
To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets - hartleybrody
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/sunday-review/to-encourage-biking-cities-forget-about-helmets.html?_r=1
======
mikeryan
This article is great but it does itself a pretty big disservice by pretty
much ignoring a lot of why many of the European cities which have successful
programs are successful. Namely they have made significant investment into
infrastructure to make bicycling safer, many times prioritizing bike traffic
over auto traffic.

I ride quite a bit, live in Berkeley which has numerous "Bicycle Boulevards
[1]" and I'm pretty comfortable riding sans helmet. I happily rented a bike in
Amsterdam and never even considered using a helmet. Riding my bike to work in
SF (or to the articles point NYC)? You're damn straight I'm wearing a helmet.

[1] Bicycle Boulevards are streets (open to bikes and cars) that tend to run
parallel to primary traffic arteries that tend to have fewer Stop Signs and
every 3 or 4 blocks auto traffic isn't allowed through (usually big planters
in the middle of the street) so it keeps the auto traffic down.

~~~
rickmb
Why do people insist on pretending all of Europe is full of bike lanes? In
most inner cities there often isn't room for bike lanes, or the lane is just a
line on the asphalt.

I bike to work every day in Amsterdam, not a single bike lane on my route, I
have to share the road with cars, trams, buses, trucks and scooters. The only
traffic that actually poses a regular challenge because of their erratic
movements and tendency to step into the road without looking are American
tourists on foot...

Bike lines are convenient, but no more than that, and just as much of a red
herring as helmets when it comes to safety. Safety in urban traffic is a
people problem.

~~~
scoot
> The only traffic that actually poses a regular challenge because of their
> erratic movements and tendency to step into the road without looking are
> American tourists on foot...

Was that really necessary? The racial stereotype detracts from your your
argument, and frankly, one erratic pedestrian looks the same as another to a
fast moving cyclist, much as one erratic cyclist looks the same as another to
a driver.

~~~
dialtone
Maybe it's a stereotype and it definitely doesn't apply to everyone but I've
never seen so much confusion as on american roads. I'm from Italy and we're
routinely made fun of for the mess that is our traffic, the reality though is
that in Italy it is way more predictable and correct, blinkers are always used
for example, than in SF where I've lived for the past 5 years. Italy has very
few miles of bicycle lanes and yet most people don't use an helmet.

As I ride around town on a bike, there are all sorts of people that either
just don't look when crossing, or look at the sky when moving sideways on a
lane, or simply cross lanes reserved for bikes with the idea that pedestrians
always have precedence.

Many cyclists are also guilty of the same types of sins by stopping in the
middle of the street without so much as moving on the side or they are simply
not capable of riding a bike in a city or they just perform U turns without
looking at oncoming traffic. A friend of mine unfortunately died on a bike
here in SF, was it because she wasn't wearing an helmet? Nope, it was because
she turned left without looking and a food truck ran over her. She was the
first and only fatality for bike accident last year.

When I passed my Driving License test here in SF the examiner told me that
it's usually the americans that gave her the most troubles while europeans
tended to always pass at the first try.

So maybe it's a stereotype but it seems to me that the american government
went out of their way to try to protect pedestrians and defend cyclists with
the result that they now walk around without their brain sparing the necessary
few cycles to keep themselves safe on the street.

EDIT: A funny thing that I've seen happening only here are cars that go
through half of a cross-road and when they see you coming they just stop in
the middle occupying the whole lane and forcing you to try to stop in a short
space. If they went through instead of stopping there would have been no
issues. This happens to me so often that I can't help laughing at it every
time I see it.

~~~
scotty79
I've been to Florence for 6 months and traffic there is much more chaotic that
what I'm used to at home (Poland). But it's also much safer. People rarely use
turn signals (except buses and taxis) but that just makes everybody really
observe what the other drivers are doing. Generally divers seem to really pay
attention more to what's around them and adjust their behavior.

Another amazing things are bicycles and scooters navigating through narrow
streets filled with pedestrians apparently totally safely and without being
cursed at.

------
jdietrich
There is no evidence that segregated cycle facilities improve cyclist safety.
The majority of serious bicycle accidents are right-of-way disputes, occurring
at junctions. It is just as likely that segregated facilities could increase
the number of accidents, by making the movements of cyclists less predictable
to motorists when they merge onto general roads. It is known that sidewalk
cyclists are significantly more vulnerable than cyclists who use the roadway,
possibly because their movements are more difficult for motorists to predict.

The evidence for the efficacy of cycle helmets is extremely poor. There are a
great many people with strong opinions on helmets, but we simply do not have
the evidence and it is likely that they are a relatively unimportant factor.
While we know that helmets moderately reduce head injuries, we do not have
good evidence that they improve rider safety overall. We do have some evidence
of risk compensation, with both drivers and riders taking more risks when
helmets are used, based on the belief that the helmet provides safety. Head
injuries are an important class of injury, particularly in the most severe
incidents, but they represent only a minority of the serious injuries suffered
by cyclists.

The best available evidence shows that one factor completely overwhelms all
others - the number of cyclists on the road. Most Americans believe that the
numbers of cyclists will increase when action is taken to improve safety, but
in fact the inverse is true. An increase in the number of cyclists invariably
leads to a decrease in the number of accidents per km. That is the key message
and everything else is just noise. Meaningful improvements in cycle safety are
wholly reliant on increasing the number of cyclists and normalising cycling.
Motorists cannot be blamed for struggling to predict the movements of a type
of vehicle which they encounter rarely and do not understand.

~~~
lloeki
When one ton of metal hits you naked at 50kph (the legal speed limit in
traffic areas of cities here in France) the acceleration alone can tear or
damage your aorta with impressive odds (IIRC about 50% chance). A helmet is an
extremely marginal protection.

On a pure energy analysis, I'd rather have cyclists navigate with pedestrians
than with cars. The latter result in a basically non-elastic collision
transmitting most of the kinetic energy (1T@30~50kph) to the human body
(75kg@5~20kph) while the former is much, much more even.

I don't know the state of streets in the U.S but his is especially true in old
european cities, where streets are often narrow and there's simply not enough
room for both cyclists and cars on the road, especially when cycling is
thought of after the fact.

