Pedal Me bans staff riders from wearing helmets for safety reasons(bikebiz.com)
bikebiz.com
Pedal Me bans staff riders from wearing helmets for safety reasons
https://bikebiz.com/pedal-me-bans-staff-riders-from-wearing-helmets-for-safety-reasons/
796 comments
Background: I do downhill longboarding as a hobby.
> If some riders choose to not wear a helmet [...]
...we take their board from them, until they show up with one.
This sport is almost completely unregulated (outside of official events), but somehow the community has developed an incredibly strong culture of keeping both yourself and the others around you safe. I guess something about being a niche sport, perhaps a bit of natural selection.
If e.g. a sponsor (hypothetically - I'm nowhere near good enough to get sponsorship) told me not to wear any particular piece of safety gear, I'd laugh them out of the room, and likely the entire local crew would join in the laughing. It's a small sport, once the word gets out, that company would also likely no longer be getting many sales either.
The only correct move for the Pedal Me riders is to go pedal for someone else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9yL5usLFgY
> If some riders choose to not wear a helmet [...]
...we take their board from them, until they show up with one.
This sport is almost completely unregulated (outside of official events), but somehow the community has developed an incredibly strong culture of keeping both yourself and the others around you safe. I guess something about being a niche sport, perhaps a bit of natural selection.
If e.g. a sponsor (hypothetically - I'm nowhere near good enough to get sponsorship) told me not to wear any particular piece of safety gear, I'd laugh them out of the room, and likely the entire local crew would join in the laughing. It's a small sport, once the word gets out, that company would also likely no longer be getting many sales either.
The only correct move for the Pedal Me riders is to go pedal for someone else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9yL5usLFgY
What do you suppose happened to the rest of skateboarding that pushed it in the opposite direction?
Watching the olympics this summer, it was amazing to watch the street skating events with none of the competitors wearing any sort of protective gear. And it’s not like they didn’t need it either. They were getting wrecked in falls to the point where some of the couldn’t even finish the competition.
It was nuts watching it, since my last exposure to the sport was from the 90s where Tony Hawk would be padded out to the nines while standing around giving an interview by the side of the park.
What is going on that made helmets so uncool that you wouldn’t even wear one if you knew you were going to fall on your head?
Watching the olympics this summer, it was amazing to watch the street skating events with none of the competitors wearing any sort of protective gear. And it’s not like they didn’t need it either. They were getting wrecked in falls to the point where some of the couldn’t even finish the competition.
It was nuts watching it, since my last exposure to the sport was from the 90s where Tony Hawk would be padded out to the nines while standing around giving an interview by the side of the park.
What is going on that made helmets so uncool that you wouldn’t even wear one if you knew you were going to fall on your head?
You wouldn’t generally exceed 15mph street skating. Competent downhill skaters can reach 50mph+, with world record speeds exceeding 80mph.
That alone makes safety gear much more essential for downhill.
In addition, if someone shows up to a spot without adequate gear, crashes and badly hurts themselves, it can cause the spot to be blown for other riders. Downhill skateboarding is much easier when you’re on the good side of local residents and police.
Also, since DH communities tend to be very small and tight-knit, if someone gets hurt you hear about it. I’ve personally witnessed multiple incidents leading to broken spines, countless minor injuries, and have had one friend die while skating. Either you take safety seriously or pay the piper.
There are more factors than this, would probably make for an interesting sociology dissertation.
That alone makes safety gear much more essential for downhill.
In addition, if someone shows up to a spot without adequate gear, crashes and badly hurts themselves, it can cause the spot to be blown for other riders. Downhill skateboarding is much easier when you’re on the good side of local residents and police.
Also, since DH communities tend to be very small and tight-knit, if someone gets hurt you hear about it. I’ve personally witnessed multiple incidents leading to broken spines, countless minor injuries, and have had one friend die while skating. Either you take safety seriously or pay the piper.
There are more factors than this, would probably make for an interesting sociology dissertation.
> You wouldn’t generally exceed 15mph street skating.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I wonder what the velocity of one's head hitting the pavement is if you just stand still and fall over.
That's 0MPH, but it still seems like it'd be enough to do damage.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I wonder what the velocity of one's head hitting the pavement is if you just stand still and fall over.
That's 0MPH, but it still seems like it'd be enough to do damage.
I watched an old guy die in a parking lot because of this. His hat blew off, he bent over to pick it up, and then fell forward onto his head. He died soon after. Now, he could have had some kind of other issues leading to this (he was elderly and had mobility issues). My wife parked while I ran over to render assistance, I called 911 while a military medic tried to revive him but it was too late.
So yeah, that can be enough (might have been a heart attack as a result of the shock, I am NOT a doctor, but he was gone by the time the ambulance arrived).
Also, one of the reasons street fighting is so dangerous has nothing to do with MMA dudes, it's when someone falls down and hits their head. This happens all the time. They sometimes die from the fall.
So yeah, that can be enough (might have been a heart attack as a result of the shock, I am NOT a doctor, but he was gone by the time the ambulance arrived).
Also, one of the reasons street fighting is so dangerous has nothing to do with MMA dudes, it's when someone falls down and hits their head. This happens all the time. They sometimes die from the fall.
> You wouldn’t generally exceed 15mph street skating. Competent downhill skaters can reach 50mph+, with world record speeds exceeding 80mph.
it's all context, no?
You wouldn't try to trick over a 17ft drop on a longboard, either. [0]
[0]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/kzn58e/the-leap-of-faith-was...
it's all context, no?
You wouldn't try to trick over a 17ft drop on a longboard, either. [0]
[0]: https://www.vice.com/en/article/kzn58e/the-leap-of-faith-was...
Sheckler has done bigger and many kids do more than 17ft drops for fun. When it comes to falling in street skating there is a certain pattern to falling and knowing how to “fall correctly” almost like stuntman do without helmets in movies all the time. Stuntman do sometimes wear padding, but not always.
Bombing a hill is very different from skating a stair set. The speed at which you do tricks is manageable to be able to tumble your body correctly if you fall (and you’re ready for that fall usually) but bombing a hill is an enormous amount of speed and you can’t prepare yourself for an unknown rock that throws you off.
That’s another somewhat important difference too with street skating, for big tricks you triple check the area and often sweep it because of those tiny rocks.
So context does matter. I’m not advocating against helmets but these are incredibly different things.
Edit: and fwiw I’ve hurt myself far more bombing hills than I have skating something like the big four in ATL. Notice how they fall: https://youtu.be/Ban0D24Aip4
(And the reason they aren’t making this trick is ironically they are not going quite fast enough)
Edit 2: and because I’m reminiscing a bit, the big four is hard because the run up is pretty short. You need good bearings and small wheels to gather the speed required. The only time I’ve ever seriously hurt myself in 15+ years of skating was doing a dumb trick in a standing position. Helmets are important for things like vert for sure where it’s lots of speed and lots of height, and if my kids and I go out and skate we wear helmets (they’re small and I want to set a good example). But most of street skating can be treated as though you’re a trained stuntman (because you basically are)
Bombing a hill is very different from skating a stair set. The speed at which you do tricks is manageable to be able to tumble your body correctly if you fall (and you’re ready for that fall usually) but bombing a hill is an enormous amount of speed and you can’t prepare yourself for an unknown rock that throws you off.
That’s another somewhat important difference too with street skating, for big tricks you triple check the area and often sweep it because of those tiny rocks.
So context does matter. I’m not advocating against helmets but these are incredibly different things.
Edit: and fwiw I’ve hurt myself far more bombing hills than I have skating something like the big four in ATL. Notice how they fall: https://youtu.be/Ban0D24Aip4
(And the reason they aren’t making this trick is ironically they are not going quite fast enough)
Edit 2: and because I’m reminiscing a bit, the big four is hard because the run up is pretty short. You need good bearings and small wheels to gather the speed required. The only time I’ve ever seriously hurt myself in 15+ years of skating was doing a dumb trick in a standing position. Helmets are important for things like vert for sure where it’s lots of speed and lots of height, and if my kids and I go out and skate we wear helmets (they’re small and I want to set a good example). But most of street skating can be treated as though you’re a trained stuntman (because you basically are)
That’s the way it is! If you’re going to do stuff like that, learning how to crash gracefully is something you should learn up front. Tuck and roll!
Agreed. For what it’s worth, I think street skaters should wear helmets most of the time.
The 17ft drop is equivalent to the 80mph example in my post, and should definitely involve a helmet, gloves and impact padding (which can be worn under clothes).
The 17ft drop is equivalent to the 80mph example in my post, and should definitely involve a helmet, gloves and impact padding (which can be worn under clothes).
> What do you suppose happened to the rest of skateboarding that pushed it in the opposite direction?
Widdershin's response is excellent, but I'll add a bit more context: the physical similarities between a skateboard and a longboard are very superficial (we can barely trade any hardware at all); that extends to the respective communities, which also have disjoint histories.
Longboarders trace their roots to surfers; likely someone bored of waiting for a good wave has put skateboard trucks on their surfboard. Some niche longboarding cultures/disciplines were inspired by surfing/SUP (surfskate, pumptrack, land paddle), and one major longboarding discipline is a lot about moving on and around the board ("dancing" on it).
In these other longboarding communities (perhaps except pumptrack), you will see people using helmets and other safety gear much less often, and it's probably fair. But I've never, ever been dissed by any of these people for wearing a helmet, even if just cruising.
Widdershin's response is excellent, but I'll add a bit more context: the physical similarities between a skateboard and a longboard are very superficial (we can barely trade any hardware at all); that extends to the respective communities, which also have disjoint histories.
Longboarders trace their roots to surfers; likely someone bored of waiting for a good wave has put skateboard trucks on their surfboard. Some niche longboarding cultures/disciplines were inspired by surfing/SUP (surfskate, pumptrack, land paddle), and one major longboarding discipline is a lot about moving on and around the board ("dancing" on it).
In these other longboarding communities (perhaps except pumptrack), you will see people using helmets and other safety gear much less often, and it's probably fair. But I've never, ever been dissed by any of these people for wearing a helmet, even if just cruising.
short answer: branding
long answer: branding
anecdotally, am a daily skateboarder and long time snowboarder who is guilty of having an ego, and even wear pads to protect a couple massive contusions (swellbos) but i never wear a helmet, so ill frame it like this: 95% of the time i am not that much at risk for serious head injury when skating, and even though i take it for granted, there is an element of knowing how to fall/bail early and skating just within my means.
however on a snowboard, i am much more acutely aware of the consequence -- my casual and super comfort "resting" level is like 25-35+ mph, which is a car accident, which is almost always a threat for serious head injury.
there is a huge difference between tripping at about walking/jogging speed and hitting your head versus at 35mph, and this realization happened after 15 winters of safe riding without a helmet.
the reality is, i am just not that worried about it -- ego or no ego, except when i snowboard, which i will not do without a helmet anymore.
./shrug
long answer: branding
anecdotally, am a daily skateboarder and long time snowboarder who is guilty of having an ego, and even wear pads to protect a couple massive contusions (swellbos) but i never wear a helmet, so ill frame it like this: 95% of the time i am not that much at risk for serious head injury when skating, and even though i take it for granted, there is an element of knowing how to fall/bail early and skating just within my means.
however on a snowboard, i am much more acutely aware of the consequence -- my casual and super comfort "resting" level is like 25-35+ mph, which is a car accident, which is almost always a threat for serious head injury.
there is a huge difference between tripping at about walking/jogging speed and hitting your head versus at 35mph, and this realization happened after 15 winters of safe riding without a helmet.
the reality is, i am just not that worried about it -- ego or no ego, except when i snowboard, which i will not do without a helmet anymore.
./shrug
Not to mention the risk of getting hit by another snowboarder or skier.
Before 2009: very few adult skiers in Austria and Germany wore helmets, pretty much only the racers and children who were legally required to. I felt like a dork wearing mine, but I experienced a scary near-miss my first season on these relatively crowded slopes.
After 2009: at least 80% of adult skiers in Austria and Germany wear helmets, from the looks of things. Most frequent non-wearers are very old, permanently tanned Austrian men who literally have 5000+ ski days behind them or young ladies with nicely-done hair and make-up much more interested in getting good pictures for Instagram than actually skiing.
What happened in 2009? The Ministerpräsident (think US state governor) of Thuringia, Dieter Althaus, was flying down a black (expert) slope, turned onto a blue (beginner) slope with enough momentum behind him to go up it and crash into a lady from Slovakia.
He was in the hospital for weeks, living to earn a criminal judgment for negligent homicide, paying tens of thousands of Euro.
She died on the way to the hospital.
He was wearing a helmet.
She wasn't.
The absolute crush of helmet sales then and continued rates since are sometimes called the "Althaus-Effekt".
After 2009: at least 80% of adult skiers in Austria and Germany wear helmets, from the looks of things. Most frequent non-wearers are very old, permanently tanned Austrian men who literally have 5000+ ski days behind them or young ladies with nicely-done hair and make-up much more interested in getting good pictures for Instagram than actually skiing.
What happened in 2009? The Ministerpräsident (think US state governor) of Thuringia, Dieter Althaus, was flying down a black (expert) slope, turned onto a blue (beginner) slope with enough momentum behind him to go up it and crash into a lady from Slovakia.
He was in the hospital for weeks, living to earn a criminal judgment for negligent homicide, paying tens of thousands of Euro.
She died on the way to the hospital.
He was wearing a helmet.
She wasn't.
The absolute crush of helmet sales then and continued rates since are sometimes called the "Althaus-Effekt".
[deleted]
That's also the year Natasha Richardson died from a head injury she received while skiing. That was all over the news (at least in the US/Canada, and probably England).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Richardson#Injury_and_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natasha_Richardson#Injury_and_...
Interesting. I wonder if these 2009 events were a turning point worldwide. I recently returned to downhill skiing after last skiing in the 90s, and was absolutely shocked by the number of skiers wearing helmets. Like 90-95%. Whereas when I skied as a young man in the 90s, it was something like 0-2% (basically only a handful of children). The skier side of my brain still can’t get used to the idea of wearing one of these ridiculous things, but then again the logical side of my brain points out that I wear a helmet while cycling so it makes sense.
Almost everything else about downhill skiing is pretty much the same today (the skis are shorter and fatter for some reason), but the helmet wearing was a massive sea change that happened without me.
For some reason you say? I don't think you could make a circle on the (empty, of course) slope with older skis :)
I cracked two helmets hitting my head on iced slopes. Every time I was able to stand back up (although dizzy and with a headache) and bless my initiative to wear a helmet. As they say, your mileage may vary.
Protective gear was always uncool in street skateboarding. Vert (Tony Hawk's main discipline) was the exception. From what I understand it's about being counterculture, punk etc. Today even bowl riders mostly don't wear helmets or pads, and crashing in a concrete bowl is arguably even worse than on a wooden ramp.
There's a big difference between the speeds you travel at in a bowl and in very skating.
Speed doesn’t matter when you hit your head.
I had a friend who fell while ice skating at the speed of a slow stroll, and hit the back of his head. He was dead a week later.
And just getting a concussion can result in measurably decreased mental capabilities for months.
Dad time: you’ve got one brain for your entire life. Stop relying on luck to keep it in working order.
I had a friend who fell while ice skating at the speed of a slow stroll, and hit the back of his head. He was dead a week later.
And just getting a concussion can result in measurably decreased mental capabilities for months.
Dad time: you’ve got one brain for your entire life. Stop relying on luck to keep it in working order.
> And just getting a concussion can result in measurably decreased mental capabilities for months.
Permanently, not months. All concussions result in some permanent damage, some moreso than others.
Permanently, not months. All concussions result in some permanent damage, some moreso than others.
But it totally does matter when you fall and smack your elbow. OP mentioned that bowl skaters are wearing no protective gear (pads/helmets), not just talking about helmets.
The distance from 1M air out of the bowl to the bottom is a very long way!
It’s a style thing (as dumb as that is in practice).
You just don’t look “cool” switch back smithing down hollywoood 16 wearing a helmet.
I skated a ton growing up and it was beaten into you at skateparks how dumb you looked wearing a helmet. No major head injuries but definitely had some close calls. I look back and cringe and how stupid that was.
You just don’t look “cool” switch back smithing down hollywoood 16 wearing a helmet.
I skated a ton growing up and it was beaten into you at skateparks how dumb you looked wearing a helmet. No major head injuries but definitely had some close calls. I look back and cringe and how stupid that was.
The "style" thing also applies to BMX - brakeless, no helmet and no knee/elbow pads.
Natural selection is rife.
Natural selection is rife.
The women's winner did wear a helmet - 13-year-old NISHIYA Momiji. I think because she was underage, the rules forced her to wear helmet.
I''m not defending Pedal Me but you could try to design the city so biking is safer
https://www.treehugger.com/why-dutch-dont-wear-helmets-48581...
Sure you can still get in an accident. That's true of everything though. I don't go for a walk in a plastic bubble just in case a car hits me
https://www.google.com/search?q=cars+hitting+pedestrians&tbm...
https://www.treehugger.com/why-dutch-dont-wear-helmets-48581...
Sure you can still get in an accident. That's true of everything though. I don't go for a walk in a plastic bubble just in case a car hits me
https://www.google.com/search?q=cars+hitting+pedestrians&tbm...
You could have the best designed city in the world and you will still be at a high risk of your fragile brain case impacting the ground or something worse at speed. Whether you're pedaling down a country road or the busiest NYC intersection not wearing a helmet on a bike is stupid, full stop.
In the Netherlands we're doing fine without them though. Nobody wears one on a regular bike.
I've had a few times where I slipped so fast I didn't even remember what happened but every time my arm was there protecting my head. Reflexes are awesome.
Accidents can happen sure but the added hassle doesn't seem worth it. Of course things are different when you do high speed cycling or mountain biking.
I've had a few times where I slipped so fast I didn't even remember what happened but every time my arm was there protecting my head. Reflexes are awesome.
Accidents can happen sure but the added hassle doesn't seem worth it. Of course things are different when you do high speed cycling or mountain biking.
"In absolute terms, more people were killed in a car accident (237) than in a bicycle accident (203) last year, but this is different per kilometre travelled. Traffic mortality per billion vehicle-km was much higher among cyclists than among passenger car occupants (11 versus 1.6 deaths)." (https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2020/31/decline-in-road-fatali...)
Is it as much about vehicle-km or per vehicle-km? At the end of the day people generally will avoid super long trips on a bicycle because it’s slow and strenuous.
There are a lot of ways to slice those numbers; I like deaths / km as it describes the risks of traveling from point A to point B by various methods. On the other hand, it's likely skewed somehow by the fact that you rarely have more than one fatal accident per trip.
Another way of looking at it is deaths / trip; a quick search shows 4,800,000,000 bicycle trips in 2019 for a rate of 48 deaths / billion trips and 229 deaths versus 3,600,000,000 car trips and 610 deaths or 169 deaths per billion trips.
