make this choice as well), when riding aggressively in any context, you should wear a helmet.
Mutual yielding (where two pedestrians approach each other on a sidewalk) works perfectly fine at walking speed. It doesn't work at vehicular speeds, which is why the rules of the road exist that determine positioning and right of way. In order to travel at faster speeds, one must follow a set of rules. Relying on mutual yielding results in the collisions you mention.
We should also be demanding that there is no crime as well.
But outside of this fantasy land you need to accept that cyclists will be interacting with cars at multiple points in their journey from A to B. There are just too many practical issues building an entirely seperate cycling network.
So until this magical day cycling should be considered risky.
Use of shared infrastructure for all vehicles is risky when the rules of movement (position and right of way) rules are not followed. Some cyclists do not follow those rules and end up in collisions. Other times, authorities paint lines that guide cyclists to ride in unsafe areas (too close to the edge of the roadway, or too close to parked vehicles), or designate areas for cyclists to ride where they're hidden from the motorists' view until both enter the intersection.
When one follows the rules of movement and rides in a predictable manner, that risk is largely eliminated.
> We already have sidewalks in many places for this reason
Sidewalks or side paths that have cyclists follow pedestrian right of way rules on approach and through intersections simply doesn't work. The reason is that cyclists move much faster than a walking pedestrian. Pedestrians walk between 2 to 4 mph, while cyclists ride between 10 to 20 mph. A pedestrian that's within a few feet of entering the roadway can be seen by a motorist in time for the motorist to stop and yield to them. On the other hand, a cyclist can be 50 feet away and not seen by the motorist before the enter the intersection. So, instead of yielding, a collision happens instead.
Cyclists move closer to vehicular speeds as opposed to pedestrian speeds (you can't ride in a straight line when going at walking pace). It makes sense for them to be treated like vehicles and follow the same rules. The rules are designed in a way to accommodate vehicles moving at different speeds.
Now you just need to figure out how to cycle from A to B that doesn't interact with them.
Not that I'm in favor of requiring wearing any safety gear, I'm totally in favor of weeding out morons from the gene pool.
But to act like helmets aren't a good idea for cyclists is asinine. Personally I try always rock a full-face MTB helmet when I'm cycling.
I'm not convinced that cycling is especially dangerous and my experience is that I've inevitably put my hands out when falling, so I think that gloves should be the first part of PPE recommended for cyclists. Luckily, I've never hit my helmet/head when coming off so I've found that a bike helmet is most useful for stopping low branches etc from hitting me. I'd recommend cycling/protective glasses too - very good for protecting against insects hitting your eyes.
I find it interesting that people seem to have a skewed attitude towards head protection and cycling. If head protection is that important, then why are helmets not recommended for car passengers, people showering, changing a lightbulb etc.?
Strawman much?
car passengers: airbags and seatbelts are in direct conflict with and superior to helmets.
people showering and changing lightbulbs are not traveling at speeds exceeding a walking pace in an orientation predisposing them for a head/facial impact for hours at a time.
The full-face helmet I wear is heavily vented like any other bicycling helmet, there is practically no worse comfort than any other cycling helmet worth wearing. And considering how much I appreciate my teeth and not potentially needing to drink hamburgers through a straw while my broken jaw heals due to a cycling mishap, even if it were less comfortable I'm totally on board.
I've written this up with details in previous comments on this subject, but I have multiple friends/friends' family members who have suffered substantial facial/dental injuries in seemingly totally benign cycling activities gone awry. All of them would likely have been non-events had they been wearing a full-face MTB helmet.
I'm trying to compare activities that have a significant risk of head injuries (and deaths) with cycling and yet PPE is very rarely mentioned for them.
Downhill skiing in particular has transition from essential no non-racers wearing a helmet to quite a high percentage in maybe a couple of decades.
All those grease monkeys driving around with aftermarket cages in their cars and not wearing helmets are actually less safe for it. The last drag strip I was at wouldn't even let you run if you had a cage and no helmet to accompany it.
Airbags and no steel tubes next to your head change the calculus completely.
Can I ask, is it only safety equipment for cycling you're against?
It looks like you're trying to argue that people shouldn't wear helmets when cycling because people in cars; that have protection from a steel cage with crumple zones, and airbags, and seatbelts, and cushioned seats; don't wear helmets.