~~~
nl
Energy Analysis is pointless in this situation.

Mixing cyclists and pedestrians is _extremely_ dangerous in locations where
pedestrians aren't used to cyclists, because pedestrians have a tendency to
change directions very quickly.

~~~
arethuza
Having a bell on your cycle helps a lot with this - just give it a ring a few
times before overtaking people on a combined cycle/foot path and they will
generally (although not always) try and do the sensible thing.

In my own experience I was somewhat surprised to find that using a bell
actually works a lot better than saying "Excuse me please".

Also, some pedestrians will do intentionally stupid things when encountering a
cyclist on a cycle path, but fortunately them seem pretty rare and far less
common than cyclists who do stupid things.

~~~
sonnekki
I am generally a pedestrian, and in my experience when I am running on a paved
path and cyclists go around me, they sometimes say "on your left" which works
pretty well, but bells are great.

edit: doh!

~~~
bunderbunder
> I am generally a pedestrian, and in my experience when I am running on a
> paved path and cyclists go around me, they sometimes say "on your left"
> which works pretty well, but bells are great.

As a cyclist, I don't feel like it works very well. About 50% of the time the
pedestrian startles and dodges when they hear you say it. In about 50% of
those cases, the direction they dodge is to the left. And this is on the bike
path where pedestrians are presumably accustomed to and expecting bicycle
traffic.

I still do it for the sake of courtesy (and the hope that it will eventually
become a common and well-understood practice), but I don't rely on it and give
pedestrians as wide a berth as possible as well.

------
maurits
To Encourage Biking, Cities should do two things, and two things only:

\- Bike lanes. Physically separated bike lanes. This is not rocket science.
Trains have rails, airplanes have a nice bit of tarmac and bikes should have a
space tailored to their specific needs as well. Typically in the Netherlands,
bikes are banned from roads that are 50km/h and up. And they don't need to
battle it out with fast traffic, for there are bike lanes. And the limited
space in this country means that something truly has to give when adding them.

This how the dutch design an intersection. Note the absence of the ridiculous
ASL boxes, and most important, no crossing of lanes.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA>

\- Traffic laws that protect the weaker participant in traffic. Again, case in
point, the Netherlands where in a (civil) dispute after a bike-car accident
the burden of proof lies with the car. Not to mention the dreaded article 5
that broadly states that endangering traffic is a felony.

This helmet discussion imho is just a way to deviate from arguably more costly
and difficult choices when it comes to embracing the bicycle. And while we are
are at it. I am convinced that making helmets, 4 point harnesses and leathers
mandatory in cars for all occupants would save lives as well.

What perhaps surprises me the most in the car-bike entanglement is the
seemingly bad engineering. Cities like Londen, Geneva, all (claim) to cater
for bikes, have rental programs, paint the odd lane, but their intersections
tell a different story. In the information age, it just baffles me.

~~~
mmagin
I assume this doesn't allow cars to make a right turn during a red light.
That, and the long path for cyclists to make a left turn are probably what
would make a lot of people in the US resist this design.

(I think it looks like a good idea, however.)

~~~
mc32
We could try the box-style left turns that are deployed in Asia (s well as a
few places in the US).

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juNLGZrb5Ak>

~~~
graywh
Like a hook turn? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hook_turn>

~~~
mc32
Yep, that's one and the same. Thanks! I think those are the best solution for
intersections with semaphore lights. Stop signs might require something else.

------
bickfordb
Traumatic brain injury is real, completely life debilitating and can happen at
very slow speeds. Many parts of your brain are protected only by soft tissue.
Brains do not grow back like a broken arm/leg. Imagine permanently losing 100
IQ points by not paying attention for the wrong five seconds. Cyclists are
extremely vulnerable on streets shared by cars. Think slow moving ~<180lb two
wheeled bean bags vs. 1500+lb high speed steel boxes. It's pretty
irresponsible and absurd for the NYT to print articles like this. I suppose we
shouldn't use seatbelts or car bumpers either based on mean effects? Helmet
safety is totally cheap (basic, OK helmets are $20-30) and easy to use.
Although I would certainly like to make everyone "healthy" and build a cycling
utopia, the fitness argument this article makes is completely absurd. Obese,
unhealthy people casually cycling for ten or fifteen minutes across a city are
unlikely to receive any significantly health benefit (reach aerobic
thresholds) and are the the most likely to experience falls and collisions
since they are inexperienced.

~~~
konstruktor
Will you seriously argue that cycling to and from work 5x2x10 or 5x2x15
minutes has no health benefits? That's more _added_ time moving than many
sedentary people get at all. Reaching aerobic thresholds for over 20 minutes
is only one mechanism of how moving helps your body. Should I forget about
taking the stairs unless I work in a skyscraper? Should I ditch walking?

------
jmspring
Until there is a distinct change in driver attitudes, riding without a helmet
in most of the US is just nuts. Sure, there are places like Portland with
dedicated bike lanes and an overall emphasis on pro-bike culture, but it is a
rare spot.

In the bay area, there is a very large biking community -- road, mountain,
around town, etc. The problem is, the infrastructure isn't there for bikes
compared to Amsterdam. We have "bike lanes" that any vehicle can enter within,
say, about 150' to make a turn onto another street. Vehicles don't look for
bikes. The bike ways in Amsterdam, certain parts of Munich, and other towns
are often separate from the roads. When not, people expect them and are
courteous to them much more than here.

~~~
papalalu
the fact is that a helmet is not enough to guarantee your safety - if cycling
without one is "nuts", cycling with one is too.

~~~
ImprovedSilence
This really hits it. A helmet isn't some all protective force field. If a
truck is going to run you over, a helmet isn't going to save you.