The average trip length in the US is apparently something like 10-15m which might make the number of automotive deaths per billion trips something like 130-200. Maybe. (I can't find an actual estimate of the number of trips.)
Another way is deaths per population, see one of my other comments.
Another way of looking at it is deaths / trip; a quick search shows 4,800,000,000 bicycle trips in 2019 for a rate of 48 deaths / billion trips and 229 deaths versus 3,600,000,000 car trips and 610 deaths or 169 deaths per billion trips.
The average trip length in the US is apparently something like 10-15m which might make the number of automotive deaths per billion trips something like 130-200. Maybe. (I can't find an actual estimate of the number of trips.)
Another way is deaths per population, see one of my other comments.
Thing is, cyclists don't need to rack up as many kilometers as drivists. If you're riding a bike, you probably live in an urban place and you need only bike short distances.
Well, obviously cyclists are more vulnerable. Considering that the numbers are pretty low IMO. The Netherlands have 16 million people, most of which use bicycles for daily travel. 200 died in a year, especially elderly who are exceptionally vulnerable. It's not something that warrants extreme worry. There's always risk in a life.
Also, it's something that is only a risk to the rider themselves so leaving it to their discretion is warranted IMO.
Also, it's something that is only a risk to the rider themselves so leaving it to their discretion is warranted IMO.
Dividing fatalities by population might be reasonable to look at acceptable death levels; in NL in 2020, that's 229 / 17,440,000 or 1.3 per 100,000. Automotive numbers would be pretty similar.
(Correction: They would not. There were ~610 auto deaths in NL in 2020. That gives 3.5 per 100,000.)
In the US, 2020 had 11.7 automotive deaths per 100,000 people and 0.38 bicycle deaths per 100,000.
(Correction: They would not. There were ~610 auto deaths in NL in 2020. That gives 3.5 per 100,000.)
In the US, 2020 had 11.7 automotive deaths per 100,000 people and 0.38 bicycle deaths per 100,000.
In the Netherlands normal cycle commuters almost never exceed 15 km/h. But I keep watching some Dutch road cycling youtube channel and they all wear helmets.
Do you mean to write "they all do not wear helmets"? or does "road cycling" mean something other than just using a bicycle on the road?
I see few if any helmets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbsMKxNORgQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfDVmUD_2eI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJypp7igJho
I see few if any helmets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbsMKxNORgQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfDVmUD_2eI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJypp7igJho
No, I mean they all wear helmets. Cycling as in road cycling, group rides, as a sport, not for transportation. They're not professional cyclists, they all have other jobs.
https://youtu.be/_QUPWs07mKU
https://youtu.be/_QUPWs07mKU
I think they use those for aerodynamics also. But yeah they turn up in spring and summer. Not much outside those seasons.
I find them very annoying, they tend to be very inconsiderate. Cycling on the road where bike lanes are available, and when they are on the bike lane they tend to be agressive to normal cyclists if they don't move along as fast as they want.
They're not all like that but many of them are, which leaves a bad taste as soon as you spot these groups of wannabe lance armstrongs :P
I find them very annoying, they tend to be very inconsiderate. Cycling on the road where bike lanes are available, and when they are on the bike lane they tend to be agressive to normal cyclists if they don't move along as fast as they want.
They're not all like that but many of them are, which leaves a bad taste as soon as you spot these groups of wannabe lance armstrongs :P
I don't think helmets are worn for aerodynamics. IIRC professional race cyclists only started wearing helmets after in 2003 when they became mandatory. If there had been any advantage in aerodynamics the athletes would have voluntarily picked up helmets before.
Also, anecdotally, I am occasionally road cycling for sports and do wear a helmet at all times. However, I am certainly not doing that because of aerodynamics.
Edit for clarity.
Also, anecdotally, I am occasionally road cycling for sports and do wear a helmet at all times. However, I am certainly not doing that because of aerodynamics.
Edit for clarity.
And cycle commuting is part of the culture which probably makes it safer as well. Would wearing helmets make it even safer? Possibly. But one can always argue for incremental safety gear and processes.
Making helmets mandatory would probably discourage cycling. That happened in Australia at some point, and nobody wants that to happen here.
That said, some cyclists here seem to be downright suicidal. Helmet or not, if you run a red light against traffic while watching your phone, you don't seem to be very attached to living. I've even seen parents direct their kids into ridiculously dangerous situations. Fortunately car drivers pay attention even to stupid cyclists here.
That said, some cyclists here seem to be downright suicidal. Helmet or not, if you run a red light against traffic while watching your phone, you don't seem to be very attached to living. I've even seen parents direct their kids into ridiculously dangerous situations. Fortunately car drivers pay attention even to stupid cyclists here.
Isn’t the Netherlands very flat? I would probably feel safe without a helmet if it weren’t for the hills. My usual ten minute ride has an elevation difference of 35 m.
That's kinda the point. People can bike under very different circumstances. If you're going at breakneck speed down a mountain trail, you definitely should wear a helmet. But if you're going at a leisurely pace through well-designed traffic, it's not nearly as vital.
And it sounds to me like Pedal Me wants its riders to ride at a leisurely pace, rather than breakneck speeds.
And it sounds to me like Pedal Me wants its riders to ride at a leisurely pace, rather than breakneck speeds.
Yes very flat.
35m isn't an awful lot though. You can pick up a lot of speed from a bridge in the Netherlands too.
35m isn't an awful lot though. You can pick up a lot of speed from a bridge in the Netherlands too.
>I've had a few times where I slipped so fast I didn't even remember what happened but every time my arm was there protecting my head. Reflexes are awesome.
isn't this a good example of confirmation bias? it worked for you, so it must work for everyone the same as it did for you each time they require it.
its your brain, I guess. and you do have that social health network to cover you when medical issues arise. guess it doesn't matter your quality of life post-brain injury :-)
isn't this a good example of confirmation bias? it worked for you, so it must work for everyone the same as it did for you each time they require it.
its your brain, I guess. and you do have that social health network to cover you when medical issues arise. guess it doesn't matter your quality of life post-brain injury :-)
It clearly works for millions of Dutch cyclists.
You can also trip on the stairs or a curb and smash your brain yet we don't wear helmets and armor to take a walk or climb some stairs. Apparently 30k-40k people a year die from stuff like that. (based on a quick google search so no idea if it's low or high)
https://www.lawfirms.com/resources/personal-injury/slip-and-...
What body/head armor are you wearing when you take a shower?
> A study conducted by the Consumer Affairs Agency based in part on these statistics estimates that around 19,000 people lose their lives every year in accidents while bathing
Your odds of dying as a pedestrian appear to be 7x more than cycling. Why are you not wearing armor while walking? Clearly it's irresponsible not to.
https://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm
Are you ready to live in a society where it's expected you'll wear a helmet except when sleeping? You certainly don't want to be one of those people that slipped in your house and died. I don't. But, I'm also not willing to wear a helmet just to exist.
Am I stupid? In 2050 will everyone be wearing helmets for walking and people like me will be considered needlessly risking death for not wearing one?
https://www.lawfirms.com/resources/personal-injury/slip-and-...
What body/head armor are you wearing when you take a shower?
> A study conducted by the Consumer Affairs Agency based in part on these statistics estimates that around 19,000 people lose their lives every year in accidents while bathing
Your odds of dying as a pedestrian appear to be 7x more than cycling. Why are you not wearing armor while walking? Clearly it's irresponsible not to.
https://danger.mongabay.com/injury_death.htm
Are you ready to live in a society where it's expected you'll wear a helmet except when sleeping? You certainly don't want to be one of those people that slipped in your house and died. I don't. But, I'm also not willing to wear a helmet just to exist.
Am I stupid? In 2050 will everyone be wearing helmets for walking and people like me will be considered needlessly risking death for not wearing one?
[deleted]
Even well-maintained streets can get potholes, especially after huge weather swings. I once hit a pothole while biking and somersaulted over the handlebars. I landed on my back, but a slightly smaller rotation would have me in the hospital, or worse.
Design won't do anything for the millions of ignorati that are handed drivers licenses without demonstrating driving competence.
Don't you think it's a little hypocritical to force everyone to draw their acceptable risk line at exactly where you happen to draw it?
Longboarding is risky, downhill longboarding is riskier, doing it without a helmet slightly moreso, doing it naked probably slightly moreso.
Why is it okay for you to set the acceptable risk bar and steal boards from anyone that doesn't agree? Should people that think that downhill longboarding with a helmet is risky steal your board?
Longboarding is risky, downhill longboarding is riskier, doing it without a helmet slightly moreso, doing it naked probably slightly moreso.
Why is it okay for you to set the acceptable risk bar and steal boards from anyone that doesn't agree? Should people that think that downhill longboarding with a helmet is risky steal your board?
> Why is it okay for you to set the acceptable risk bar and steal boards from anyone that doesn't agree?
For the same reason we enforce seatbelts in cars: Enough people died. Then those who saw them die decided on these rules so we don't need to go through the same pain. The fact that you don't get this shows that the rules work.
For the same reason we enforce seatbelts in cars: Enough people died. Then those who saw them die decided on these rules so we don't need to go through the same pain. The fact that you don't get this shows that the rules work.
Interesting you should bring that up. That was used as an example of unintended side effects of policy in my economics class, because when people started wearing seat belts, they drove faster and more recklessly, so while the seatbelts protected people inside the cars, the number of pedestrians hit by cars went up.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
Hmm.
Most states brought on mandatory seat belt laws in the mid-1980s--mid-1990s. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_laws_in_the_United_S...)
1981 was the last year with motor vehicle fatalities over 3.0 per billion miles. By 2000 it was 1.53 and 2019 it was 1.10. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...)
I can only find pedestrian fatality numbers from 1994. (https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/pedestr...) It decreased from 5584 in 1995 to 4109 in 2009 and increased to 6272 in 2019.
In 1995, there were 2,423 billion vehicle miles traveled; in 2009, 2,957; in 2019, 3,248. Doing the division, that works out to 2.3 pedestrian deaths / BVMT in 1995; 1.4 in 2009, and 1.9 in 2019.
Interesting.
Most states brought on mandatory seat belt laws in the mid-1980s--mid-1990s. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_laws_in_the_United_S...)
1981 was the last year with motor vehicle fatalities over 3.0 per billion miles. By 2000 it was 1.53 and 2019 it was 1.10. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...)
I can only find pedestrian fatality numbers from 1994. (https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/pedestr...) It decreased from 5584 in 1995 to 4109 in 2009 and increased to 6272 in 2019.
In 1995, there were 2,423 billion vehicle miles traveled; in 2009, 2,957; in 2019, 3,248. Doing the division, that works out to 2.3 pedestrian deaths / BVMT in 1995; 1.4 in 2009, and 1.9 in 2019.
Interesting.
Regarding pedestrian death: Size/weight of car have also dramatically increased.
I take it you didn't actually read that wikipedia page. It says that the supposed Peltzman effect for seat belts didn't pan out.
The seatbelt thing is somewhat illogical. Like if that's the level of risk we deem acceptable for society then things like wingsuit diving and probably even motorcycles, longboarding and bicycling on city streets should also be illegal.
Especially if measured by any objective metric like fatality risk per passenger mile.
Especially if measured by any objective metric like fatality risk per passenger mile.
This is an imperfect process, and there's a balance to be made. Sure, we can be too paternalistic, and putting too many onerous restrictions on things (or on banning things outright that people have a reasonable desire to do). I think banning motorcycles would fall under that. Sure, riding a motorcycles is far more likely to get you injured or killed than riding in a car, but I think most people would consider banning motorcycles to be too extreme.
It's not fully objective. We're emotional humans, and that's ok. We're going to do things that are risky, and some people are going to get hurt or killed doing them. But that doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and give up. We can still make it less likely people will get hurt doing those activities by requiring some safety measures must be taken.
It's not fully objective. We're emotional humans, and that's ok. We're going to do things that are risky, and some people are going to get hurt or killed doing them. But that doesn't mean we should just throw up our hands and give up. We can still make it less likely people will get hurt doing those activities by requiring some safety measures must be taken.
Alternatively the control could be given to insurance companies. For example you get a lower deductible in an accident if you're wearing a seatbelt (or bike helmet or whatever) compared to if you're not. Insurance companies actually calculate the risks/costs, as opposed to governments cramming something resembling moral judgement (or just blindly perceived risk reduction) as law.
It's certainly a slippery slope. You will find people who object to "their taxes" being used to do search and rescue, provide wilderness medical treatment, etc. for activities that they consider unreasonably dangerous, e.g. winter hiking up even fairly moderate mountains.
OK but longboarding is not essential like general transportation. Why ban helmet-less longboarding instead of the whole thing?
You ruin the roadway for responsible users by maligning the good name and reputation of your fellow riders when you do so.
I mean to say, riders overwhelmingly want to be safe and it seems to be both self-selecting and self-reinforcing. Outlaw riders are free to ride alone.
I mean to say, riders overwhelmingly want to be safe and it seems to be both self-selecting and self-reinforcing. Outlaw riders are free to ride alone.
Cars aren't essential by that measure.
Unregulated sports like this are a delicate thing. It’s up to the participants to self regulate and avoid catching the public eye so they don’t lose access to the areas they get to enjoy. This is a huge thing in FAR 103 sports (ultralight flying). Unregulated doesn’t mean “do whatever you want” it means “we’ve given you some leeway here don’t mess it up”.
In this example, If people start getting hurt on a hill - sooner or later using that hill gets banned.
In this example, If people start getting hurt on a hill - sooner or later using that hill gets banned.
> Don't you think it's a little hypocritical to force everyone to draw their acceptable risk line at exactly where you happen to draw it?
I always find takes like this a little weird. This is something we do all the time in society. Seat belt laws. Bicycle and motorcycle helmet laws. All sorts of safety regulations and laws around sports, transportation, health, etc.
We as a society often decide to "protect people from themselves". Some of it is out of an understanding that humans are notoriously bad at risk assessment and will do unsafe things. Sure, that's a bit paternalistic, but... that's life. But some of it is also because severe injury and death don't just hurt the person injured or killed. The emotional toll of those effects are felt widely. The economic effects are felt widely too.
Certainly there are lines to be drawn, and there's plenty of reasonable debate as to where those lines should be drawn. Some possible safety measures might be very difficult, burdensome, or expensive; sometimes in those cases we can't require things like those without causing other types of harm. But others... not so much.
> Why is it okay for you to set the acceptable risk bar and steal boards from anyone that doesn't agree?
Because it's not just about the individual in question. It's about the entire community. The community of longboarders don't want severe injury and death on their hands, so they develop social norms that include requiring helmets. That's entirely within their right to do so, as it is their right to ostracize those who do not conform. (For the record, I think "steal their boards" was hyperbole. I doubt people's boards actually get taken. I expect it's more likely that they get shunned and ejected from the community.)
> Should people that think that downhill longboarding with a helmet is risky steal your board?
If the community consensus is there, then maybe that's reasonable. (In the "eject from community" sense, that is, not necessarily the literal "steal their board" sense.)
Certainly all of these sorts of decisions should be based on research as to what actually makes people safer. Humans are imperfect and don't always follow the science, but the hope is that, on a long enough time scale, with enough people weighing in, we'll get it right most of the time.
I always find takes like this a little weird. This is something we do all the time in society. Seat belt laws. Bicycle and motorcycle helmet laws. All sorts of safety regulations and laws around sports, transportation, health, etc.
We as a society often decide to "protect people from themselves". Some of it is out of an understanding that humans are notoriously bad at risk assessment and will do unsafe things. Sure, that's a bit paternalistic, but... that's life. But some of it is also because severe injury and death don't just hurt the person injured or killed. The emotional toll of those effects are felt widely. The economic effects are felt widely too.
Certainly there are lines to be drawn, and there's plenty of reasonable debate as to where those lines should be drawn. Some possible safety measures might be very difficult, burdensome, or expensive; sometimes in those cases we can't require things like those without causing other types of harm. But others... not so much.
> Why is it okay for you to set the acceptable risk bar and steal boards from anyone that doesn't agree?
Because it's not just about the individual in question. It's about the entire community. The community of longboarders don't want severe injury and death on their hands, so they develop social norms that include requiring helmets. That's entirely within their right to do so, as it is their right to ostracize those who do not conform. (For the record, I think "steal their boards" was hyperbole. I doubt people's boards actually get taken. I expect it's more likely that they get shunned and ejected from the community.)
> Should people that think that downhill longboarding with a helmet is risky steal your board?
If the community consensus is there, then maybe that's reasonable. (In the "eject from community" sense, that is, not necessarily the literal "steal their board" sense.)
Certainly all of these sorts of decisions should be based on research as to what actually makes people safer. Humans are imperfect and don't always follow the science, but the hope is that, on a long enough time scale, with enough people weighing in, we'll get it right most of the time.
> Why is it okay for you to set the acceptable risk bar and steal boards from anyone that doesn't agree?
If it is a group activity the group sets the acceptable behaviour. Don't like it? Demand your board back and go play with another group, rather than expecting this group to accept your risk assessment which doesn't agree with their's.
This is especially true if the group is in any way more formal than a bunch of people arbitrarily meeting up.
If it is a group activity the group sets the acceptable behaviour. Don't like it? Demand your board back and go play with another group, rather than expecting this group to accept your risk assessment which doesn't agree with their's.
This is especially true if the group is in any way more formal than a bunch of people arbitrarily meeting up.
Somewhat unrelated but in car culture aftermarket safety gear like roll cages, bucket seats, racing harnesses, HANS and helmets are seen as cool and badass. It's a good sight.
Though there are some problems, like if you start running the race safety gear, you need to go all out--you can't have a bucket seat and a race harness without also using a helmet and HANS, your head is vulnerable, and if you run a roll cage without a helmet your head is vulnerable. But in race events a lot of people run "cool" safety gear and people have a good attitude towards it.
Though there are some problems, like if you start running the race safety gear, you need to go all out--you can't have a bucket seat and a race harness without also using a helmet and HANS, your head is vulnerable, and if you run a roll cage without a helmet your head is vulnerable. But in race events a lot of people run "cool" safety gear and people have a good attitude towards it.
> ...we take their board from them, until they show up with one.
Reminds me of a blessedly terse reminder on the entry to a building site: "No hat no boots no job"
Reminds me of a blessedly terse reminder on the entry to a building site: "No hat no boots no job"
What does down hill long boarding have to do with low speed cycling? A bike 15-20mph is much closer to a runner (5-10mph), than your sport (50+ mph). You gonna stop people from running without a helmet?
Their underlying point is we don't have a major problem with people falling off their bikes randomly, we have a problem with multi ton vehicles slamming into bikes and pedestrians. Did you know most bike helmets (not motorcycle ones) aren't tested for the force of car/truck hitting a bike? We need to stop pretending that if people put a helmet on their safe and we can go back to our lives. We need safer separate infrastructure, and if we had that you'd probably not worry so much about helmets.
