Mandatory helmet laws make cyclists less safe

It would help if you ack that the article encourages helmets. They are not trying to say to not wear them. They are arguing that the practicalities of how "mandates" work out cause more issues than they solve.

I, for one, fully accept that "more studies" would be good. I also always wear a helmet. I don't think either of those are good rebuttals. And any blanket statement of "I don't care what evidence there is," is almost certainly the wrong foot to be on.

THIS is the real difference.

Why not? Shouldn't we want to increase cyclist safety? Wearing helmets does that, both the data and common-sense concur here. But article was making a different claim. We shouldn't have laws MANDATING helmet use due to unintended side-effects actually producing more net-harm than the whatever deterrence impact the laws have in increasing helmet use. This is really not an obvious conclusion and requires reviewing the empiric data - but I suspect it is right.

> And titles like could lead to people to thinking that they won't need one.

Yes - the title is badly phrased. They are trying to present a subtle, nuanced argument that is not-obvious to a casual reader scanning headlines or even an article summary.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dutch+cyclists+don%27t+wear+...

Your argument that you're safer with a helmet might be true but you're probably being hypocritical in that there are plenty of things you do in life where you'd be safer with a helmet were you don't personally wear a helmet. Apparently you'd be ok if the government forced you to where a helmet at all times except sleeping because by the same argument, it's safer to walk with a helmet than without therefore there should be a law requiring it

MHLs could increase my overall risk of cycling accident enough to offset any gain from wearing the helmet.

There are studies that show drivers go faster and closer to cyclists wearing helmets (vs those without helmets). That alone could increase the risk of deadly car-bike interaction enough to offset the gains from wearing the helmet.

https://www.bicycling.com/news/a25358099/drivers-give-helmet...

Edit - either way, I'm all for separate, protecetetd bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. That's the "real" solution here - get bikes and cars onto different roads and what drivers do or don't do ceases to be a problem (almost, we still get drunken idiots driving down our protected bike paths outside DC).

The article's information is useful if you are a voter or a politician trying to decide whether mandatory helmet laws will help to make your city a safe place for cyclists.

This simply doesn't indicate that wearing a helmet makes cycling less safe. Perhaps someone might misread it that way, but that would be a mistake in terms of both logic and rhetoric.

https://www.bicyclelawyer.com/cycling-law-blog/study-shows-c...

I bet that people also drive with a bit more risk tolerance when they are wearing a helmet than otherwise, and of course more likely to get that helmet for a fast, risky, fun ride than a quick trip to the grocery store.

Interestingly, if you are seeking to reduce your personal odds of dying, it is a no brainer to bike. The cardiovascular health benefits outweigh the chance for getting hit by a car.

Edit: add the link

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2031394/Cycling-w...

There are multiple aspects that lead to mandatory helmet laws causing in lower safety for cyclists.(many laws have a side-effect of making some group of people less safe)

Read the title three times and tell me where it says that helmets make cyclists less safe?

A major point here is that the burden of proof should be on the ones proposing to make something mandatory.

Intuitively you might think that mandating helmets would improve safety. But now we've got a plausible argument that it might not. At this point there should not be a mandate unless the proponents can conclusively prove that it actually helps.

Because if helmets make things safer, people are still free to wear them in the absence of a mandate. But if they don't, and you impose the mandate anyway, you are now actively causing harm that its victims have no way to mitigate.

So, yes, lets debate the confounding factors. If you can name some factors, they should guide us in how we would build tests to explore them. I didn't claim it was easily testable, but it is certainly testable.

That seems extremely unusual. Are you MTBing / using skateparks / etc?

*supporting mandatory helmet laws, mandatory insurance on bicycles, other bicycle taxes, license plates on bicycles and applying car-related legal requirements in general, requiring driving license to use bicycle, ban on cycling by children, opposing safe infrastructure such as segregated bike lanes, opposing any bicycle infrastructure, wanting to ban cycling on roads, wanting to remove cycleways.

This seems like an issue. The average driver should absolutely notice the environment they're operating in.

This includes noticing those around them. This should be especially true for the more vulnerable road users.

If I see a bicyclist that looks like a bicyclist I tend to drive closer to them because I expect they are going to stay in their lane. Conversely, people who look like they aren't regular bike riders or teenagers just screwing around -- I will give a much wider berth... in some cases even going a completely different route to avoid them.

