Why i’m done wearing a helmet
bikinginmpls.com
bikinginmpls.com
The article is the reason why I'm done wearing a helmet. I write my blog as a way to expose different viewpoints around cycling. I feel comfortable with this decision and will no longer be wearing a helmet. If they're not completely scientifically sound in your judgement, fine, keep wearing a helmet. I tried to use the data to the best of my ability, as I have a master's degree in public health. But then again, this blog is not for an academic audience, so I try not to make it too heavy.
The arguments I posted are those that have swayed me. What it comes down to is this: I believe biking is an inherently safe activity, on par with driving a car and walking. When I'm biking 12-14mph on bike paths and trails, as part of my daily regular activities, I feel there is no need to wear a helmet.
'I have a masters degree' is, of course, ad-hominem fallacy.
It's great that you yourself 'feel' safe but the position you are advocating is not well reasoned and reckless to promote to others.
No it's not. You might argue that it's an argument from authority, which is a different thing, but in this case, I think a master's degree in public health is quite relevant.
You on the other hand provide not a single argument to why you feel her position is not well reasoned and reckless.
The only reason that the individual states that wearing a helmet is a hinderence is:
1. You don't look as fashionable (the words are "less human")
2. Drivers see you more as a human when you're not wearing one.
I would venture to say that if a driver notices you not wearing a helmet, the assumption is that the biker is an idiot and they would be more cautious around them. (No one really wants to hit a biker) Additionally this doesn't really fix the problem. Many bikers get into an incident with cars for reasons such as:
1. The biker was not seen by the driver until it was too late. (Lack of awareness/being used to them on the road)
2. Biker cutting off the driver
3. Road rage (on the car's side): It happens but I would suggest it less common than claimed.
4. Biker not following the rules of the road. (Biking up the wrong way, ignoring stoplights/stopsigns etc)
>and increase the likelihood of other injuries (those to the neck).
>There is some evidence[1] that cars may pass cyclists closer if they are wearing a helmet.
[1]http://drianwalker.com/overtaking/overtakingprobrief.pdf
*edit for formatting
As for neck injuries... if a helmet increases my chance of a neck injury because it decreased my chance of a fractured skull, i'll take the trade.
But not having a helmet attracts more negative attention than not having lights does.
Now I’m baffled by the fact that lights aren’t built into the frames of all non-competitive road bikes…
Reflectors are in no way enough.
I assume anyone riding without lights at night is a gigantic moron. I barely notice people not wearing helmets, which is much more common (sadly, they are both fairly common).
Not true. At least not universally. It all depends on how many and what kind of idiots live where you bike.
It seems like police almost totally ignore cyclists, unless an individual cop wants to harass someone for being on the road at all.
In Louisville, when the police show up at an auto-bike collision, they think they cannot cite a driver unless they personally witness the accident, no matter how egregious or reckless the accident. http://bicyclingforlouisville.blogspot.com/2009/02/tour-de-f...
Regardless of whatever obligations the other participants have, the car driver as the operator of the most powerful thing has the supreme obligation to pay attention.
Yes you should armor up. After all, those in cars are already heavily armored up with more than 50 years of safety equipment.
Do both. Have a bike lane on the side walk, with some separation provided by rails near crossings, or trees and such on longer stretches. Consider this for example:
There are many small details that that keep the bikers away from the pedestrians, but it also serves the bikers (and the car drivers) by putting the curb between the two.
Unfortunately in the US: Bikers don't have a lot of regulations, requirements, and their behavior is poorly enforced. (No bell, they have the legal ability to go through red lights under safe conditions [but it's taken as we can skip red lights because of lazyness])
In the state of Illinois it is illegal for a person over 13 to ride their bike on the sidewalk. There aren't even the markings for bike lanes on the sidewalk. However people still do, the ones who do still believe that they're in the right. (Although.. doing that in downtown Chicago during tourist season makes me feel that tasing them for doing should be legal)
An example of this:
Hey i ride without bell too. On the other hand, i don't mind staying at walking speed and taking it slowly if there's some congestion up ahead. I find bell users to be insufferable dicks at most times.
> they have the legal ability to go through red lights under safe conditions
Everytime bicycles come up on HN i learn some new insanity about the USA. Do you have a link to the legistlation for that?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEPx0N_jAa8
From my point of view, NEITHER of these three people are fit to participate in civilized society. Especially not the cop who tells the lady to shut up because she might get shot by someone.
http://bikeleague.org/content/bike-law-university-idaho-stop
That page also mentions other states where a cyclist can go through a red light, usually if it is supposed to be triggered by vehicles and the smaller bicycle can't achieve that.
I would love a world where we—well, maybe not got rid of cars, but at least changed our cities so that they were not the dominant and motivating force; but between accomplishing that, and wearing as much protection as possible, I know that there's only one that I can do today (or, I suspect, in my lifetime).
The problem is that helmets are only designed (and tested!) to cover one very specific type of crash. The head smashing into the ground directly and at high speed one. And all it does is turn a potentially very severe injury into a less severe one. It shifts the risk-profile from maybe dying, maybe breaking bones in your head and definitely having a concussion to less risk of dying, less risk of breaking bones and definitely having a concussion.
It doesn't do anything when you get in a low speed crash because the compressive strength of the foam inside helmets is actually very high. Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) is the crushable material inside bicycle helmets. Here you can see that 10psi is a very reasonable number and that 25psi plus isn't unreasonable.
http://www.epsindustry.org/building-construction/compressive...
