Hacker News Reader

Comment by Jemaclus | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com