
Why i’m done wearing a helmet - outdooricon
http://www.bikinginmpls.com/im-done-wearing-helmet/
======
bikinginmpls
This is the OP. I'm a woman. I guess if you're an avid cyclist everyone
assumes you're a man?

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.

~~~
brookside
'Expose different viewpoints' seems along the lines of the 'I'm hoping to
encourage a debate' line that people taking on 'hot-take' positions like to
hide behind.

'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.

~~~
joopxiv
> 'I have a masters degree' is, of course, ad-hominem fallacy.

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.

------
monksy
The guy sounds insane. Simple physics indicates that the longer the collision
the less force applied will be.

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)

~~~
rjsw
5\. Biker not using lights at night "because they are in a bike lane".

~~~
panglott
Bike lights are far more important safety gear than a helmet is.

But not having a helmet attracts more negative attention than not having
lights does.

~~~
Eric_WVGG
I used to consider lights “optional,” but since bicycling has grown in
popularity, I have observed more lightless riders — or failed to observe,
rather — and now quite agree. I’m amazed that I got away with riding
effectively invisible, with no incidents, for as long as I did.

Now I’m baffled by the fact that lights aren’t built into the frames of all
non-competitive road bikes…

~~~
mcv
They are standard on all Dutch bikes. Is that not true in other countries?
Bikes without lights, rear reflectors and reflectors on the wheels or tires
are far, far more dangerous than not wearing a helmet.

~~~
panglott
Reflectors are standard in the US, I think, but not lights.

Reflectors are in no way enough.

~~~
mcv
You are right, just reflectors is not enough (though tire reflectors are
amazingly effective for traffic coming from the side). Lights really should be
standard.

------
joezydeco
We need some HN readers from the Netherlands to chime in here.

"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](http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html)

~~~
otherusername2
Dutch guy here.

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.

~~~
panglott
For a long time, you had to be pretty hardcore to cycle in traffic in the US.
Politically radical, committed to fitness, whatever.

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.

~~~
mcv
> 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.

This is terrifying. I think removing idiot drivers from the road will do a lot
more for bike safety than any helmet ever can.

~~~
panglott
In my town, they started putting in unprotected bike lanes and sharrows, and
it has made a very major difference in driver behavior. This happens to me
only about once a year now, instead of once every week or two.

The behavior of road users is the most important element in safety, by far.

------
daredevildave
Some of this reasoning doesn't make much sense when making a personal
decision.

"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.

~~~
pdabbadabba
Yeah. I think there are some serious flaws in this article. Here's another:

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.)

~~~
panglott
There's cyclist safety-consciousness and then there's driver perception of
cyclist safety consciousness. These are separate things.

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. =/

------
exelius
A common misconception is that bicycle helmets protect you in a serious crash.
They don't: if you get hit going 30 mph, anything less than a motorcycle
helmet isn't going to help you much. But most bike crashes aren't serious;
they're minor, low-speed crashes where the rider is knocked from the bicycle
or bumped just hard enough to lose balance. Because the center of gravity on a
bicycle is high, it's easy to hit your head in these types of crashes -- hard.

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.

------
Lewton
>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

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

~~~
kolektiv
Also, (can't read the article but assuming some kind of context), even if the
styro compressed rather than shattering - that's still energy being used for
something which isn't cracking your skull. It still seems like it would be
beneficial.

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).

~~~
Lewton
Full paragraph:

"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."

~~~
kolektiv
In which case yes, just a very misinformed original author. Shattering,
cracking, etc. are all known, planned features of a helmet impact - anything
which can absorb energy in the helmet and not the head is a good thing (with
some obvious caveats of course).

~~~
moopling
Depends, depends... Fracturing of a flaw requires much less energy than
plastic deformation. So it is really a question of whether it deformed first
and then cracked, or fractured early. In the latter case, possibly caused by a
flaw or very sharp impact, not much energy would be absorbed at all!