I think helmets are associated with bikes, because before we used bikes to
commute, which involves simply riding about town, we used bikes to rip through
the woods inches away from trees and sharp rocks, or jumped them off of mounds
of dirt, or flung road bikes down mountain roads at 50per. (at least those
three seem to sum up my first 23 years of existence) I live in DC, got old,
but still NEVER commute with a helmet, and feel perfectly safe all the time.
In fact, tons more safe than when I try to get a training ride in. (for which
I wear a helmet)

~~~
BCM43
_This really hits it. A helmet isn't some all protective force field. If a
truck is going to run you over, a helmet isn't going to save you._

Actually:
[http://www.active.com/cycling/Articles/Bike_helmet_crushed__...](http://www.active.com/cycling/Articles/Bike_helmet_crushed__but_head_fine.htm)

But, in general your point is correct. There are some dramatic examples where
a bike helmet saved someones life, but statically it is unlikely.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Must be a luck-signularity around where I live. I know several people saved by
bike helmets, from small crashes of 2 bikes or bike vs immovable object. One
happened last Saturday on an asphalt bike trail with no obstruction - the
young man just went down and landed on his head. Busted his helmet all to
hell. Got up and got back on his bike.

Lots of statistics thrown around here, and my anecdotes are not statistics,
but they are a heck of a lot closer to actionable information that hot air. As
for me, I don't regard a helmet as making bicycling seem dangerous, any more
than wearing a raincoat makes walking outside seem dangerous. Its just part of
my equipment, like the water bottle.

------
willholloway
Cycling is extremely appealing if you separate roads for cars from roads for
bikes. Boulder is a city that gets this right. As a cyclist in Boulder, you
can get almost anywhere in town with minimal riding on a normal street. The
network of bike/pedestrian paths is so well integrated into the city.

I loved biking everywhere in Boulder. In Austin or New York I would rather
walk and take public transit. NYC and the Connecticut shoreline are keeping me
enthralled for now but I will move back to Boulder for the bike paths (and the
general paradise vibe) at some point.

Nostalgia is taking hold now. Warm memories of a satisfied ride with a Flat
Iron mountain backdrop. In my backpack was just a modest check, but it was a
check for the sale of my first venture, and we were happy, and living in
Boulder and the future was ours for the taking...

~~~
jmanamj
As a still somewhat new Boulder resident, I agree with this. I lived here for
a year as a freshman and only saw the city by bus. I came back recently owning
a car, and saw more of the town, but it was a bit difficult to get around in
all the traffic.

Then I got a bike, and the valley opened up to me. I practically had to
relearn my way around using the extensive network of bike lanes and bike
paths, but I feel a lot more freedom of movement. I was worried about safety
at first, but now I am more comfortable riding than driving.

I know I'm spoiled by this city though. The ride from South Boulder to the
shopping district can take you along a gorgeous paved path following a stream
under a canopy of trees between suburb neighborhoods. I never feel a need for
a helmet.

Downtown boulder has a bike sharing program, but I don't know how much use it
gets since practically the whole town rides.

------
brey
relevant study from the UK: <http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1231.html>

"HEAT suggests that a law making helmets compulsory for cyclists may result in
an overall increase in 253 premature deaths – 265 extra deaths from reduced
cycling less 12 deaths saved among the reduced pool of cyclists receiving
fatal head injuries."

"The overall cost of a law would be between £ 304 million and £ 415 million
per year. In addition, there would be a one-off cost to the remaining cyclists
of £ 180 million to equip them with helmets"

------
brc
So many people have turned this into a 'are helmets safe or not'.

That's really arguing the wrong point - of course helmets improve
survivability of a bicycle accident.

The point here is, for bike-sharing programs, should helmet use become
mandatory?

The answer should be : no.

Ultimately few people are going to climb on a bike and think it is safe riding
without a helmet. They will know that they are doing a dangerous thing.

The idea with bike-share programs is to get people using shared bikes to move
around a city instead of either public transport or private cars. If carrying
your own helmet (or using a publicly shared-helmet) is a requirement, fewer
people are going to use the bike-sharing.

This is a simple argument about the increased use of bike sharing programs
against the increased number of people with head injuries from that bike
sharing program. I don't know what those numbers are, but it would mean higher
head injuries but also higher bicycle use. The number of head injuries can
only be measured by the set of people who chose to ride the bike without a
helmet, who had an accident and hit their head. Some people (regular users,
for example) would choose to still use helmets when riding bike sharing, so
it's not like removing the law will mean nobody wears a helmet anymore. At the
margin there will be more injuries, but also more bike-miles ridden. It's up
to people to make a decision which is more desirable.

It might sound like a tough decision, but really, this type of decision is
everywhere. Speed limits are set with the balance of people who will be
injured or killed in more serious accidents, balanced with the ability for
more people to get to their destination more quickly.

------
dbreunig
This article is asinine.

Not once does the "journalist" mention the absurd price of NYC's program (up
to $77 for 4 hours) vs. the $2 she pays in Paris.

Further, let's not forget the safer bike lanes or areas in European cities.
Getting hit while riding in NYC is not an 'if', it's a 'when.' The number of
cycling deaths here are absurd. I'd hate to see the figures if we actively
discouraged helmet use.

The NYT should be embarrassed they ran this piece.

~~~
jessriedel
That's a very deceptive description of the pricing. In particular, you can't
take a 4 hour ride in Paris for $2 either. A quick glance at the pricing
suggests the NY system is about 2-3 times more expensive (presumably because
it isn't as heavily subsidized).

