Mandatory bicycle helmet law in New Zealand | Hacker News Reader

Mandatory bicycle helmet law in New Zealand

cycle-helmets.com

47 pointsawjr75 comments

Ugh, here we go again. I can see that modern government struggles with many complex issues for which there are no foolproof or easy timely solutions, but really, bicycles seem to bring out a specific kind of stupid.

It really is not rocket science. If you want to make cycling safe you need:

1) Physically separated bike lanes, also on junctions

2) Traffic laws that protect the weaker participant

Contrast this little video from New Zealand showing a car hitting a cyclist and the police response [1], with a car right hooking 4 cyclists and causing a "bruised knee" in the Netherlands [2].

This video shows some infrastructure considerations in Groningen, a major city in the north [3] where incidentally I have yet to spot a single helmet or highvis vest.

Not that helmets are without merit. There is quit a bit of scientific proof that wearing leathers, helmets, neck restraints and 5 point seatbelt will reduce the number of fatalities of car passengers.

[1]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEgXQIAyGF8

[2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeJ-d86pKsw

[3]: http://youtu.be/cWf5fbSUNAg

I do agree with your argument, but helmets helps with more than just car vs bike accidents. People have an uncanny tendency to fall and injure themselves without the help of a car.

Groningen and the Nederland dont have any hills to speak off, but when you get to high speeds on a bike its good to be protected when you fall.

This law protects the biker against any trauma to the head while biking. Its is very easy to wear a helmet and a great way to be a role model for younger people.

Yes, great point. I wear my helmet not because of fear of getting hit by a car (because, let's face it, if a car hits me, there's likely a lot more to worry about), but mainly because of all the times I've fallen on my own (from losing my balance, swerving to dodge something, getting a tire stuck in the trolley tracks, etc), my head has almost always made contact with pavement. My helmet has saved me from -- at the very least -- a painful bump on the head, and more likely from concussions.

Also if you get a decent helmet and you ride at a decent clip, 35km+, it actually can be cooler. Your coiffed hair however may suffer.

The first cause of death due to head trauma is car accident. Economically and humanly, it would have a greater impact to make wearing helmet of peiple in cars. Why aren't there any laws mandating helmet wearing in cars?

Yes, because bicyclists don’t have accidents, other than cars hitting them.

Funnily, it seems that there is a distinct correlation between those that fight for their freedom to not wear a helmet, who also rail against “socialized medicine” and mandatory insurance, despite the fact that they will receive such care.

— a paramedic who has seen more than his fair share of non-helmet-wearing, non-vehicular-involvement bike accidents.

They have this law in Melbourne and it angers me to no end, especially because they have a bike share program. You are expected to go to a 7-11 nearby and buy a helmet. Yes, it completely kills the convenience, and point, of the bike share program. Unsurprisingly, the bike share doesn't do well.

Compare to New York which has put in physically separated bike lanes on most Manhattan avenues and painted bike lanes on the narrower streets. Bike share launched in May and had over ten million miles ridden in its first five months. Almost no riders wear helmets. There has yet to be a single serious accident on CitiBike.

Melbourne on the other hand has nowhere near the same ridership yet there have been deaths. One was caused by a woman being hit by a tram -- no physical separation.

Yet the nanny state continues.

It's not rocket science but it is pretty complex. Bike safety can't be solved with just helmet laws or bike lanes. Factors which affect safety include:

- proximity to cars (parked and driving)

- speed of cars when bikes are riding alongside cars

- speed of bikes (some bike lanes encourage riding too fast)

- visibility of the roadway (esp. in turns and at intersections)

- visibility of cyclists (mandatory front and rear lights at night)

- public attitudes and respect for each other (general civic politeness on the part of all road users)

- consistently marked and maintained roads and bikeways

- fairness in enforcing the rules of the road (both cyclists and drivers need to be consistently stopped and reminded or ticketed for infractions)

Bike lanes on their own don't solve all of the above problems. Putting all the blame in driver-cyclist accidents on the driver doesn't help build respect between road users.

If the cycling infrastructure is wanting (as it is in almost every major city), a helmet law is a good temporary measure to at least prevent some injuries.

It's also costly and time consuming for them to do so. Sure, let's just go redo EVERY road marking and whilst we're at it, let's add in some new traffic laws. Perhaps over the next couple of decades, maybe longer. But definitely not in a week.