------
panglott
Absolutely, this is why I rarely/never wear a helmet. People think of them as
essential safety gear in case you get hit by a car, but they offer almost no
protection against this risk. They are designed to protect your head if you
spontaneously fall off a stationary bicycle. In good weather, at low speeds,
on flat, clean roads, these accidents will be very rare for competent
cyclists.

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.

------
bthrn
Some bits in here make me seriously question the author's judegment.

"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.

~~~
fizgig
I think the argument is that if helmets are not mandated by law, more people
will ride. If more people ride, that will raise more awareness of bikers and
their safety in relation to motor vehicle drivers. Therefore, in aggregate,
the safety of the whole bike riding herd will be better.

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.

------
varjag
> 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.

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.

~~~
upofadown
But cracking involves a very small amount of energy absorption. Once the crack
starts it tends to propagate with very little required force.

~~~
varjag
The process once it gets going is pretty quick but the energy buildup required
is fairly substantial and is defined by material properties (shear modulus).

~~~
upofadown
To absorb energy in a useful way you need both force and distance. The idea is
to reduce peak G force ... not that just reducing peak G force is all we need
to do...

------
steveax
Pretty much my sentiments. I've been cycling for over 40 years and have gone
from never wearing one, to always wearing one, to seldom wearing one.

------
Retra
This is pretty dumb and naive, and loaded with non-sequiturs and other obvious
fallacies. Like this gem:

>"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?

~~~
kolektiv
Yes, madness. Given expected likelihood/severity of potential accidents, one
seems more worthwhile than the other. In situations where the risks are raised
for some reason, you will find that people do wear helmets. I will never, for
example, do 100mph in a kart without a helmet (plus various other safety
additions).

~~~
panglott
How is a 10 mph bike ride around the block even remotely comparable to karting
at 100-mph?

~~~
kolektiv
I'm not saying they're the same thing - I'm pointing out that as risk
increases, you add safety features. Drivers in certain situations (racing, for
example) do wear helmets, as the risk is now judged to be sufficient. A 10mph
ride around the block may well be safe - but the 10mph part isn't so relevant
- it's the idiot in a car doing 60mph who doesn't look for cyclists that is
probably the significant part of the risk. So...

~~~
panglott
A bike helmet is not designed to protect your head if you are hit by a car at
60 mph.

The best way to protect yourself for the 60-mph-auto-collision is to not get
hit by a car at 60 mph.

------
dkrich
This seems like a serious case of Black Swan reasoning. In other words, she
seems to be taking an apparent lack of evidence that helmets prevent injury as
evidence that helmets don't prevent injury. Just remember, you wear a helmet
99.9% of the time for no reason to prevent serious injury on that 0.1%
incident because that's all it takes. We all know that slamming your head on
pavement is bad and having a shell to protect your head is preferable to not
having one. She seems to be assuming that because nothing bad has happened to
her yet that she is safe with no helmet.

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.

~~~
panglott
The point is that ordinary commuter cycling in normal weather on flat, clean
roads is a lot less dangerous than standing around while people throw bricks
at your head.

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.

~~~
dkrich
> The point is that ordinary commuter cycling in normal weather on flat, clean
> roads is a lot less dangerous than standing around while people throw bricks
> at your head.

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.

~~~
panglott
If cycling is so dangerous that people throwing bricks at you is safer,
wouldn't the most reasonable course be to not cycle at all?

~~~
dkrich
The point is that if the author of the article got on a bicycle with 100%
certainty of being involved in an accident, I seriously doubt she would get on
it without a helmet or some protective gear, despite her claims that wearing a
helmet actually increases your risk of injury. Obviously if you knew you would
get in an accident you wouldn't get on the bike. I'm convinced that it's the
not knowing (and erroneous assumption that she is safe) that makes her
comfortable not wearing a helmet, not a ironclad case that not wearing a
helmet is safer than wearing one. If put in a position where she absolutely
had to decide whether she would be in an accident with or without a helmet, I
do not believe she would back up her claim and go sans helmet.