~~~
pingou
You can take a 4 hour ride in Paris for 2$. One day ticket is 1,70 €, first 30
minutes are free, you have to pay if your trip is more than 30 minutes or you
can just take another bike for free, that will reset the countdown. Not really
handy but most trips are < 30 minutes. By the way the annual fee for unlimited
30 minutes rides is only 29 € Source : velib user here.

~~~
jessriedel
But that's how the NYC system is too. You get some low rate for the day and as
many 30 minute rides as you want. dbreunig was quoting some ridiculously high
number for a 4 hour NYC ride that only applies if you keep the same bike out
the whole time.

------
davidjohnstone
As a keen cyclist (I'm building <http://www.cyclinganalytics.com/>), I wish we
didn't have mandatory helmet laws, but there are a lot of points on both sides
of the argument worth pondering.

* Making helmets mandatory makes cycling look dangerous. What other things do you wear a helmet while doing? Between this, ruining peoples' hair, not looking as chic, and the inconvenience of it, helmets discourage people from cycling.

* Although it is possible to get seriously injured on a bicycle, the research that I've seen suggests that the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risk of injury considerably (even when not wearing helmets), so, from a public health point of view, it makes sense to encourage cycling, and even cycling without wearing a helmet.

* Therefore, it seems that helmets directly save lives (in crashes, although, for my own anecdotal evidence, they haven't helped me in any of the crashes I've had), but they cost lives indirectly by discouraging people from cycling in the first place. This makes it harder to sell.

* Laws are not about making things as safe as humanly possible. It would save more lives to have people in cars wearing helmets, but we don't do that (yes, I know more people travel by car). For that matter, it's legal to drive cars that would be considered death-traps by modern safety standards. Even if helmet laws did save lives, that doesn't automatically mean they should become laws.

* The drivers in different countries have different attitudes towards cyclists. In Australia (and probably America), we have a strong driving culture, and a very "us vs. them" view of the whole thing. Earlier this year, Shane Warne (one of the most famous Australian sportsmen of the last decade) had an altercation with a cyclist on a busy Melbourne road which led him to comment on Twitter about how cyclists should pay registration and show license plates. Views like that are very common amongst the general public, and often stem from the view that "bikes are okay for a gentle Sunday ride with the family to the park, but they shouldn't be used as serious transportation devices". Compare that with the attitude of the average driver in many European countries (from what I've heard), and you might be able to make a case that we aren't ready for scrapping mandatory helmet laws, because cycling really is more dangerous.

~~~
nl
<http://www.cyclinganalytics.com/> looks interesting.

FYI .tcx files exported from Garmin Connect seem to fail (.fit files are ok).

~~~
davidjohnstone
Thanks. I just fixed the TCX parsing issue.

------
flexie
One thing to remember is that Copenhagen had many bikers before it had many
bike lanes. Bike lanes on the main traffic arteries of Copenhagen is pretty
much a thing of the last 10-15 years or so. Before that bikers in central
Copenhagen rode their bikes on the streets (with a few exceptions).

Now, many of the suburbs of Copenhagen were designed with biking in mind and
have had extensive networks of bike lanes for the last 30-40 years. Of course,
people moving from there and into Copenhagen took their biking habits with
them.

Copenhagen has other incentives that makes biking the choice: Huge taxes on
cars (first a 25 percent VAT, then 105 percent fee for the first roughly
14,000 dollars of the value of the car (incl. the VAT), then 180 percent on
the exceeding value of the car), huge taxes on gasoline (the gasoline tax
alone is around 3.5 dollars per gallon, then there is the 25 percent VAT,
bringing the total price per gallon up around 8 dollars). Further, in many
parts of Copenhagen the daily fee for parking exceeds 20 dollars.

Also, Copenhagen is relatively dense, compared to many American cities, and
many families living in the suburbs have at least one parent working locally
(typically in public sector jobs such as teaching, day care, elderly care, the
local municipality etc.). Biking is only a realistic means of transportation
if distances are small. It may work for New York City one day, but probably
not for Houston or LA...

------
ams6110
As a kid in the 1970s, I rode my bike everywhere, never wore a helmet (nobody
did), and here I am today. Of course helmets can help avoid head injury, not
riding bikes probably helps even more. I mean where do you draw the line on
the fear vs. the actual chance of something happening.

On the subject of community shared bicycles, our town tried that about 10
years ago, all the bicycles were stolen within the first month (or maybe it
was the first week) and it basically died at that point.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
Survivor bias, perhaps? All those kids that died in the 70's from no helmets,
falling out of pickups and going through the windshield of cars[1] aren't
really here to say "I didn't make it."

I think we in the US tend to make things more scary than they really are in
our efforts to protect ourselves from everything. However, I think the worst
argument we can make is "I survived, so it is OK." There are good arguments
that can be made for not wearing helmets, like how valuable it is to just get
off your butt.

1\. I am one of those kids (well, not the dead part). I managed to make it
between the dash board and the solid metal mirror of a Volkswagon beetle from
the back seat when I was four years old. A slightly different set of
conditions would have had my skull turned inside out.

------
Cbasedlifeform
Absolutely... Just visit Amsterdam, Copenhagen, or Paris and see all the
cyclists... What a joy. Instead of helmets the US cities should try to
implement cycling lanes for a change.

~~~
pan69
The difference is of course that in those European cities, cyclists are part
of the expected traffic and are catered for with bike lanes etc.

Being originally from The Netherlands, I always used to ride my bike,
literally everywhere. I've been living in Sydney/Australia for the past 7
years and the bike riding culture seems very similar to that of the US. Loads
of sporty mountain bikes and everyone forced to wear helmets. It's not so much
the gear that is the issue of course but the fact that e.g. a city like Sydney
(and I guess the same thing counts for many cities in the US) doesn't cater to
cyclists at all. No bike lanes (maybe a handful) and in general very
dangerous. Not to mention the steep bloody hills in this place!

------
Tiktaalik
Folks in the US need to start demanding bike lanes from their elected
officials. They're super cheap to build and so it's more of an issue of simply
having the political will to remove a lane of traffic from exclusive car use.

Such political bravery can pay off. Vancouver BC's Gregor Robertson (and his
councillor slate) has been elected twice with strong mandates in large part
because of his commitment to bike lanes.

~~~
tzs
There's actually some organized opposition to bike lanes in the US, from some
of the more conspiracy theory oriented members of the Tea Party and the
Libertarians. They think bike lanes are part of the UN's "Agenda 21", which
they see as a nefarious plot to take away our sovereignty.

Bike lanes, for example, according to these people encourage people to bike
more, which encourages higher density cities (as people want to be within bike
range of work). Having us packed tighter into cities will make it easier for
the UN troops to round is up and take away our guns and then our property.

These people tend to be politically active, and have turned up in enough
numbers at some city councils where bike lanes were being considered to shout
down those in favor or bike lanes, and scare the politicians into thinking
bike lanes are actually controversial among the general electorate.

The Republican Party is encouraging this stuff. They made opposition to Agenda
21 an official part of their party platform. They didn't mention any
particular things, like bike lanes, put simply mentioning Agenda 21 is going
to encourage the conspiracy nuts.

Plenty of amusing but frightening on this in Goole, if you are curious. Here's
a good start: [http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/06/inside-
agend...](http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/06/inside-
agenda-21-international-tyranny-bike-lanes/53844/)

~~~
gosu
To be fair, what you've just proposed is also a conspiracy theory.

~~~
tzs
How so?

------
Pkeod
Related TED talk "Why We Shouldn't Bike with a Helmet":
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY>

~~~
neves
It is a TEDx talk.