Let's suppose that 10psi is the number and that you manage to crush a substantial portion of the helmet. Maybe that's 20 square inches. That means it took 200lbs ( 10psi * 20sqin ) of force to do that. If the average head weighs 11lbs it must have experienced something like 18 Gs to make that happen. Sure 18 G is better than 60 G (or whatever if you didn't have a helmet) but it's not as though wearing a helmet turns any crash into something very survivable and with very little consequence.
Anecdotally I went over the handlebars once at 22mph. Another cyclist popped out of stopped traffic (not at a crosswalk) and I had about 10 feet to react. I hit her back tire and knocker her over, but I went over the bars and pivoted around my front wheel right into the ground. Headfirst. I was wearing a helmet and very glad to have been but my helmet only had about a 3" diameter flat spot on the top.
Personally I would have preferred that the foam had only been 5psi (instead of 10psi) and that the crush zone had been larger and it would have slowed things down more. But helmets have to pass a CSPC test and it's a 6 foot drop, which means that it doesn't do much unless it's a very, very bad fall. Personally I thought my fall was pretty horrible and that the helmet should have used up the majority of the crush zone, but while the flat spot was 3" in diameter it was only about 1/4" deep out of the 1" or so of total foam depth.
http://gearfinder.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html
I get that you understand the simple physics, but as it turns out, real life is substantially more complicated than JUST simple physics most of the time.
It is disappointing that helmets only seem to protect against very severe events. Because these very severe events also happen to be fairly rare. So basically a bike helmet is not like buying health insurance, but more like buying life insurance that only pays out if you're eaten by a wild animal. And you live in the First World. But you pay for it just the same, because you have to put on and wear that helmet EVERY SINGLE RIDE because you never know when your ticket might get punched.
The point is that it seems like if you want to make people safer, the helmet should protect them against lower energy collisions and higher energy collisions both. But the CSPC test is a one-size-fits-all test that ALL helmets have to pass and as a result, there's absolutely no differentiation whatsoever. So all bike helmets have to protect you against truly horrific crashes, crashes that people riding around at 5-15mph will never experience.
It'd be nice if the CSPC would make a few categories of protection that you can buy helmets for. Casual cycling, BMX, mountain and road say. And then let the manufacturers tailor the helmets towards the risk that people ACTUALLY face when they bicycle.
The way it's done right now would be like requiring formula 1 cars to have airbags because they're cars too and all cars have to have airbags.
> So you're upset that the material will not protect against lower impact collisions and still protect you against high impact collisions
I don't think it would be impossibly difficult to get a helmet that had 1/2" of 3psi foam and 1/2" of 15psi foam. Then you could get some protection against the common concussion injury and still retain most (if not all) of your death mitigation as well.
But so long as the CSPC has a one-size-fits-all test it's very unlikely that things will change.
Pondering it briefly, I think it is difficult to arbitrarily change the size of the compressed zone of the helmet, as that depends on the contact patches (helmet head and helmet ground) and so the shape of the helmet more than the density of the foam. It can be optimized for a given foam thickness, and then you're done.
But if the CSPC doesn't give manufacturers any incentive by having different protection classes or levels or any way to differentiate whatsoever, well, what's the point of spending more money to achieve a good societal outcome if it means that you get fired? Incentives matter and you can look at it from either side of cost but ultimately a lot of what we're talking about here is dollars.
A simple thesis coming from that point of view is that there isn't much of a market for (presumably) more expensive helmets that protect better in low energy crashes.
I guess what bugs me is that the CSPC is causing (by inaction) many thousands of people who are involved in lower energy bike crashes to get concussions.
Whether there is no market or not I think is debatable though, because the CSPC standard has definitely "warped" the market. In other words, all the helmets pass the standard and it's very difficult to tell if one is "better" than another. And because of that, differentiation is only based on looks.
Because the minimal level of protection is so high it's very hard to effectively market that one helmet is "safer" than another in that it'll protect you in the common but not life threatening crash that most people encounter. And because it's so difficult, nobody does it.
It's not hard to imagine that marketing your helmet as "safer" in some way might result in getting fines from the CSPC or lawsuits from your competitors for libel, since all helmets have to pass the CSPC test.
Given the choice between some risk of getting fired, going to jail, bankrupting your company, etc or just doing nothing, most people with the power to actually make a difference aren't going to risk anything. And I can't really blame them for it.
An affirmative statement that a helmet passed a standard could not be construed as libel, and I think the CSPC wouldn't be bothered about it.
OK so if your helmet has passed the standard, and your competitors helmet has too, what is the differentiation?
You have to say "safer" somehow, but the CSPC sort-of has a monopoly on the definition of "safe" and you might well raise their ire by marketing a helmet as "safer" because that undermines the implicit assumption that they are doing their job well by making good standards which are appropriate. So yes if you started doing this without politicking extensively you might end up in a lot of trouble.
If you don't believe me, you might consider reading the rather long, detailed and excellent article by Bicycling Magazine on the issue: http://gearfinder.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html
ETA: the article you link mentions ASTM maintaining a more stringent standard!
It also has this gem, given our discussion:
There may never be an improved government standard for bicycle helmets. Experts may never come to a consensus on a standard for testing the forces most closely associated with concussions. But one test can be administered now: the market test. After all, new technology costs more. "Adding that upcharge to a $50 helmet," Scott Sports designer John Thompson told me, "is a harder sell."
If there was no definitive standard and instead three competing standards bodies then people would have to get informed a bit and decide what to do. But there's a government standard, so anything that passes it must be OK and everything else is superfluous. I might not think that way when it comes to buying helmets, but how many moms or dads buying their child a helmet might think exactly that?