Like, sit in your car and get someone to launch a paving slab towards you; then sit on your push bike and do the same thing ... I'd do the first without a helmet, I definitely wouldn't do the second without a helmet (or at all). I can't see how you can find these situations comparable wrt indication of benefit from a protective helmet.
For the record, I always wear a bike helmet here in the UK, but I am not convinced that they really provide much benefit. There's plenty of different studies on bike helmets and a lot of them are very flawed (quite often ones that are sponsored by helmet manufacturers), which is worrying as it should be easy to demonstrate if they are having a big effect on road safety. My opinion is that population wide, they do provide a small benefit, but they can also act as a barrier to cycling for some people, so it's best to not over-emphasise them.
The health benefits from active travel are undeniable, so I'd prefer cycling to be promoted as much as possible and talking about helmets is missing the point.
Around 15 years ago I fractured my right arm doing the same. There were no scratches on my hands--I used my right hand to stop the fall primarily and the force was just too much. However, if I had hit my head, which was not unlikely in that particular fall, a fractured skull would have been much worse.
If passenger cars, large trucks and buses. and motorcycles can share the road, so can pedalcyclists.
Separated bike infrastructure empirically reduces cyclist fatalities. And it isn’t hard to guess why.
Cycling infrastructure that places cyclists in the pedestrian position when crossing an intersection exacerbates the risk of getting into a collision when crossing the intersection because motorists aren't really looking to see someone moving at cyclist speed as they're exiting the intersection. The other problem is that cyclists are hidden from view by parked cars until a short time before entering the intersection. This makes it difficult for both the cyclist and motorist to see each other until it's too late to avoid a collision. If you're not riding where motorists are looking, you're far more likely to end up in a collision, fatal or not[1]
If we take death of out of the equation we all live forever. It isn't a useful "if".
Breaking: Helmets and safety gear are largely irrelevant if collisions don't occur.
(Hey, PPE is also largely irrelevant if you are never in a situation where a virus can establish a foothold on your person!)
I don't know a single cyclist commuter that has not been involved in a car crash - and I'm in my early 30s.
I think helmets in a car would be a net loss.
Motorcycle helmets also have degrees of protection, from the useless DOT standard to the less bad Snell standards to the quite good ECE and FIM standards.
Nope. As a cyclist, I've seen numerous people in social media groups, friends, etc post pictures of their helmets that "saved their lives." Every single time, it's cracked to pieces, with no visible denting to the polystyrene foam.
Deformation of that foam is how a helmet absorbs impact force, and cracking apart is a failure of the helmet.
Bike helmets in the US are required to pass one test - a weight being dropped directly on top of the helmet that simulates a detached adult male head falling onto the ground from about the height of an average adult male. The test makes absolutely no sense, because the whole thing is a sham.
That's a completely different story from the primary task of the helmets for rock climbers, construction workers or soldiers, which is distributing a small, concentrated impact (a rock or a dropped tool or random debris) to a wider area.
Compressed polystyrene I know only from light accidents, but it has been a while and I suppose todays helmets are a bit more durable. (But luckily never had to find out, if they fare better nowdays. Also I learned to fall and only rarely wear a helmet nowdays)
One interesting way of reducing doorings is to teach drivers and passengers the Dutch reach. Basically you should always use your furthest hand to open the door as that involves twisting your body and encourages you to see a nearby pedestrian/scooter/cyclist.
I suspect that a side-effect of the popularity of electric scooters will be that passengers will habituate a bit to seeing faster things on the sidewalks.
That's unlikely. Even if 95% of people did, there's still 5% who won't. The real problem is bad design that places preferential use lanes for cyclists too close to parked cars and expects cyclists and occupants of motor vehicles to figure it out. This results in serious injuries and deaths of cyclists.
Authorities should be encouraging cyclists to ride at least 6 feet away from parked vehicles. One way is to paint shared lane markings to guide cyclists to ride in the safest position in the general purpose lane far enough away from parked vehicles.
That really doesn't work. First, a cyclist is moving at least 15 feet per second, which is the average length of a passenger vehicle, so by the time they're besides you, they're already past you. Second, your view is blocked[1] by the B and C pillars of the vehicle as well as the headrest, so you won't be able to see a cyclist approaching.
The second best approach is to check the outside mirror before opening the door, but that doesn't work for passengers in the vehicle. The absolute best approach is to never, ever, ride in the door zone, regardless of whether or not door zone bike lanes are present.