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.

~~~
panglott
As a person who doesn't wear/trust bike helmets, if the certainty of an
accident on a particular ride was increased to 100%, I would choose to not
ride the bike rather than trust the helmet to protect me in a collision. If I
knew a brick was to dropped on my head at a certain time, I would reach for a
steel helmet before a styrofoam one, but first endeavor to not be at the
appointed place and time for a braining.

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.

------
someear
The author should have led with "it’s glorious to feel the wind in my hair",
because pretty much every other point in this post is useless.

------
pskocik
I used to ride without a helmet too. I though I'd as soon get directly killed
than get a brain injury. But then you do get a brain injury and not get killed
and your life turns into hell, especially if your brain is the one thing
you've always depended on the most. I recommend paying a visit to
[http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/forum92.html](http://neurotalk.psychcentral.com/forum92.html)
to catch a glimpse how splendidly well (where's my sarcasm sign?) people with
brain injuries have been doing. I didn't get mine from a bike accident
(collapsed scaffolding), but it's been a constant source of joy for the whole
last year and I still have some minor issues to deal with (and that was a mild
one as far as brain injuries go). I always wear a helmet on larger bike trips
now. Anything that mitigates or reduces the chances of a brain injury is very
much worth it. If you want to take reckless risks, at least don't write
idiotic blog posts about it.

------
vesrah
I'm most likely alive right now because of a helmet. Long story short, I had a
crash that resulted in me whipping the back of my head into the ground. I
ended up with a very bad concussion, an iffy memory for a couple of months,
and a destroyed helmet. I'll keep wearing a helmet.

~~~
auntienomen
This anecdote would be a lot more useful if it were long story long (e..g.,
were you cycling casually or racing?). The lack of details makes it hard to
draw any useful lessons about when helmet wearing is appropriate.

~~~
teh_klev
Does it matter, point being made is that their helmet was destroyed rather
than their skull.

~~~
itsybitsycoder
I'm sure there are people who have cracked their heads open and died while
running, but that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone travelling on foot
needs to wear a helmet.

------
upofadown
Many safety standards have surprisingly little science behind them. That is
not always a bad thing. Trial and error can work if there is the possibility
of changing the design. Once the body of experience is codified into a
standard then development stops.

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:

[http://www.helmets.org/liners.htm#cone-
head](http://www.helmets.org/liners.htm#cone-head)

------
mathgenius
It seems that people missed the fact that the article has plenty of links
supporting his claims. Unfortunately the link colour is almost the same as the
text colour.

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.

[1] [http://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html](http://www.cycle-
helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html)

~~~
kyberias
Did you really analyze whether the study provides good data? Does correlation
imply causation?

------
woodchuck64
Here's a 2013 Australian study: "The effectiveness of helmets in bicycle
collisions with motor vehicles: A case–control study":
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457513...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457513000183)

"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?

------
beat
Minneapolis is arguably the best city in the US for bicycling (in competition
with Portland). That said, biking here can be incredibly dangerous, and
cyclists are killed every year. The streets and intersections around town have
numerous "ghost bikes", white bicycles locked in places where a cyclist was
killed by a car.

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.

~~~
mattmanser
_regardless of the results of studies and confirmation bias, it 's obvious...
_

You might as well have just said "I'm not listening to that gosh darn
evolution nonsense".

~~~
beat
Just because you're inclined to believe something doesn't make it _not_ true.
That's the flip side of confirmation bias.

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.

~~~
auntienomen
Reason suggest that helmets work better than no helmets. _Evidence_ suggests
that the benefits of wearing a helmet are actually surprisingly marginal for
casual cyclists. Other factors, like biking infrastructure quality and vehicle
operator education, have a much greater impact on safety. Which makes it a bit
weird that people concerned with the safety of bicyclists talk so much about
helmets.

~~~
beat
I don't disagree with that, but that's not really the author's claim. He
appears to be claiming that helmets aren't actually effective or cause other
problems.

An accident avoided is better than an accident survived, yes. But an accident
survived is better than an accident not survived.

------
tempodox
I've had my share of accidents riding my bike, and in none of them would a
helmet have helped anything. So much for anecdotal confirmation.

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.

