
Bicycle Helmets and the law: a perfect teaching case for epidemiology - biehl
http://www.badscience.net/2013/12/bicycle-helmets-and-the-law-a-perfect-teaching-case-for-epidemiology/
======
awjr
I think it's really important to understand the impact cycle helmets have.
They negatively impact the number of people cycling. They enforce the
perception that cycling is dangerous. Finally, as the study showed, they are
designed to only be involved in an accident between you and the road. Not
another vehicle. They bring a false sense of security.

If cycle helmets were made compulsory in the UK, it is calculated that an
extra 253 people per year would die from obesity related diseases (
[http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1231.html](http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1231.html)
) . Ironically cycle helmets kill.

What is interesting about this is the identification of two groups of
cyclists. The 'speed' group who currently wear helmets (and usually have
lycra) and then the slow group (the rest of society) who just want to go from
A to B. Helmet laws specifically have a negative impact on the slow group.
This is the group of people that we need to encourage.

As mentioned in the BMJ article (
[http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaL...](http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref)
) : "For others, this is an explicitly political matter, where an emphasis on
helmets reflects a seductively individualistic approach to risk management (or
even “victim blaming”) while the real gains lie elsewhere. It is certainly
true that in many countries, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, cyclists
have low injury rates, even though rates of cycling are high and almost no
cyclists wear helmets. This seems to be achieved through interventions such as
good infrastructure; stronger legislation to protect cyclists; and a culture
of cycling as a popular, routine, non-sporty, non-risky behaviour."

This stuff is important. The UK justice system is permeated with the belief
that if you were not wearing a helmet then you were, in some way, partially
responsible. It's got so bad that insurance payouts are being affected by
this.

Note I personally don't wear a cycle helmet except in winter when I want to
have a bigger light to see the trail ahead of me as I commute to work. However
if I go out on a club ride then I wear one. I'm pushing the speed of the bike
and it could slip out from under me. I do not wear it with the belief it would
save me if I had a collision with a car.

~~~
codex
Personally, every single bicycle commuter I have known has been involved in an
accident, often multiple. The consequences are much worse than an auto
accident. If I didn't wear a helmet, I might not have the courage to ride at
all--even if they help only in some scenarios. I often see the risks of
bicycling and not wearing a helmet downplayed, but to me this rings of agenda
and not reality on the road. For example, it seems like all arguments against
helmeted cycling also apply to helmeted motorcycling. Should we encourage
motorcyclists not to wear helmets?

~~~
D_Alex
>If I didn't wear a helmet, I might not have the courage to ride at all...etc.

So wear a helmet, there is no law whatsoever prohibiting you to wear one.

Me, I am a datum point for the argument that helmets stop you from cycling. I
used to ride a bike everywhere before the compulsory helmet laws were
introduced. After, cycling became so much less convenient, you had to make
sure that you brought your helmet, that you kept it secure, and I plain do not
like the way bicycle helmets feel on your head.

I hate the compulsory helmet laws, and I want them gone.

~~~
snowwrestler
> I plain do not like the way bicycle helmets feel on your head.

> I hate the compulsory helmet laws, and I want them gone.

This is the heart of the bike helmet debate, not the "evidence". I put that
word in quotes because epidemiology is being abused by people who just don't
like wearing helmets.

~~~
jessaustin
_...epidemiology is being abused by people who just don 't like wearing
helmets._

You're going to have to be more specific in your critique if you want to be
taken seriously. What in TFA amounted to an "abuse" of epidemiology?

------
jype
I've been commuting by bike (
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgvjnOJwWTU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgvjnOJwWTU)
) for about 20 years now and I feel that every motor vehicle occupant should
be wearing a helmet.

The case is quite clear: Most people who die in cars have not had their heads
protected by a helmet at the time of the fatal collision. While they might
very well be dead regardless, so might the occasional cyclist that got run
over by a lorry while not wearing her helmet, so this doesn't really enter the
argument.

When helmets are mandatory for car occupants, I shall laugh at their faces and
ask them if they feel any safer crossing the railroad tracks. I'm also certain
my ill manners will improve road safety by a measurable margin.

And, of course, I wear a helmet most of the time.

------
jchrisa
Our family does without a car and I take my daughter to school or pick her up
in my cargo e-bike. Neither my wife or I wear helmets as speeds are slow
around here and there are plenty of other family bikers. I think my daughter
is safer when I'm not wearing a helmet, as I can see and hear better and most
importantly it's easier to make eye contact with drivers when you don't have a
helmet on.

~~~
eCa
What kind of helmet impairs vision and hearing? I haven't heard this before so
I'm curious.