Which is a very silly argument.

A surgeon is one among the few that can see a spike in brain traumas cases and can investigate the causes, it's totally more reliable than you or me, because he has the data and the knowledge, we don't.

I don't know about you, but I would ask a veteran about the horrors of war, not to 4 years kids, who, having seen none of it, are, by your reasoning, less biased.

> A surgeon is not going to see the vast majority of people who don't suffer head trauma

Because surgeons are notoriously not people too and live in a closet in the hospital.

> Now, get me a statistician and we can talk.

first of all, medical professionals typically study statistics, epidemiology doesn't really figure out itself on its own.

Secondly, I work with statisticians to assess the risks for insurance companies (not in the US). I work with that kind of data everyday and, guess what, MDs reports are highly predictive of risks, the average Joe with a laptop opinions, are discarded because, after examination, have been found "completely non-predictive".

The laws are successful in that they get people to wear helmets, but they are an abject failure in terms of participation in cycling.

I've got hundreds of thousands of miles in my legs and I won't get on a bike without a helmet on even going around the block.

On the infrastructure yes, agree. I'd be happy with simple stuff like ubiquitous bikes lanes and 10 foot wide shoulders...

If I had a penny for every time someone's squeezed through between my wing mirror and the kerb in start/stop traffic with just an inch or two to spare...

This really gets pulled out every single time someone points out the proper distance required for passing a cyclist and it’s wrong.

First, passing a cyclist with a car and passing a car with a cycle are asymmetric things. The cyclist needs space to actually go a straight line, the path of a bicycle is never straight - and it sways more at slower speeds.

The cyclist also needs space in both directions to make a turn, for example to avoid an obstacle. If you take that space to one side, they cannot even safely turn the other direction.

Cars have a significantly higher draft than cyclists. They’re bigger, heavier and scarier. If the cyclist twitches as you pass them, you were too close.

Cars just don’t fall over. Cyclists do. Slippery patch on the road, whatever. And when they fall, they need space.

The car driver passing the cyclist has no idea how skilled the cyclist is. And unskilled cyclists need more space to maneuver - or make mistakes when scared and fall. See above. The cyclist passing the car knows their skill. And even unskilled cars do not randomly fall over.

The danger is asymmetric. A car even slightly touching a cyclist is likely to end up with a major injury or death. A cyclist slightly touching a car is a dent and a scratch.

This is why in many places, there’s a mandatory minimum distance when for a car passing a cyclist, but none for cyclist passing a car.

If the hammer is on the table, and I put my hand next to it, there is really no reason for anyone to be angry. I didn't hurt the hammer. And I'm not a hypocrite, as in this case the chance of hurting myself was zero.

Unfortunately you can't glance at a cyclist and decide affirmatively that they're an idiot for riding without wipeout skills.

It's another thing to make a law forcing everyone to agree with you, or else.

The paradoxical result shown in this article, which has been seen repeatedly, is that forcing people to wear helmets does more harm, by discouraging people from riding bicycles, than the benefit it creates by pushing some small number of the bicyclists who remain to take safety precautions they would otherwise have neglected.

The amount of discomfort (psychological fear of theft or physical nuisance of carrying it) is very likely going to discourage its use. But then you're liable for a fine for not having a helmet, so you choose to not ride the bike.

Just don't require helmets for bike riders over some age.

Or do what happened in Australia and just don't bother riding a bike and drive your car instead.

I sound flippant but I'm just reflecting _what actually happened_, which is where conversations need to be grounded.

Tying a helmet to a bike can result in theft and weathering (rain).

The article goes to describe that it is the secondary effects that are important. Ie, it's better to have 100 cyclists on a road with 50% helmet usage, than it is to have 3 with 100% usage.

I've seen campaigns and memorial stickers asking drivers to watch for motorcycles. So it is not dissimilar for pedal bikes, except the safety effect for driver awareness is even more important for non-motorized bikes. Which is essentially the non-intuitice conclusion of the article.

Yes, but that additional cost does discourage people to use a bike. And many countries want to encourage rather than discourage bike use, for several reasons:

* bikes don't endanger other road users the way cars do

* bikes pollute less

* bikes take up less space

* bikes put less strain on the road

* bikers get more exercise and are therefore healthier

All of these are important positive effects, so a lot of countries would prefer to stimulate bike use rather than discourage it. They don't have the same reason to encourage car or motorbike use, so having the extra cost there is fine. The alternative for a car is likely to be better for society, so it's fine to discourage their use. The alternative for a bike is likely to be worse.