The British Highway Code now includes the "Dutch Reach" car door open (where you grab the door handle with the hand furthest from the door to force your body to turn, hopefully seeing inbound cyclists).
A LOT of the updates to the highway code are for the sake of road users that aren't in cars.
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/changes-and-answers/category...
>239 ...
>where you are able to do so, you should open the door using your hand on the opposite side to the door you are opening; for example, use your left hand to open a door on your right-hand side. This will make you turn your head to look over your shoulder. You are then more likely to avoid causing injury to cyclists or motorcyclists passing you on the road, or to people on the pavement
Unfortunately, it doesn't work unless you're in a convertible type vehicle. Otherwise, the B and C pillars as well as the headrest will block[1] your view of an approaching cyclist. Checking the outside/wing mirror is sufficient. The British highway code also includes a provision that says that cyclists can ride in the primary position given the situation. Riding far enough away from parked vehicles to avoid a potential dooring collision is one of them.
Bicycle helmets "work" by deformation of the hard polystyrene foam. If it cracked in two, it failed. If the foam did not deform, no energy was absorbed.
It is an extremely common misconception, especially among cyclists, that a cracked/disintegrated helmet "worked" and "saved their life."
Bicycle helmets crack and fall apart in many of these crashes because they're not designed to take anywhere near the typical forces involved in actual crash. They're only designed to "work" for a stationary fall from about the height of an average adult male, falling straight upside-down on top of their head.
> I'm sure she would have died without that helmet.
That's not how that works.
"I saw someone wearing a bunch of ring of flowers around their head and they got hit by a car. The flowers exploded in a poof of pedals. I'm sure she would have died without the ring of flowers around her head."
"I wear a ring of garlic around my neck. I haven't been attacked by vampires. Garlic repels vampires!"
Etc.
It's one thing to risk your own life by not using safety gear.
Its another level of reckless to not provide safety gear to your employees
To forbid someone else from using their own safety gear is a level of asine behaviour that trully terrible.
But these guys top even that- they don't just dicourage employees from wearing helmets through hush-hush, hint hint, they boast about it in a public press release.
It's not your life to risk, that person is not a serf, and if I wants to wear a bulletproof vest everywhere I goes that's not the employer's concern. If ee allow this to stand, it sets a terrible precedent.
So it does in fact mention that both people driving around those wearing helmets as well as the cyclists themselves take greater risks.
The argument is that in the GP’s anecdote that the cyclist (and perhaps even the truck driver) would have taken less risky actions preceding the crash, thus avoiding it all-together.
Really? Data shows that a driver will subconsciously take stock of the fact that a cyclist is wearing a helmet and adjust their risk assessments accordingly? I find that incredibly difficult to believe.
“ In 2006 he attached a computer and an electronic distance gauge to his bike and recorded data from 2,500 drivers who overtook him on the roads. Half the time he wore a bike helmet and half the time he was bare-headed. The results showed motorists tended to pass him more closely when he had the helmet on, coming an average of 8.5 cm nearer.”
> Walker said he believed this was likely to be connected to cycling being relatively rare in the UK, and drivers thus forming preconceived ideas about cyclists based on what they wore. “This may lead drivers to believe cyclists with helmets are more serious, experienced and predictable than those without,” he wrote.
The article also mentions this risk-taking study where some participants were asked to gamble and some had helmets on and some had hats on, and found that people with helmets on took greater risks. If I were asked to do something like wear a helmet where one is completely unwarranted, I might feel silly and do silly things for that extra fun factor. Wearing a helmet on a bike results in a completely different mindset than wearing a helmet at the office, if not solely for the fact that it's unusual behavior.
> Our findings initially appear different from those of some other studies. Fyhri and Phillips (2013; Phillips et al., 2011) found that risk taking in downhill bicycling, measured through riding speed, did not simply increase when a helmet was worn; rather, the people who normally cycled with a helmet took fewer risks when riding without one. Why did the participants in Fyhri and Phillips’s study who were not habitual helmet users not react to wearing a helmet with increased risk taking, as our experiment might suggest they would? Clearly more work is needed to definitively pin down all the mechanisms here, but for now, we speculate that the difference might be related to considerable variations between the two studies’ procedures. Fyhri and Phillips greatly emphasized the physicality of their task (“to increase the difference in measures between the helmet-on and -off conditions, all participants were instructed to cycle using one-hand in both conditions”; p. 60), which provides a direct link between the action (bicycling) and the condition (helmet wearing) that was absent in our study. Moreover, that study used a repeated measures design, in which participants were aware they were riding a bicycle both with and without a helmet. This could have meant that behavior changed through mechanisms different from those seen here, where participants took part only in one condition and were not aware of any manipulation, nor even that they were specifically wearing a safety device.