Their underlying point is we don't have a major problem with people falling off their bikes randomly, we have a problem with multi ton vehicles slamming into bikes and pedestrians. Did you know most bike helmets (not motorcycle ones) aren't tested for the force of car/truck hitting a bike? We need to stop pretending that if people put a helmet on their safe and we can go back to our lives. We need safer separate infrastructure, and if we had that you'd probably not worry so much about helmets.
Coffee and tee are not mutually exclusive. We need better infrastructure, better (cheaper, lighter, stronger) safety gear, AND to call out anyone who thinks you're safer sailing without a life-vest.
Ok, so what you are saying appears to support Pedal Me's position as reported in the article. They say: (a) wearing helmets encourages risky behaviour; (b) the added risk of accidents outweighs the increase in safety during an accident. You are giving an example of a community who only engage in a dangerous activity if they wear helmets, supporting (a). And I imagine you would agree that you are less safe wearing a helmet and going downhill longboarding than not wearing a helmet and not going downhill longboarding? If so, that supports (b).
It's not a conclusive argument, of course, and I have no axe to grind on this issue. It's just that I think that you might not have taken in to account what they are saying.
It's not a conclusive argument, of course, and I have no axe to grind on this issue. It's just that I think that you might not have taken in to account what they are saying.
> wearing helmets encourages risky behaviour
By this logic, there should be no life boats on ships.
> And I imagine you would agree that you are less safe wearing a helmet and going downhill longboarding than not wearing a helmet and not going downhill longboarding?
And by this logic, we should just never leave the port.
By this logic, there should be no life boats on ships.
> And I imagine you would agree that you are less safe wearing a helmet and going downhill longboarding than not wearing a helmet and not going downhill longboarding?
And by this logic, we should just never leave the port.
[deleted]
The case for helmets on bicycles is less clear cut than it is for more dangerous forms of transit such as downhill longboarding. Among other things it makes car drivers drive more dangerously around you, but it also changes much more common and less dangerous accidents into more dangerous ones. Taking a tumble on a bicycle is generally not fun, but getting your neck twisted due to a helmet isn't improving things.
Of course I come at this from the perspective from a country where there's more miles of cycle lane than miles of car-only roads. Who knows which way the balance tips if you need to mix bicycle and car traffic. To be honest I would simply not ride a bicycle if that was required of me on a regular basis.
Of course I come at this from the perspective from a country where there's more miles of cycle lane than miles of car-only roads. Who knows which way the balance tips if you need to mix bicycle and car traffic. To be honest I would simply not ride a bicycle if that was required of me on a regular basis.
>...we take their board from them, until they show up with one.
I'm confused what this means. So you steal their board? Or are they borrowing/using someone else's board and they forfeit the right to use it?
I'm confused what this means. So you steal their board? Or are they borrowing/using someone else's board and they forfeit the right to use it?
Presumably, like stealing someone's car keys if they're trying to drive drunk, or taking someone's stick on the city streets if you're one of Louis Rossman's crew in NYC and the perp is going around smashing stuff ;)
I think your presumption is illogical, since you take someone's car keys to stop them from committing a crime and harming/killing others.
TL;DR It probably wouldn't happen literally, but any local community is too small and interdependent.
I've never actually seen this threat "executed": the rules are all unwritten, but most people get a clue when reminded or lectured. My friend once wanted to skate in a broken helmet - it literally saved his life a few days before. We had a cute argument, he said it's not really broken if he only hit his head very lightly (so "lightly", he actually had a slight neck pain). I told him I'd buy that broken helmet from him at a full price, just so he doesn't use it, he wouldn't believe me until I took €150 out of my pocket. Eventually he agreed to not be an idiot ;)
If you'd insist on not wearing a helmet? On an official event, you'd probably get removed, possibly banned from future events. You need a sticker with your number on the helmet, so you wouldn't make it as far as the start line. I guess on an unofficial freeride, you just wouldn't get invited again - it's all invite only to begin with, and doesn't make much sense unless you have at least 3-4 people participating; someone needs to shuttle, you split the gas cost, sometimes you need spotters, etc. Randoms on a local spot? You either already know them (so you are allowed to yell at them), or they're new, so you make friends and they get a mentor.
I've never actually seen this threat "executed": the rules are all unwritten, but most people get a clue when reminded or lectured. My friend once wanted to skate in a broken helmet - it literally saved his life a few days before. We had a cute argument, he said it's not really broken if he only hit his head very lightly (so "lightly", he actually had a slight neck pain). I told him I'd buy that broken helmet from him at a full price, just so he doesn't use it, he wouldn't believe me until I took €150 out of my pocket. Eventually he agreed to not be an idiot ;)
If you'd insist on not wearing a helmet? On an official event, you'd probably get removed, possibly banned from future events. You need a sticker with your number on the helmet, so you wouldn't make it as far as the start line. I guess on an unofficial freeride, you just wouldn't get invited again - it's all invite only to begin with, and doesn't make much sense unless you have at least 3-4 people participating; someone needs to shuttle, you split the gas cost, sometimes you need spotters, etc. Randoms on a local spot? You either already know them (so you are allowed to yell at them), or they're new, so you make friends and they get a mentor.
I'm sure one serious injury can ruin an entire day for everyone at an event. It makes sense that the community would expect consideration from boarders of the consequences on an accident on others.
I'm sure some think like that too, but people are also selfless enough to want others to be safe, no matter if it ruins the event for them or not.
Freedom in an unregulated space requires less freedom for the individual, I suppose.
The safety gear __is__ the freedom. You have minor crashes, bails, small accidents every day, sometimes almost every run. It's normal, it's a part of the sport: you're pushing to improve yourself, you're racing other people competitively. The helmet is an "extra life", but the sliding gloves (think velcro hockey pucks) are about as essential as the wheels themselves; you wear them even in "no paws down" (standup slides only) races, they're what's keeping your palms from becoming meat crayons.
The safety gear allows you to just walk away from some otherwise life-ending accidents like nothing happened.
The safety gear allows you to just walk away from some otherwise life-ending accidents like nothing happened.
Doesn't have to be a zero sum game, they may be free but have a strong safety culture for another reason.
d00k(1)
I had a near miss like this that really scared me in Vancouver. I was going straight, and the light went yellow just before I got to the intersection. Thinking like a car, I speed up to clear the intersection before the red light. An oncoming car in the left lane also sped up to make a left turn. I don't remember if he indicated, certainly I didn't see it. We both slammed on the brakes and narrowly missed each other. He honked at me and was pissed. I was too scared and shaken for a while to realize I had the right of way. My next realization was that it doesn't matter if I have the right of way and am dead. Since then I always look carefully for left turners, even if they're not indicating, and I stop for yellow lights whenever possible (which to be fair, is what one is supposed to do.) Cycling on roads with cars is dangerous, even when there is a dedicated bike lane.
> Cycling on roads with cars is dangerous, even when there is a dedicated bike lane.
Don't trust the motor vehicles to keep you safe. That's your job.
That's so sad, it breaks me up just reading it. Much strength to you and your sister.
One thing I've noticed is that it doesn't really matter whether cars indicate or not, you should just treat them as hostile whether they are going to intersect with you or whether it seems like they won't.
One thing I've noticed is that it doesn't really matter whether cars indicate or not, you should just treat them as hostile whether they are going to intersect with you or whether it seems like they won't.
That's horrible, my heart goes out to your sister and your family.
I'm so sorry for your family's loss.
A painted bicycle gutter is not dedication, it's lack of dedication from your local government.
Vancouver left turns are wild. There’s almost never a turn lane or turn signal.
When I first moved there I didn’t realize that a yellow was treated as if left turners now owned the intersection. Had a few close calls when I would go straight on a yellow while left turners were trying to turn.
When I first moved there I didn’t realize that a yellow was treated as if left turners now owned the intersection. Had a few close calls when I would go straight on a yellow while left turners were trying to turn.
> My next realization was that it doesn't matter if I have the right of way and am dead.
For precisely this reason, whenever I'm teaching aircraft right-of-way I always emphasize that you do not want to be "dead right."
For precisely this reason, whenever I'm teaching aircraft right-of-way I always emphasize that you do not want to be "dead right."
> My next realization was that it doesn't matter if I have the right of way and am dead.
This is a good realization for others to have before it takes a near death experience to change the view.
This is a good realization for others to have before it takes a near death experience to change the view.
dougmsmith(4)
I had a cycling accident when out training on a road bike coming down a hill doing about 50km/h and a delivery van turned in front of me into a parking lot. I hit the side of the van put a big dent in it and fractured my clavicle and t6 and had several cuts in my face. The helmet I was wearing was completely disintegrated on the side I hit the car with. Fortunately I was visiting Australia were cycling helmets were mandatory, back in Europe were i was living normally i would not have worn one.
Since then I always were a helmet when out training. However I don't wear a helmet when dropping off the kids with my cargo bike. It's true that drivers are more aggressive towards helmet wearers, moreover I can't think of an accident where a helmet would help when I'm on the cargo bike.
Since then I always were a helmet when out training. However I don't wear a helmet when dropping off the kids with my cargo bike. It's true that drivers are more aggressive towards helmet wearers, moreover I can't think of an accident where a helmet would help when I'm on the cargo bike.
I had a cycling accident where I misjudged how tight a corner was, ran off the path, high sided and head planted into a tree.
I wasn't going fast, maybe 10mph, but clearly too fast for the corner. First injury in over 15 years of cycling. Nobody else involved, indeed, nobody else in earshot, let alone cars.
My friend was cycling up a hill on a cycle route and his handlebars fell apart. Not sure why, think it was metal fatigue - they split down the fork. He woke up on the floor with his helmet in tens of pieces and with no idea what happened.
Things can just go wrong quickly on two wheels, and the outcome is often smashing your head on something.
My friend was cycling up a hill on a cycle route and his handlebars fell apart. Not sure why, think it was metal fatigue - they split down the fork. He woke up on the floor with his helmet in tens of pieces and with no idea what happened.
Things can just go wrong quickly on two wheels, and the outcome is often smashing your head on something.
> it’s true that drivers are more aggressive towards helmet wearers
Citation, please?
> can't think of an accident where a helmet would help when I'm on the cargo bike.
Right hook.
Citation, please?
> can't think of an accident where a helmet would help when I'm on the cargo bike.
Right hook.
There's this Ian Walker study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014...
It's a small sample size, so take with a pinch of salt.
It's a small sample size, so take with a pinch of salt.
What Ian Walker's study failed to do was measure the amount of traffic, let alone the oncoming traffic. As he did different parts of his data collection on different days and on different roads, this key measure which often affects how far a car is able to move out going past a cyclist is a very obvious parameter to take into account. Ian's data set has times of passes in it so it might be possible to crate a proxy for traffic density but I haven't attempted this. I think it's more valid to conclude this study has no credence than to draw any conclusion from it.
Refutation of the Walker study which "assesses the extent to which the sample size in the original analysis may have contributed to spurious results".
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3783373/
Response to the refutation: https://researchportal.bath.ac.uk/en/publications/bicycle-he...
Olivier and Walter re-analysed the same data in 2013 and claimed helmet wearing was not associated with close vehicle passing. Here we show how Olivier and Walter’s analysis addressed a subtly, but importantly, different question than Walker’s. Their conclusion was based on omitting information about variability in driver behaviour and instead dividing overtakes into two binary categories of ‘close’ and ‘not close’; we demonstrate that they did not justify or address the implications of this choice, did not have sufficient statistical power for their approach, and moreover show that slightly adjusting their definition of ‘close’ would reverse their conclusions. We then present a new analysis of the original dataset, measuring directly the extent to which drivers changed their behaviour in response to helmet wearing. This analysis confirms that drivers did, overall, get closer when the rider wore a helmet.
Olivier and Walter re-analysed the same data in 2013 and claimed helmet wearing was not associated with close vehicle passing. Here we show how Olivier and Walter’s analysis addressed a subtly, but importantly, different question than Walker’s. Their conclusion was based on omitting information about variability in driver behaviour and instead dividing overtakes into two binary categories of ‘close’ and ‘not close’; we demonstrate that they did not justify or address the implications of this choice, did not have sufficient statistical power for their approach, and moreover show that slightly adjusting their definition of ‘close’ would reverse their conclusions. We then present a new analysis of the original dataset, measuring directly the extent to which drivers changed their behaviour in response to helmet wearing. This analysis confirms that drivers did, overall, get closer when the rider wore a helmet.
[deleted]
You can largely avoid right hooks by riding in the primary position/take the general purpose lane by default rather than riding towards the edge or in the bike lane.
“cyclists were given 8.5cm (3.3 inches) more clearance by cars if they were not wearing helmets.”
https://helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm
https://helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm
You know that the article you posted was about refuting this claim:
"After re-analysis of Walker's data, helmet wearing is not associated with close motor vehicle passing"
"After re-analysis of Walker's data, helmet wearing is not associated with close motor vehicle passing"
As discussed above: the "re-analysis" took an analog measurement, filtered it into a binary "close" or "not close" at an arbitrary distance threshold, and then patted themselves on the back when the found there was no difference.
Confirmation bias machine strikes again.
The distance from your head to the ground on a bike is sufficient to cause serious injury of you just fall off. Your individual risk is very low, because you don't fall of bikes often. But multiplied across millions in the population, it starts to make a difference.
the same argument might work for walking, but none is suggesting to have helmets while walking
It concerns me that there's so many stories of bike helmets cracking in two and allegedly having saved someone's life. Bike helmets are designed to compress under impact and as such, they are very weak under tension, so when you see a helmet split into two, it indicates that it wasn't working as designed. Compressed polystyrene in the helmet would indicate that it was doing its job.
It's not the polystyrene which cracks, but the plastic shell holding it in place. The separation will happen after the compression force is removed, because the compression will keep the split parts close together. Meaning that the helmet falls apart after it's done the job.
Also, there are various degrees of helmets, from a simple polystyrene to a mountain bike one to a motorcycle helmet.
You can always go to the next level if you want more protection. The polystyrene one is not supposed to be the end all of protection, just to be better than nothing with minimal inconvenience.
Also, there are various degrees of helmets, from a simple polystyrene to a mountain bike one to a motorcycle helmet.
You can always go to the next level if you want more protection. The polystyrene one is not supposed to be the end all of protection, just to be better than nothing with minimal inconvenience.
The pictures that I've seen of the various "saved my life" destroyed helmets have the polystyrene split apart - it's usually quite easy to split polystyrene if the force is applied the right (wrong) way.
I don't like the concept of requiring PPE for a relatively safe activity as cycling as it makes cycling seem like a far more risky activity than it is and there's also the problem of "helmet hair" which can dissuade commuters. It's telling that countries where bike helmets were mandated had a sharp downturn in the numbers of cyclists.
I don't like the concept of requiring PPE for a relatively safe activity as cycling as it makes cycling seem like a far more risky activity than it is and there's also the problem of "helmet hair" which can dissuade commuters. It's telling that countries where bike helmets were mandated had a sharp downturn in the numbers of cyclists.
Cycling is risky. I've stopped cycling on roads with cars because I realized it's just a matter of time until I get in a serious accident.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/wp/2016/05/12/how-saf...
I'm with you on the mandatory helmet issue, I don't like it either, but mostly because I don't like needlessly restricting ones freedoms, if you want to risk your life, that's fine with me as long as you don't risk others lives too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/wp/2016/05/12/how-saf...
I'm with you on the mandatory helmet issue, I don't like it either, but mostly because I don't like needlessly restricting ones freedoms, if you want to risk your life, that's fine with me as long as you don't risk others lives too.
Cycling is only risky due to the shared infrastructure with cars. The thing that raises the risk is cars. We should all be demanding that our streets are made safe for all users. We already have sidewalks in many places for this reason, we just need to extend similar safe infrastructure to bicycles and other road users too.
Just throwing your hands up and not asking for change is a sure way to not improve things.
Just throwing your hands up and not asking for change is a sure way to not improve things.
I used to live next to a popular bike trail, that had 0 sharing with cars. Not a road within 50 meters. There were plenty of injuries. Bike vs bike, bike vs pedestrian, bike vs stationary object, distracted cyclist injures themselves. Etc. If you're going 30 km/hr in thin lycra, you can certainly injure yourself with no help from anyone or anything else.
This is a common issue in this discussion. People using bikes for sport is a different category for cyclist than an urban and/or casual rider.
When cycling for sport you should always wear a helmet.
When cycling for sport you should always wear a helmet.
If you put on special dress for an activity, don't skip the helmet. Same as driving, actually: people who don special driving kit wear a helmet with that, everybody else drives without.
When I spent time in a French hospital after bike helmet use (not involving a car by the way, except for the ambulance that called the helicopter), I was really curious if I would continue that pattern or become of of those "helmet even on civilian clothes rides" people. Was expecting the latter, but nope, would still feel as alien as putting on a helmet to drive.
When I spent time in a French hospital after bike helmet use (not involving a car by the way, except for the ambulance that called the helicopter), I was really curious if I would continue that pattern or become of of those "helmet even on civilian clothes rides" people. Was expecting the latter, but nope, would still feel as alien as putting on a helmet to drive.
There are many people who cycle for transportation. In order to utilize cycling for transportation, people need to maintain higher speeds, or spend a lot more time commuting each way. Just dismissing their needs by calling them sports cyclists because they ride at faster speeds doesn't do anyone any favors.
Not sure exactly what your point is. The risky behavior being referred to in the article is partly going faster than one should. You're basically making the same point, in order to go faster you feel you must wear a helmet, which if you flip around, you don't go as fast when not wearing a helmet. Not going as fast is less risky behavior.
Now you can decide you want to bike faster, and by all means (and I would make this choice as well), when riding aggressively in any context, you should wear a helmet.
Now you can decide you want to bike faster, and by all means (and I would make this choice as well), when riding aggressively in any context, you should wear a helmet.
The problem is that pedestrians treat those trails like sidewalks and cyclists treat it like a road.
Mutual yielding (where two pedestrians approach each other on a sidewalk) works perfectly fine at walking speed. It doesn't work at vehicular speeds, which is why the rules of the road exist that determine positioning and right of way. In order to travel at faster speeds, one must follow a set of rules. Relying on mutual yielding results in the collisions you mention.
Mutual yielding (where two pedestrians approach each other on a sidewalk) works perfectly fine at walking speed. It doesn't work at vehicular speeds, which is why the rules of the road exist that determine positioning and right of way. In order to travel at faster speeds, one must follow a set of rules. Relying on mutual yielding results in the collisions you mention.
> Cycling is only risky due to the shared infrastructure with cars.