This way, the job lies with the citizens. They can easily go pick up a helmet for cheap. It's up to them to pick the correct equipment now.

With all due respect, I wonder if you answered a question that wasn't asked? I think the author's want to increase ridership, not improve safety. To take it a step further they're arguing that a measure taken to improve safety (wearing helmets) has in fact decreased ridership.

It is interesting that the report is focusing on cycling in different age groups. The law seems to have created a generation that does not cycle and implies direct correlation to the health of this generation.

From the article: "It is noteworthy when analysing the decline in New Zealand child cycling to consider Changes in body mass index in 11-12-year-old children in Hawkes Bay, New Zealand (1989-2000) which found a 9.2% increase in BMI during the 12 years, with the risk of overweight being 2.2 times greater in 2000 than 1989 and the risk of obesity being 3.8 times greater. By 2006/07, one in five New Zealand children were overweight and 8.3% were obese."

Deleted comment

> Those that have experienced injury, pain and ultimately pushing through it are far better prepared for the surprises of the real world than those protected since birth.

Would you advise people against wearing protective gear when motorcycling, then?

I met a guy who had a blowout on the front tire of his motorcycle, which caused a high-side. No amount of skill could have saved him, but his riding gear (with armor plates) and helmet did.

Safety gear is helpful irrespective of skill. Some of the most skilled athletes in the world use safety gear.

>> "Growing up I spent most of my time involved in risky activities: skating, snowboarding, exploring the woods, cliff jumping, swimming in rivers and even riding my bike without a helmet. Learning my limits from an early age allowed me to push myself in relative safety."

Wearing a helmet wouldn't have stopped you from doing these activities. I've seen several people saved from severe head injuries (one of them potentially deadly) by helmets.

>> "You can't protect people behind bubble wrap."

This doesn't mean you shouldn't take proper precautions. I could try climbing a rock face without a harness and helmet but that would be stupid. They don't inhibit me, they only make it a bit safer.

That bubble wrap phrase doesn't mean don't take precautions I think it means don't decide against doing anything just because there is a safety risk.

Bicycle helmets have their place, but I think it's clear (from this great research and others) that that the method to achieve to greatest cycling participation and safety is to build separated bike lanes. Helmets don't need to be part of that solution.

This argument presumes that the chief danger to cyclists is a vehicle, which may or may not be the case. There are plenty of other dangers to riding a bike. As others have noted, cyclists are very good at falling over of their own accord, whether that's from dodging a pedestrian or animal crossing the path, turning too sharply (or not sharply enough), slipping in the rain, getting tires stuck in potholes, etc.

A vehicle does not have to be part of that problem.

As also mentioned, a helmet, as well as other safety devices could help you in a car as well. The could also help when walking down the street, jogging, in the bath, gardening, etc. This doesn't mean that there needs to be a law, it means that people need to be aware of the cost/benefits of using any kind of safety device.

My personal experience with helmets is they have injured me more than they've ever protected me in 35+ years of cycling. I've had two wasps fly through the vent holes of my helmet and sting me while I was riding, while I have yet to ever hit my head. I realize this is anecdotal, but I've never seen any creditable story about helmet causing injury reduction vs. the state providing better cycling infrastructure.

I guess you are lucky. I had a fall which could had taken me to ER. It happened when I was relatively new to road bike and tried to enter a drive way like a car. Wheel of my bike trammed along the road and sidewalk (about 2 inches high). I lost balance, took a fall on concrete sidewalk. Right side of my helmet took the hit. The impact was severe enough, it was dark (not pitch dark) in front of my eyes for next few seconds. However, I was able to bike back after 15 mins of rest. I can't imagine doing that without the helmet.

Let me be more clear. My point wasn't "don't wear a helmet", my point was the state doesn't need to pass a law to make helmet wearing compulsory. If the government was serious about making cycling safer it would provide better cycling facilities such as protected bike lanes and bike boulevards. People should be able to make the helmet decision themselves.

With that said, I'm really sorry about your accident. I'm glad the helmet protected you and hopefully your fall didn't dissuade you from future cycling. As you get more comfortable riding, your chances of having a freak accident like that will become less and less.