But I agree that making it mandatory will do more harm than good, for the reasons stated in the article.

Or if they just don't have insurance, the hospital passes on the cost to recoup their care in the form of high rates for everyone.

You don't ride a bicycle in a vacuum.

The reasoning behind wearing an helmet on motorbikes is two fold:

- there are a lot more chances of being left disabled by the accident than dying, which is something you might not have thought about, but when you're disabled suddenly it's not your head anymore, you depend on other people to take care of your head and the rest of your body. There's a cost involved in severe head traumas and the monetary one is by far the less important.

- your head splattered on the asphalt is something other people might not want to watch. Some people might be even traumatized by that view. So please if you really want to risk it, do it when you're alone, in the middle of nowhere. Because you can still do it, you won't get arrested if you do it, simply fined.

but the real reason why I do not understand this "easy rider" alle cozze argument is: helmets are super cool! If professional bikers wear it, then why not?

The simple fact is, in every place where cycling is normalized and not a deviant behavior for weird lycra-wearing dentists or people with DUIs, almost no one wears a helmet.

Mandating helmets is a failed policy if the goal is to reduce reliance on cars, and to make cities safer for everyone.

Arguing on this line is pointless. You can use this line to justify any number of mandatory safer features. The goal should be to drive an adoption of clean, non congestive, personal transportation, and the primary drivers for this is cost and convenience. Mandatory laws requiring stuff is counter to this.

Helmets protected me in bike racing where they're already mandatory.

They do not protect most riders at all.

The hypothesis is that requiring helmets may make individual bikers safer in isolation, but if it causes less people to bike and to drive instead, the increase in people driving cars may make it less safe to ride a bike, even adjusted for the fact that they're safer via the helmet.

I'd imagine this is especially true given that the helmet mostly only helps prevent the more dramatic injuries to the head. Getting hit by a car is still likely to seriously injure you in plenty of places the helmet doesn't help with.

Then you proceed to cite a study. Thanks for doing that.

> provides citation

Yeah, it's going great.

There would likely also be lots of deaths due to weakness in the supply chain.

The only rational argument for these laws would be the burden on the national-health system for injuries sustained on the head during riding a bike. This could be solved by allowing people to opt-out of the free national health system coverage explicitly in these instances of injuries, if indeed statistics show that there is a significant burden imposed on it. And still there is the counter-argument that this would be biased -what about people who are engaging into leisure activities with higher-risk, "extreme-sports" and such. I wouldn't be surprised if even the cost of treating normal sports-related injuries is higher than the cost of head-related injuries of bikers riding with no helmet. Why not enforce wearing full protective gear when engaging in every sport?

If we start with this mentality, it's only a slippery slope that would lead us in a place we don't want to be.

Same as with smoking taxes. It started with the justification that it's fair to counteract the increased cost that smokers have on the national health system. A perfectly fair reasoning. But by now these taxes have increased so much that this justification is no longer convincing -instead they are widely accepted as a sort of "luxury tax" that smokers pay, no longer to cover the cost of the medical treatment they are more likely to receive on average, but just "because that's how it is". This income is not even earmarked for the health system in many cases. They also started covering things that evidence don't support they pose any or as much of a risk as cigarette smoking (Vaping), and in some cases -Italy, IIRC-, even with official lawmaker justification that these products deprive the state from tax income that they would receive through the smoking tax. A completely illogical argument that I was surprised to see it made nobody blink twice.

So I think such laws are really a demonstration of government acting as a for-profit entity, squeezing money from whatever they think they can get away with.

So if you want to protect cyclists from themselves lock them in a cell and throw away the key, it is the only way to be sure.

Less incidents can be just less cyclists, or something mildly related as "on average, helmets are colorful and increase visibility vs average cyclist that before helmet had nothing well visible on them"

66 dead from traffic: https://www.portland.gov/sites/default/files/2022/traffic-cr...

93 dead from homicide (breaking the previous record of 66 from ~30 years prior): https://www.opb.org/article/2022/01/15/2021-was-a-record-yea...

I have no idea what happened but the gentleman flipped the bike and took a tumble right over the handlebars. No visible road debris, road wasn't wet, bicyclist wasn't doing anything silly.