Use of shared infrastructure for all vehicles is risky when the rules of movement (position and right of way) rules are not followed. Some cyclists do not follow those rules and end up in collisions. Other times, authorities paint lines that guide cyclists to ride in unsafe areas (too close to the edge of the roadway, or too close to parked vehicles), or designate areas for cyclists to ride where they're hidden from the motorists' view until both enter the intersection.
When one follows the rules of movement and rides in a predictable manner, that risk is largely eliminated.
> We already have sidewalks in many places for this reason
Sidewalks or side paths that have cyclists follow pedestrian right of way rules on approach and through intersections simply doesn't work. The reason is that cyclists move much faster than a walking pedestrian. Pedestrians walk between 2 to 4 mph, while cyclists ride between 10 to 20 mph. A pedestrian that's within a few feet of entering the roadway can be seen by a motorist in time for the motorist to stop and yield to them. On the other hand, a cyclist can be 50 feet away and not seen by the motorist before the enter the intersection. So, instead of yielding, a collision happens instead.
Cyclists move closer to vehicular speeds as opposed to pedestrian speeds (you can't ride in a straight line when going at walking pace). It makes sense for them to be treated like vehicles and follow the same rules. The rules are designed in a way to accommodate vehicles moving at different speeds.
Use of shared infrastructure for all vehicles is risky when the rules of movement (position and right of way) rules are not followed. Some cyclists do not follow those rules and end up in collisions. Other times, authorities paint lines that guide cyclists to ride in unsafe areas (too close to the edge of the roadway, or too close to parked vehicles), or designate areas for cyclists to ride where they're hidden from the motorists' view until both enter the intersection.
When one follows the rules of movement and rides in a predictable manner, that risk is largely eliminated.
> We already have sidewalks in many places for this reason
Sidewalks or side paths that have cyclists follow pedestrian right of way rules on approach and through intersections simply doesn't work. The reason is that cyclists move much faster than a walking pedestrian. Pedestrians walk between 2 to 4 mph, while cyclists ride between 10 to 20 mph. A pedestrian that's within a few feet of entering the roadway can be seen by a motorist in time for the motorist to stop and yield to them. On the other hand, a cyclist can be 50 feet away and not seen by the motorist before the enter the intersection. So, instead of yielding, a collision happens instead.
Cyclists move closer to vehicular speeds as opposed to pedestrian speeds (you can't ride in a straight line when going at walking pace). It makes sense for them to be treated like vehicles and follow the same rules. The rules are designed in a way to accommodate vehicles moving at different speeds.
People fall with their bikes when there's no cars around.
And there are plenty obstacles available around the city to help you fall. Hitting your head against a road surface after falling with a bike will generally ruin your day if you are not wearing a helmet. Simple physics, really.
Whereas being hit by a truck can end your life, end if you are wearing a helmet
No one has ever been injured cycling on a trail! It’s amazing how the laws of physics no longer apply once you stop sharing infrastructure with motor vehicles.
More seriously, you can easily hit a rock or something and go over the handlebars on a bike path.
More seriously, you can easily hit a rock or something and go over the handlebars on a bike path.
A human being's weight hitting the ground at 30 mph (already a generously high figure) is far less serious than a multi-ton vehicle hitting them at 30 mph (already a generously low figure).
So, yes, physics.
So, yes, physics.
There’s worlds of difference between crashing your bike versus being hit by a car while riding your bike. Yeah, it’ll hurt either way, but the former is substantially less likely to be fatal
Bike paths also tend to have more surface hazards because they're not designed following stringent standards that designers of roads have to follow.
It isn't a binary thing but a rate.
> We should all be demanding that our streets are made safe for all users
We should also be demanding that there is no crime as well.
But outside of this fantasy land you need to accept that cyclists will be interacting with cars at multiple points in their journey from A to B. There are just too many practical issues building an entirely seperate cycling network.
So until this magical day cycling should be considered risky.
We should also be demanding that there is no crime as well.
But outside of this fantasy land you need to accept that cyclists will be interacting with cars at multiple points in their journey from A to B. There are just too many practical issues building an entirely seperate cycling network.
So until this magical day cycling should be considered risky.
There are many cities that manage to make cyclists feel completely safe from cars. Nothing magical, just consistent policy and good design standards.
Some very dense cities are building biking infrastructure right now, it’s not a logistical impossibility… it’s mostly a political problem
Sounds more like it's the cars that are risky, not the cycling.
Well done. You've figured out that cars are in fact incredibly dangerous objects.
Now you just need to figure out how to cycle from A to B that doesn't interact with them.
Now you just need to figure out how to cycle from A to B that doesn't interact with them.
Cycling in a vacuum is safe-ish and not a particularly risky affair. Cycling on a shared road with automobiles going eight times your speed and weighing some 250 times your bipedal vehicle’s weight is not so safe.
I'd recommend reducing your tyre pressure and definitely remember some oxygen.
Differences in speed and mass are largely irrelevant if collisions don't occur. You can minimize the risk of a collision by following the rules of movement on the road (right of way and positioning) and anticipate if someone isn't following those rules and take appropriate action to avoid a collision before it's imminent.
If passenger cars, large trucks and buses. and motorcycles can share the road, so can pedalcyclists.
If passenger cars, large trucks and buses. and motorcycles can share the road, so can pedalcyclists.
Yes, but humans being humans, this isn't the case and isn't going to be. Let's deal with reality, not reductionist fantasy.
If we take death of out of the equation we all live forever. It isn't a useful "if".
If we take death of out of the equation we all live forever. It isn't a useful "if".
I never said that it was ever going to be perfect. I did say one could minimize the risk by following the rules and practicing defensive driving. Crashes aren't as inevitable as people make them out to be. I've avoided crashes while cycling as well as motoring by paying attention to the situation ahead and behind and proactively taking action to avoid putting myself in a situation where I would have crashed into another vehicle or been hit (e.g., seeing that drive not stopping for the red light and not driving into their path).
> If passenger cars, large trucks and buses. and motorcycles can share the road, so can pedalcyclists.
Separated bike infrastructure empirically reduces cyclist fatalities. And it isn’t hard to guess why.
Separated bike infrastructure empirically reduces cyclist fatalities. And it isn’t hard to guess why.
The vast majority of collisions cyclists are involved in happen at intersections (incluing mid block drivways and alleys). Very few collision involve hit from behind.
Cycling infrastructure that places cyclists in the pedestrian position when crossing an intersection exacerbates the risk of getting into a collision when crossing the intersection because motorists aren't really looking to see someone moving at cyclist speed as they're exiting the intersection. The other problem is that cyclists are hidden from view by parked cars until a short time before entering the intersection. This makes it difficult for both the cyclist and motorist to see each other until it's too late to avoid a collision. If you're not riding where motorists are looking, you're far more likely to end up in a collision, fatal or not[1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE
Cycling infrastructure that places cyclists in the pedestrian position when crossing an intersection exacerbates the risk of getting into a collision when crossing the intersection because motorists aren't really looking to see someone moving at cyclist speed as they're exiting the intersection. The other problem is that cyclists are hidden from view by parked cars until a short time before entering the intersection. This makes it difficult for both the cyclist and motorist to see each other until it's too late to avoid a collision. If you're not riding where motorists are looking, you're far more likely to end up in a collision, fatal or not[1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4k6-AI_X1qE
> Differences in speed and mass are largely irrelevant if collisions don't occur.
Breaking: Helmets and safety gear are largely irrelevant if collisions don't occur.
(Hey, PPE is also largely irrelevant if you are never in a situation where a virus can establish a foothold on your person!)
Breaking: Helmets and safety gear are largely irrelevant if collisions don't occur.
(Hey, PPE is also largely irrelevant if you are never in a situation where a virus can establish a foothold on your person!)
Also, the average person likely drives much more than rides a bicycle, so they're much more likely to be injured in a car accident. But no one would suggest mandatory helmet use for drivers, even though that would likely prevent many times more deaths and injuries than mandatory bicycle helmets.
Can you provide some evidence that helmets provide additional benefits when used in combination with airbags and seatbelts? Specifically actual testing. You would probably want to look at auto racing. My gut feeling is that even a slight decrease in visibility in a car wherein visibility is already limited would make a collision more likely and airbags would already provide substantial cushioning for your head so long as the seatbelt keeps the driver in the car.
I think helmets in a car would be a net loss.
I think helmets in a car would be a net loss.
Cycling on roadways is not a relatively safe activity.
I don't know a single cyclist commuter that has not been involved in a car crash - and I'm in my early 30s.
I don't know a single cyclist commuter that has not been involved in a car crash - and I'm in my early 30s.
I admittedly only commuted by bike for 3 years, 2018-2020, but I was never involved in a crash. I ride in some ways contrary to common advice, but that may contribute.
Hi, 'vkou. Nice to meet you. I once got doored, but I didn't crash as a result. Also the car that doored me was parked at the time.
Cycling has a pretty high probability of crashing/falling, and in such an event there's a good chance your face/head will impact something.
Not that I'm in favor of requiring wearing any safety gear, I'm totally in favor of weeding out morons from the gene pool.
But to act like helmets aren't a good idea for cyclists is asinine. Personally I try always rock a full-face MTB helmet when I'm cycling.
Not that I'm in favor of requiring wearing any safety gear, I'm totally in favor of weeding out morons from the gene pool.
But to act like helmets aren't a good idea for cyclists is asinine. Personally I try always rock a full-face MTB helmet when I'm cycling.
The full-face helmets provide much better protection, but they have the trade-offs of being more uncomfortable and hotter.
I'm not convinced that cycling is especially dangerous and my experience is that I've inevitably put my hands out when falling, so I think that gloves should be the first part of PPE recommended for cyclists. Luckily, I've never hit my helmet/head when coming off so I've found that a bike helmet is most useful for stopping low branches etc from hitting me. I'd recommend cycling/protective glasses too - very good for protecting against insects hitting your eyes.
I find it interesting that people seem to have a skewed attitude towards head protection and cycling. If head protection is that important, then why are helmets not recommended for car passengers, people showering, changing a lightbulb etc.?
I'm not convinced that cycling is especially dangerous and my experience is that I've inevitably put my hands out when falling, so I think that gloves should be the first part of PPE recommended for cyclists. Luckily, I've never hit my helmet/head when coming off so I've found that a bike helmet is most useful for stopping low branches etc from hitting me. I'd recommend cycling/protective glasses too - very good for protecting against insects hitting your eyes.
I find it interesting that people seem to have a skewed attitude towards head protection and cycling. If head protection is that important, then why are helmets not recommended for car passengers, people showering, changing a lightbulb etc.?
> then why are helmets not recommended for car passengers, people showering, changing a lightbulb etc
Strawman much?
car passengers: airbags and seatbelts are in direct conflict with and superior to helmets.
people showering and changing lightbulbs are not traveling at speeds exceeding a walking pace in an orientation predisposing them for a head/facial impact for hours at a time.
The full-face helmet I wear is heavily vented like any other bicycling helmet, there is practically no worse comfort than any other cycling helmet worth wearing. And considering how much I appreciate my teeth and not potentially needing to drink hamburgers through a straw while my broken jaw heals due to a cycling mishap, even if it were less comfortable I'm totally on board.
I've written this up with details in previous comments on this subject, but I have multiple friends/friends' family members who have suffered substantial facial/dental injuries in seemingly totally benign cycling activities gone awry. All of them would likely have been non-events had they been wearing a full-face MTB helmet.
Strawman much?
car passengers: airbags and seatbelts are in direct conflict with and superior to helmets.
people showering and changing lightbulbs are not traveling at speeds exceeding a walking pace in an orientation predisposing them for a head/facial impact for hours at a time.
The full-face helmet I wear is heavily vented like any other bicycling helmet, there is practically no worse comfort than any other cycling helmet worth wearing. And considering how much I appreciate my teeth and not potentially needing to drink hamburgers through a straw while my broken jaw heals due to a cycling mishap, even if it were less comfortable I'm totally on board.
I've written this up with details in previous comments on this subject, but I have multiple friends/friends' family members who have suffered substantial facial/dental injuries in seemingly totally benign cycling activities gone awry. All of them would likely have been non-events had they been wearing a full-face MTB helmet.
People do still receive head injuries from car collisions even with airbags and seatbelts, so it's reasonable to think that wearing a car helmet would provide additional head protection - it's certainly common in motorsport.
I'm trying to compare activities that have a significant risk of head injuries (and deaths) with cycling and yet PPE is very rarely mentioned for them.
I'm trying to compare activities that have a significant risk of head injuries (and deaths) with cycling and yet PPE is very rarely mentioned for them.
Motorsport doesn't use airbags and has a steel tubular cage exposed directly to the occupants, the helmet is mostly for protecting from impact with the cage AIUI.
All those grease monkeys driving around with aftermarket cages in their cars and not wearing helmets are actually less safe for it. The last drag strip I was at wouldn't even let you run if you had a cage and no helmet to accompany it.
Airbags and no steel tubes next to your head change the calculus completely.
All those grease monkeys driving around with aftermarket cages in their cars and not wearing helmets are actually less safe for it. The last drag strip I was at wouldn't even let you run if you had a cage and no helmet to accompany it.
Airbags and no steel tubes next to your head change the calculus completely.
I mean, basically any adventurous activity where you're moving [quickly] with equipment gives rise to use of helmets - kayaking, rock climbing, roller blading, skateboarding, skiing, skydiving, horse riding, ...
Can I ask, is it only safety equipment for cycling you're against?
It looks like you're trying to argue that people shouldn't wear helmets when cycling because people in cars; that have protection from a steel cage with crumple zones, and airbags, and seatbelts, and cushioned seats; don't wear helmets.
Like, sit in your car and get someone to launch a paving slab towards you; then sit on your push bike and do the same thing ... I'd do the first without a helmet, I definitely wouldn't do the second without a helmet (or at all). I can't see how you can find these situations comparable wrt indication of benefit from a protective helmet.
Can I ask, is it only safety equipment for cycling you're against?
It looks like you're trying to argue that people shouldn't wear helmets when cycling because people in cars; that have protection from a steel cage with crumple zones, and airbags, and seatbelts, and cushioned seats; don't wear helmets.
Like, sit in your car and get someone to launch a paving slab towards you; then sit on your push bike and do the same thing ... I'd do the first without a helmet, I definitely wouldn't do the second without a helmet (or at all). I can't see how you can find these situations comparable wrt indication of benefit from a protective helmet.
I'm not "against" cycle helmets, but think that their benefits are over-sold. The big issue is when people think that bike helmets are an important safety aspect of cycling, when they're probably not even in the top ten. It's interesting to see different countries' attitudes towards road safety and cycle helmets.
For the record, I always wear a bike helmet here in the UK, but I am not convinced that they really provide much benefit. There's plenty of different studies on bike helmets and a lot of them are very flawed (quite often ones that are sponsored by helmet manufacturers), which is worrying as it should be easy to demonstrate if they are having a big effect on road safety. My opinion is that population wide, they do provide a small benefit, but they can also act as a barrier to cycling for some people, so it's best to not over-emphasise them.
The health benefits from active travel are undeniable, so I'd prefer cycling to be promoted as much as possible and talking about helmets is missing the point.
For the record, I always wear a bike helmet here in the UK, but I am not convinced that they really provide much benefit. There's plenty of different studies on bike helmets and a lot of them are very flawed (quite often ones that are sponsored by helmet manufacturers), which is worrying as it should be easy to demonstrate if they are having a big effect on road safety. My opinion is that population wide, they do provide a small benefit, but they can also act as a barrier to cycling for some people, so it's best to not over-emphasise them.
The health benefits from active travel are undeniable, so I'd prefer cycling to be promoted as much as possible and talking about helmets is missing the point.
Perhaps those activities _should_ be discussing helmets.
Most sports where participants could materially benefit from helmet use absolutely do discuss helmets though usage varies from common (e.g. recreational downhill skiing) to almost universal--whitewater kayaking.
Downhill skiing in particular has transition from essential no non-racers wearing a helmet to quite a high percentage in maybe a couple of decades.
Downhill skiing in particular has transition from essential no non-racers wearing a helmet to quite a high percentage in maybe a couple of decades.
In 2009, a German state governor caused a terrible skiing accident, which he survived but the victim didn't. He was wearing a helmet, she wasn't, and after that point, helmet sales in Germany and Austria shot through the roof and use has remained high. Before that, it was pretty much only racers and children.
Natasha Richardson (reasonably well-known actress) also died the same year from a skiing-related brain bleed. And yeah, while I haven't had a lot of visibility into ski area helmet usage over the past decade, that does seem to be around the time when it really shot up.
> I'm not convinced that cycling is especially dangerous and my experience is that I've inevitably put my hands out when falling, so I think that gloves should be the first part of PPE recommended for cyclists.
Around 15 years ago I fractured my right arm doing the same. There were no scratches on my hands--I used my right hand to stop the fall primarily and the force was just too much. However, if I had hit my head, which was not unlikely in that particular fall, a fractured skull would have been much worse.
Around 15 years ago I fractured my right arm doing the same. There were no scratches on my hands--I used my right hand to stop the fall primarily and the force was just too much. However, if I had hit my head, which was not unlikely in that particular fall, a fractured skull would have been much worse.
[deleted]
> It's not the polystyrene which cracks, but the plastic shell holding it in place. The separation will happen after the compression force is removed, because the compression will keep the split parts close together. Meaning that the helmet falls apart after it's done the job.
Nope. As a cyclist, I've seen numerous people in social media groups, friends, etc post pictures of their helmets that "saved their lives." Every single time, it's cracked to pieces, with no visible denting to the polystyrene foam.
Deformation of that foam is how a helmet absorbs impact force, and cracking apart is a failure of the helmet.
Bike helmets in the US are required to pass one test - a weight being dropped directly on top of the helmet that simulates a detached adult male head falling onto the ground from about the height of an average adult male. The test makes absolutely no sense, because the whole thing is a sham.
Nope. As a cyclist, I've seen numerous people in social media groups, friends, etc post pictures of their helmets that "saved their lives." Every single time, it's cracked to pieces, with no visible denting to the polystyrene foam.
Deformation of that foam is how a helmet absorbs impact force, and cracking apart is a failure of the helmet.
Bike helmets in the US are required to pass one test - a weight being dropped directly on top of the helmet that simulates a detached adult male head falling onto the ground from about the height of an average adult male. The test makes absolutely no sense, because the whole thing is a sham.
Motorcycle helmets are typically also polystyrene, although with multiple densities for handling both light and heavy impacts.
Motorcycle helmets also have degrees of protection, from the useless DOT standard to the less bad Snell standards to the quite good ECE and FIM standards.
Motorcycle helmets also have degrees of protection, from the useless DOT standard to the less bad Snell standards to the quite good ECE and FIM standards.
I have worn a bike helmet without fail starting in the early 80s. I have always understood that they are disposable after any hard hit. Visible or not, polystyrene compresses, cracks, crumbles, etc. The shell or skin of the helmet never seemed to matter much, so whether it splits or shreds, doesn't matter. Maybe I'll have a look for a source on this.