Thanks. I do agree better infrastructure will make bike riding safer. In my opinion helmet is to bike what seat belt is to car. In general, I'd agree that people should make their own decisions and government do not need to make laws. But I have met couple of families who do not care about seat belt, even for their kids! How do you make such people understand the value of seat belt? Helmet is perhaps in similar situation. Not everyone is able to understand the value of safety devices and as a society we don't want them or their kids to get injured. Making something a law allows other to help such families - we can simply call out "it's a law"

I'm not quite sure the car argument holds water either. Cars are very heavily regulated for safety concerns and they routinely ship with airbags and are designed to collapse in ways that protect the driver. Most states also mandate wearing a seatbelt. So there's precedent for mandating that operators of vehicles protect themselves. I don't see a helmet as any different from a seat belt.

Furthermore, motorcycles require helmets, which is a more appropriate analogy than a car.

The difference between walking down the street, jogging, being in the bath, gardening, etc, versus riding a bike is a matter of velocity. If I'm jogging and I trip and fall, I'm not likely to land head first, nor am I likely to do much more than fracture a bone or bruise myself. While riding a bike, any sort of collision is likely to happen very quickly and with a lot of velocity, and as basic physics tells us, mass + acceleration = force. The faster you're going, the more force is applied. With a crash on a bicycle, you're much more likely to break bones (as opposed to fracture) and suffer concussions -- or worse. A helmet is just plain common sense at this point.

Better safe than sorry, imo. I'd rather risk getting stung by a wasp than get a concussion or possibly brain damage.

But hey, if you're willing to risk it, then go for it. Not my problem.

Edit: I'm in favor of wearing helmets; I'm not in favor of mandating it.

anecdotal I know, but a friend does triathlons and was wrecked bad enough that even with safety gear she was badly hurt. Even practices aren't safe and group riding always brings along risk. She was always surprised at riders who would join the group who somehow felt that riding a street bicycle didn't require safety equipment yet would not ride a BMX without the gear. Trees don't jump out at you any more than potholes, but they both can cause accidents and then you add in other riders and its not just you who has to be skilful.

Fatalities

I don't think fatalities are necessarily relevant. A helmet probably isn't going to help you if a car runs you over -- but then again, very little will. However, for the vast number of other possibilities, a helmet offers a decent level of protection.

I personally find the trade-off worth it, and I don't particularly understand the rationale behind not wearing a helmet. I'd rather be safe with messed up hair than sorry and a concussion.

But to each his own.

I feel safer riding in automobile traffic than cycle traffic. There are too many competitive or clueless riders. I'd be more inclined to wear a helmet if I were riding in a separated bike lane because there's less room to negotiate a hazard there.

That's like saying crumple zones in cars should be the method for more safety, and seat belts don't to be part of that solution.

Surely, the best option is both (bike lanes and helmets)

I felt like I got dropped into the middle of a book with this. Is this accurate?

1) Bicycle helmut laws are enacted 2) As a result, the amount of bicycling has dropped in NZ precipitously 3) Leading to all sorts of negative things like higher obesity and pollution 4) And the medical benefits aren't that significant

Therefore mandatory bike helmut laws are more damaging than good?

That's pretty much it. A great example of people wanting to do something and think of the children all rolled into one.

BTW, this is a site dedicated to show "evidences" that that bike helmets are useless. I recommend this one to counter balance: http://www.bhsi.org/

At least its statistics are a lot more confiable: http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

They are useless, until the angry cars start hitting us in the head. We're pretty good at it, most of us learned to ride as kids and have never fallen off.

Or until your tire fails and flings you off the bike. Or until your bike fails and flings you off the bike. Or until you miss a feature in the road that takes your bike out from under you.

All three have happened to me. I was just lucky that I didn't hit my head in any of those incidents.

I had a friend fall while ice skating and hit his head. He died after a month of being in a coma. Having this tragedy so close to me reminded me that I'm not always in control, and anything I can do to limit the price of failing to control the situation is worth it.

I have fallen and hit my head after slipping on some ice.

I, too, learned to ride as a kid. But a helmet saved my ass (well, my head) a couple times when I was younger. The first was when I had a nice spill on a gravel road (took a turn too fast). I was still injured, but when my head was slammed on the ground the helmet took the brunt of it and not my skull. Later on while doing some mountain biking (generally a riskier activity than street biking modulo cars) a patch of leaves resulted in a similar accident. In the first I'm confident the head injury would have been severe, based mostly on the cracked helmet. I'm less certain how much help the helmet was in the second accident, but I don't regret wearing it. Cars aren't the only things we have to worry about.