Once the complexity is hidden behind a good/bad (it passes the test or it doesn't) metric any kind of critical thinking tends to go out the window. The CSPC test is good in that it prevents people from making helmets that would fall apart if you dropped them accidentally.
But it's not good in that there are inherent tradeoffs between foam strength and shock absorption and it has in effect arbitrarily decided that one particular point on that line is the RIGHT tradeoff full stop.
I don't have the stats for lower versus higher energy crashes. But it seems likely to me (based on 30 years and at least 50,000 miles of cycling) that lower energy outweighs higher energy by perhaps some 100:1. And if the distribution is that skewed, then perhaps you could do more good by fixing the low energy crashes even if it costs on the high energy crashes.
But ultimately I'd prefer for people to have that choice by themselves. Right now you can buy high energy helmets and that's about it. There might be SOME that can also protect against lower energy crashes. But there aren't any low energy only helmets for sale ANYWHERE. I might prefer one of those for just tooling around town at speeds of less than 15mph. Thanks to the CSPC if I want one of those I have to make it myself. While I could probably do that it'd cost me a year and $20k and I wouldn't be able to recoup that investment by selling, because again that helmet wouldn't pass the mandatory CSPC muster.
I think the situation stinks, and telling me that it is actually good doesn't make it so.
Having skimmed that article, I end up expecting the CSPC to move sometime in the near future, as the science around concussions is moving forward enough to make it possible to actually arrive at a better set of tradeoffs.
They can only develop their own standards in excess of what the CSPC already requires of them. And their standard already sets the bar very, very high. Too high to be useful to most people.
So while that statement isn't blatantly and grossly wrong, I would argue that it's not really correct either. A more honest statement might be "manufacturers are free to develop their own standards (so long as they also meet CSPC minimums) and provided evidence to that effect"
A large portion of the point of this debate is "are the CSPC minimums a good tradeoff" and so pointing out that people can do whatever they want in excess of the CSPC minimums isn't exactly great form.
You've assumed constant foam density which I don't believe is a given. That's how all helmets are made right now, but nothing would prevent someone from making two separate pieces and bonding them together, except cost. And what's the incentive to increase cost (and thus price) unless you can use that to differentiate somehow?
I don't see how my beating the point (to death) that manufacturers can go ahead and do that is bad form. If you want it, go ahead and take the last word.
I'm not trying to get the last word here, I'm trying to actually convince you of something. I know I'm doing something wrong, but I can't tell what. To me it's incredibly obvious that this particular standard is causing undesirable outcomes in society. I'm doing my damnedest to try and convince you of that. I'm having no success whatsoever. Intuitively it must be my fault; only I can tell if you're getting the gist of what I'm trying to communicate. It would be folly for me to blame you for not understanding my bad explanation.
1. Helmets only help you when they crush or break or deform. If they don't do this, they haven't really protected you.
2. Helmets are very strong, this is so that they can survive a very bad, high energy accident. This is required as per CSPC.
3. EPS doesn't start to crush until you've exceeded its compressive strength. In helmets, this is dictated by the maximal impact that it has to withstand.
4. Lower than maximal impacts will cause very little of the helmet to get used, or perhaps none at all. That means that the helmet did little or nothing to keep the person safe.
5. Crash severity is probably distributed as 1/x or as Poission meaning that low energy events are far, far more frequent than high energy events. Probably by several orders of magnitude.
7. The false commoditization of helmets (due to the CSPC test) makes it very difficult to convince people that there is anything else even worth looking at for safety (since everything is definitely safe enough), and even if you can do so you still have to design your standard to be in excess of the CSPC standard.
8. This leads a great many people to suffer concussions where a better designed helmet might have prevented them, while still providing an excellent level of safety for truly severe events. It is entirely possible to make a helmet which wouldn't pass the CSPC test that can provide good protection against concussion and death at the same time.
I'm not especially convinced that the density of foam used in current helmets is egregiously bad, but that's a little different than being opposed to regulators and industry taking steps to make better helmets (it perhaps makes me a bit blase on the issue, and I anyway tend to come off as irreverent, whether I intend to or not).
The conversation also shifted a bit here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9720536
and I didn't really come along for the ride. I see how dismissing the idea of CSPC fines might come across as argumentative, but I really don't think that is a risk (especially in the face of extant private standards), and it is a different issue than the good Samaritan and false commoditization statements you have followed up with.
The existence of private safety standards doesn't mean that you're somehow exempt from the Federal ones.
"There are safety standards for most types of helmets. Bicycle and motorcycle helmets must comply with mandatory federal safety standards." http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Safety-Education/Safety-Guides/Sports...
I think it's a complicated issue and that there are a number of factors whose confluence is very unfortunate for cycling helmets at the current time. I do agree that this isn't the issue of our time or something that has great influence on the nation. But I tend to get very disappointed when there are federal regulations that are well-intended but end up giving people a false sense of security.
From the Bicycling Magazine article:
"Thompson sees his challenge as story and price. He has to convince customers that a MIPS-equipped helmet is safer, despite the fact that all helmets pass the same safety test. "If the customer can't digest that message," he says, "you're adding a system that nobody will care about.""
http://gearfinder.bicycling.com/senseless/index.html
"Most helmet designers and marketers are avid cyclists. The entry hall at the Dome is jammed with staffers' bikes. They value their brains and those of their customers. But their customers—from top pros to weekenders—haven't been clamoring for safer helmets, and the unchanging CPSC standards helped to ensure they were never offered one. And the industry's independent safety experts have for years insisted that no helmet can reduce concussion risk. Repeated often enough, that becomes accepted wisdom.