Yeah, it's a crumble zone that might add a few precious millimeters to the very short deceleration path of the brain if limbs and reflexes fail to do that job completely. Disintegration means that it's doing its job.
That's a completely different story from the primary task of the helmets for rock climbers, construction workers or soldiers, which is distributing a small, concentrated impact (a rock or a dropped tool or random debris) to a wider area.
That's a completely different story from the primary task of the helmets for rock climbers, construction workers or soldiers, which is distributing a small, concentrated impact (a rock or a dropped tool or random debris) to a wider area.
Rock climbing helmets differ in design substantially. Loads of modern ones are more like bike helmets - recognising, I suggest, that most head injuries climbing are head hitting the crag rather than rocks falling, making it more like cycle impacts. That said, I've no real insight into what makes one design better over another.
Well, when I was hit by a car and hitting the asphalt head first as a teenager, I found it adequate, that the helmet was cracked to pieces afterward. Did it save my life? I don't know, but with the helmet I only had a light concussion (and broken leg) compared to very possible skull crack.
Compressed polystyrene I know only from light accidents, but it has been a while and I suppose todays helmets are a bit more durable. (But luckily never had to find out, if they fare better nowdays. Also I learned to fall and only rarely wear a helmet nowdays)
Compressed polystyrene I know only from light accidents, but it has been a while and I suppose todays helmets are a bit more durable. (But luckily never had to find out, if they fare better nowdays. Also I learned to fall and only rarely wear a helmet nowdays)
Could be both? Usually it is the outer shell that is cracked and described as split. I could see that happening more on the road style helmets, due to their shapes.
The pictures that I've seen of the various "saved my life" destroyed helmets have the polystyrene split apart - it's usually quite easy to split polystyrene if the force is applied the right (wrong) way.
Interesting and scary. Curious what could cause the wrong behavior.
I'd guess impacts at different angles. AFAIK bike helmets are tested for direct impacts via drop tests, so manufacturers may not care so much about how the helmet performs under different conditions - it may even be a good marketing gimmick to have helmets destroy themselves dramatically as people are more likely to share a picture along with a "saved my life" anecdote.
I had a helmet damaged by a roommate who knocked down a bike on a stand. The polystyrene was cracked completely through but remained bonded to the shell. They are supposed to break like that. Older styles of construction are going to be less durable but if it keeps the structure constrained to your head it will to a better job than nothing.
LOL...they are not supposed to break like that.
Basically, crumple zones for heads.
If you could demonstrate that the helmet was splitting and taking energy with it maybe you could make an argument for splitting, but it seems unlikely that this is a mode of operation.
If you could demonstrate that the helmet was splitting and taking energy with it maybe you could make an argument for splitting, but it seems unlikely that this is a mode of operation.
Why not? Given every helmet I've seen in a significant crash was split somehow, my assumption is that splitting is an important part of the energy absorption.
Polystyrene is very weak in tension (can be broken by hand) so won't be deflecting much energy. The principle is to slow the deceleration of the head by the polystyrene compressing and thus reducing the g-forces to the skull (not so much the brain which tends to slosh in the skull and cause concussion). Some motorbike helmets use materials such as polycarbonate which are intended to provide protection by breaking - quite different to bicycle helmets.
Famous last words: "Well, that wasn't supposed to happen!"
Another such example is drivers or passengers opening cars' doors without looking in the mirrors. A car's doors are reinforced plenty while having relatively sharp-ish metal ‘lip’ on the butt end, and you really don't want to run into one from that angle.
That's why it's a good idea to not cycle in the "door-zone" on roads. Annoyingly, some bike "infrastructure" (i.e. bit of paint) is put directly into the door-zone of parked vehicles which typically makes it worse than useless and best avoided (which then of course risks getting ire from drivers who don't understand why you choose to cycle where you do).
One interesting way of reducing doorings is to teach drivers and passengers the Dutch reach. Basically you should always use your furthest hand to open the door as that involves twisting your body and encourages you to see a nearby pedestrian/scooter/cyclist.
One interesting way of reducing doorings is to teach drivers and passengers the Dutch reach. Basically you should always use your furthest hand to open the door as that involves twisting your body and encourages you to see a nearby pedestrian/scooter/cyclist.
Yeah, in regard to bike lanes between the road and the sidewalk, some note that passengers are even less likely than the drivers to look in the mirrors or just back out the window when getting out, since they expect mostly walking people on that side. Thankfully, some lanes are separated from the parked cars, usually with some flowebeds or just bollards in that space: e.g. https://i2.wp.com/www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/201...
I suspect that a side-effect of the popularity of electric scooters will be that passengers will habituate a bit to seeing faster things on the sidewalks.
I suspect that a side-effect of the popularity of electric scooters will be that passengers will habituate a bit to seeing faster things on the sidewalks.
> I suspect that a side-effect of the popularity of electric scooters will be that passengers will habituate a bit to seeing faster things on the sidewalks.
That's unlikely. Even if 95% of people did, there's still 5% who won't. The real problem is bad design that places preferential use lanes for cyclists too close to parked cars and expects cyclists and occupants of motor vehicles to figure it out. This results in serious injuries and deaths of cyclists.
Authorities should be encouraging cyclists to ride at least 6 feet away from parked vehicles. One way is to paint shared lane markings to guide cyclists to ride in the safest position in the general purpose lane far enough away from parked vehicles.
That's unlikely. Even if 95% of people did, there's still 5% who won't. The real problem is bad design that places preferential use lanes for cyclists too close to parked cars and expects cyclists and occupants of motor vehicles to figure it out. This results in serious injuries and deaths of cyclists.
Authorities should be encouraging cyclists to ride at least 6 feet away from parked vehicles. One way is to paint shared lane markings to guide cyclists to ride in the safest position in the general purpose lane far enough away from parked vehicles.
> One interesting way of reducing doorings is to teach drivers and passengers the Dutch reach.
That really doesn't work. First, a cyclist is moving at least 15 feet per second, which is the average length of a passenger vehicle, so by the time they're besides you, they're already past you. Second, your view is blocked[1] by the B and C pillars of the vehicle as well as the headrest, so you won't be able to see a cyclist approaching.
The second best approach is to check the outside mirror before opening the door, but that doesn't work for passengers in the vehicle. The absolute best approach is to never, ever, ride in the door zone, regardless of whether or not door zone bike lanes are present.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/MuvTxOz.jpeg
That really doesn't work. First, a cyclist is moving at least 15 feet per second, which is the average length of a passenger vehicle, so by the time they're besides you, they're already past you. Second, your view is blocked[1] by the B and C pillars of the vehicle as well as the headrest, so you won't be able to see a cyclist approaching.
The second best approach is to check the outside mirror before opening the door, but that doesn't work for passengers in the vehicle. The absolute best approach is to never, ever, ride in the door zone, regardless of whether or not door zone bike lanes are present.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/MuvTxOz.jpeg
It's a significant issue.
The British Highway Code now includes the "Dutch Reach" car door open (where you grab the door handle with the hand furthest from the door to force your body to turn, hopefully seeing inbound cyclists).
A LOT of the updates to the highway code are for the sake of road users that aren't in cars.
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/changes-and-answers/category...
>239 ...
>where you are able to do so, you should open the door using your hand on the opposite side to the door you are opening; for example, use your left hand to open a door on your right-hand side. This will make you turn your head to look over your shoulder. You are then more likely to avoid causing injury to cyclists or motorcyclists passing you on the road, or to people on the pavement
The British Highway Code now includes the "Dutch Reach" car door open (where you grab the door handle with the hand furthest from the door to force your body to turn, hopefully seeing inbound cyclists).
A LOT of the updates to the highway code are for the sake of road users that aren't in cars.
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/changes-and-answers/category...
>239 ...
>where you are able to do so, you should open the door using your hand on the opposite side to the door you are opening; for example, use your left hand to open a door on your right-hand side. This will make you turn your head to look over your shoulder. You are then more likely to avoid causing injury to cyclists or motorcyclists passing you on the road, or to people on the pavement
> The British Highway Code now includes the "Dutch Reach" car door open (where you grab the door handle with the hand furthest from the door to force your body to turn, hopefully seeing inbound cyclists).
Unfortunately, it doesn't work unless you're in a convertible type vehicle. Otherwise, the B and C pillars as well as the headrest will block[1] your view of an approaching cyclist. Checking the outside/wing mirror is sufficient. The British highway code also includes a provision that says that cyclists can ride in the primary position given the situation. Riding far enough away from parked vehicles to avoid a potential dooring collision is one of them.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/MuvTxOz.jpeg
Unfortunately, it doesn't work unless you're in a convertible type vehicle. Otherwise, the B and C pillars as well as the headrest will block[1] your view of an approaching cyclist. Checking the outside/wing mirror is sufficient. The British highway code also includes a provision that says that cyclists can ride in the primary position given the situation. Riding far enough away from parked vehicles to avoid a potential dooring collision is one of them.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/MuvTxOz.jpeg
Doorings can be prevented by riding far enough away from parked vehicles (at least 6 feet away).
I was launched about 20' by an abruptly opened car door. The paramedics thanked me for wearing a helmet; they only had to deliver me to the ER for seven stitches caused by that "lip."
> The cyclist was launched headfirst into the bumper of a car stopped at the light and her helmet loudly cracked in two
Bicycle helmets "work" by deformation of the hard polystyrene foam. If it cracked in two, it failed. If the foam did not deform, no energy was absorbed.
It is an extremely common misconception, especially among cyclists, that a cracked/disintegrated helmet "worked" and "saved their life."
Bicycle helmets crack and fall apart in many of these crashes because they're not designed to take anywhere near the typical forces involved in actual crash. They're only designed to "work" for a stationary fall from about the height of an average adult male, falling straight upside-down on top of their head.
> I'm sure she would have died without that helmet.
That's not how that works.
"I saw someone wearing a bunch of ring of flowers around their head and they got hit by a car. The flowers exploded in a poof of pedals. I'm sure she would have died without the ring of flowers around her head."
"I wear a ring of garlic around my neck. I haven't been attacked by vampires. Garlic repels vampires!"
Etc.
Bicycle helmets "work" by deformation of the hard polystyrene foam. If it cracked in two, it failed. If the foam did not deform, no energy was absorbed.
It is an extremely common misconception, especially among cyclists, that a cracked/disintegrated helmet "worked" and "saved their life."
Bicycle helmets crack and fall apart in many of these crashes because they're not designed to take anywhere near the typical forces involved in actual crash. They're only designed to "work" for a stationary fall from about the height of an average adult male, falling straight upside-down on top of their head.
> I'm sure she would have died without that helmet.
That's not how that works.
"I saw someone wearing a bunch of ring of flowers around their head and they got hit by a car. The flowers exploded in a poof of pedals. I'm sure she would have died without the ring of flowers around her head."
"I wear a ring of garlic around my neck. I haven't been attacked by vampires. Garlic repels vampires!"
Etc.
Does an employer have the right to put someone's life at risk on purpose? If so, is the employer going to be on the hook when an accident does happen?
It's one thing to risk your own life by not using safety gear.
Its another level of reckless to not provide safety gear to your employees
To forbid someone else from using their own safety gear is a level of asine behaviour that trully terrible.
But these guys top even that- they don't just dicourage employees from wearing helmets through hush-hush, hint hint, they boast about it in a public press release.
It's not your life to risk, that person is not a serf, and if I wants to wear a bulletproof vest everywhere I goes that's not the employer's concern. If ee allow this to stand, it sets a terrible precedent.
It's one thing to risk your own life by not using safety gear.
Its another level of reckless to not provide safety gear to your employees
To forbid someone else from using their own safety gear is a level of asine behaviour that trully terrible.
But these guys top even that- they don't just dicourage employees from wearing helmets through hush-hush, hint hint, they boast about it in a public press release.
It's not your life to risk, that person is not a serf, and if I wants to wear a bulletproof vest everywhere I goes that's not the employer's concern. If ee allow this to stand, it sets a terrible precedent.
Very good point. The reasoning in the post assumes that the rider is responsible for all accidents.
While the article is very short, this was still easy to miss, “… and those driving around them take greater risks too.”
So it does in fact mention that both people driving around those wearing helmets as well as the cyclists themselves take greater risks.
The argument is that in the GP’s anecdote that the cyclist (and perhaps even the truck driver) would have taken less risky actions preceding the crash, thus avoiding it all-together.
So it does in fact mention that both people driving around those wearing helmets as well as the cyclists themselves take greater risks.
The argument is that in the GP’s anecdote that the cyclist (and perhaps even the truck driver) would have taken less risky actions preceding the crash, thus avoiding it all-together.
> … and those driving around them take greater risks too
Really? Data shows that a driver will subconsciously take stock of the fact that a cyclist is wearing a helmet and adjust their risk assessments accordingly? I find that incredibly difficult to believe.
Really? Data shows that a driver will subconsciously take stock of the fact that a cyclist is wearing a helmet and adjust their risk assessments accordingly? I find that incredibly difficult to believe.
This seems to be a good article on this: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/mar/21/bike-he...
“ In 2006 he attached a computer and an electronic distance gauge to his bike and recorded data from 2,500 drivers who overtook him on the roads. Half the time he wore a bike helmet and half the time he was bare-headed. The results showed motorists tended to pass him more closely when he had the helmet on, coming an average of 8.5 cm nearer.”
“ In 2006 he attached a computer and an electronic distance gauge to his bike and recorded data from 2,500 drivers who overtook him on the roads. Half the time he wore a bike helmet and half the time he was bare-headed. The results showed motorists tended to pass him more closely when he had the helmet on, coming an average of 8.5 cm nearer.”
Well, this explaination at least makes some sense to me
> Walker said he believed this was likely to be connected to cycling being relatively rare in the UK, and drivers thus forming preconceived ideas about cyclists based on what they wore. “This may lead drivers to believe cyclists with helmets are more serious, experienced and predictable than those without,” he wrote.
The article also mentions this risk-taking study where some participants were asked to gamble and some had helmets on and some had hats on, and found that people with helmets on took greater risks. If I were asked to do something like wear a helmet where one is completely unwarranted, I might feel silly and do silly things for that extra fun factor. Wearing a helmet on a bike results in a completely different mindset than wearing a helmet at the office, if not solely for the fact that it's unusual behavior.
> Walker said he believed this was likely to be connected to cycling being relatively rare in the UK, and drivers thus forming preconceived ideas about cyclists based on what they wore. “This may lead drivers to believe cyclists with helmets are more serious, experienced and predictable than those without,” he wrote.
The article also mentions this risk-taking study where some participants were asked to gamble and some had helmets on and some had hats on, and found that people with helmets on took greater risks. If I were asked to do something like wear a helmet where one is completely unwarranted, I might feel silly and do silly things for that extra fun factor. Wearing a helmet on a bike results in a completely different mindset than wearing a helmet at the office, if not solely for the fact that it's unusual behavior.
I sought out that study [1]. They seemed to control for anxiety levels in the participants, so the results are still interesting. However, they also refer to some prior art:
> Our findings initially appear different from those of some other studies. Fyhri and Phillips (2013; Phillips et al., 2011) found that risk taking in downhill bicycling, measured through riding speed, did not simply increase when a helmet was worn; rather, the people who normally cycled with a helmet took fewer risks when riding without one. Why did the participants in Fyhri and Phillips’s study who were not habitual helmet users not react to wearing a helmet with increased risk taking, as our experiment might suggest they would? Clearly more work is needed to definitively pin down all the mechanisms here, but for now, we speculate that the difference might be related to considerable variations between the two studies’ procedures. Fyhri and Phillips greatly emphasized the physicality of their task (“to increase the difference in measures between the helmet-on and -off conditions, all participants were instructed to cycle using one-hand in both conditions”; p. 60), which provides a direct link between the action (bicycling) and the condition (helmet wearing) that was absent in our study. Moreover, that study used a repeated measures design, in which participants were aware they were riding a bicycle both with and without a helmet. This could have meant that behavior changed through mechanisms different from those seen here, where participants took part only in one condition and were not aware of any manipulation, nor even that they were specifically wearing a safety device.
So, in the past other studies have concluded that when the helmet has an _actual_ potential impact on safety, they do not induce greater risk-taking behavior. This fits right in with my personal experience, where I don't even consider that fact that I'm wearing my helmet during a ride.
1. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09567976156207...
> Our findings initially appear different from those of some other studies. Fyhri and Phillips (2013; Phillips et al., 2011) found that risk taking in downhill bicycling, measured through riding speed, did not simply increase when a helmet was worn; rather, the people who normally cycled with a helmet took fewer risks when riding without one. Why did the participants in Fyhri and Phillips’s study who were not habitual helmet users not react to wearing a helmet with increased risk taking, as our experiment might suggest they would? Clearly more work is needed to definitively pin down all the mechanisms here, but for now, we speculate that the difference might be related to considerable variations between the two studies’ procedures. Fyhri and Phillips greatly emphasized the physicality of their task (“to increase the difference in measures between the helmet-on and -off conditions, all participants were instructed to cycle using one-hand in both conditions”; p. 60), which provides a direct link between the action (bicycling) and the condition (helmet wearing) that was absent in our study. Moreover, that study used a repeated measures design, in which participants were aware they were riding a bicycle both with and without a helmet. This could have meant that behavior changed through mechanisms different from those seen here, where participants took part only in one condition and were not aware of any manipulation, nor even that they were specifically wearing a safety device.
So, in the past other studies have concluded that when the helmet has an _actual_ potential impact on safety, they do not induce greater risk-taking behavior. This fits right in with my personal experience, where I don't even consider that fact that I'm wearing my helmet during a ride.
1. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09567976156207...
> “ In 2006 he attached a computer and an electronic distance gauge to his bike and recorded data from 2,500 drivers who overtook him on the roads. Half the time he wore a bike helmet and half the time he was bare-headed. The results showed motorists tended to pass him more closely when he had the helmet on, coming an average of 8.5 cm nearer.”
This study proves nothing about rider safety. What matters here is actual accidents, and most bike accidents do not even involve a car. The study only proves that motorists would pass about 4 inches closer to author of the study when he had a helmet on. Motorists were not frequently hitting the author.
This study proves nothing about rider safety. What matters here is actual accidents, and most bike accidents do not even involve a car. The study only proves that motorists would pass about 4 inches closer to author of the study when he had a helmet on. Motorists were not frequently hitting the author.
Did they do control for rider behavior? I'm curious if the unhelmeted rode closer to the road edge.
I know you're just elaborating the parent comment's point, so this isn't really directed at you, but the only study I've ever heard of which said anything like that was one academic riding a bike with and without a helmet, and measuring how close cars came to him. IIRC the difference was a matter of one or two centimetres and, perhaps unsurprisingly, the p-value was just under 0.05. That study was regularly thrown around by friends who were looking for a rationale for their dislike of wearing helmets.
