Hacker News Reader

Comment by eadmund | Hacker News Reader

I still believe that bicycle helmets are a net negative for cycling safety, due to a combination of them not improving crash survivability as much as folks believe while at the same time increasing the number of crashes due to rider and driver behaviour. But who can argue against the perception of the masses?

I think it wasn’t lawsuits, but good ol’ American advertising: helmet manufacturers created a need in the minds of consumers where there had not been one before (cf. deodorant, cigarettes and plenty more).

View on HN

This belief is completely incorrect. Helmets increase survivability and decrease the degree of injuries in every respect. This is a very well-studied phenomenon with many public and peer reviewed sources. [1]

To respond to the 'nuance' of your remark, that helmets change rider behavior for the worse, resulting in higher aggregate injuries - that is also incorrect. The passage of helmet laws results in significant reductions (20-50%) in head injuries and deaths. These are reductions among the same population, in the same geography, in a short timeframe. It is indisputable.

If the total number of recorded injuries is going up, it's because ridership has increased. Ridership is up for lots of reasons, population growth and health benefits being two of them. Cycling is a terrific way to improve your overall health, even when the risk of injury or death due to cycling is taken into consideration. [2]

And if manufacturers profit from improving the health and safety of a population? Good.

[1] https://newrossgreenway.org/bicycle-helmet-vs-no-helmet-stat... [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10546027/

To be fair to the previous poster, there were some studies (from Australia I believe), which showed an increase in bike accidents with helmet laws. IIRC they didn't have a good explanation, but thought it could be due to more risky behaviour, but also cars being less considerate if people wear helmet.

There were also some studies that showed that for population health bike helmet laws might be a net negative, because it prevents more people riding bikes and the positive health benefits of riding outweigh the slightly increased risk of biking even without a helmet.

>Why Danes Don't Need Bicycle Helmets (2014)

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2014-5-september-october/g...

> Helmets increase survivability and decrease the degree of injuries in every respect.

Of course a helmet increases survivability of a head injury in a crash, that’s indisputable. But of course there is a window: some crashes are so minor that they are already survivable without a helmet; and some crashes are so bad that a helmet cannot help. And of course many injuries are not to the head at all.

The first-order effect of cycling helmets is definitely positive! But what are the second-order effects?

> To respond to the 'nuance' of your remark, that helmets change rider behavior for the worse, resulting in higher aggregate injuries - that is also incorrect.

There is evidence that they decrease the number of cyclists; and there is evidence that they change the behaviour of drivers.

When Western Australia imposed cycling helmet laws safety got worse: http://www.cycle-helmets.com/

I'll add I was saved from serious head injuries by a bike helmet. Twice. Neither were my fault.

I know someone who wasn't. She had serious concussion. It's not something you want. 2 years off work. Petrochemical engineer - no longer works in the industry because of the injury.

I distinctly remember a kid dying by falling off her bike in the late 80's. She was in the class w/ my younger brother but we didn't really know her. It was obviously a big deal at the school.

Depends on how one rides: Back when I was an edgy teen I accidentally rode too fast over a pothole right at the top of a rocky asphalt slope. I felt a whiplash on my shoulder, lost grip, rolled over three times down the slope, and slid head-first into a thick metal railing. I wasn't wearing a helmet and it was pure luck that I bent the head in time before hitting the railing. A bit faster and I would have cracked my head open; I've still got burn scars from that day.

It would probably help teens a lot if affordable helmets didn't look so goofy, it's the main reason we didn't want to wear them.

Arguably it would make more sense for drivers to be wearing helmets considering how bad head trauma can be in a car crash.

My kids don't wear helmets when cycling, but we live in the Netherlands and they ride pretty slowly. I do wear a helmet when I bike on anything but the stationfiets, but I also like to ride fast (and I think a helmet saved my life as a teenager)

Seth's got some thoughts on this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKbYaOiz5U4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JfbTwrtOWU

Pretty sure I don't ride more recklessly simply because I am wearing a helmet. You're suggesting others do though?

I’m more worried about drivers, who drive more closely to helmeted cyclists.

But even for cyclists, are they as likely to ride at all if they only ride helmeted? Do you treat cycling as a form of transportation, or as exercise?

My belief is that the more cyclists are on the road, the better drivers drive, and that helmets increase the friction of cycling as transportation, and thus that they may decrease actual cycling safety.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com