When the MIPS system appeared, those experts dismissed it. "That's not doing anything except taking up space," Dave Halstead told me. "It's a wonderful solution for a problem that does not exist."
Randy Swart, the ASTM helmet subcommittee's co-vice chairman, said he found the MIPS data "just not compelling." He called MIPS "an unproven technology. I think it just adds complexity—and could add to the thickness of the helmets."
In some cases, these assumptions were not true. The MIPS system doesn't make helmets larger or heavier. The idea that the only safer helmet is a bigger helmet has been accepted for so long that it's become an ingrained assumption."
You missed one important point from the OP:
One well-done study that evaluated all the current studies out there (called a meta-analysis), found there to be no benefit to helmet use when you take into account all types of injuries. Helmets protect against certain kinds of injuries (those to the head) and increase the likelihood of other injuries (those to the neck).
That last sentence there is important, so I'll call it out again: "Helmets protect against certain kinds of injuries and increase the likelihood of other injuries."
There is data about what helmets and other safety measures do to bike safety. It's worth noting that the Dutch bike association is not a fan of helmet laws. Although of course Netherland has already implemented a lot more effective measures to improve bicycle safety.
The physics involved are a lot more complicated than you think.
To give one of many relevant examples:
Bicycle helmets are tested purely against linear impacts, where the head hits squarely against a flat surface. This turns out to be completely unrepresentative of real head impacts, which usually occur at an oblique angle[1]. Injuries caused by rotation of the head are by far the most dangerous type, as substantial shear forces can occur within the brain tissue and high torsional forces can be applied to the spinal cord and brain stem.
Motorcycle helmets offer reasonable protection against rotational head injuries, because they have a smooth, round outer surface that is highly resistant to abrasion. Unlike motorcycle helmets, bicycle helmets are covered in ventilation slots, are rarely spherical, often feature rigid visors or other protrusions, and have only a very thin outer shell.
Because of the shortcomings of standardised testing procedures, a helmet purchaser has no idea if their helmet will offer any useful protection against the most common and most dangerous type of head injury; There is good evidence that many common bicycle helmet designs will exacerbate rotational forces in oblique head impacts[2], leading to the likelihood of no net improvement in safety compared to a bare head over a realistic sample of crash types[3].
[1]http://papers.sae.org/892425/ [2]http://www.bhsi.org/chinstrp.pdf [3]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457502...
"Although the Netherlands is probably the safest country in the world for cycling, helmet wearing among Dutch cyclists is rare. It has been estimated that only about 0.5 percent of cyclists in the Netherlands are helmeted"
Why are Dutch cyclists more likely to be injured if they wear helmets? - http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html
EDIT: Yup, article confirms it.
In my city, the amount of trips taken by bike is over 26%, with another 12% public transport, and most younger people use bikes several times a day – but most don’t wear helmets, and most never had an issue with it, yet.
I think the high safety in the Netherlands is mostly due to the driver education (In Holland, spending 40 hours training for your drivers license is not unusual, and you spend a lot of time in the most difficult situations around).
Another reason is that if someone gets killed on an intersection, people will have a good look if the safety in that spot can be improved. So a lot of the most dangerous places have been changed to make it safer.
I haven't biked in the U.S, but from what I've seen, biking in the Netherlands is completely different.
- Cars drive slower. 50 km/h in city zones, many places that are restricted to 30 km/h.
- Our entire infrastructure is adapted to biking. Separate bike lanes, bikes get their own stoplights. We don't need to cut through four lanes of traffic just to make a left turn. We're not part of the normal car traffic on bigger roads.
- Motorists are used to people on bikes. At the very least they don't hate them like they seem to do in the U.S.
- Bikes are often considered equal to or even higher priority than cars. That means bikes get the right of way just as cars do. In many cases cars have to yield to bikes (roundabouts, etc).
There's simply no comparison to be made between the U.S and the Netherlands when it comes to road conditions for bikes. Making any claim that "the Dutch don't wear helmets so I don't need to either" is ridiculous¹
Other than that, when I see U.S bikers in full gear on their bikes, I always have to laugh a little. Spendex shorts, special shoes, helmet, fancy racing bike. I've said this before on HN, but I think they take biking way too serious. And, but this is just a guess, I wouldn't be surprised if fancy bike makes you go a lot faster than the old dinky bikes we ride around on. And speed == danger, which is why your link points out that most Dutch people getting into accidents are wearing helmets: because they're doing recreational biking on fancy fast bikes.
I don't think I'd ride a bike in a major U.S city. If I would, I'd wear a helmet.
¹) If my perception of biking in U.S cities is even slightly correct.
Even 10 years ago, drivers would scream insults out the window, throw things at me from moving cars, and then there's the genuinely life-threatening harassment. Just for daring to be on the road at all, instead of the sidewalk. This has changed radically in the last decade, in my experience.
On most roads at less than 30 mph, cycling at 10-15 mph is fine.
This is terrifying. I think removing idiot drivers from the road will do a lot more for bike safety than any helmet ever can.
The behavior of road users is the most important element in safety, by far.
The cyclist is a bigger factor than the bike. I overtake plenty of racing bikes on my cargo bike.
Most people riding on the roads in the US for transportation are riding 20-30 year old bikes that are just as crappy as Dutch bikes. Think college kids, recent immigrants, or young people. Even rich people who want to commute via bike will often buy a "beater bike" made out of salvaged parts from old bicycles. But unlike the Netherlands, you have to carry a bike lock with you because if you don't lock your bike, someone WILL steal it. I don't think I saw a bike lock the entire time I was in the Netherlands.