~~~
truthsayer1980
I've never seen a black swan.

~~~
tempodox
Point well taken. Of course you're free to determine your personal level of
risk tolerance. Just don't force others to convert their homes to nuclear
shelters (after all, one nuclear explosion can ruin your whole compile).

------
_nickwhite
Looks like his database server should have been wearing a helmet.

------
exabrial
Bicycle helmets are worthless, as well as equestrian half helmets. How often
in a bike wreck do you hit the exact top of your head vs the sides, your chin,
your face, or the back of your neck?

The only type of helmet that can actually prevent injury is a full face
motorcycle helmet with solid chinbar.

------
sklogic
As for me, my main reason not to wear a helmet is that it limits my field of
vision and an ability to hear (including low frequencies) to such an extent
that I feel blindfolded. I cannot tolerate even a hat for the same reason.

------
mcv
The article doesn't say from which part of the world it is (though clearly
outside Europe), but where it's from matters a lot.

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.

------
butwhy
Should have focused on data and studies relating to the idea that most crashes
involved with people wearing non-full-face helmets do not result in helmets
saving their head from serious injury.

------
lasermike026
Head injuries are no joke especially if your in tech. Wear the helmet.

~~~
mrgoldenbrown
You are assuming the accepted, but unproven wisdom that helmets will prevent
more injuries than they cause. Did you read the meta study cited in the
article that shows a lack of evidence for such an assumption? Have you read
about the standards used to "certify" bike helmets, which don't simulate bike
crashes very well?

------
whistlerbrk
I'm sorry but this post mentions there isn't any good data and then dives into
anecdotes.

"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.

~~~
matt_morgan
"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."

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.

------
frogpelt
I stopped reading when the author said a shattered helmet didn't protect from
a head injury.

You're telling the same forces that shattered the helmet wouldn't have damaged
the head?

Nonsense.

------
S_A_P
This is like saying "Im done wearing a bullet proof vest as it only prevents
certain types of gunshot wounds, is uncomfortable to wear and not
fashionable."

~~~
panglott
Are most people expected to wear a bulletproof vest under normal conditions?

Fun times when people get shamed for not wearing a bulletproof vest to go to
the grocery store.

~~~
S_A_P
Depends on your line of work. If you choose to ride a bike, you should
probably wear a helment. If you want to be on a swat team, a bulletproof vest
is also a good idea...

~~~
mcv
Plenty of people get shot without being on a SWAT team. Why shouldn't
everybody wear bullet proof vests?

------
bikempls2
I agree with most of these points, however, anecdotally I will say that my
helmet prevented some pretty nasty facial road rash when I was doored a few
years ago. I tipped and hit my head, and then slid ~10 feet. My helmet
prevented my face/ear from taking the initial impact as well as the subsequent
slide across the dirty urban asphalt.

Helmets don't just protect from massive TBIs.

------
ronnier
I've noticed very few cyclists wearing helmets in Tokyo. Would be interesting
to compare to a city were helmets are more prevalent.

------
WizzleKake
Here's some data: [http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-
bicyclists...](http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-
bicyclists/fatalityfacts/bicycles)

Also, the link in the article about health benefits doesn't point to anything
on the web.

------
venomsnake
I doubt the bike helmets are effective (motorcycle ones are fine, but the
glorified yarmulke that is the biking hat is doubtful)

------
nodata
He doesn't make very strong arguments ("the numbers are hard to get, I don't
have any"). In my mind I see myself falling to the ground and smashing my head
on the ground. I'd like to avoid that if possible. Is he saying thinner/better
helmets are needed to avoid neck injuries?

------
imaginenore
This guy should not be a health professional.

"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.

[http://www.bhsi.org/standard.htm](http://www.bhsi.org/standard.htm)

~~~
vog
Why was this downvoted? To me this looks like a perfectly valid criticism.

~~~
upofadown
The cited page does not even contain the word "shatter".

------
Mister_Snuggles
Where I live there is a bridge over the river which has a multi-use trail
(basically, a shared bike/walk/rollerblade/whatever path) on both sides of it.
This trail is separated from the traffic on the bridge by a railing and large
girders. The bridge was built to carry rail traffic on the top deck and car
traffic below.