We really need some high-quality studies with a much better experimental design that look at overall risk. Perhaps riders are marginally more likely to get into accidents if they wear a helmet, but I know from personal experience that when you do get into an accident you really want to be wearing a helmet - if I wasn't wearing one when I had a big accident about ten years ago, I'm pretty certain I'd have serious neurological problems now.
We really need some high-quality studies with a much better experimental design that look at overall risk. Perhaps riders are marginally more likely to get into accidents if they wear a helmet, but I know from personal experience that when you do get into an accident you really want to be wearing a helmet - if I wasn't wearing one when I had a big accident about ten years ago, I'm pretty certain I'd have serious neurological problems now.
I linked to an article that I found on this in a sibling comment. It’s an average of 8.5cm closer when wearing a helmet. Obviously a p95 etc would be valuable here.
Personally, I believe the correct thing is to provide separate infrastructure from cars for bicyclists. One big nuance in the helmet debate is that the helmet is really best designed from mistakes while riding, ie when done for sport.
Personally, I believe the correct thing is to provide separate infrastructure from cars for bicyclists. One big nuance in the helmet debate is that the helmet is really best designed from mistakes while riding, ie when done for sport.
I agree. That same researcher has a lot of other research in the same vein. Having read some of the papers, I find them pretty unconvincing (and there are other papers which show that to the extent that 'risk compensation' is a thing, it's a short-term effect: if you increase the perceived risk of an activity, people may be more cautious for a bit, but they quickly relax into the same behaviour as before).
The reasoning behind the ban is that they're recording more accidents and injuries with helmets than without. The speculation is that the helmeted riders are more aggressive. Neither the reason nor the speculation assume that the rider is responsible for all accidents.
"So riders wearing helmets take greater risks, and those driving around them take greater risks too."
https://psyarxiv.com/nxw2k
https://psyarxiv.com/nxw2k
Seems like this paper refutes other refutations about previous studies producing helmet disparaging data. Who to believe? I guess I'll just believe these conclusions until the next refutation comes along.
On a more serious note, I assume that conclusions about helmet safety predicated on motorist passing behavior (which I already pretty much just intuitively reject) could not be safely extrapolated to include much larger and more visible multi-person passenger bearing bikes. They are very different visually and culturally and motorists almost certainly behave differently around them, so I'm gonna require new data that takes these different psychological effects into account.
On a more serious note, I assume that conclusions about helmet safety predicated on motorist passing behavior (which I already pretty much just intuitively reject) could not be safely extrapolated to include much larger and more visible multi-person passenger bearing bikes. They are very different visually and culturally and motorists almost certainly behave differently around them, so I'm gonna require new data that takes these different psychological effects into account.
Their argument is that riders with helmets take more risk. I'd argue this is likely wrong causality. It seems far more likely that those in more risky settings (e.g. streets without cycle paths) are more likely to wear helmets.
Back in elementary school a few decades ago, they did a demonstration of what happens if you're not wearing a helmet.
They used a watermelon and dropped it from maybe 5 or 6 feet up in the air.
I refuse to ride anything without a helmet ever since.
They used a watermelon and dropped it from maybe 5 or 6 feet up in the air.
I refuse to ride anything without a helmet ever since.
[deleted]
With that level of violence it is the same scenario and the same outcome for a car.
If we insist that cyclists protect themselves against multiple tonnes of kinetic energy impact, we should insist on the same protection for car drivers.
If we insist that cyclists protect themselves against multiple tonnes of kinetic energy impact, we should insist on the same protection for car drivers.
We already do. Crash safety standards, seatbelts, and mandatory air bags dramatically decrease injury and death in crashes, and numerous other safety mandates reduce the chance of a crash in the first place.
Thanks for the reply. I hadn’t thought of airbags-as-helmet-substitutes in that way.
Are helmets the bicycle equivalent of air bags then? Isn’t that quite a third rate equivalent?
Are helmets the bicycle equivalent of air bags then? Isn’t that quite a third rate equivalent?
When I was 13 I was hit by a car on my bike. Same thing. Helmet cracked, and my head didn’t.
Should drivers also be required to wear helmets? Driving a car is itself unsafe, motor vehicle accidents are one of the leading causes of TBIs.
That's what airbags are supposed to help with, thankfully.
Yet 53,000 people a year in the US suffer traumatic brain injuries from motor vehicle crashes.
If we are to believe a helmet will help a cyclist, it must be true that helmets would have helped those drivers and passengers too.
The airbag argument is just distracting. "Let's not use antivirus because we already have a firewall".
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7048a3.htm#T2_down
If we are to believe a helmet will help a cyclist, it must be true that helmets would have helped those drivers and passengers too.
The airbag argument is just distracting. "Let's not use antivirus because we already have a firewall".
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7048a3.htm#T2_down
At racetracks, they're usually mandatory. It's all a matter of risk vs. inconvenience.
I don’t think helmets would mitigate that risk. For comparison, should bicyclists be required to wear seatbelts?
Race car drivers wear helmets, so clearly they help.
Race cars are built differently; they have a tube frame to protect against high speed roll overs and have no airbags. You wear a helmet to protect yourself from hitting your head against the metal roll cage or steering wheel (because no airbag).
[deleted]
Did you read the article? These bikes are 2-3 meters long. There is no chance of this type of injury occurring with them.
Unless Pedal Me provide open-source data on which they based this decision, I don't believe it is based on safety.
It's seems like marketing and cost-cutting issue for them.
Customer: "Driver is wearing a helmet, and nobody provided helmets for us.. Are we in danger?"
Pedal Me: "Say no more.. "
Plus it seems they only bought caps & jackets for their drivers previously, no safety gear. Drivers are replaceable, aren't they? (\s)
And other thing, why is a 3 meters long bike road-legal?
It's seems like marketing and cost-cutting issue for them.
Customer: "Driver is wearing a helmet, and nobody provided helmets for us.. Are we in danger?"
Pedal Me: "Say no more.. "
Plus it seems they only bought caps & jackets for their drivers previously, no safety gear. Drivers are replaceable, aren't they? (\s)
And other thing, why is a 3 meters long bike road-legal?
“And other thing, why is a 3 meters long bike road-legal?”
Because there’s nothing unsafe about it.
Better questions are: why are cars that exceed 90 mph street legal? Why are trucks with lift kits street legal? Shouldn’t we be preventing things from being on the street that are actually killing people?
Because there’s nothing unsafe about it.
Better questions are: why are cars that exceed 90 mph street legal? Why are trucks with lift kits street legal? Shouldn’t we be preventing things from being on the street that are actually killing people?
> And other thing, why is a 3 meters long bike road-legal?
Huh? Why shouldn't it be?
A normal road bike gets close to 2 meters at the tips of the wheels. Add a trailer and that's easily 3.
Huh? Why shouldn't it be?
A normal road bike gets close to 2 meters at the tips of the wheels. Add a trailer and that's easily 3.
I don't think it's based on safety, either. It's almost certainly a safety perception / marketing thing.
However, the type of bike they are using is much safer than a normal bicycle because of its size.
However, the type of bike they are using is much safer than a normal bicycle because of its size.
> And other thing, why is a 3 meters long bike road-legal?
Why shouldn’t it be?
Why shouldn’t it be?
That wouldn't surprise me at all. But as for a 3m bike, that's still shorter than most cars? Broadly speaking, bikes of any size are classed as vehicles in the US, with the same rights and duties (though that may vary a bit state by state).
Why is a 5 meter long motorized bike with an enclosed cabin street legal?
2 bicycles with a little house in the middle??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzReEcDjmlY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzReEcDjmlY
There are laws authorizing their use, they are registered with licensing required for use. That’s why.
It's inevitable, inattentive other drivers will eventually hit one of these cargo bikes no matter how safely their operators are riding.
I'm not sure about that. If the bike gets stuck either you go over the front or you wish you did.
I have had my bike's wheel get physically jammed into a train track and went over the front. I was wearing a helmet, though I didn't hit my head. I was practicing Aikido back then and did a nice roll resulting in no injury. There is no way I could do that today.
I have had my bike's wheel get physically jammed into a train track and went over the front. I was wearing a helmet, though I didn't hit my head. I was practicing Aikido back then and did a nice roll resulting in no injury. There is no way I could do that today.
hHe article is full of BS, you don't hurt yourself "going over the handlebars" you hurt yourself with sudden impact to your head. This might happen after you go over the bars, hit your head on the bars, get t-boned or something hits you from behind. The logic that "helmets make risky people take bigger risks" is criminally false. It's like saying wearing a seat belt makes you drive aggressively because you feel your now invincible.
Of course going over the handlebars is possible with a cargo bike. The cyclist will hit the cargo area before they hit the pavement, which makes these situations no less dangerous.
The physics don't work that way. With a normal bicycle, you go over the handlebars because the whole bike tips forward - it's just gravity + momentum. Then you faceplant.
With a wheelbase of 2-3m, there's just no way the bike tips forward like this, especially with the rider positioned towards the back. Couple that with the fact that cargo bikes travel at lower average speeds and it's not clear to me how this injury occurs.
With a wheelbase of 2-3m, there's just no way the bike tips forward like this, especially with the rider positioned towards the back. Couple that with the fact that cargo bikes travel at lower average speeds and it's not clear to me how this injury occurs.
This is one of those situations where there is a lot of fear and anecdotes but data shows that more accidents and injuries occur with helmets than without.
A company should design their safety protocol well and it includes what equipment workers should and should not wear to protect them best.
So prohibiting helmets is very responsible. Criticizing them seems to be taking an irrational stance that it’s better to address your feelings than the actual reality of what happens.
A company should design their safety protocol well and it includes what equipment workers should and should not wear to protect them best.
So prohibiting helmets is very responsible. Criticizing them seems to be taking an irrational stance that it’s better to address your feelings than the actual reality of what happens.
https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/46/1/278/2617198
> Bicycle helmet use was associated with reduced odds of head injury, serious head injury, facial injury and fatal head injury. The reduction was greater for serious or fatal head injury. Neck injury was rare and not associated with helmet use. These results support the use of strategies to increase the uptake of bicycle helmets as part of a comprehensive cycling safety plan.
OK, let's see your data!
> Bicycle helmet use was associated with reduced odds of head injury, serious head injury, facial injury and fatal head injury. The reduction was greater for serious or fatal head injury. Neck injury was rare and not associated with helmet use. These results support the use of strategies to increase the uptake of bicycle helmets as part of a comprehensive cycling safety plan.
OK, let's see your data!
It's a common misconception amongst amateur cyclists that because helmets marginally increase the chance of neck injury and that head injuries are relatively uncommon on bicycles that helmets deliver negative returns in terms of safety but as others have pointed out the data doesn't seem to suggest this is actually the case. Also in terms of common sense consider that all professional cyclists wear helmets when they're competing.
I'm getting real sick of the, "your feelings" talk. You used to get socked in the eye for talking to people that way in public. There's a better way of expressing your point than speaking to proverbial others as though they're children. It's enormously toxic.
I'm getting real sick of the, "your feelings" talk. You used to get socked in the eye for talking to people that way in public. There's a better way of expressing your point than speaking to proverbial others as though they're children. It's enormously toxic.
> Also in terms of common sense consider that all professional cyclists wear helmets when they're competing.
Helmets are mandatory in all major cycle competitions - so I'm not sure this reveals a preference among professional cyclists, so much as a preference among competition administrators.
Helmets are mandatory in all major cycle competitions - so I'm not sure this reveals a preference among professional cyclists, so much as a preference among competition administrators.
> It's a common misconception amongst amateur cyclists that because helmets marginally increase the chance of neck injury and that head injuries are relatively uncommon on bicycles that helmets deliver negative returns in terms of safety but as others have pointed out the data doesn't seem to suggest this is actually the case.
The question is actually more interesting with public health. I have seen several studies that showed that mandatory cycling helmets decrease life expectancy. That's because less people will ride a bike if they have to wear a helmet and the benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers of not wearing the helmet. That doesn't mean it isn't good to wear one anyway if out cycling.
>Also in terms of common sense consider that all professional cyclists wear helmets when they're competing.
Mentioning professional cycling does not help your argument. The riders organisations were fighting strongly against mandatory helmets, and professional cycling was very late with requiring helmets they came many years after they were mandatory for amateur races. There is also the observation that professional cycling has become riskier, although I would not necessarily link that to cyclist wearing helmets, it would be worth investigating though.
The question is actually more interesting with public health. I have seen several studies that showed that mandatory cycling helmets decrease life expectancy. That's because less people will ride a bike if they have to wear a helmet and the benefits of cycling outweigh the dangers of not wearing the helmet. That doesn't mean it isn't good to wear one anyway if out cycling.
>Also in terms of common sense consider that all professional cyclists wear helmets when they're competing.
Mentioning professional cycling does not help your argument. The riders organisations were fighting strongly against mandatory helmets, and professional cycling was very late with requiring helmets they came many years after they were mandatory for amateur races. There is also the observation that professional cycling has become riskier, although I would not necessarily link that to cyclist wearing helmets, it would be worth investigating though.
Can you cite any of those studies? Is this one of those things where studies count the accidents reported for each group without controlling for population size?
I ask because there are “studies” that show there are more skiing accidents with helmets than without, but anyone who has spent a day at a ski hill can tell why that is: the vast, vast majority of people are wearing helmets. Throw a rock into a crowd of skiers and you’ll probably hit someone with a helmet. Does that mean helmets attract rocks?
Assuming their accident rates are anywhere in the same ballpark, accidents will involve more helmet wearers by a significant margin just because they outnumber non-helmet wearers.
I ask because there are “studies” that show there are more skiing accidents with helmets than without, but anyone who has spent a day at a ski hill can tell why that is: the vast, vast majority of people are wearing helmets. Throw a rock into a crowd of skiers and you’ll probably hit someone with a helmet. Does that mean helmets attract rocks?
Assuming their accident rates are anywhere in the same ballpark, accidents will involve more helmet wearers by a significant margin just because they outnumber non-helmet wearers.
It's been over a decade since I last stepped foot in a ski area. I don't remember anyone wearing a helmet that wasn't on a snowboard. Are they more common now? It makes a lot of sense with how bad things go when they go bad plus all the trees.
It's almost ten years for me and the last thing I remember was a landslide shift from "hardly anybody" to "almost everybody" within only a few seasons (Austrian alps).
Never read any triumphant reports about how this has saved ten thousands of lives though, so I suspect that numbers aren't that impressive.
Never read any triumphant reports about how this has saved ten thousands of lives though, so I suspect that numbers aren't that impressive.
Though I do very little downhill skiing these days, they're extremely common at US ski areas now whereas they used to be almost unheard of except for racers. (I don't wear one but I do wear a hat that has ribs of deformable material.)
I don't remember a big campaign or anything but probably some combination of snowboarders normalizing, it becoming seen as negligent not to make kids wear them, and probably a general increase in safety culture--especially among the sort of people who can afford to downhill ski.
There are only around 40 downhill skiing deaths in US annually--although the majority of those are brain injuries.
I don't remember a big campaign or anything but probably some combination of snowboarders normalizing, it becoming seen as negligent not to make kids wear them, and probably a general increase in safety culture--especially among the sort of people who can afford to downhill ski.
There are only around 40 downhill skiing deaths in US annually--although the majority of those are brain injuries.
The landslide was 2009/2010, after the Ministerpräsident of Thuringia caused a really bad accident, which he survived but the woman he crashed into didn't. He was wearing a helmet, she wasn't.
Very common now. There has been a huge shift in the last decade.
I find the claim particularly hard to believe. I ride at least twice a week with my brother and we behave exactly the same with and without helmets. If you have a habit of always wearing your helmet, it just starts being something you don't even really consider as part of the equation. In fact, we will occasionally go almost an entire ride before realizing that one of us forgot to put on our helmet.
I find it much more likely that claims of "data shows..." are due to uncontrolled confounding factors, such as riders being more likely to wear a helmet when they perceive the ride as meeting a certain risk threshold.
I find it much more likely that claims of "data shows..." are due to uncontrolled confounding factors, such as riders being more likely to wear a helmet when they perceive the ride as meeting a certain risk threshold.
I think I have seen several studies that showed that drivers are more aggressive towards riders in lycra and with helmets, so it could still be true that it is riskier to wear a helmet even if you don't take more risks.
That's fair. In my neck of the woods, cyclists are universally hated (or ignored), helmet or no.
It’s just really hard to eliminate adverse selection in population studies.
If people only choose to put on their helmets when doing dangerous things, but don’t bother when doing relatively safe things, then it’s going to look like helmet use is correlated with injuries. Even if, on a per-person basis, the helmet actually reduces injury severity.
And it’s difficult to test helmet effectiveness directly because it is widely considered unethical to randomly subject people to blows to the head.
If people only choose to put on their helmets when doing dangerous things, but don’t bother when doing relatively safe things, then it’s going to look like helmet use is correlated with injuries. Even if, on a per-person basis, the helmet actually reduces injury severity.
And it’s difficult to test helmet effectiveness directly because it is widely considered unethical to randomly subject people to blows to the head.
> but data shows that more accidents and injuries occur with helmets than without.
This demands proof, citation, and of course, controlling for how many cyclists in an area wear helmets vs. not.
This demands proof, citation, and of course, controlling for how many cyclists in an area wear helmets vs. not.
Same statistic for motorcycles. You are more likely to be injured in a crash if you wear a helmet.
Because otherwise you go in the dead column.
Because otherwise you go in the dead column.
Similar story for helmets during WW1. Prior to metal helmets, soldiers wore cloth caps. After the soldiers started wearing helmets, the number of head injuries climbed rapidly. The alternative, of course is that the soldier would otherwise have been dead.
You shouldn't follow up a source request with another unsourced fact, but let me follow up with yet another: the statistic are entirely different for motorcycles because motorcyclists are far more likely to have the type of accidents that helmets protect from.
Comparing the fatality rate of bicycling to the one for riding a motorcycle is not good.
edit: That's not only a claim that bicycle helmets vastly reduce the fatality of bicycle accidents (rather than just significantly reduce them), but a claim that so many unhelmeted riders die from bicycle accidents that it distorts safety figures. All of this without any safety figures.
Comparing the fatality rate of bicycling to the one for riding a motorcycle is not good.
edit: That's not only a claim that bicycle helmets vastly reduce the fatality of bicycle accidents (rather than just significantly reduce them), but a claim that so many unhelmeted riders die from bicycle accidents that it distorts safety figures. All of this without any safety figures.
> but data shows that more accidents and injuries occur with helmets than without.
You provided no data.
You provided no data.