The guys riding the fast bikes with all the gear are cycling for sport. Though they may be more prevalent in the US as a percentage of cyclists because fewer people use bikes for transportation over here. Regardless, I wouldn't ride here without a helmet.
Here, the only cyclists who wear a helmet are tourists (much more likely to get into an accident due to inexperience) and people riding a racing bike for exercise (much more likely to get into an accident due to high speed). Wearing a helmet while riding to work or something similar is completely unnecessary.
I mostly agree with the OP, but there's one difference that might be important: we are raised to ride bicycles at a very young age. When I was in high school I was often trying to ride home without using my hands, through traffic, intersections etc., and I usually succeeded. I don't think I would ever be this comfortable on a bike if I learned riding it at a later age. I did ride a bike in New York a year ago and I didn't feel unsafe at all, but when I see tourists ride bikes through Amsterdam, that's a different story.
For me, the experience of the cyclists is the most important factor for safety, and subsequently if wearing a helmet or not is warranted.
"Helmet use may deter people from cycling", that doesn't affect whether or not you should wear one.
"Benefits of biking out way the risks", you don't lose the benefits if you cycle with a helmet.
It does, indirectly (you may think that more people biking will make you safer in the long run for example).
The best use case for bicycle is not a 20-mile ride to work or on muddy trails, but a 1-mile ride to a local coffeeshop. And for a competent cyclist on flat roads in normal weather, a helmet is plain unnecessary.
"However, if potential cyclists see everyone else in their community wearing helmets while riding a bike, it communicates that biking is a dangerous activity that requires special protective gear."
One of the author's reasons for not wearing a helmet is the image that wearing a helmet projects. The personal decision to wear or not wear a helmet affects the perception of non-cyclists, which in turn affects the number of cyclists. Or at least so goes the theory.
As an aside, since a lot of people seem to not have noticed and assumed otherwise by default: The author is female.
Of course, there is not zero marginal impact on cycling. Helmet advocates never seem to try to estimate what cost there is to cycling rates.
I suspect that even among committed cyclists, there is a marginal cost in the number and frequency of trips by bicycle to wearing a helmet, and this cost is much greater for more marginal cyclists.
In concluding that studies about the efficacy of helmet use are unreliable, the author claims "The people who wear helmets are likely more safety-conscious than those who don’t, which makes comparing the two groups very difficult and will make it appear that helmets are more protective than they actually are."
But then, only a few sentences later, the author's agenda shifts to arguing that wearing a helmet causes other drivers to incorrectly conclude you are a safer cyclist and give you less space: "Just because someone wears a helmet doesn’t mean they’re a safer cyclist. It seems like a lot of people use helmet use as a proxy for caring about safety, and that’s just not true."
I can't see how both of these things could be true. Either the studies are not confounded as the author claims, or drivers giving cyclists less space is not the problem he thinks it is because those cyclists are actually safer cyclists. This is not to say that one or both of these arguments are totally incorrect -- there is probably a grain of truth to both of them -- but I suspect at least one of these claims is exaggerated somewhat.
If the author's argument were that localities should not mandate helmet use, I think I would agree. But it wouldn't be because of his tendentious arguments about helmet-wearing signalling that cycling is dangerous, or that drivers take more risks around helmeted cyclists. It is very very hard to believe that either of these dynamics, if they exist at all, outweigh the undisputed benefit of wearing a helmet in preventing serious head injuries. Rather, I think localities shouldn't mandate helmet use simply because helmets discourage cycling and, on balance, cycling is a very safe activity with or without a helmet, and its social benefits outweigh the risks of cycling without a helmet. (An argument which, to be fair, the author also makes.)
mm, I think you missed something here -- It is always a bad thing for a car to give a cyclist less space. Even if a cyclist wearing a helmet is more likely to be a safer cyclist, giving that cyclist less space is dangerous. It doesn't matter if the cyclist is a safer rider than most -- what matters is that the driver may _think_ the cyclist is a safe rider because of the helmet, and so may give the cyclist less space.
I never wear spandex, almost never wear a helmet, but I always have lights and mirrors, and I never, never run a red light (unless it is sensor-driven and won't change for me). Plenty of spandex'ed and helmeted cyclists will run a red light after checking to make sure there's no oncoming traffic. Yet drivers are almost certain to assume that the spandex'ed and helmeted cyclist is more safety-conscious than me. Even if helmets are much lower down on the list of what keeps cyclists safe than traffic norms and behavior, road choice (arterial vs. nonarterial), lights, mirrors, &c.
Meanwhile passing too closely is very dangerous. =/
Those are the crashes that bike helmets are designed for. Let's say you were waiting at a light, and the light just changed. A car mirror clips you just as you're pushing off and getting your balance, you fall over and hit your head on a curb. If you have a helmet on, you walk away with a headache and maybe a skinned elbow. Without a helmet on, you crack your head open and potentially die.
Is this correct? It sounds very wrong to me. I got the impression that shattering is a great way to redirect kinetic energy away from your head
If the author is claiming that once it's compressed it won't be as good next time, then that's insane - helmets aren't supposed to be re-used after accidents (whether bike, motorbike, or car racing - I've had to sadly replace my motor racing helmet after an incident, and it's a lot more than buying a new bike lid - but you still do it without flinching because it's your brain on the line here).