I stopped and luckily he was fine (he was wearing a helmet) but seemingly for no reason, a bicyclist ate pavement.

There is a very notable difference in streets that get high non motorized usage vs a lot. Compare a playground or park with a lot of pedestrians compared to say a national forest.

What's more, a helmet only helps if you hit your head. A small fraction (afaik, less than 10%) of falls will have a helmet helping you at all (but when it would, you tend to really want the helmet)

The hierarchy of helmet need is #1 motorcyclists, #2 drivers, #3 pedestrians–pedestrian head injuries are incredibly common–, and #4 cyclists.

Anyway there should be more discussion about what kind of bicycle.

Racing bikes go fast, your feet are in toeclips, you're in a bent down position - those things are dangerous. And everybody in the Netherlands wears a helmet riding them.

E-bikes can go very fast, cars underestimate their speed, people wear helmets.

But city or transport bikes, they go very slow (like 15km/h), you sit upright and can easily evade trouble or put a foot to the ground. Falls happen and old people break legs or hips sometimes, but to hit the ground with your head would be very very unusual. Those are the bikes we don't use helmets on.

I think most riders in the US ride racing bikes.

We could require everyone to wear helmets all the time (for their own safety since someone could just fall over or trip at any time), but that's clearly not going to happen.

I think the more general point to consider here is that helmet laws are a distraction from larger issues surrounding traffic deaths and the way we design our cities and transportation systems.

Having a seat belt in a car is far less of an inconvenience than carrying around a helmet. If mandatory helmet laws cause people to take a car to the supermarket instead of biking then *more* people will die. Not to mention the immense congestion and destruction of the planet this will cause.

> Cars have tons of safety regulations built into them and seat belt laws are pervasive. I don’t expect them to relax over time either, cars are much safer than they ever have been and I expect their safety will continue to improve year over year.

Cars have safety features for their passengers - meanwhile they are by far the most lethal mode of transportation worldwide. Should we only care about people inside a car, or should we perhaps start caring about *all people*?

> Can you say the same thing about the bicycle? What safety features do they have? The helmet is the only one I can think of.

How about not going at very fast speeds? What safety features does "walking" have? Should we now start wearing a helmet while walking?

Just make the streets smaller, with fewer, narrower lanes. It slows down the cars and makes bicycles look better in comparison too.

I just don't understand this defeatist attitude. Most people on this site live in healthy democracies. Why do we call for reforms in every political sphere but maintain an adamant denial of our power over city planning?

It's all irrationality and a belief that cars are much safer than we pretend they are.

As someone who has worn a helmet in the car from time to time, a lot of cars don't even leave enough headroom available for someone 6' tall to wear the helmet without their head hitting the ceiling.

I'm sure that you can provide evidence of helmet-wearers doing the same to show that it's harmless one you put on a foam hat?

On a related note, thousands of drivers dying from head trauma each year demonstrate that NCAP is no immortality cheat either.

Cars literally don't do any of those things. They're convenient (at least when your city isn't subject to awful traffic) and that's it.

You found a risk reducing law that probably does make sense. Very small investment (Volvo relinquished the patent, thanks Volvo) and very large benefit.

But this "their personal risk taking is my concern" argument of yours makes me shiver. I'd never want someone else's risk taking to be my concern: I've got more important stuff to attend to, thank God.

"Put a sharp pin in the steering wheel and forbid belts and airbags." he jokingly argued.

There's quite some truth to it.

You also shouldn't be paying for everyone elses' healthcare

I'm fine without, thank you for being considerate.

The article makes a point, I agree with: don't put barriers on cycling.

I agree wholeheartedly. And I have trouble with most safety laws: they can be recommendations, but not laws (yes seat belt was mentioned, I know, I know).

They’re not GOOD reasons but let’s not pretend there aren’t any at all.

Because I like my head not freezing when it's ten degrees below freezing? When I bring this up, sometimes people tell me about thin membrane caps that fit under the hat, but they don't work when it's actually really cold out. Helmets absolutely do not fit over warm-weather hats (or any hats, really). (Other people have said "why would you be biking if it's below freezing", which shows that they don't understand the entire conversation.)

I whip my head back and forth over my right shoulder constantly to check the state of traffic behind me.

Before I maneuvre, I check, check and check again. Always checking. Always fully aware of what's behind me.