I keep hearing this, here and in other online spaces, but until I see link to one of these studies I'll be skeptical, because I don't see how you could test this in a meaningful way. I see very different people wearing helmets versus not. The people I see not wearing helmets tend to be taking leisurely rides around the neighborhood or screwing around on sidewalks downtown. The people I see wearing helmets are going longer distances and taking trips that span neighborhoods. All the delivery cyclists, racing/fitness enthusiasts, and commuters I see are wearing helmets. For myself, the risks I expose myself to are almost entirely determined by where I ride, which is determined by the purpose of my trip. Show me a study that somehow controls for that, and I'll take it seriously.
My personal feeling is that the "helmets don't help" line is a strategic choice made by bike activists who are doing work I approve of, but I don't trust them when it comes to my safety. They're fighting for separate infrastructure, which I like, but they're dedicated to the idea that the kind of riding I have to do to get anywhere is inherently unsafe. They aren't interested in making what I have to do now more safe; they're interested in making sure people in the future don't have to do it.
My personal feeling is that the "helmets don't help" line is a strategic choice made by bike activists who are doing work I approve of, but I don't trust them when it comes to my safety. They're fighting for separate infrastructure, which I like, but they're dedicated to the idea that the kind of riding I have to do to get anywhere is inherently unsafe. They aren't interested in making what I have to do now more safe; they're interested in making sure people in the future don't have to do it.
Even with a causal effect, it’s important to consider the effectiveness as an intervention for a specific group (riders for this company).
There’s a reasonable causal story to tell wherein helmet-wearing leads people t take make riskier maneuvers on trips they’d be on, which leads to helmet wearing being associated with injury.
There’s another reasonable causal story wherein helmet-wearing leads people to chose to bike on trips they otherwise would take alternative transport, or skip entirely, which leads to helmet wearing being associated with injury.
In the first, a pedicab company might prohibit helmets to reduce risky behavior, but should really compare that intervention to just training and incentivizing lower-risk riding. In the second, the company is severing the connection between the intervention and the effect! The passengers tell riders where to go, so helmet wearing has no effect on risk-taking behavior _specifically for their riders_. Prohibiting helmets then dramatically increases risk/severity of injury.
I’d want to be very sure about the specifics before taking such a counterintuitive decision.
There’s a reasonable causal story to tell wherein helmet-wearing leads people t take make riskier maneuvers on trips they’d be on, which leads to helmet wearing being associated with injury.
There’s another reasonable causal story wherein helmet-wearing leads people to chose to bike on trips they otherwise would take alternative transport, or skip entirely, which leads to helmet wearing being associated with injury.
In the first, a pedicab company might prohibit helmets to reduce risky behavior, but should really compare that intervention to just training and incentivizing lower-risk riding. In the second, the company is severing the connection between the intervention and the effect! The passengers tell riders where to go, so helmet wearing has no effect on risk-taking behavior _specifically for their riders_. Prohibiting helmets then dramatically increases risk/severity of injury.
I’d want to be very sure about the specifics before taking such a counterintuitive decision.
I am an individual, not a statistic. I am completely capable of wearing a helmet without increasing risky behavior, so why should I be prohibited from protecting myself for some dubious statistical effect?
I don’t know if the UK is sufficiently litigious, but if this were in the US, one bad accident causing a head injury would lead to the company being sued into the Stone Age.
Helmets may inadvertently create more accidents, but they also protect the most vital organ in your body during those accidents.
Helmets may inadvertently create more accidents, but they also protect the most vital organ in your body during those accidents.
I'm curious to know what your data is. Offhand, sounds more like most riding is with helmets, so will dominate the numbers. But it's being interpreted as causal? Feels unlikely. What is the mechanism?
> Offhand, sounds more like most riding is with helmets
My impression is:
1. Dutch-style utility riders using a bike to get around town for errands -> Rare helmets
2. Lycra-clad competitive cyclists with drop handlebars -> Widespread helmets
3. City cycle hire scheme users -> Rare helmets
4. Parents cycling with young children -> Widespread helmets
5. Poor people commuting on beat-up mountain bikes -> Rare helmets
6. Organised cycling events with mandatory helmets -> Widespread helmets
7. Teenagers riding with their friends -> Rare helmets
So the popularity of helmets depends on your locale (does your area have utility riders?) - and whether you measure per-mile or per-bike-owner :)
My impression is:
1. Dutch-style utility riders using a bike to get around town for errands -> Rare helmets
2. Lycra-clad competitive cyclists with drop handlebars -> Widespread helmets
3. City cycle hire scheme users -> Rare helmets
4. Parents cycling with young children -> Widespread helmets
5. Poor people commuting on beat-up mountain bikes -> Rare helmets
6. Organised cycling events with mandatory helmets -> Widespread helmets
7. Teenagers riding with their friends -> Rare helmets
So the popularity of helmets depends on your locale (does your area have utility riders?) - and whether you measure per-mile or per-bike-owner :)
My exposure is mainly commuters. Who largely wear helmets where I am. Any organized ride, too.
But fair, I don't have numbers.
But fair, I don't have numbers.
I’d like to see the evidence of this. I can imagine that maybe wearing a helmet gives a false sense of security, and therefore leads to a bit more recklessness. Still, I’d bet that even if you have more accidents when wearing a helmet, you have fewer deaths.
If anything we should be making helmets that cause MORE damage to people to bring that rate down more! /s
Statistics also show that increased ice cream sale rate correlates with increased drownings occurrences.
So that means ice cream causes drownings and that we should ban it? Or it happens that ice cream eating and swimming both happen during the summer.
So that means ice cream causes drownings and that we should ban it? Or it happens that ice cream eating and swimming both happen during the summer.
>> but data shows that more accidents and injuries occur with helmets than without.
It's total BS to try and combine accidents with injuries and I'm aware of no reputable study that claims both of your statements.
It's total BS to try and combine accidents with injuries and I'm aware of no reputable study that claims both of your statements.
This is very much like:
> The name "Tullock's spike" refers to a thought experiment in which Tullock suggested that if governments were serious about reducing road casualties, they should mandate that a sharp spike be installed in the center of each car's steering wheel, to increase the probability that an accident would be fatal to the driver. Tullock's idea was that the normal process of risk compensation would then lead to safer driving by the affected drivers, thereby actually reducing driving fatalities.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Tullock#Tullock's_spike
> The name "Tullock's spike" refers to a thought experiment in which Tullock suggested that if governments were serious about reducing road casualties, they should mandate that a sharp spike be installed in the center of each car's steering wheel, to increase the probability that an accident would be fatal to the driver. Tullock's idea was that the normal process of risk compensation would then lead to safer driving by the affected drivers, thereby actually reducing driving fatalities.
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Tullock#Tullock's_spike
It's a good thought experiment but assumes that everyone has the same ability to assess risk, which isn't true. Not only does the ability to correctly assess risk vary greatly between individuals, it varies greatly over the lifetime of an individual and sometimes even over the course of a day for the same individual.
>but assumes that everyone has the same ability to assess risk
It does not make, nor need, that assumption. If only a few people drove better from understanding increased risk, then that may be enough to lower bad outcome rates.
Why did you claim Tullock "assumes that everyone has the same ability to assess risk"? I can find no such reference or claim online - except yours. Have some info about it?
It does not make, nor need, that assumption. If only a few people drove better from understanding increased risk, then that may be enough to lower bad outcome rates.
Why did you claim Tullock "assumes that everyone has the same ability to assess risk"? I can find no such reference or claim online - except yours. Have some info about it?
It has the effect of stopping the driving of those with poor risk assessment and judgement too though.
[deleted]
So the takeaway here is that some people should not be issued drivers licenses.
Well now we go down a rabbit hole of a complex social problem. People don't drive just to joyride. They so because many areas are zoned into car dependency. When faced with no legal way to drive:
(1) Keep driving anyway without a license or with a suspended license.
(2) Use public transit that takes two or three hours one way. When the bus is late again one day they get fired possibly setting off a downward spiral and that's another person on public assistance.
(3) Vote for politicians who allow ridiculous policies like Arizona's lifetime driver licenses.
(1) Keep driving anyway without a license or with a suspended license.
(2) Use public transit that takes two or three hours one way. When the bus is late again one day they get fired possibly setting off a downward spiral and that's another person on public assistance.
(3) Vote for politicians who allow ridiculous policies like Arizona's lifetime driver licenses.
(4) Zoning would change for less car dependency, and more demand would allow better transit (lines served more frequently and a wider selection of lines leading to less changes)
That's my wish too. People will not use low quality public transit. It will remain low quality as long as it's starved of funding relative to the free* roads, free* parking, and restrictive zoning iron triangle. Funding will remain a trickle until a critical mass of voters demand it. People think because it's low quality now it's not worth spending more taxes on.
*Free to motorists, not the taxpayers and real estate consumers.
*Free to motorists, not the taxpayers and real estate consumers.
Arizona stopped doing the lifetime thing. You have to renew your license in 10yrs now.
As far as I know, we do lifetime licenses in the UK, aside from photo licenses where the photo has to be renewed every 10 years (which can be done online). However, our driving tests are quite different from those in the US, in that they actually test your driving. (When my aunt and uncle moved from London to LA, they did their driving tests while severely jetlagged and still passed...)
That's certainly the case for people with eyesight problems and conditions such as epilepsy.
Setting aside whether reverse risk compensation actually works (and it would be absolutely bizarre to have >100% risk compensation), Tullock's spike has the problem that it makes driving less effective, i.e. people get from point A to point B more slowly. If your policy goal is for people to drive less then sure. If your goal is for people to be safer in the course of achieving their actual objective of getting from point A to point B, though, the policy is spectacularly bad.
That's really not the point. The thought experiment doesn't consider the safety, and far less the convenience (did you call this "effectiveness"?), of drivers. Rather, it examines the safety of all those who suffer the presence of drivers: pedestrians, cyclists, road workers, wild animals, unleashed dogs, etc.
Of course it's not the point! The problem with the thought experiment is that it misses the point!
Getting from point A to point B faster is more than an incidental convenience to a driver, it is the primary goal of having a car and driving it!
Getting from point A to point B faster is more than an incidental convenience to a driver, it is the primary goal of having a car and driving it!
Sure, that is a goal for many drivers. There's no reason for anyone else to care about it. Whatever the hypothetical advantages of automobiles to society in general, police-enforced speed limits exist. Since you seem opposed to limits on speed, one might expect you to value Tullock's spike as another possible solution in the trade-off space that would allow faster travel for those who, like you, really value that, while still somewhat protecting the rest of us on the street.
Risk compensation or risk homeostasis is one of those hypothesis that sound good to economists and the moralizing class, but has never been proven.
https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/risk-compensation-debun...
https://www.mdpi.com/2313-576X/2/3/16/htm
Edit: added another reference
https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/risk-compensation-debun...
https://www.mdpi.com/2313-576X/2/3/16/htm
Edit: added another reference
Can't that be seen as an argument against seatbelts and airbags as well?
Not really, because people perceive the threat differently. A spike in the steering wheel is very obviously extremely dangerous. Not having a functioning airbag is invisible. If you are trying to change people's behavior, the perception of risk is more important than the actual statistical risk.
People will get used to that spike. People get used to a lot of dangerous and scary things. Going faster than walking speed and operating heavy machinery is dangerous and scary if you are not used to it, and yet, people do it every day without a giving second thought.
People will need constant reminders that that spike is dangerous, like seeing people they know die from it. So it is essentially advocating that in order to make less people die from car accidents, we have to make more people die from car accidents, which make no sense.
Protective equipment, and the absence of spikes on the steering wheel work. For example, machine tools today are much safer than they once where, resulting in much less workplace accidents. By the Tullock's spike standards, removing the cover between you and that blade loudly spinning at high speed should improve safety by making people more careful, it doesn't, and there are few more obvious threats than that.
People will need constant reminders that that spike is dangerous, like seeing people they know die from it. So it is essentially advocating that in order to make less people die from car accidents, we have to make more people die from car accidents, which make no sense.
Protective equipment, and the absence of spikes on the steering wheel work. For example, machine tools today are much safer than they once where, resulting in much less workplace accidents. By the Tullock's spike standards, removing the cover between you and that blade loudly spinning at high speed should improve safety by making people more careful, it doesn't, and there are few more obvious threats than that.
Now I'm sort of curious how they died, and whether their personal automobile had any modifications to the interior.
Doesn't it only work if everyone has one? If only one or a few do, they can be as cautious as possible and still be the victim of another reckless driver who doesn't have one. It reminds me a bit of the trend where parents buy larger vehicles for their teenaged children because of their perceived safety. It ends up having the opposite overall effect because less experienced drivers are getting into accidents with larger and more deadly (to those around them) vehicles.
I think it would work for anyone that had one, even if they were the only one, as they would be a much more defensive driver. They would probably save money on gas as well :)
Maybe relevant: the Netherlands is probably the country with the highest use of bicycles for transport, yet no one, except for cyclists on racing bikes/MTBs or foreign tourists, ever wears a bike helmet. This is because they're only marginally effective at preventing injury, and the disadvantage of reduced cycling use if helmets are mandated results in far worse public health outcomes. See also https://dutchreview.com/culture/cycling/5-reasons-why-the-du...
This completely misses the forest for the trees and misattributes causality. The Dutch don't wear helmets because the traffic culture and infrastructure are completely different, not because of some questionable statistic no one has heard of. In the Netherlands you feel safe as a cyclist. Drivers look out for you because they're also all cyclists at other times. Cycling is so prevalent that it's hard to explain to anyone who hasn't experienced it.
There are also significant legal penalties for being at-fault and injuring/killing a cyclist in the Netherlands as compared to the US.
Can you elaborate? The US has such a high incarceration rate for in European eyes often benign offenses that I find that statement hard to believe even though I don't know the Dutch laws (I'm German). E.g. I can't imagine a Dutch person being incarcerated for injuring a cyclist unless it's on alcohol/drugs. I can totally imagine that for the US though. But I might be totally wrong. Would be really curious for some details.
My opinion on this might also be heavily and incorrectly influenced by popular media sprinkled with a few factual statistics that reinforce the bias.
My opinion on this might also be heavily and incorrectly influenced by popular media sprinkled with a few factual statistics that reinforce the bias.
When we lived in the Netherlands, my wife rode her bike infront of a car at an unmarked crossing where the car had every right of way. The car driver sued for repair fees, but in the end, the car driver had to pay her compensation instead. It doesn't matter that he had right of way, he was the "stronger" side and hurt someone weaker by not being cautious enough. There's obviously more nuance to the laws there, but this is a good example of the common mentality.
I love the distinction between stronger and weaker road users.
With more power comes more responsibility, put into practice.
With more power comes more responsibility, put into practice.
My experience in NA was that killing a pedestrian or a cyclist with your car is actually the easiest way to get away with murder. At worst you’ll get away with a 500$ fine, at best nothing. And “wooops didn’t see them, the sun was in my eyes” is a valid defense.
Some folks call it the SMIDSY defense - as in, " Sorry Mate I Didn't See You"
As a general rule US public policy is enormously biased towards being pro automobile. Putting drivers in jail (ie for less than extreme recklessness) impedes that goal. It was very eye opening when I lived abroad and the law was actually biased against the “stronger” party in a traffic accident (ie truck > car > motorbike > bicycle > pedestrian ). It makes sense to me to essentially require more responsibility in proportion to the damage you are able to cause.
Operators of heavier vehicles have a duty of care toward smaller vehicle rider.
Compare this with New York City where if you negligently kill someone with your car, the police won't even issue a ticket unless you're drunk. Then comes the civil lawsuit in which the surviving family will probably settle for your car insurance policy limits (e.g. $100,000, far lower than German limits that are in the millions of Euros).
Compare this with New York City where if you negligently kill someone with your car, the police won't even issue a ticket unless you're drunk. Then comes the civil lawsuit in which the surviving family will probably settle for your car insurance policy limits (e.g. $100,000, far lower than German limits that are in the millions of Euros).
Cyclists are protected by law, such that even if an accident is the fault of the cyclist, the car driver is still 50% liable. This in combination with the infrastructure, which separates cyclists and cars as much as possible, makes the Netherlands very safe for cyclists.
Note that younger children still usually wear a helmet, since they are more likely to have an accident on their own (i.e. falling over).
Note that younger children still usually wear a helmet, since they are more likely to have an accident on their own (i.e. falling over).
I live in a small city and have cycled to school since I was 6 years old. At first with a parent, but from about 9 years old I would cycle by myself. I have never seen anyone wear a helmet in that time.
The US is enormous, with almost no public transit outside of dense metro areas. As a result, cars hold a sacred place in society and jurisprudence. It is simply impossible to live without a car when your driveway is 10 miles long and the nearest "town" is 30 miles away.
You can get a neverending stream of OUIs and keep your license after paying fines in most cases. We often joke that the best way to get away with murder is to run someone down and tell the judge that "they came out of nowhere".
But lord help you if you get caught walking down the street with a joint in your bag.
You can get a neverending stream of OUIs and keep your license after paying fines in most cases. We often joke that the best way to get away with murder is to run someone down and tell the judge that "they came out of nowhere".
But lord help you if you get caught walking down the street with a joint in your bag.
> You can get a neverending stream of OUIs and keep your license after paying fines in most cases.
What is that based on? People I know who have had DUIs had a lot of trouble and cost, their driving was highly restricted, and a second DUI would have stopped them from driving and maybe put them in jail (IIRC).
What is that based on? People I know who have had DUIs had a lot of trouble and cost, their driving was highly restricted, and a second DUI would have stopped them from driving and maybe put them in jail (IIRC).
This is about the presumed record holder, so it’s the worst kind of citation, but a WI man was convicted of his 18th OWI (presumably operating while impaired)
https://www.grievelaw.com/WisconsinOWI/Laws/Record
That article contains a common trope: an official expressing shock and surprise at the offender’s record and uncertainty as to how they still had a license.
https://www.grievelaw.com/WisconsinOWI/Laws/Record
That article contains a common trope: an official expressing shock and surprise at the offender’s record and uncertainty as to how they still had a license.
Not OP, but I’d like to note that a woman in the US was convicted of vehicular manslaughter when she crossed a street on foot with her 4 year old son and they were struck by a drunk driver.
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/06/14/raquel-nelson-finally...
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/06/14/raquel-nelson-finally...
I think part of the problem in the USA and Canada is that our road laws are exceedingly motorist-centric. Things that don’t seem to make sense, like drivers getting a slap on the wrist for killing cyclists, do make sense if you consider that the laws don’t expressly promote and prioritize the safety of cyclist on all road ways.
Cases of potential death do not count as "benign", at least in my book.
Shoplifting and really any property crime that doesn't result in imminent grave harm can be safely considered "benign". Ditto for victimless crimes like drug possession.
Shoplifting and really any property crime that doesn't result in imminent grave harm can be safely considered "benign". Ditto for victimless crimes like drug possession.
Aren’t the at fault vehicular manslaughter laws in the US the same for drivers who hit cars, cyclists, and pedestrians? If you kill a cyclist in the US and you’re at fault, that’s likely jail time (same for hitting a car or pedestrian).