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.

~~~
emj
Cycle paths with low hanging girders is not a problem that is solved by
helmets.

------
snowpanda
Here is the article for those who can't access the page (Database Error)

[https://www.anony.ws/i/2015/06/15/helmet.png](https://www.anony.ws/i/2015/06/15/helmet.png)

(Click image to zoom)

------
lordnacho
This might be useful for my main gripe, which is the sweating:

[http://www.hovding.com/videos](http://www.hovding.com/videos)

It's a helmet/airbag. Looks pretty cool, but I've never met anyone who had
one.

------
jbgreer
Do you have any information that shows the effectiveness of helmet use in
crashes that don't involve cars? I've read that approximately half of all bike
crashes do not involve cars. [ looking for a citation ]

------
joesb
This is why people should not wear seat belt, or be required to have driver
license.

It deters more people from driving a car and it communicates that driving car
is a dangerous activity and require protective gear and license.

~~~
mcv
I've heard it argued (in jest, I hope) that replacing the air bag in steering
wheels with a sharp, steel spike would make people drive a lot more carefully.

------
istvan__
That is great, evolution always find its ways to get rid off the weaker
population. Wearing a helmet (a good one) can save your life.

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](http://www.bhsi.org/shouldi.htm)

A good video in the subject:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=CLbpXkSoM2A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=CLbpXkSoM2A)

------
sergiotapia
Rebuttal:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttjr6I5qZoo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ttjr6I5qZoo)

~~~
guiomie
The guy is long boarding, not biking. One is considered an extreme sport, not
the other.

------
vaadu
The helmet is no more a hindrance than a seatbelt. If you choose not to wear a
helmet so be it, you are an adult. But don't expect me to pay for your medical
bills if you have a head injury while cycling and you were not wearing helmet.

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.

------
kyberias
Is she a nominee for the Darwin Award?

------
joshdance
TLDR - author doesn't like wearing helmets. Mentions one or two studies.
Mostly personal opinion piece with anecdotal evidence.

------
deedubaya
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

But I guess if you're a public health professional, you'd rather have the
pound of cure.

------
chalgo
I bet he drives without a seatbelt too.

------
wumbernang
Just watch fail army for ten minutes and play count the heads hitting the
ground. No thanks.

~~~
e40
I walk a lot on well traveled streets. I recently noticed an interesting
correlation: cyclists that wear helmets tend to follow the rules and ones that
do not tend to break them. Rules like stopping at a stop light, not riding on
the sidewalk, riding on the correct side of the street.

It's not a perfect correlation, but it's very high.

~~~
panglott
There are people who ride bikes because they love cycling (by choice) and
there are people who ride bikes because they can't afford other means of
transportion (by need). The latter tend not to wear helmets or follow traffic
rules, the former tend to do at least one of them.

Personally I almost never wear a helmet but scrupulously follow the rules:
they are the only thing that protects me.

~~~
wumbernang
It's not about you following the rules. If someone else doesn't, your head is
going to hit the ground.

~~~
panglott
I am very, very cautious. But bike helmets are simply not designed for high-
speed collisions.

~~~
wumbernang
You're an idiot.

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.

~~~
panglott
Ah, nothing is quite so good for your health as spending your time sitting in
a car.

------
jbrooksuk
This article is completely crazy.

I'd 100% prefer safety over fashion any day of the week. Have you been in a
car crash? Thank god for seat belts!

------
coreymgilmore
I completely disagree with this article. Yes, helmets may increase the risk of
other injuries (not inclusive of "I am hearing a helmet, I am a invincible"
injuries), but the benefit of reduced head injury vastly outweigh the increase
in other injuries.

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](http://www.mipshelmet.com/#what-
is-mips) (fyi, slow website)

~~~
emj
The greatest share of accidents are because of infrastructure, so put all your
effort into getting better road for foot and cycle traffic, it's more
effective to prevent accidents than injuries.

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..