------
diego
This article is rampant with dishonest usage of statistics and anecdotes:

 _“Statistically, if we wear helmets for cycling, maybe we should wear helmets
when we climb ladders or get into a bath, because there are lots more injuries
during those activities.”_

Ok, but how about the severity of the injuries? This is like saying that most
car collisions in the US happen in parking lots. Also, there are lots more
injuries per instance, or absolute numbers?

 _"The European Cyclists’ Federation says that bicyclists in its domain have
the same risk of serious injury as pedestrians per mile traveled."_

Of course, but bicyclists travel many more miles. That's the point of riding a
bicycle. It would be more fair to compare against people who ride buses.

 _“Nobody wears helmets, and bicycling is regarded as a completely normal,
safe activity. You never hear that ‘helmet saved my life’ thing.”_

Of course not. If you don't wear a helmet and you have a fatal accident in
which a helmet could have saved your life, you're dead. The dead don't speak.

EDIT: who downvoted my comment and why? I'm just stating obvious flaws in the
article. Answer instead of downvoting, please.

~~~
Volpe
So you've rallied against the articles points from a logical point of view.

But do you have any evidence that helmet use decreases (severity of) injury?

From the evidence I've seen, requiring helmets lowers cycle usage, which in
turn lowers the number (total, not per capita) of injuries, which politicians
see as a 'win'.

~~~
ChrisClark
Well, for one thing. My dad would be dead if it wasn't for his bike helmet.
That's good enough for me to wear one. It's anecdotal, but it's very personal,
so I'm probably not going to change my mind.

What's cool is the helmet company wanted his helmet back so they could study
it.

------
kleiba
_A two-year-old bike-sharing program in Melbourne, Australia — where helmet
use in mandatory — has only about 150 rides a day, despite the fact that
Melbourne is flat, with broad roads and a temperate climate. On the other
hand, helmet-lax Dublin — cold, cobbled and hilly — has more than 5,000 daily
rides in its young bike-sharing scheme._

As for the Melbourne part of that sentence: the city is spread out vastly over
8,694 km² (acc. to Wikipedia). Some of my co-workers ride their bikes to work,
but unless you happen to live in a close-by suburb, you cannot really get
anywhere by bike. Besides, Melbourne really is a car city, and made to be one,
with 8-lane highways cutting through its geography. There are a few bike
lanes, but parking is permitted on them, so in practice they don't exist.

But from all that you cannot deduce that Melburnians are fat and lazy people
at the risk of a heart disease. In fact, like most Australians, people here
love sport. Hardly ever seen so many joggers ever before. And yet there's
rumour that people South of the Yarra river, that divides the city from East
to West, run while people North of it ride bikes.

I guess they don't participate in the bike sharing program because if you ride
a bike on a regular basis, you own one.

------
carlob
There is an association in France that is lobbying against helmets for bike
commuters (and advocating them for competitive cyclist) and they have
collected a pretty large amount of data on the issue:

<http://www.fubicy.org/spip.php?article191>

it turns out that head injuries are not very common when riding at slow speed.
An helmet would actually be more useful for a pedestrian.

------
Aardwolf
I've ridden bike thousands of times. And I've never worn, owned, or even
touched a helmet. Like nobody else my age ever does in my country. It started
to become a trend to let children wear a helmet here since the last 5 years or
so though, and of course those coureurs with their flashy bicycle clothing
have been doing it forever already...

------
rayiner
What's so wrong with helmets?

~~~
cshesse
I think we can solve this with a bulleted list:

    
    
      * Scare people off from using bikes
      * Uncomfortable
      * Supply excuse to not make biking safer
      * Expensive
      * Don't actually make you any safer

~~~
rayiner
The first point just begs the question. The third one is questionable at best.
The last two are just incorrect.

I think the "no helmet" thing is just a weird bit of biker culture that's
going to eventually die out, much like smoker culture is dying out in the US.

~~~
jarek
> I think the "no helmet" thing is just a weird bit of biker culture that's
> going to eventually die out, much like smoker culture is dying out in the
> US.

Is this a US-only claim, or do you reckon people in Amsterdam and Copenhagen
will see your light and start wearing helmets?

------
jey
It's apparently not very clear whether bike helmets increase or decrease biker
safety: [http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/09/bike-helmet-
doubts.htm...](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/09/bike-helmet-doubts.html)

~~~
zobzu
every of these articles manipulate the data to make you believe a simple fact
"helmet or no helmet is the same".

Just use common sense instead (yeah I know it's so freaking hard). If you're
going to ride on a safe road, bike path, etc, like many people do, helmet or
no helmet makes an insignificant difference.

If you're going to ride in traffic, in SF, NYC or Paris, that is where you
want to wear one. If you're going to go down hill in the forest at extremely
high speeds (ie: you're doing competition), you're going to wear a helmet.
Heck those guy don't need to be told, they know the risk if they don't.

That's all there is.

~~~
Someone
_"Heck those guy don't need to be told, they know the risk if they don't."_

If only:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Required_helmet_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Required_helmet_use_in_cycling_sport).
I think culture in the peloton has changed a bit, though.

~~~
zobzu
Hum right, I was thinking of the mountain bike kind of descent, not the road
riders. Although since the helmet helps with drag, I guess most wear it there
now.