~~~
jchrisa
Would you be able to take in all the sites and sounds around you on a nature
hike, say you are going birdwatching or something, just as well with a foam
hat on? If you can see your helmet at all then that's part of your peripheral
vision you are sacrificing. And if you can't see your helmet it's probably not
gonna do much in a car crash anyway... I prefer not to get hit and one way to
do it is ride in a part of the world that respects people on bikes. When I
lived in Mountain View I wore a helmet... but I also didn't bike much.

~~~
reubenmorais
>And if you can't see your helmet

Properly worn bike helmets are invisible to the person wearing it (except for
the head visor extension if you use one, and that's above you so doesn't
really get in the way).

>it's probably not gonna do much in a car crash anyway

Bike helmets aren't designed to protect you from a crash with a car, so yes,
it's probably not going to do much, even if it was in your peripheral vision.

------
shirro
Bike helmets are mandatory Australia wide and it is enforced. I have no idea
if the net effects are positive or negative but the behaviour is so normalised
now people rarely question it.

I don't think it represents a disincentive to people exercising or kids riding
to school. It might have when introduced but I suspect other lifestyle changes
have more impact. When I was a kid I had to ride a couple of km just to see a
computer. I had two television stations and my only electronic game was pong
so riding my bike was the only way to stay sane.

Where it is a problem is you don't carry a helmet around with you so you can't
just hop on a mates bike or hire a bike without putting someone else's helmet
on which isn't attractive. I have considered hiring a bike when interstate but
the helmet thing has always put me off.

------
dreamdu5t
I'll take responsibility for my life and you busybody do gooders can fuck off.

Let's make helmets mandatory after we outlaw being a fat fuck and eating like
shit.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Unfortunately my insurance pays for folks with your attitude. So yes its my
business. Unless you want to sign a waiver for bicycle-related injuries? No?

~~~
jype
However, it pays substantially less for such folks as it does for the folks
such folks are angry about.

Bicycle related injuries are not what any insurance company is worried about,
while obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and motor vehicle related
injuries actually really are the issues that keep raising the cost of your
insurance - you just don't see it that way, because you don't want to take
responsibility for the costs your lifestyle imposes on the society.

I'm dreadfully sorry if this has come out as addressed to an individual -
speaking epidemiologically, this is absolutely about all of us, collectively.
I would never recommend anyone to not wear a helmet, but I would rather see
their choice of transport be the bicycle as often as possible, and mandatory
wearing of helmet will not help that.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Sorry I got lost in all the prepositions and articles. To be clear, I happen
to be a bicyle-rider, who likes to take week-long 500 mile vacations on a
variety of human-powered cycles. No obesity here, nor cardiovascular issues.
So I'm definitely paying for others' problems of whatever kind.

~~~
jessaustin
Your quest for personal perfection, young grasshopper, will not be complete
until you accept that others have different preferences, which are just as
valid for them as your lycra-clad Lanciness is for you.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Agreed. But I have a hard time believing their priorities include dying young,
in a grotesquely deformed body. I think they are plain lazy.

~~~
jessaustin
Again with the judgment! While it may be for you, for _most_ people cycling is
not an extreme activity. At least, not to the same extent as climbing a ladder
or eating a hot dog (two "safe" activities that are actually more dangerous
than cycling).

------
angersock
I am truly baffled at the number of people here against bicycle helmets--have
you never had to interact with someone who has suffered brain damage?

I'd wear _two_ damned helmets if it ever saved me being in that position.

~~~
jype
I find it hard to believe anyone here is against bicycle helmets.

I can only see people who think helmets should not be mandatory, because the
data shows this will reduce the number of people using their bicycles for
casual transport, which in turn increases their risk for a wide range of
health problems and simultaneously makes cycling more dangerous for everyone
else, because fewer cyclists on the road means fewer drivers will take enough
care to notice them and give them their space.

------
brg
Cost-benefit analysis and the role of government in personal safety laws is
very interesting. One of the best TED talks is Steven Levitt on children's car
seats. They do not seem to more beneficial than seat belts passed infancy.
These are very much related, as BC has increased the age at which children
need to be confined to a car seat to 9.

Steven Levitt: Surprising stats about child carseats
[http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_levitt_on_child_carseats.htm...](http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_levitt_on_child_carseats.html)

------
pconf
IMO the most important aspect of this whole debate is money. Lots of money is
made from manufacturing and selling bicycle helmets. That's why the bicycle-
naive general population only knows about helmets when asked about bicycle
safety.

Given that skills training, traffic engineering and other key components of
real (i.e., statistically defensible) bicycle safety are not profitable how
would you go about fixing this dysfunctional aspect of our automobile-centric
cultures?

------
interstitial
The government knows what's best for you. Stop being so individualistic.