EDIT: This is about motorcycles, not bicycles, but I find the anti-helmet attitude there similarly amusing/infuriating. A friend/colleague enjoys motorcycle racing. He still participates, but his accident is a demonstration of where protective gear comes in handy. Similar to my accidents, his bike went out from under him on a turn, and fortunately he was wearing the proper gear. Instead of being dead when he slid into a tree he just had some cracked ribs and a broken shoulder and a cracked open helmet instead of a cracked open skull. He had about 20 years of experience at the point of that accident, and no previous accidents (or none of note, I imagine he had some spills when he was learning but none with serious injuries). Sometimes shit happens or we get distracted, the gear is for those times.

Unintended consequences, ahoy!

I think most cyclists main fear is an accident due to collision with a vehicle -- I wonder if self-driving cars will ultimately result in fewer car trips because more people are riding their bikes, not wearing helmets.

My own main fear when I commuted by bike was someone opening a car door in front of me - I always made a point of staying a reasonable distance from parked vehicles but as my commute went through the middle of a city this was sometimes pretty difficult to do.

It would be good if self driving cars could use their sensors to detect cyclists and other road users and warn passengers about opening doors.

I grew up in New Zealand. The interesting part for me is the social uptake of this law - it was universally accepted and we were always told to wear helmets. I don't think I ever saw anybody there riding a bike without a helmet.

Yeah I grew up in New Zealand as well, and the article doesn't relate to any experience I've ever seen. Its a case of correlation doesn't equal causation.

People don't ride bicycles in New Zealand because they have to wear helmets, they don't ride them (or stop there kids from riding them), because the roads and drivers are absolutely terrible. The drivers literally just push on through like you aren't there.

If you say to anyone you ride to work, the first question you usually get is "is it dangerous? do you have a good route?". Thats how people feel about cycling, if you do it, then you might get seriously hurt.

Same thing in London by the way, I used to ride to work there. I got the same style of response "Jeez, you're brave", "Roads are to dangerous for me to try that". I felt way safer in London than I ever did in New Zealand though. Something about constant traffic jams that lets you slip right through :)

Might be slightly counterproductive as supposedly some (small) fraction of drivers actively discourage cyclist use of the road for whatever crazy reason. So a study scientifically proving bicycle use will drop by a huge percentage if you enact a helmet law will probably encourage the law amongst weirdos, where weirdos are apparently a statistically significant percentage. In a two party system locked around 45%/45% the opinion of 6% worth of nutcases drives (get the pun?) the country.

Another huge issue not discussed about helmet laws is who's getting punished. Anecdotally I am told the cops introduce young minorities to the crime of "driving while black" by very selectively enforcing helmet laws based on the cyclists skin color vs the average neighborhood skin color. So I can fearlessly pedal around my neighborhood but my neighbor can't, unless he wears a helmet. So there's black kids playing basketball at the white kids public park, well, they better have bike helmets or else...

The other socioeconomic problem is some helmet laws involve rather substantial tickets for the parents to pay... I can see a poor family being able to afford a $25 goodwill bike, but kids being kids, going without food for a month because one time the kid didn't put on his helmet means that kid isn't going to be permitted to have a bike by any same parent. If not prevented from owning a bike outright, maybe it gets sent to goodwill the first time the parent has to pay the fine, or the first time the parent hears from another parent about the draconian $500 fine and mandatory traffic court appearance. There are some helmet laws that are mere municipal citations like a $5 parking ticket, and some that are a traffic court moving violation, and more importantly whatever garbage someone sees on TV about crazy California or whatever will drive the perception is more important than the actual local law (if any!).

After all, its all about safety and its "for the children(tm)" so a $1000 fine should save twice the lives of a $500 fine, right?

Anecdotally, I was about 14 when this law came out. At the time probably about 300-400 of the 1200 kids at my college that biked to school. There were multiple bike sheds and they were always packed.

Fast forward 20 years, and my son is now the one biking to school. I think probably there are about 15-30 kids (out of about 800) that bike to school on a regular basis. The single bikeshed is usually almost empty, and at least half of the items in there are scooters (which are not affected by this law afaik).

Probably loads of reasons that this is the case - more protective parents, better school zoning rules (closer schools). Equally I know there are less buses (ie no busses to my sons school). Seems possible to me that having to wear an 'uncool' helmet has contributed to this huge reduction.