------
enraged_camel
As someone who commutes to work via bike 2-3 times a week, the thing I would
appreciate the most would be if highways had walled-off bike lanes. The reason
I say this is because surface streets having bike lanes is not enough. The
thing with highways is that they are able to run diagonally to the surface
streets, which often times reduces distances drastically. With bike lanes
though, often times I feel like I'm _zig-zagging_ to get from point A to point
B, which feels terribly inefficient.

------
blaze33
As a daily Vélib' user from day one, I'll add some insights a one-time user
may have missed:

* It's often the fastest way to get to another point less than ~5km away.

* You quickly notice how most of the traffic regulation is only designed for cars.

* You have a much better visibility of the traffic (with a correctly adjusted saddle) than a car driver.

* Maneuverability and standing start acceleration (the first seconds) are also way above the average car, so if you're used to it, you'll easily make your way in the congested traffic.

* It's common practice to run red lights or stop signs (hence the first point). There's some debate about allowing the "turn right" but we're still waiting. Still, we're not crazy but you quickly notice it makes no sense at all to stop & start a 20kg bike every 100 meters at a pedestrian crossing with obviously no pedestrians waiting or at road junction with no incoming traffic.

* Most bike lanes are overrun by clueless pedestrians.

* European cities like Paris predate cars and are more dense with smaller streets which feel much safer than higway-like american streets.

Crossing the place de l'étoile ain't for every vélib user -
<http://youtu.be/lay8aZlsbB0> \- but it's funny to do it.

------
zobzu
So i had one single bike accident in my life so far.

Happened to be in a urban area. Happened that a car cut the way and i hit it,
and the ground with the head. I have a permanent scar (its not so bad) on the
side of my face.

Without helmet it'd have something much worse (yeah i broke other body parts,
the hit was rather violent - i can avoid a car going at regular speed, but if
i'm going fast _and_ the car is speeding, sometimes it's though luck). So you
know what? As long as I'm not going down at 60mph in the forest I don't care
if I've a helmet or not. Ground is soft, and I'm probably not gonna fall. The
chance to hurt my head is low, and the skull is strong.

Now in a urban area, 60mph isn't unheard of. Specially from cars, even if
you're at "only" 20mph on the bike. Thats _exactly_ where a helmet is a good
idea.

For sure I'm ok with people choosing to wear a helmet or not (as long as if a
biker gets hurt by it's own fault, the car driver doesn't have to pay for it,
which I fear ain't the case in the US). But I don't think that's a very good
idea in a urban environment.

You'd need bike-only lanes that are fully respected, proper visibility, etc.
That's not the case in Paris (velib) and that's not the case in the US. In
both cities bikers also pass at red light, in both cities non-bicycles use the
bicycle lane (in Paris scooters take it all day long to avoid traffic, at high
speed). In some other EU countries, or some other French cities it's (much)
better than in Paris, though, safety-wise.

Also in the EU (Minus Paris and probably a few other big cities), cars will
not attempt to kill bikes if there's no bike lane, and bikes will generally
respect the road signs. Makes a world of a difference.

~~~
mikeash
This would be much more compelling if you could bring some statistics into the
argument rather than tell a personal story and then, basically, guess.

~~~
zobzu
Statistic of how many head injuries you get if your head is smashed against a
car door or the ground at high speed?

I suggest you make the experiment, because, I can only guess it hurts every
time, and uhm, that's not backed by any statistic.

\--

I'm not allowed to reply because this has been down-voted, so i'll reply here:

the study you linked is a net result of people NOT riding bicycles because
they don't want to ride if they have to wear a helmet. Thus they die "faster"
from lack of exercising. That's twisted crap, IMO. It doesn't mean not wearing
a helmet is safer. It means: NOT DOING EXERCISE IS UNHEALTHY. That's a very
different thing. Note that everyone else "against helmets" in the HN threads
linked to similar stats (!)

As I wrote, I'm all for people being allowed to wear one, or not wear one. But
at the end of the day, it's safer to wear one in many environments such as
SF/NYC/Paris (yes, Paris too It's not like Amsterdam, at all.).

But since you like stats, here are stats, that helmets protected 85% of
helmet-wearing riders, as this study does not compare to "people who wouldn't
ride because the think a helmet is ugly":

[http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198905253202101?HIT...](http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198905253202101?HITS=20&hits=20&FIRSTINDEX=0&searchid=1004370623714_124372&stored_search=&tdate=10%2F31%2F1990&author1=Thompson&journalcode=nejm&RESULTFORMAT=&fdate=1%2F1%2F1988&sortspec=PUBDATE_SORTDATE+desc+Score+desc&titleabstract=Bicycle&maxtoshow=)

~~~
mikeash
I'm incredibly disappointed with the quality of conversation in this thread. I
expected a nice conversation about risks versus benefits. Instead, I see a
bunch of people arguing with anecdotes and insults, and turning on anyone who
makes even the slightest attempt to look at the situation rationally.

~~~
zobzu
Given how many messages you sent with the same tone as when you replied to me,
I am not surprised you feel that way.

I did give you the link you asked for and full explanation, but instead of
discussing those, you're deriving the discussion with complains, which IMO,
aren't valid. I'm guessing, and I might be wrong, but I'm guessing, it's
partially because you do not accept my point of view as even possible.

I don't see any insult in my messages, by the way. Oh and since I've been
upvoted back, I can actually reply now. Yay.

------
b3b0p
I recently moved to Tulsa, OK. I bought a condo on Riverside Drive because the
area, atmosphere, people, places, etc. all reminded me of being in Palo Alto
to a degree.

Every day, since I got here, I have been biking to work. However, I would
still get things like groceries and little trinkets with my car.

Go to last Friday/Saturday (sometime during the night or early morning). I
went outside, to get in my car, to go visit my friends about 75 miles away in
another city (Stillwater, OK).

My car was gone.

I immediately called the police and my insurance provider (I have full
coverage). The insurance company gave me a rental and is processing my claim
right now. I have not used the rental car yet. It's still at the rental
company. They said to call whenever I'm ready to pick it up. I ended up biking
to get my groceries and instead of drudging it like I thought. I enjoy it and
look forward to 30-60 minutes I nonchalantly bike down Riverside Drive on the
bike path to the store and back every day. I wonder what Winters will be like
now? I'll replace the car if and when insurance finishes with my claim.

