
Should bike helmets be compulsory? Lessons from Seattle and Amsterdam - chowyuncat
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/oct/12/bike-helmets-compulsory-seattle-amsterdam-cycling-safety
======
theophrastus
Many times I've seen Seattle compared to Amsterdam, particularly on the topic
of bikes. One simple distinction between the two most often overlooked is
topography. Amsterdam is flat; it's proudly engineered out of the lowlands,
and it has canals to prove its level. Seattle is quite hilly, and has a major
freeway and an interstate which run through its middle, both overburdened with
traffic. Consequently one is nigh perfect for the bicyclist, and the other is
at best a significant challenge.

~~~
bch
> has a major freeway and an interstate which run through its middle...

I'm not sure what this means... are you talking I5 and 99 ? There are
underpasses and overpasses for those.

~~~
theophrastus
Of course there are limited means to get around, over, and under, those very
large sources and attractors of car traffic; in a notably limited space. So
attempting coexistence between those and bicyclists is a challenge. That was
my only (apparently) poorly expressed point.

------
paulddraper
Surprisingly, there are very few studies on the actual effectiveness of
bicycle helmets. Lots of times, articles will just say "X% of people that are
injured aren't wearing a helmet". Which of course is next to worthless.

~~~
roel_v
And most studies that _have_ been done, are done by people from the medical
field, who are at best only qualified to comment on a slight portion of the
issue. Their conclusion is always 'if you fall sideways on a curb without a
helmet, you'll be dead' (duh), but then the dangerous part is where they
conclude 'so we need to wear helmets always, and make them compulsory'.

~~~
Pxtl
That argument could apply to pedestrians as well. We don't make Grandma wear a
helmet the day she's issued a walker.

------
breadbox
This argument is remarkably familiar; it's basically the same (on both sides)
when the motorcycle helmet laws were being argued in the 1980s. It's easy to
forget that people actually argued that motorcyclists might be safer without
helmets, but they did.

~~~
sixQuarks
In what ways is it safer to ride a motorcycle without a helmet?

~~~
samatman
It's easier to see what's going on around you, and you can hear better. I
don't consider this worth the risk of head injury personally, but the
difference is there, and it's noticeable, particularly vision.

~~~
oldmanjay
It's also somewhat less tiring to eschew the helmet, but I similarly always
wear the helmet anyway.

------
dmm
People fall and hit their heads and die walking and running all the time. Why
not make pedestrians wear helmets?

Or how about you stop using the law (violence) to protect people from
themselves.

EDIT: Laws like this are also a great excuse for police to harass people. We
don't need more of these.

------
stvswn
I wear a helmet, because I want my daughter to wear a helmet when she rides
and so I set a good example. But I have no idea why anyone believes it's
appropriate to make a law about this. Risky behavior that puts others at risk
is fair game -- you can't speed in your car, for instance. But to have another
adult forcibly stop me, scold me, and fine me if I don't want to put a piece
of plastic on my head? That's insane. Same goes for motorcycle helmet laws,
seatbelt laws, and drug laws. With that in mind, the premise of the article is
flawed. I do not care which policy "saves more lives." I don't care which is
safer. If I see another adult riding around without a helmet, the thought
doesn't occur to me "Oh no! How unsafe! Won't someone compel him to protect
himself?" So should I accept the same sentiment applied to everyone
collectively? (And if someone wants to argue that my getting injured imposes a
cost on society, blah blah blah ... we're just not going to agree about the
responsibilities of the individual to the collective and the role of
government therein)

~~~
lazyant
The argument is that if you get severely injured the tax payers get stuck with
the bill (US may be different) so other people are affected; I'm in favour of
compulsory motorcycle helmets and seat belts, if you want to opt out fine, but
pay a higher insurance premium.

~~~
stvswn
I know that's the argument, but I disagree with the premise -- you're
essentially saying that it's valid for the government to enforce healthy
decisions when it wants to limit the chances of a future payout. This would
mean that the government can use its status as the "insurer" (in the sense
that it operates the safety net) and the "enforcer" (in the sense that it
alone can use force to compel you against your will) in complementary ways.
Why not make a law that I can't have junk food? Or that I must exercise?
Obesity has a cost on society as well, no?

~~~
lazyant
You do have a point but unlike eating junk food, having a seatbelt on is a
binary and can be detected without much argument.

------
eximius
I think you _should_ wear a helmet, but I think it is ridiculous for the
government to _require_ you to wear one.

Same with seatbelts, frankly.

~~~
stvswn
Agreed, I just finished writing the same thing in many more words before
seeing the point had been made.

------
teddyh
As I understand it, making helmets compulsory makes people _use their bikes
less_ , making them get less exercise, shortening their lives _more_ than they
would have saved (statistically) by wearing a helmet.

------
sparkzilla
While I'm not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories, I've always thought
that bicycle helmet laws and related press were pushed by helmet
manufacturers.

------
bendoit
There's been fairly interesting data piling up about mandatory helmet laws.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/business/a-bicycling-
myste...](http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/business/a-bicycling-mystery-head-
injuries-piling-up.html)

> The number of head injuries has increased 10 percent since 1991, even as
> bicycle helmet use has risen sharply, according to figures compiled by the
> Consumer Product Safety Commission. But given that ridership has declined
> over the same period, the rate of head injuries per active cyclist has
> increased 51 percent just as bicycle helmets have become widespread.

...

> Many specialists in risk analysis argue that something else is in play. They
> believe that the increased use of bike helmets may have had an unintended
> consequence: riders may feel an inflated sense of security and take more
> risks.

Cars are more reckless around bicyclists and drive closer to them when they
see they are wearing a helmet:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10bike.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10bike.html)

We also see here that bicycles are the lowest risk of head injury while
traveling streets and sidewalks:

[http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-
helmets](http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets)

Turns out you're much more likely to suffer a head injury in a car, or walking
than on a bicycle. Should helmets be mandated for driving and walking?
Evidence suggests it would make more sense for those activities.

Wearing helmets increases the likelihood of neck injuries:
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457500...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457500000488)

Feds had to stop claiming bike helmets prevent 85% of head injuries (a
commonly cited statistic) after their statistical analysis was found to be
bogus:

[http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19036/feds-will-
sto...](http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19036/feds-will-stop-hyping-
effectiveness-of-bike-helmets/)

------
alistairSH
The type of cycling in Amsterdam is certainly different than what I see here
in DC. In Amsterdam, most bikes are the classic "Dutch" style utility bike -
slow, stable, and easy to step down/off the bike. Here in DC, cyclists are
almost universally on some variant of the "10 speed" \- most with drop bars,
higher COG, and higher average speeds.

As a cyclist myself, I ride with or without helmet based on conditions. On my
road bike or mountain bike? Helmet, always - I've had enough concussions to
know I don't want another. My cruiser - usually no helmet, but it's use is
almost exclusively below 10mph and on a bike trail, not roads.