I bike to work everyday and have never had an accident, (but couldn't imagine not using a helmet). I do wonder though about the cost of health terms of having all these kids being driven to school instead of getting a daily bike ride in...

I don't really have trouble with mandatory helmet laws so long as they only apply to minors. Motorcycle Mandatory helmet laws I'm sorta on the hedge about. In the end, people should allow to do activities that are risky only to themselves.

We don't live in a disconnected society; if someone falls on the side of the road and cracks their head open, we don't leave them in the ditch to die, rot, and disappear. We pick them up, take them to a hospital, provide acute medical care, and potentially provide life-long care in the case of a disability. So society has a strong interest in preventing injuries.

(Two asides: this doesn't address the efficacy issue, but if helmets prevent injuries, then it is reasonable by the above argument to mandate their use. Secondly, it is arguable that motorcycle riders who don't wear helmets provide more to society through organ donation than they take in life-long medical treatment.)

Also NZ has universal no-fault accident insurance (ACC). If not wearing helmets leads to higher costs then...

Motorcycle riders already pay higher registration fees due to the higher likelihood of injury.

I wouldn't pick up somebody that has a head injury, that might make things worse.

A crack in the helmet is much cheaper to fix than a crack in the cranium for tax-payers that live in a country with a first-world healthcare system.

It's far from proven that wearing a cycling helmet has a net benefit from a safety view point. Helmets are useless above 13mph and not a lot of good at low speeds. What's more, they may cause accidents as they can restrict vision, or make riders slightly less responsible as they "feel" safer and consequently take more risks. Rule number 1 for a cyclist is: don't have an accident. I suspect helmet wearers have more accidents. I speak from experience having been hit by a cyclist who didn't see me because his helmet restricted his vision.

> because his helmet restricted his vision

That's impossible with the most common type of bicycle helmets[1]. Full-face helmets that look like those used on motorcycles should be restricted to downhill cycling.

[1]: http://www.bellhelmets.com/cycling/helmets/recreational/

A mandatory bicycle helmet law also reduces cycling. Finland has a mandatory bicycle helmet law, but there's no penalties for breaking it.

Holy unorganized giant wall of infographics, Batman! Somebody desperately needs to organize this page into a table of contents.

Don't forget mandatory knee pads, elbow pads, protective eyewear, an unexpired First Aid Kit, front light, tail light, reflectors, impact sensor so we know if you crashed, GPS in case you get lost. Always carry extra batteries in case your blinky things stop blinking. And training wheels are mandatory without a biking license.

Bicycling, even with a helmet, strikes me as an irresponsibly risky activity.

Even minor concussions can cause significant neurological dysfunction, and most bike helmets do nothing to protect against the sub-lethal variety.

People always focus on small, dramatic causes of death (bike wrecks) and ignore the infinitely more common causes (heart disease). Biking frequently has tremendous benefits on heart disease in exchange for a modest increase in the risk of death (still low) from a bike accident.

You are on the correct track and another problem is substitutions.

If bicycling is made illegal for safety reasons, at least some percentage of current bikers will simply take up running, and running is very hard on the knees. So the total aggregate of knee pain will increase by X vs the decline in bike injury related pain Y. The relationship between X and Y is unclear and probably unknowable, but also probably "about the same magnitude". So all the social engineering and gnashing of teeth would not improve the overall human condition.

Studies have repeatedly shown that running is NOT hard on the knees. Instead, the risk of osteoarthritis (knee problelms) is more associated with aging.

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/8478853/reload=0;jsessioni... http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=403118 http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/18/4/379.short

And a less scientific article on the topic: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/why-runners-dont-ge...

Plus, I don't think that's a particularly cogent argument to make. You can say that about anything, pretty much. If you increase gas prices, then a percentage of those drivers will start biking/walking/running. Better not increase gas prices... Or you can replace "gas prices" with anything that affects mode of travel: taxes, congestion, surplus of bike frames, health fads, etc.

Really? Driving is an irresponsibly risky activity, likewise everything else.

Live a little.

I moved away from a place where everyone drives all of the time for this and other reasons. I avoid traveling by car when possible. Driving or riding in an automobile is quite possibly the most risky thing that most people I know do day to day.