Having something attached to my head makes it harder and less comfortable to do these rapid checks. I think this makes me less safe overall.

I live less than a mile from my former cubicle, and my old commute was mostly through a park with two road crossings. There was no reason to wear a helmet.

If I'm on a longer road ride, or riding off-road, I religiously wear a helmet. If I'm riding lift-assisted downhill, I wear a full-face helmet.

As already mentioned it can interfere with constant checking habit for extra safety, as well as cold weather appropriate headgear. Personally I gave up cycling once compulsory helmet laws were introduced in Australia since for sun protection I had an already heavy enough wide brim weather proof hat. It's probably not that common, but I have a weakened neck from a poorly treated bad whiplash (forced over the edge of road on a bicycle with a wooden road marker being right at the spot my head / neck area would land.) Additionally trying a helmet (not all helmets are the same and possibly there are brands out that have addressed certain problems) I found the straps sitting proud interfered with other distant road noises, not an issue in town traffic, but it would certainly drown out vehicles approaching from behind driving on non urban roads, with many drivers not looking for cyclists sharing that road.

Here in the Netherlands, biking (without support) at speeds around 15km/h if you are in good health and of sound mind, is not more dangerous than walking or traveling by some other means. Recently, the number of traffic causalities has gone up, that those are mostly related to the use of e-bikes by elderly people and younger people. I feel that if you need support for biking when you do not have the strength (due to old age), you probably are not fit for biking at all. Many young people using e-bikes remove the speed restriction allowing them to bike at speed up to 30 km/h. At those speeds, the chance of accidents go up very quickly.

tl;dr: if there was an oracle that could tell us definitively that mandatory helmet laws don't improve safety, I think we'd see mandatory helmet laws repealed pretty much everywhere.

No it doesn't reflect "mentality"; as both a cyclist and driver and pedestrian and transit rider I'm extremely aware that different rules and practices have disparate impact, sometimes massive, sometimes for no valid reason whatsoever. Also, another thing you neglect is that in the US, adjacent or nearby traffic lights are typically not synchronized, also the crossing delay for pedestrians (or minor roads, or left-turn lanes) is often very long (sometimes 6-14 minutes at major intersections, I've measured it, it deprioritizes other users vs. heavy car traffic). To offset some of these insane practices, many US localities are allowing Idaho stops. Like I said to you. It is in many localities perfectly good and legal for a cyclist to proceed (obviously yielding to cross-traffic, if there is any) through a red light.

In the last year I've almost been killed by other drivers 50++ times but (even as a pedestrian) by cyclists 0 times (You may quibble selection bias, since there are few cyclists, esp. after 7pm in winter).

Complaining about cyclists at intersections where a bridge/overpass/underpass should reasonably have been built decades before, is missing the point. In US cities, cyclists have to pay a price in safety and speed for the sins of city councils for having deprioritized them for 50 years.

Yes, sometimes new US cyclists are traffic violators; they simply need to be taught. Like I said, not all violations are dangerous to other users; things like no reflectors, no lights, no reflective jacket, are mainly a risk to themselves not other people. Very obvious solutions exist like free or discounted helmets; very clearly painted bike lanes with optional plastic separators near intersections to prevent corner-turning cars straying into their lane; organized bike groups for newbies; bike corridors in the suburbs; proper lighting, signage and cameras at intersections, and serious enforcement against drivers who injure cyclists (the US doesn't do this, but has a fetish about drivers who've had one drink).

The city of Cupertino is pretty good for bike planning: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/public-works/...

As to the US not devoting anywhere near enough public funding to cycling, the Dutch et al. know for decades that it's an investment in public health, in converting motorists to bicyclists/ transit riders/ pedestrians. It's also space-efficient to do bikes + transit, since e.g. Amsterdam is essentially at sea level and physically can't do multistorey car parks.

One of the silver linings of Covid was a massive reset in cycling, transit and pedestrian policy, and a one-time golden opportunity to shift commuters from cars to better modes. Essentially reversing some of the insanity of US 1970s-style urban/suburban planning.

Complaining that a few novice cyclists initially violate some laws (before they learn) is a tiny price to pay for a longterm much healthier, more sustainable, pedestrian-friendly urban planning, that also allows higher population densities and hence enables transit. (For sure, the small minority of cyclists who actually do dangerous things should be prosecuted; I hope that's not your strawman of my comment, because I never said that either.)