So, in the past other studies have concluded that when the helmet has an _actual_ potential impact on safety, they do not induce greater risk-taking behavior. This fits right in with my personal experience, where I don't even consider that fact that I'm wearing my helmet during a ride.
1. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09567976156207...
This study proves nothing about rider safety. What matters here is actual accidents, and most bike accidents do not even involve a car. The study only proves that motorists would pass about 4 inches closer to author of the study when he had a helmet on. Motorists were not frequently hitting the author.
We really need some high-quality studies with a much better experimental design that look at overall risk. Perhaps riders are marginally more likely to get into accidents if they wear a helmet, but I know from personal experience that when you do get into an accident you really want to be wearing a helmet - if I wasn't wearing one when I had a big accident about ten years ago, I'm pretty certain I'd have serious neurological problems now.
Personally, I believe the correct thing is to provide separate infrastructure from cars for bicyclists. One big nuance in the helmet debate is that the helmet is really best designed from mistakes while riding, ie when done for sport.
On a more serious note, I assume that conclusions about helmet safety predicated on motorist passing behavior (which I already pretty much just intuitively reject) could not be safely extrapolated to include much larger and more visible multi-person passenger bearing bikes. They are very different visually and culturally and motorists almost certainly behave differently around them, so I'm gonna require new data that takes these different psychological effects into account.
They used a watermelon and dropped it from maybe 5 or 6 feet up in the air.
I refuse to ride anything without a helmet ever since.
If we insist that cyclists protect themselves against multiple tonnes of kinetic energy impact, we should insist on the same protection for car drivers.
Are helmets the bicycle equivalent of air bags then? Isn’t that quite a third rate equivalent?
If we are to believe a helmet will help a cyclist, it must be true that helmets would have helped those drivers and passengers too.
The airbag argument is just distracting. "Let's not use antivirus because we already have a firewall".
It's seems like marketing and cost-cutting issue for them.
Customer: "Driver is wearing a helmet, and nobody provided helmets for us.. Are we in danger?"
Pedal Me: "Say no more.. "
Plus it seems they only bought caps & jackets for their drivers previously, no safety gear. Drivers are replaceable, aren't they? (\s)
And other thing, why is a 3 meters long bike road-legal?
Why shouldn’t it be?
Huh? Why shouldn't it be?
A normal road bike gets close to 2 meters at the tips of the wheels. Add a trailer and that's easily 3.
Because there’s nothing unsafe about it.
Better questions are: why are cars that exceed 90 mph street legal? Why are trucks with lift kits street legal? Shouldn’t we be preventing things from being on the street that are actually killing people?
However, the type of bike they are using is much safer than a normal bicycle because of its size.
I have had my bike's wheel get physically jammed into a train track and went over the front. I was wearing a helmet, though I didn't hit my head. I was practicing Aikido back then and did a nice roll resulting in no injury. There is no way I could do that today.
With a wheelbase of 2-3m, there's just no way the bike tips forward like this, especially with the rider positioned towards the back. Couple that with the fact that cargo bikes travel at lower average speeds and it's not clear to me how this injury occurs.
A company should design their safety protocol well and it includes what equipment workers should and should not wear to protect them best.
So prohibiting helmets is very responsible. Criticizing them seems to be taking an irrational stance that it’s better to address your feelings than the actual reality of what happens.
This demands proof, citation, and of course, controlling for how many cyclists in an area wear helmets vs. not.
Because otherwise you go in the dead column.
Comparing the fatality rate of bicycling to the one for riding a motorcycle is not good.
edit: That's not only a claim that bicycle helmets vastly reduce the fatality of bicycle accidents (rather than just significantly reduce them), but a claim that so many unhelmeted riders die from bicycle accidents that it distorts safety figures. All of this without any safety figures.
You provided no data.
> Bicycle helmet use was associated with reduced odds of head injury, serious head injury, facial injury and fatal head injury. The reduction was greater for serious or fatal head injury. Neck injury was rare and not associated with helmet use. These results support the use of strategies to increase the uptake of bicycle helmets as part of a comprehensive cycling safety plan.
OK, let's see your data!