"People will so often put up photos on social media of obliterated helmets and say, “Holy crap, look at my helmet! It saved my life!” But helmets are not supposed to shatter. When a helmet protects your head from a serious injury, the styrofoam inside will be compressed and stay that way. Most of the pictures I’ve seen are of helmets that have broken apart. It’s likely that the helmet did not protect someone from a severe injury."
Why is it insane to think it won't be as good next time? Isn't that exactly the reason you are not supposed to re-use them?
That's the reason, why after a crash the helmet should be replaced, whether there can be seen damages or not (the shell internally breaks when it absorbs energy this way, but this can hardly be seen (except when, say, you use X-ray analysis or something similar).
But it has still absorbed the energy that it took to crack the helmet. If the strength of the impact is exactly the same as the strength of the helmet, then the helmet will simply crack, and leave your skull intact. However if you're not wearing the helmet, your head receives the full force of the impact.
"If the styrofoam does not compress, it cannot reduce linear acceleration of the brain. The most protection that it can give to the wearer is to prevent focal damage of the skull and prevent minor wounds to the scalp. It is not likely to prevent serious brain injury.
This helmet has split along the ventilation slots, which is common. However, the thickness of the styrofoam has not been compressed. It most likely gave no more than superficial protection.
Some dissipation of impact force might occur from the action of a helmet breaking, but in most cases this is likely to be small. Helmet standards require the foam to start to compress at a level of force less than that which might be expected to lead to brain injury. While it is known that many helmets do not actually meet the standards to which they are supposed to be accredited (BHRF, 1081), it follows that if the styrofoam does not compress at all, the direct linear force on the helmet was minimal and it's quite possible that the cyclist would not have received any injury if the helmet had not been worn.
Most helmets now have a plastic skin over the foam which provides some structural integrity while the foam is being crushed [1]. But you are correct, the helmet only works because the kinetic energy is being absorbed by a material whose composition (closed cells) will naturally break apart into smaller pieces when enough kinetic energy is applied.
[NB Accident was completely self inflicted on a forest track]
I was out for quite bit, woke up cold and with trousers shredded on left side. Was in a lot of pain for a couple of days and ended up with a spectacular giant hematoma on my left hip.
My first reaction on coming round after being knocked out was, of course, "I hope nobody saw that" :-)
Edit: I kept the helmet (or remains of the helmet) for years to show other people.
Otherwise basically the same for me (I'm told) - bike slammed over onto the right, walloped me into the road, and then skidded along the ground with me still attached and out cold. Knee and right shoulder blade were skinned but that was it.
You mean you can't use your legs to save you because they're attached to your pedals? That sounds incredibly dangerous.
NB The accident was completely my own fault (tired, went cycling after a 250 mile drive, getting dark, out alone...)
Cycling is simply a safe, fun means of travel. And you don't need special protective gear unless you're doing something weird.
Children? Mountain bikers? People cycling in snow or mud? People doing tricks or trying to show off to girls? Yea, they should probably wear a helmet.
A friend of mine once compared ordinary commuting in a helmet to wearing a condom all day: it's useful if you're doing something risky, but otherwise it's just uncomfortable.
Helmets are uncomfortable and goofy, and I probably would ride less on the bike if I had to wear one all the time, as with a mandatory helmet law. The exercise benefits of regular cycling outweigh the marginal risk of head injury.
By the same logic of the helmet-shamers, we should shame motorists and pedestrians for not wearing a helmet for routine travel. But nobody seems to take that idea seriously for some reason.
More important safety equipment than helmets: bike lights, mirrors, bells, basic repair gear, and fenders.
"Many more motorists and pedestrians die in traffic collisions per year than do bicyclists. We don’t see them wearing helmets."
Doesn't this support the opposite argument of what the author is claiming? Further, I would expect as much anyway simply because so many fewer people bike than motorcycle or drive a car.
"If not wanting to wear a helmet deters someone from riding a bike, that sucks, because biking is healthy and awesome."
This is a silly argument. It could just as easily be said, "If wearing a helmet deters someone from riding a bike, that sucks, because wearing a helmet protects your head."
"I don’t want to hide my head behind a helmet, I want drivers to pass me on the street and see that I am a person, a human, just like them."
Nobody said that wearing a helmet was supposed to make a person more attractive. Would the author universally agree to "I don't wear protective gear $x because I want people to see that I'm a human being?" Probably not.
Ultimately, I don't think anybody can argue that having a protective shell around your head is somehow less safe or equally safe to having nothing there at all.
To the extent that our helmet obsession dissuades people from cycling instead of driving, it is on average harmful, because the exercise benefits of cycling outweigh the head-injury risk.
Anectdata: I work on a large business campus which has bike sharing bikes scattered around. Helmets are mandatory (whether that's due to law or local policy, I am uncertain). My light whispy hair will irrecoverably look like shit after being subjected to a helmet, especially during the hot/humid months. As such, I opt to walk or drive more often than I would if I could simply hop on a bike for many on-campus jaunts for various duties.
Just.. what?
Any sort of mechanical deformation is essentially an energy release. Be it compression, cracking or what else. The energy that went to cracking the polycarbonate shell is the energy that didn't reach your skull.
>"Many more motorists and pedestrians die in traffic collisions per year than do bicyclists. We don’t see them wearing helmets."
Hey. Maybe if they did wear helmets, fewer of them would die. Ever think of that?
The best way to protect yourself for the 60-mph-auto-collision is to not get hit by a car at 60 mph.
The most interesting quasi-claim is buried: helmets protect your head, but cause more damage to your neck. That's an empirical claim that I doubt, but at least it's better than "I don't think I look good in a helmet."