~~~
revelation
Some of that is just the preference of the demographics likely to bike, but in
urban cycling with cars particularly, speed equals safety. Hence why female
riders bear the brunt of harassment such as close overtakes.

Much healthier to be able to be assertive and occasionally accelerate away.

------
disordinary
It's been compulsory in New Zealand since the late 80's or early 90's. I'm
sure initially people felt like dorks but after 20+ years its normal. People
will get over it.

~~~
tobltobs
Where is the argument? Reading the comments on HN becomes worse every day.
People just writing some stuff to prove, I don't know, that they are very cool
or extremely liberal or whatever.

~~~
disordinary
The argument that people won't wear a helmet because of a fashion statement?
It's not in the article - but its a fact that kids for instance won't wear
helmets because of pair pressure. The same as people used to not wear
seatbelts before they were compulsory.

~~~
tobltobs
Ever been to NZ?

~~~
disordinary
Kind of where I live.

------
raykaye47
I say no fines for not wearing a helmet. It is only an excuse for local law
enforcement to make more $$.

------
exabrial
It's actually the same question as should marijuana be legalized

------
parennoob
Bike helmets should be compulsory only if

\- Having a five-point harness for every car is compulsory (alright, I'll
admit this is somewhat overkill and rhetorical)

\- Cars are certified yearly as being road safe (not the case in all states in
the US, but I think this _is_ the case in the EU)

\- Drunk driving has extremely severe penalties (10+ years in prison)
beginning with the first offence.

The motorist is driving a much more dangerous vehicle capable of causing
serious injuries to themselves and other parties. Let us all behave in a
responsible manner.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>Drunk driving has extremely severe penalties (10+ years in prison) beginning
with the first offence.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but at some point, a meaner nastier criminal
justice system does little or no additional good at the expense of harming
innocent people. That point's long been passed with DUI laws, and people still
do it.

~~~
handedness
Which, given how many repeat DUI offenders there are, is great justification
for long prison sentences.

If a person can't be trusted to put either the bottle or the keys down, then
they need to be restrained. I'd rather find a cheaper way than prison, but
it's insanity that you can drive drunk and receive a punishment that serves as
almost no disincentive to continue to do it.

~~~
nsxwolf
Most of my friends would be in prison under your idea, and their children
would have grown up without their parents, and I fail to see how the world
would have been better off that way.

Oh sure, they MIGHT have killed someone because they were a little bit over an
arbitrary and always decreasing blood alcohol limit, but they didn't, so I'm
not sure what a 10 year prison sentence would accomplish.

I suppose at some point you can create such massive penalties for every
possible misdeed that people become too terrified to leave their homes, but I
don't want to live in that world.

~~~
handedness
Most of your friends have children, then drink and drive? And "my idea" is
what's wrong here?

I don't even know where to begin...

~~~
nsxwolf
Look around you next time you're out at a restaurant. See all the beers and
glasses of wine? You think they all took Uber or have a designated driver?

Everyone drinks and drives. That's not even illegal. But it's not that hard to
take one sip too many and break the law. Seriously, get off your high horse.
There are over a million DUI arrests per year in the US. That's just the tiny
percentage they catch!

~~~
handedness
It's not a high horse, so much as it's an avoidable problem. $59B/year in the
US is spent on alcohol-related crashes. (Just crashes, not the insane amount
of crime that's alcohol-related.)

There's a death every 51 minutes from it. 31% of traffic-related deaths.

17% of children under 14 who die in a car crash involving an alcohol-impaired
driver. Over half of those are in the vehicle driven by the drunk driver.
That's utter insanity, and I wonder how many of those people were close to the
limit and something you'd deem just fine.

I'm not naive enough to think everyone at the restaurant took Uber or have a
designated driver, but I trust _you 're_ also not naive enough to think that
it's not a serious problem, and it's one that, more often as not, kills
innocents.

The problem is that people can get away with it, and largely do. (As you
allude to.)

Please don't pretend it's a small problem, and that discussing whether
longer/harsher/different sentences would motivate more people to take Uber or
get a designated driver is the problem. That's as counterproductive as
adopting a smug tone when discussing policy.

Edit:

> I suppose at some point you can create such massive penalties for every
> possible misdeed that people become too terrified to leave their homes, but
> I don't want to live in that world.

Enough with the straw man, BTW. I'm pretty Libertarian. But the moment you
demonstrate that you can't safely manage the responsibility of driving, then
I'm all in favor of strongly limiting your ability to do others harm. It's the
height of American selfishness to think that the current system is sufficient
relative to the problem that exists.