For the Midwest, the area of Tulsa that I live in it is extremely bike
friendly. Relatively anyway.

Edit: Grammar, clarity.

------
pmccool
My experience of the bike-hire scheme in Brisbane (Australia) is that helmet
laws are _a_ problem, but not _the_ problem. The legal requirement to wear a
helmet is a bit tiresome, and the communal helmets they supply to get around
it are a figleaf at best, but helmet law or no, riding a bicycle in Brisbane
is harder than it has to be.

The problem, as others have pointed out, is road design and driver attitudes.
Going any significant distance involves either riding (legally) on footpaths,
or riding in traffic. There's a nice bicycle path along the river, plus some
pictures of bikes in doorzones. That's about it for central Brisbane. It's not
_that_ hilly but it's definitely not flat. I don't mind riding in traffic, but
I say that as a bike racer (albeit an old, fat bike racer) who used to be a
courier. Driver attitudes, well, 95% of them are fine, maybe more. There's a
small minority who are deranged and vicious and it's socially acceptable to
behave that way in a car. It's all do-able, but it needs some unintuitive
techniques (ride in the _middle_ of the road in some situations, for example)
and, ideally, a bit of fitness. I don't know as I'd recommend it to neophytes.

That helmet laws are the problem is an appealing conclusion, because it's a
quick fix: repeal the helmet law. Changing infrastructure OTOH is hard and
changing attitudes in harder still. I'd like it to be as simple as repealing a
law, especially one where the benefits are so unclear. I just don't think it
is.

In terms of the popularity of the bike hire scheme, I can only say that there
are a couple of dozen hire bikes out the front of my workplace at the start of
the day and it's down to a couple by day's end. I'm not aware of the official
figures, but my highly subjective impression is that they're getting used more
than when it started. A less convoluted signup process probably has something
to do with it, plus the fact that it's a pleasant time of year to cycle.

------
scotty79
I think when assessing personal risks people often don't realize that they
have to 1/1000 or higher risk of dying next year of whatever.

Yes. Making yourself a bit safer is good if it doesn't bother you much but you
should realize that life is just slow decay in hazardous environment and you
have to balance your risks with what you want to do during your life and with
your convenience.

As for helmets. Drivers tend to pass closer to bikers that wear helmets (UK
study) and unsurprisingly bikers that wear helmets have more accidents.
Success stories that tell "helmet saved my life after being hit by a car" are
often failure stories because of your helmet you and the guy that hit you felt
confident enough to share same space.

I never wore a bike helmet although if I owned one I'd probably wear it as
additional safeguard. Even if I did I would relay mostly on sharing space with
pedestrians not cars wherever possible.

------
oofabz
Helmets are important for inexperienced cyclists and mountain biking, because
you have a high risk of falling. But riding around town is a low risk activity
and a helmet is unnecessary. We need to learn to distinguish between these
scenarios instead of lumping all cyclists into one group.

------
baddox
My experiences growing up in the USA contradict the author's sentiment that
helmet-wearing is taken as a given and that there's social stigma against
going helmetless. As a kid, my parents had me wear a helmet, but once I was
comfortable riding, the helmet was never an issue. The only people I knew that
wore helmets were those who regularly commuted on their bikes (and thus rode
on busier and faster roads). This was in my small hometown (12k people) in
Missouri, but the experience continued in my larger college town (100k
people). A lot of students biked to, from, and around campus, not to mention
riding downtown for the nightlife. Again, helmets were the exception, not the
rule.

------
jusben1369
I ride 100 miles a week or so for fitness. Always wear a helmut. I recently
moved to a new town. It has a college nearby (US) and was immediately struck
by how many 20 somethings weren't wearing helmuts. It irritated me at first.
Then I realized something else. Just how many people were riding period. And
how free and happy they look riding around with the wind in their hair.

I've really come around over two years and now don't wear one when I ride
recreationally. I'm sure it's riskier than not but nearly all physical
activity is riskier than sitting on a couch - in the short run.

------
rheide
The target audience may be slightly different. In London, the people I see
wearing helmets while cycling tend to be that particular young male
demographic, whereas people partaking in the bicycle sharing program tend to
be commuters. As such, the speed at which both travel, and the roads that they
take, tend to be completely different. If you're doing a high-speed bicycle-
only commute into Central London then I'd say wear a helmet, but if you're
doing a short-distance trip on a shared bike, there's really no need since
you'll be travelling slower anyway.

------
oneandoneis2
Helmets aren't as cut-and-dried as even this article makes out: Studies have
shown that wearing a helmet increases your chance of having an accident in the
first place:

[http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2006-09/uob-
wah091106....](http://psychcentral.com/news/archives/2006-09/uob-
wah091106.html)

So you may improve your chances of not getting injured, but you also increase
your chances of an accident in the first place.

It's nice to think it's as simple as "X is safer than Y" but matters are
rarely that cut & dried..

------
stevewilhelm
In California, I would never ride a bike or ski without a helmet. The roads
and slopes are now too crowded with people not paying attention to their
surroundings.

Somehow, the skiing (and boarding) industry has made helmets a fashion
statement. Almost everyone wears one.

The cycling industry just needs to make wearing a helmet cool.

------
nfarring
A friend of mine died a couple years ago from a bicycle accident with a car.
He suffered a head injury and was not wearing a helmet. There is no logical
argument that would ever make me support riding without a helmet, despite how
much fun it is.

------
headShrinker
while, I totally agree with jdietrich's fact based approach to the discussion,
I have ton's of personal experience in the area. Helmets were optional for me
growing up, though I often deferred to wear one riding on city streets, racing
mountain/XC, riding downhill in Vail and the Olympic Mountains, and riding
biketrials extensively. Separately, but also connected had many years of
interstate motorcycle riding experience.

I commute by bicycle to work in NYC daily. I feel safer riding here than any
other city I have ridden in, because the traffic knows how to deal with
bicyclists. (This backs jdietrich's claim that 'more cyclist on the road' ==
'safer riding conditions for cyclists in traffic'.) Personally, bicycle
dedicated lanes and separate bike lanes, increase my already overwhelming
comfort riding in this city, because they eliminate a major variable that is
out of my control, being hit from behind.