TLDR: 5x more dangerous in car than bikes per billion km. Less dangerous in countries with more bikes per capita, despite fewer helmets.
So, I agree with OP's point that perhaps cyclists are being over regulated. I bet that there is a high correlation between type of bike and deaths. Perhaps we should be all required to ride one of these: http://www.denmanbikeshop.com/thebikeshopblog/wp-content/upl... Fewer deaths would ensue.
Put differently- I wonder if you told the author a brick was going to fall on her head and then asked given the option to wear a helmet or not wear one which she would pick.
And ultimately, helmets are just a tiny fraction of the factors that influence safety.
And actually, looking at actual accident statistics doesn't do a whole lot of good due to all of the variables involved (this point was actually made by the author and is about the only one that I agree with).
No, I'm disputing that the majority of bike accidents involve blunt trauma to the head.
And looking at real data is the only way you can determine both the causes and results of real accidents, as opposed to artificial lab setups.
And there's a health tradeoff between the exercise benefits of physical activity and the risk of injury. Convincing people that cycling is so dangerous (like people throwing bricks at your head) that you need to wear some goofy-looking, uncomfortable contraption dissuades them from getting the exercise and the fun of cycling around their neighborhood.
This is true until you fall off the bike and your head hits the pavement. Then having a brick thrown at your head might well be safer. It's only the lower expected probability of having one event occur than the other that gives the illusion that it's safe. But if you ride a bike everyday, even in the safest of conditions, your odds of having an accident at some point are actually pretty high given all of the variables involved. So you should wear a helmet every time you ride with the assumption that it will do nothing for you if you don't have an accident.
It's really not that different than most risks we take, such as unhealthy eating or exposing ourselves to ultraviolet radiation. We're immune to the danger until we're not.
That's tragic, because this debate is about a tradeoff: a moderate benefits of exercise vs. a small risk of injury. I am a very regular bike commuter, and it is my main form of exercise, but collisions are very, very dangerous. I would not get on a bike in the case of 100% certainty of an accident. Helmet advocates focus on the risk of injury and tend not to consider the benefits they're trading off against, or consider how they are dissuading people from the benefits of cycling.
It seems like this boils down to an argument not to cycle as much as to wear a helmet.
The current bike helmet standards are a good example of what happens in the absence of both good theory and experience. We have a design that prevents an injury that almost never happens (skull fracture) and that fails to protect against a common injury (concussion). The current standards make it impossible to improve things much but there are people out there that are trying:
One of the most compelling studies is from New Zealand [1]: "The New Zealand Medical Journal published Evaluation of New Zealand's bicycle helmet law ... showing a massive plunge in cycling levels and a 20% higher accident rate since helmet law enforcement."
Also, there was a study showing that cyclists with helmets receive less space from passing cars than those without.
"Helmet use was associated with reduced risk of head injury in bicycle collisions with motor vehicles of up to 74%, and the more severe the injury considered, the greater the reduction."
Is there some reason to doubt this?
The author's point doesn't stand to reason. First, not all injuries are created equal. Head injuries are more likely to kill or permanently impair a cyclist than any other injury. Second, regardless of the results of studies and confirmation bias, it's obvious that helmets do absorb a great deal of impact - impact that can kill or permanently injure you.
Beyond that, though, helmets aren't the #1 thing that can be done to protect cyclists. Improving car drivers is the #1 thing. Malicious drivers who openly hate cyclists aren't the worst - neglectful ones are. You know, the ones who turn right in front of a bicycle, or lane change into a bicycle. They don't know the cyclist is there. Often, they don't know how close they came to killing someone, as they text away obliviously.
The next thing that can be done is better urban planning, with bicycle-friendly streets. That doesn't mean sidewalk "bike lanes" that are 10mph and shared with moms pushing strollers. That means relatively safe road design where bicyclists can either integrate into the traffic flow or be around it with less danger. These designs are often flawed, though, built mostly to keep bicycles from inconveniencing cars rather than keeping cyclists safe (the "bike lanes" of downtown Minneapolis, which completely hide cyclists from cars turning in front of them, are the ultimate example).
At any rate, the article is quite wrong.
You might as well have just said "I'm not listening to that gosh darn evolution nonsense".
The author points to a single study that's been discredited. Good enough. But simple logic, as well as anecdotal evidence (with all its confirmation bias), suggests that you're more likely to have a good outcome from a head impact if you're wearing a helmet than if you're not. That, or the entire helmet industry is snake oil, and you might as well just wear a baseball cap.
The comparison to evolution is bogus. Those who reject evolution are generally rejecting both evidence and reason. But evidence and reason strongly suggest that helmets work better than no helmets.
An accident avoided is better than an accident survived, yes. But an accident survived is better than an accident not survived.
However, cyclists get regularly shamed for not wearing a helmet. Where's the shame for the lack of complete streets traffic planning? The shame for drivers speeding and running red lights all the time?
There are certainly conditions that make the use of a helmet advisable, but that depends on the situation. Anything more than that is just the result of lobbying & PR by the helmet-making industry.
The only type of helmet that can actually prevent injury is a full face motorcycle helmet with solid chinbar.
Dutch media, for example, do not focus on helmet use at all, because it's a non-issue. Well, mostly. Almost nobody here wears a helmet (though increasing numbers of children do), simply because it's not necessary.
Then again, Dutch traffic is designed with cyclists in mind. In other countries, that's not the case. You need to know what your local cycling situation is, and whether that does or doesn't require a helmet.