I ask because there are “studies” that show there are more skiing accidents with helmets than without, but anyone who has spent a day at a ski hill can tell why that is: the vast, vast majority of people are wearing helmets. Throw a rock into a crowd of skiers and you’ll probably hit someone with a helmet. Does that mean helmets attract rocks?
Assuming their accident rates are anywhere in the same ballpark, accidents will involve more helmet wearers by a significant margin just because they outnumber non-helmet wearers.
Never read any triumphant reports about how this has saved ten thousands of lives though, so I suspect that numbers aren't that impressive.
I don't remember a big campaign or anything but probably some combination of snowboarders normalizing, it becoming seen as negligent not to make kids wear them, and probably a general increase in safety culture--especially among the sort of people who can afford to downhill ski.
There are only around 40 downhill skiing deaths in US annually--although the majority of those are brain injuries.
I'm getting real sick of the, "your feelings" talk. You used to get socked in the eye for talking to people that way in public. There's a better way of expressing your point than speaking to proverbial others as though they're children. It's enormously toxic.
Helmets are mandatory in all major cycle competitions - so I'm not sure this reveals a preference among professional cyclists, so much as a preference among competition administrators.
The question is actually more interesting with public health. I have seen several studies that showed that mandatory cycling helmets decrease life expectancy. That's because less people will ride a bike if they have to wear a helmet and the benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers of not wearing the helmet. That doesn't mean it isn't good to wear one anyway if out cycling.
>Also in terms of common sense consider that all professional cyclists wear helmets when they're competing.
Mentioning professional cycling does not help your argument. The riders organisations were fighting strongly against mandatory helmets, and professional cycling was very late with requiring helmets they came many years after they were mandatory for amateur races. There is also the observation that professional cycling has become riskier, although I would not necessarily link that to cyclist wearing helmets, it would be worth investigating though.
Helmets may inadvertently create more accidents, but they also protect the most vital organ in your body during those accidents.
My impression is:
1. Dutch-style utility riders using a bike to get around town for errands -> Rare helmets
2. Lycra-clad competitive cyclists with drop handlebars -> Widespread helmets
3. City cycle hire scheme users -> Rare helmets
4. Parents cycling with young children -> Widespread helmets
5. Poor people commuting on beat-up mountain bikes -> Rare helmets
6. Organised cycling events with mandatory helmets -> Widespread helmets
7. Teenagers riding with their friends -> Rare helmets
So the popularity of helmets depends on your locale (does your area have utility riders?) - and whether you measure per-mile or per-bike-owner :)
But fair, I don't have numbers.
My personal feeling is that the "helmets don't help" line is a strategic choice made by bike activists who are doing work I approve of, but I don't trust them when it comes to my safety. They're fighting for separate infrastructure, which I like, but they're dedicated to the idea that the kind of riding I have to do to get anywhere is inherently unsafe. They aren't interested in making what I have to do now more safe; they're interested in making sure people in the future don't have to do it.
If people only choose to put on their helmets when doing dangerous things, but don’t bother when doing relatively safe things, then it’s going to look like helmet use is correlated with injuries. Even if, on a per-person basis, the helmet actually reduces injury severity.
And it’s difficult to test helmet effectiveness directly because it is widely considered unethical to randomly subject people to blows to the head.
I find it much more likely that claims of "data shows..." are due to uncontrolled confounding factors, such as riders being more likely to wear a helmet when they perceive the ride as meeting a certain risk threshold.
There’s a reasonable causal story to tell wherein helmet-wearing leads people t take make riskier maneuvers on trips they’d be on, which leads to helmet wearing being associated with injury.
There’s another reasonable causal story wherein helmet-wearing leads people to chose to bike on trips they otherwise would take alternative transport, or skip entirely, which leads to helmet wearing being associated with injury.
In the first, a pedicab company might prohibit helmets to reduce risky behavior, but should really compare that intervention to just training and incentivizing lower-risk riding. In the second, the company is severing the connection between the intervention and the effect! The passengers tell riders where to go, so helmet wearing has no effect on risk-taking behavior _specifically for their riders_. Prohibiting helmets then dramatically increases risk/severity of injury.
I’d want to be very sure about the specifics before taking such a counterintuitive decision.
It's total BS to try and combine accidents with injuries and I'm aware of no reputable study that claims both of your statements.
So that means ice cream causes drownings and that we should ban it? Or it happens that ice cream eating and swimming both happen during the summer.