I have been in dozens of really bad crashes on trails, closed courses and even
streets, and only hit my head once. It is my experience that while a helmet
won't save you from a car going 50mph, you stand a better chance of surviving
when your head makes a 'light tap' on the pavement below you. That one time I
hit my head is when I realized the human skull moving at _any_ speed is the
equivalent of cantaloupe; soft and rip, waiting to be cracked open to reveal
it's juicy insides. From that point forth, I unconditionally wear a helmet.
There is no question bicyclist wearing helmets in particular types of
collisions will fair better than their helmet-less counter part. Also I have
done some really crazy stupid stuff on a bike, but I am not more inclined to
do so with a helmet on versus off. In fact, I usually forget I have it on at
all. I should add, no amount of safety gear will save you if you or someone
else who makes contact with you does something really stupid.

<http://www.helmets.org/stats.htm>

Also, there is also no question motorcyclists fair better with a helmet.

TL;DR I don't ride more boldly with a helmet on. Helmets are a safer way to
ride, and cities with lots of bicyclist are better at dealing with cyclist in
traffic.

------
conradfr
I, for one, would like at least the possibility to get a helmet when short-
renting a Velib in Paris, even if I would probably not wear it.

Oh and using headphones on bike should be forbidden (if it's already the case,
people do not seem to know or care).

------
kmrjohnson
I am a physician, and was surprised by the NY Times article. Here is a review
of older literature you might find helpful:

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=10796827>

------
malandrew
What would make sense is making helmets mandatory for road bikes, cyclocross
bikes, mountain bikes and touring bikes. All other bikes aren't really
designed for speed or unsafe maneuvers and therefore shouldn't require
helmets.

~~~
hxc
This all the way.

------
jcfrei
good points raised in there, instead of promoting the use of helmets city
officials should establish more lanes for cyclists. and just on a side note,
taking the bike to work everyday is arguably the best workout available.

------
tylermenezes
Nice to see some data-driven policy making!

------
corporalagumbo
I have a strong opinion on this issue: I see mandatory helmet laws as an
example of democratic discrimination. Helmet legislation is driven and either
directly or tacitly supported/ignored by non-cyclist politicians and voters,
with little if any polling of cyclist preferences. While mandatory helmet laws
are widely disliked by cyclists, their minority position makes resistance
difficult. And your average car-driving helmet-law-supporting/ignoring citizen
is dismissive of the right to autonomy of cyclists. As a counterexample, there
are many things that could be done to improve the safety of cars - helmets,
four-point harnesses, backwards-facing seats, engine speed-limiters, alcohol-
sensing engine locks, and of course (possible soon) a mandatory full switch to
self-driving cars. However, any attempts to introduce such sensible measures
will be shot down immediately by a ferocious counter-reaction. The basic logic
is that car drivers will not accept intrusive safety measures simply because
a) they do not feel or wish to be made to feel unsafe (regardless of
statistics) and b) they do not wish to compromise their "feeling of driving."
But car drivers are perfectly happy dictating to cyclists that they have no
choice in accepting an intrusive safety measure which compromises their
"feeling of riding" - anyone who has tried it knows that biking is not biking
without the feeling of wind blowing through your hair. It sounds trivial but
it makes a massive difference - the typical reaction of car drivers to this
point is to snort and say "yeah right" - the hypocrisy is revealed if you make
any suggestions about implementing the previous safety measures.

This democratic bullying seems to go hand in hand with a more nasty attitude
of drivers to cyclists in general. In my town in New Zealand, if I ride
without a helmet for even a short distance I can expect to be verbally abused
by car-driving members of the public. In particular, young men will shout
random abuse at me - that's not all that bad, the worst is older baby boomer
generation men, who will actually slow down beside me and, bristling with
anger, yell at me asking where my helmet is. These reactions confuse me. I do
not roam around on my bike looking for drivers not wearing seatbelts and try
and ride up to them and hammer their windows and yell abuse. Even if this was
possible, I wouldn't have any interest in doing so. If you want to wear a
seatbelt or not is up to you. You can do so with full knowledge of the risks
of a police fine or injury in an accident if you wish. Similarly, why should
drivers feel upset and compelled to accost me if I choose not to wear a
helmet? I do so in the full knowledge of the risk of a police fine and an
injury in an accident. That is my business, so why do they feel the need to
confront me? And why do my personal choices seem to make them so angry?

The answer is simple. Our road culture is aggressive, impatient and me vs.
them. I am sure the drivers in my town are by no means the worst in the world,
but still, there is an atmosphere of confrontation that permeates driving
here. People are in a hurry to get where they are going, and everyone else on
the roads is an enemy. Unsurprisingly men are the worst offenders. And
cyclists are the easiest targets: fragile, wobbly, slow, unable to protect
themselves, uninsulated from abuse, unable to outmaneuever or escape an angry
car-driver, above all out of place, they become a focal point, the easy
targets, for all the aggression of an aggressive road culture. The helmet law
is in my mind just a manifestation of this power-imbalance and a focus for the
tension it generates. It does not surprise me that most helmet laws seem to
have arisen as urbanisation and car use and speeds intensified, i.e. as the
dominance of a break-neck pace car culture became cemented. Instead of trying
to soften road culture and build cities which work for all different modes of
transport, we have a helmet law and some glass and gravel-strewn cycleways
wedged between parked cars and roaring traffic flows. How anyone would feel
comfortable and happy cycling in this environment is anyone's guess, but what
is for sure is that the helmet law at best accomplishes little to nothing and
at worst is a dangerous red herring, distracting energy and attention from
addressing much harder and more critical problems of culture and
infrastructure.

I have nothing against helmets as safety devices and I think they should be
worn. However I think making it a law, and making adult cyclists who wish to
ride bare-headed the free subject of assault from members of the public (not
to mention the police) accomplishes nothing more than aggravating a combative
cyclists vs car-driver culture.