You're right, I live my life barricaded in my house, and the threat of falling planes is a constant worry, as is choking to death on lettuce.

Just by being alive you're subjecting yourself to the possibility of any number of medical conditions, some of which might be caused by issues in your very own DNA! If you're truly interested in minimizing your risk, it'd probably be best for you to invent a time machine and convince your mother to abort you before you were born.

Except... Grandfather effect comes into play.

Just 2x more dangerous than walking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort#Additional

By the premisses of that article, I suggest bicycling should be taxed about $5/mile [0], to properly internalize the risk of death. Not just to counter ignorance/apathy, but because of the external costs of death to family, other people, and the broader economy. And maybe a separate surcharge to account for social health costs treating preventable injury.

[0] using the article's valuation of $50/micromort; 10 miles/micromort => $5/mile

A couple datapoints, my home town charges $10/yr for a bike license sticker which is legally required to ride a bike in town (although rarely enforced against white people and/or kids)

Also the DNR maintains a network of state wide bike trails and charges something near $30/yr for an annual trail pass.

Also you'd have to discount the $5/mile by the effect of exercise. Perhaps its net effect is only 50 cents per mile for adults. In that case we may already be taxing bikes nearly that much, at least on average.

People laugh at me when I say bicycles are probably going to be outlawed for children soon. I'm cool with that; they laughed when I said smoking would be outlawed too. It is probably safer to buy a kid a lawn dart set or some packs of matches than a bicycle, and I'm just being honest about a minor hobby of mine. You can stack their little bodies like cordwood every year across the country, seems like a lot of death for fundamentally not accomplishing too much.

By the same calculation you should tax $50 per 230 miles driven in a car. According to the US DOT the average vehicle travels 12,334 miles per year, so you have an average tax of $2681.

Also a tax of $75 should be attached to each bottle of wine and a 16 ounce jar of peanut butter should have a $40 tax.

That's not what an externality is. The article suggests that people already have an internalised value of around $5/mile.

Since cyclists rarely kill others, an externality tax based on micromorts would hardly hit them at all. Compare that to motor travel, though…

Let's attack the problem of external costs of death at the source. We should tax people heavily for making friends or having families. After all, everybody is going to die someday, and a person who dies with nobody to mourn him costs the least.

It's not about the risk of death, it's about the risk of neurological damage.

Death is not suffering. Being made stupid would be.

A quick search turned up a paper on Netherlands (population 16.77 mil):

  ... 9,200 sustain serious injury in a bicycle
  crash. A third of these seriously injured bicycle
  casualties are diagnosed with head or brain
  injuries (32%)

http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Bicycle_helmets....

Showing 211 cyclists have a serious head injury per billion km cycled...

Discussion: http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/08/brain-injuries-...

Edit: accounting

Let's not even get started on climbing ladders.

I don't do that, either.

> Bicycling, even with a helmet, strikes me as an irresponsibly risky activity.

The evidence does not support your intuition. Even after controlling for the risk of injury in a crash, cycling is associated with several additional life-years of health.

More healthy than the typical American lifestyle, certainly, but how does it compare against other lifestyles with similar levels of physical activity? For instance, running, walking, or swimming?

Kind of a silly point. First, can you swim to work? But, really, you are suggesting that everything always be reduced to whatever is "the best".

Silly?

I had a hard time tracking down good, comparable numbers, but here are some numbers I biasedly picked to support my question:

  * Cycling: 14 months (http://www.bikeradar.com/us/news/article/regular-cyclists-could-live-14-months-longer-than-car-drivers-28162/)
  * Jogging: 6.2 years (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/jogging-life-expectancy-_n_1472318.html)
  * Swimming: "longer than runners" (http://www.chatelaine.com/health/swimmers-live-longer-than-runners/)

These numbers (which could be wrong, I didn't dig too far) say you have more to gain going from cycling to running than you do from driving to cycling. So why focus on getting people cycling instead of getting people jogging?

Because you can use cycling as transportation better than you can jogging. That makes it easier to incorporate into a lifestyle, as opposed to an extra thing you add into your day.

Driving, even with a seatbelt, strikes me as an irresponsibly risky activity.

Even a minor collision can cause significant neurological dysfunction, and most seat belts do nothing to protect against the sub-lethal variety.

I would not associate wearing helmets with the increased injury rate. Was there an increase in the number of cars on the road?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com