"But helmets are not supposed to shatter." Yes, they are. After any crash with a helmet you're support to discard it and purchase a new one. It absorbed, hopefully, the vast majority of the energy of the impact, not your skull.
"Cyclists don’t die from just falling off their bikes, they die because they are hit by cars."
Doubtless, but this is one of the few cases in which there are statistics available because it involves motor vehicles... and death.
"Learning safe riding skills, being visible, and being attentive are the things we all can do to prevent an accident."
Yes, absolutely. Ride defensively and assume NO ONE can see you and knows where you are at ALL times even and sometimes especially in a bike lane.
"I replaced my road bike’s drop handlebars with swept back bars, for a more upright riding position"
The observation of mountain/flat bars being a better city / casual riding position is true. But you don't need to ditch your drops if you ride on the tops when appropriate. Many people have a second pair of brake levers accessible from the tops as well as their integrated levers at the hoods.
What I'm most surprised about is that the author doesn't mention a study where drivers on average, apparently, drive 3 inches closer to cyclists WITH helmets on because they perceive them to be protected.
All this said: WEAR A HELMET. I'll provide an anecdote: the wheel coming off of a front fork after someone tried to steal their wheel earlier in the day (unlocking the quick release). I found the man with his face smashed on the ground, his left eye caved in on the Manhattan Bridge.
Route 9W, bottom of the first major hill, debris collected from over winter. Many cyclists repairing flats, another one who got taken away in an ambulance, helmet shattered and knee "destroyed". He would have certainly died if he had not been wearing a helmet.
The point is saying that helmets don't protect you from crashes is like saying seatbelts don't protect you from crashes. Yes! It's true, but they protect you from hurting yourself too badly if and when you DO crash.
Unless the act of wearing a helmet is part of what reminds you to be more safety-conscious. Bucking my child into the car has the same effect.
BTW the author does mention that study about drivers coming closer to bikers with helmets.
Read the link. Hint: no, they aren't. The main absorbtion of energy is all in the styrofoam. If the shell shattered but the styrofoam didn't compress then no significant force dissipation happened. Some did, yes, but not enough to have prevented anything more than cuts & scrapes.
> What I'm most surprised about is that the author doesn't mention a study where drivers on average, apparently, drive 3 inches closer to cyclists WITH helmets on because they perceive them to be protected.
They did, actually. That was in the article.
You're telling the same forces that shattered the helmet wouldn't have damaged the head?
Nonsense.
Fun times when people get shamed for not wearing a bulletproof vest to go to the grocery store.
Your dedication to your personal safety is commendable, but I hope you do realize that most people have reasons not to wear bullet proof vests.
Helmets don't just protect from massive TBIs.
Also, the link in the article about health benefits doesn't point to anything on the web.
"But helmets are not supposed to shatter" - not true. Many bike helmets are designed to shatter on impact, that's how they absorb the energy.
On the south end of the bridge, the road and multi-use trails jog eastward and up a slope, while the rail portion of the bridge continues south towards a tunnel. This results in a spot on one of the trails where there are low-hanging girders. If you are walking, these are fine, if you are biking these are very dangerous and cyclists who weren't wearing helmets have been killed by failing to duck. Since the impact was directly to the head, these deaths would have likely been prevented by a helmet. Cyclists who veer too far towards the girders alongside the trail have also been killed, again an impact directly to the head where a helmet would help.
https://www.anony.ws/i/2015/06/15/helmet.png
(Click image to zoom)
It's a helmet/airbag. Looks pretty cool, but I've never met anyone who had one.
It deters more people from driving a car and it communicates that driving car is a dangerous activity and require protective gear and license.
Some details:
"Is there evidence that helmets protect brains and heads? We have a statistics page that may help you research that. Don't miss the recent New York City data showing that 97% of their dead cyclists had no helmet."
I know what a data scientist would say, correlation is not causation.
More details, lots os studies and numbers here: http://www.bhsi.org/shouldi.htm
A good video in the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=CLbpXkSoM2A
I also have to wonder if the increased neck injuries cited go back to when helmets were not designed to skid when impacting the ground.
But I guess if you're a public health professional, you'd rather have the pound of cure.
If you're doing tricks on gravel, or travelling on mud or snow, or goring really fast, you may fall, sure, wear a helmet.
NEVER was it my fault. Just because you're not a dick doesn't mean someone else isn't.
It's not a perfect correlation, but it's very high.
Or to put it in other words: you are more inclined to buy a helmet if you are know that sooner or later you'll surely need its protection. Or since you have a helmet, you know that you can do things at a (psychologically) acceptable risk that you wouldn't do otherwise (the latter phenomenon is called "risk compensation").
Personally I almost never wear a helmet but scrupulously follow the rules: they are the only thing that protects me.
I've only ever bashed my head on the ground at very low speeds. You'd be surprised the damage you can do falling from head height. A bike merely increases the probability of that happening.
High speed; forget it. I drive a car now after I was totalled by a taxi.
I'd 100% prefer safety over fashion any day of the week. Have you been in a car crash? Thank god for seat belts!
On another note, there has been quite a bit of development into helmets in the last 5 or so years. Check out MIPS system [1]. It basically allows the head to move independently of the helmet increasing the "time" of the impact and also reducing oblique forces on the brain. Does it 100% work? Who knows. Is my head priceless, yes.
[1] http://www.mipshelmet.com/#what-is-mips (fyi, slow website)
I've never hurt my head while on a bike, yet the first thing you hear when I've been in a crash is: "Did you have a helmet?". Statistically helmets help in rare but severe cases, compared to a seat belts and airbags that helps against almost all injuries in cars from mild to serious..