What’s missing in US laws vs Netherlands?
What’s missing in US laws vs Netherlands?
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/245475107?storyId=245475107
If you are convicted of vehicular manslaughter, you are very likely going to serve time.
However, if you hit and kill and cyclist in the US, you are not likely to be charged with vehicular manslaughter, so long as you were sober and weren’t actively trying to hit them.
If you are convicted of vehicular manslaughter, you are very likely going to serve time.
However, if you hit and kill and cyclist in the US, you are not likely to be charged with vehicular manslaughter, so long as you were sober and weren’t actively trying to hit them.
It’s not a matter of what’s actually written in the laws but of police/prosecutorial discretion.
Whatever laws are on the books are virtually never actually enforced against motorists, because motorism (and disdain/resentment against cyclists) is deeply embedded in the culture.
The default reaction of the median American (or at least, the median law enforcer) to any accident involving a motorist and a cyclist, regardless of actual fault, is “fucking bikers always breaking laws, running red lights and stop signs, if they want to take our lanes and slow us down, why don’t they think they have to follow rules like a REAL vehicle,” etc.
Whatever laws are on the books are virtually never actually enforced against motorists, because motorism (and disdain/resentment against cyclists) is deeply embedded in the culture.
The default reaction of the median American (or at least, the median law enforcer) to any accident involving a motorist and a cyclist, regardless of actual fault, is “fucking bikers always breaking laws, running red lights and stop signs, if they want to take our lanes and slow us down, why don’t they think they have to follow rules like a REAL vehicle,” etc.
The last time I did jury duty the judge and staff made sure everyone knew how to use the free parking. A jury of motorists isn't going to judge a fellow motorist harshly.
“Jury of their peers” indeed…
In the Netherlands and several other European countries, there is presumed/strict liability on the part of the automobile driver. Regardless of fault, a car driver has responsibility for any accident between their car and a bicycle. There is of course more nuance to this, but that's the basic overlying principle.
A joke I heard a few times was "If a bike fell out of the air onto a parked car, the car owner is going to court."
A joke I heard a few times was "If a bike fell out of the air onto a parked car, the car owner is going to court."
Which sounds terrible, and goes against "innocent until proven guilty" rule. Also, in some situations it gives the driver perverse incentive to finish the cyclist off (and therefore get rid of the only witness), instead of, say, calling an ambulance.
There a lot of cultural bias against bicyclists already. While leaving the scene of an injury accident is a crime, murder is an extreme escalation.
No. The maximum prison sentence in such a case would be 8, 6, or 2 months in the Netherlands, depending on how reckless the driver was (and up to 4 years if drunk). If you then kill the cyclist you're looking at a maximum of 25 years.
There’s a morbid joke in the U.S.: if you want to kill someone, do it while they’re riding a bicycle.
Certainly the perception is that drivers don’t face jail time in such a situation.
Certainly the perception is that drivers don’t face jail time in such a situation.
> that’s likely jail time
No. It will be slap on the wrist time if there are any consequences at all. All it requires is a driver to lie about some mitigating cause they weren't responsible for.
No. It will be slap on the wrist time if there are any consequences at all. All it requires is a driver to lie about some mitigating cause they weren't responsible for.
The "must wear helmets" advocacy is never focused on conditions or nuanced ideas about when it is OK not to wear helmets.
Instead, it is focused on make people feel as afraid of biking as possible. Literally all these debates are focused on making people afraid no matter of what conditions, speed. Whether you go mountain bike competition or whether you are 50 years old manager slowly commuting in skirt and business hairstyle.
Instead, it is focused on make people feel as afraid of biking as possible. Literally all these debates are focused on making people afraid no matter of what conditions, speed. Whether you go mountain bike competition or whether you are 50 years old manager slowly commuting in skirt and business hairstyle.
I roughly agree with you but this hypothesis would suggest:
- more helmet wearing in less cycling-friendly cities like Rotterdam which, IIRC, is an example of such a place in the Netherlands
- more helmet wearing (in the sense that the ratio between Dutch helmet wearing and helmet wearing in other Western European countries is higher) at points in the past when bicycle infrastructure was less protected. Though this is confounded by lots of things.
- more helmet wearing in less cycling-friendly cities like Rotterdam which, IIRC, is an example of such a place in the Netherlands
- more helmet wearing (in the sense that the ratio between Dutch helmet wearing and helmet wearing in other Western European countries is higher) at points in the past when bicycle infrastructure was less protected. Though this is confounded by lots of things.
To me, that seems like a clear difference in infrastructure. If a biker shares a stretch of asphalt with a car, that's a risk for the biker and they need a helmet. In the Netherlands, this is widely understood and bikes get their own infrastructure everywhere. Only then you don't need helmets anymore at all.
while there is a lot, bikes do not get their own infrastructure everywhere. most likely the street you live on has no bike path. many city streets have bike lanes but not separated from the road
i bet the more useful metrics are length of trip, average speed of the cars around you, and if you need to cross stop signs/intersections. dutch bike trips are often very short and the speed limits are low. you do not share the road with 35mph+ traffic as is common in america. intersections are the place where people get hurt on bikes the most and it’s more likely in american biking you will cross them. this one is where the separate infrastructure really comes in to play
i bet the more useful metrics are length of trip, average speed of the cars around you, and if you need to cross stop signs/intersections. dutch bike trips are often very short and the speed limits are low. you do not share the road with 35mph+ traffic as is common in america. intersections are the place where people get hurt on bikes the most and it’s more likely in american biking you will cross them. this one is where the separate infrastructure really comes in to play
One flaw in this logic: helmets don't protect against cars ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
They don't protect from the part where the car directly hits the rest of your body straight on, or the bike itself. Every single part that happens immediately after that - such as the fall, flying through the air, or what have you, the parts that always come afterwards - is where the helmet can provide life-saving protection.
You swerve to miss a car, dog, obstacle, person and take a spill…
You T-bone a car.
It helps.
You T-bone a car.
It helps.
There is a HUGE difference between NOT REQUIRING helmets and PROHIBITING helmets.
The Netherlands probably also have some of the safest roads for cyclists.
Nonetheless I recommend to always wear gloves when riding a bike. They weigh nothing, fit in every bag/pocket and if you ever crash you'll be glad you wore them. Hands are very likely to get injured in an accident and it's not fun to not use them for a couple of days.
Nonetheless I recommend to always wear gloves when riding a bike. They weigh nothing, fit in every bag/pocket and if you ever crash you'll be glad you wore them. Hands are very likely to get injured in an accident and it's not fun to not use them for a couple of days.
Read what the Dutch cycling union has to say about helmets.
https://www.fietsersbond.nl/de-fiets/accessoires/fietshelmen...
https://www-fietsersbond-nl.translate.goog/de-fiets/accessoi...
I live here and I'll say that almost all bicycle delivery drivers where helmets in NL. Lost of riders wear helmets here, but I agree that most people just riding to work or going shopping do not.
I will also note that probably the largest bicycle delivery service in NL has helmets for sale for its riders.
https://shop.thuisbezorgd.nl/nl/helmen
https://www.fietsersbond.nl/de-fiets/accessoires/fietshelmen...
https://www-fietsersbond-nl.translate.goog/de-fiets/accessoi...
I live here and I'll say that almost all bicycle delivery drivers where helmets in NL. Lost of riders wear helmets here, but I agree that most people just riding to work or going shopping do not.
I will also note that probably the largest bicycle delivery service in NL has helmets for sale for its riders.
https://shop.thuisbezorgd.nl/nl/helmen
That page is about the idea of helmet mandates, not about the safety of an individual decision to wear one.
I think people most on the thread understand that there are negative consequences to mandates. The question is about whether you as a rational individual should choose to wear one.
I think the answer to that is an irrefutable yes, if you want to reduce your risk of catastrophic head injury. But that doesn’t mean it should be mandated. We take calculated risks all the time, and the law can’t know all the variables and circumstances for each person at each moment. The mandate is ineffective because the most important safety factor for bicycles is frequency of cycling — the more bikes there are on the road, the more everyone is aware of them. But if you still had all those cyclists and put helmets on them, they would be slightly safer.
I think people most on the thread understand that there are negative consequences to mandates. The question is about whether you as a rational individual should choose to wear one.
I think the answer to that is an irrefutable yes, if you want to reduce your risk of catastrophic head injury. But that doesn’t mean it should be mandated. We take calculated risks all the time, and the law can’t know all the variables and circumstances for each person at each moment. The mandate is ineffective because the most important safety factor for bicycles is frequency of cycling — the more bikes there are on the road, the more everyone is aware of them. But if you still had all those cyclists and put helmets on them, they would be slightly safer.
No doubt Pedal Me contractors operating in Dutch cities might choose to not wear a helmet. That'd be fine. But that choice should be left to the contractor, not the company.
It's worse, they are not contractors but employees. The company should have a book thrown at them.
Helmets, even the light helmets bicyclist wear, are very effective at reducing the severity of head injuries. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24686160/
That isn't to say that a policy of requiring helmets is good on net (because people may ride less), but in any accident that you hit your head, you would greatly benefit from wean a helmet.
That isn't to say that a policy of requiring helmets is good on net (because people may ride less), but in any accident that you hit your head, you would greatly benefit from wean a helmet.
This is junk science. The authors simply did the ANSI drop-test in a lab test. In the real-world, 99% of bike crashes with death/severe injury are the result of car-crashes -- which the ANSI drop-test does not model correctly at all.
It's usually a junk comment to call something junk science.
They are claiming 90% risk reduction based on a laboratory model. That model obviously does not track with reality (show me any country where bike helmets reduced death/injury by that amount). If a model does not correlate with the real world, then it is by definition...junk.
I'd bet a Dutch cyclist would wear a helmet when riding on American roads, with American drivers in American cars.
As a Dutch cyclist I would certainly use a helmet on American roads (or not use a bicycle at all). Furthermore, in the Netherlands the delivery drivers that use bicycles are asked to wear a helmet by their employer. Riders of E-bikes that are able to accelerate without pedalling and those that are able to accelerate above 25 km/h are required to wear a helmet by law. I'm certain that the majority of the Dutch would think it is completely insane that a delivery company is prohibiting the use of helmets on their E-bikes, even if it was in the Netherlands.
I am a Dutch cyclist and almost got a ticket for not wearing a helmet while under 18 (I was 16 or 17) in San Francisco. The policewoman was nice, though, and let me go.
Keeping in mind that American drivers aren't used to cyclists, it wasn't that bad in my (minimal) experience. But, of course, bikes are a little more prevalent there so that this experience won't stretch too far land inwards.
Keeping in mind that American drivers aren't used to cyclists, it wasn't that bad in my (minimal) experience. But, of course, bikes are a little more prevalent there so that this experience won't stretch too far land inwards.
They're marginally effective on Dutch roads, which were overhauled to be cyclist-safe decades ago, with new roads being safe by default. The Dutch approach unfortunately does not reflect even remotely on North American cities. You need a helmet, because stroads[1] guarantee accidents.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM
If you ever visit Amsterdam you'll see there are hardly any cars on the road and those that are have to drive at something like 5 miles an hour to avoid all the pedestrians and bicycles.
It's nothing like riding a bike in the U. S.
It's nothing like riding a bike in the U. S.
The Dutch don't actively prohibt you from wearing a helmet though...
The Dutch have separate lanes for bicycles and a lot bicycle traffic goes through areas where cars don't even go.
Hey now, don't bring reason here. We reject effective technology to stop speeding, phone use, distracted driving and regulations to make cars and trucks have no more than necessary power, weight and effective sightlines but since cyclists wear a styrofoam hat they are safe. Except those pedestrians are dying at an accelerated rate, I think they should get a helmet too.
The response here are hilarious, like "they also have better infrastructure" - wow, you are soo close to getting it!
The response here are hilarious, like "they also have better infrastructure" - wow, you are soo close to getting it!
It's not reasonable and it's not relevant to point that lack of helmet use out.
1. The road infra is entirely structured around making it safer for cyclists in NE
2. They don't BAN the use of helmets. That study is NOT a justification to BAN them.
3. No one is suggesting that they be mandated either.
1. The road infra is entirely structured around making it safer for cyclists in NE
2. They don't BAN the use of helmets. That study is NOT a justification to BAN them.
3. No one is suggesting that they be mandated either.
This is a pedicab service. A cynic would assume that Pedal Me is mandating this (and thus putting their drivers at risk) because passengers are more nervous about taking a service where the driver wears a helmet and they do not.
Exactly what I think as well.
This might lower risk for the customers because driver may take less risk without a helmet in some situation but the risk for driver is only increased.
This is optimizing for customers at the cost of drivers.
I don't see any supportive extensive research linked from them .
This might lower risk for the customers because driver may take less risk without a helmet in some situation but the risk for driver is only increased.
This is optimizing for customers at the cost of drivers.
I don't see any supportive extensive research linked from them .
How is it optimizing for customers, when customers don’t wear helmets either?
Because the crashes are less likely when the driver is not wearing a helmet. This is sort of the point of the article.
Sorry I wasn't clear. How is it optimizing for customers at the cost of drivers, which is what the post I was replying to said?
While number of crashes are likely getting reduced, head injuries to drivers may increase or be fatal.
Because the drivers are not wearing helmets and therefore increasing the risk to themselves.
So why not do the reasonable thing and provide passengers with helmets, like they do with motorbike taxi?
Lice
It is a consideration, but there are solutions, like disposable caps. There are also sanitizing sprays. It wouldn't be the first time people share helmets.
Also, the idea is to offer an option. Not to make it mandatory unless legislation require it. If your passengers are more comfortable not wearing them, their choice.
Also, the idea is to offer an option. Not to make it mandatory unless legislation require it. If your passengers are more comfortable not wearing them, their choice.
It makes the activity look dangerous. I do perceive motorbike taxi as more dangerous then, say, car.
It should not be a reasonable basis for denying their employees right to wear PPE.
Who decided that was reasonable? I certainly did not.
You dont think its reasonable to offer passengers the option to wear a helmet?
I suppose it's also not reasonable to provide seatbelts to passengers as well as the driver of a taxi?
I suppose it's also not reasonable to provide seatbelts to passengers as well as the driver of a taxi?
"You dont think its reasonable to offer passengers the option to wear a helmet?"
No. Which means it's not automatically "the reasonable thing", just an opinion.
No. Which means it's not automatically "the reasonable thing", just an opinion.
Just because one person disagrees doesn't mean it isn't reasonable. I've met people who (claim to) believe the earth is flat, but surely no one would consider that belief "reasonable".
So I'm curious what the REASONING is behind your feeling that offering passengers the option to wear a helmet is unreasonable. Personally, I would AGREE that offering passengers on a pedicab the option of a pineapple would be unreasonable. There just isn't any practical correlation between pineapples and pedicabs. But helmets are different: there are large numbers of people who campaign vigorously to persuade others to wear helmets when on a bike; many places even have laws mandating helmets on bikes, at least for some ages. So it is a plausible thing for passengers to want. Given that, why would it be unreasonable to offer it?
So I'm curious what the REASONING is behind your feeling that offering passengers the option to wear a helmet is unreasonable. Personally, I would AGREE that offering passengers on a pedicab the option of a pineapple would be unreasonable. There just isn't any practical correlation between pineapples and pedicabs. But helmets are different: there are large numbers of people who campaign vigorously to persuade others to wear helmets when on a bike; many places even have laws mandating helmets on bikes, at least for some ages. So it is a plausible thing for passengers to want. Given that, why would it be unreasonable to offer it?
> Given that, why would it be unreasonable to offer it?
I'd worry about lice.
I'd worry about lice.
The obvious solution is to require passengers to wear helmets, as well as the drivers. But this brings us to the core of the endless helmet debate, which is that lots of people are deeply repulsed by wearing a goofy ass helmet and getting nasty helmet hair while out on the town. And the data shows that if you require helmets, lots of people stop cycling — in this case, people would stop using bike taxis.
Correct, and publicly banning helmets is a publicity move (see: we’re talking about the company).
Those people aren't riding bikes 8-10 hours a day, 5-6 days a week. If they can't see the difference then maybe they're better off without a pedicab, I would be afraid to deal with customers who were that smooth brained.
Note, these are not normal bikes. From the article:
> A major cause of head injuries is going over the handlebars, which is not possible with a 3 metre long bike. Another thing that makes us unique is our training systems, maintenance systems, and ability to track poor rider behaviour.
Made me curious what they actually look like[0].
Seeing that, I’d tend to reset my presumptions about wearing helmets with these. There’s definitely going to be a different injury profile with these bikes than the bikes you rode as a kid. Without seeing those injury profiles I’d probably say you can’t really deduce anything from this announcement.
[0] https://www.positive.news/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Pedal-M...
> A major cause of head injuries is going over the handlebars, which is not possible with a 3 metre long bike. Another thing that makes us unique is our training systems, maintenance systems, and ability to track poor rider behaviour.
Made me curious what they actually look like[0].
Seeing that, I’d tend to reset my presumptions about wearing helmets with these. There’s definitely going to be a different injury profile with these bikes than the bikes you rode as a kid. Without seeing those injury profiles I’d probably say you can’t really deduce anything from this announcement.
[0] https://www.positive.news/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Pedal-M...
This assumes that it's completely impossible to not hit your head when you fall on your side. Which is blatantly not true. This isn't a three-wheeler bike which is much harder to tip over. It's just a two wheeler that's longer. I can attest from personal experience that if you fall sideways, chances are you'll crack the side of your skull open. I got into a bike accident where someone T-boned me and if I hadn't had the helmet on, at the very least I'd have a concussion
The idea that you don't need to wear a helmet cause you won't fall over the handlebars is nonsense
The idea that you don't need to wear a helmet cause you won't fall over the handlebars is nonsense
You have my sympathy for your accident, but you can't very well "attest from personal experience" and then describe a hypothetical that didn't occur.
Have you ever had a concussion?
Have you ever had a concussion?
helmets? but then how will you see the rider's little hat?
> A major cause of head injuries is going over the handlebars, which is not possible with a 3 metre long bike.
Disregards that going over the handlebars happens in case if frontal collision, which can definitely happen with a 15m bike. Would you hurt your head? Who knows, because they're not looking at that statistics.
> makes us unique is our training systems, maintenance systems, and ability to track poor rider behaviour
Victim blaming. Assumes that accidents can be prevented by having a safer behaviour. They're lowered, sure, but anecdotally in all the bike accidents of people I know, the car involved did something stupid, and there's no prevention from that, whatever you train people for, short of not going on the road, they're at the mercy of people driving 2 tons of steel whilst texting. Multiply by the extended time they spend out, and it becomes statistics
Disregards that going over the handlebars happens in case if frontal collision, which can definitely happen with a 15m bike. Would you hurt your head? Who knows, because they're not looking at that statistics.
> makes us unique is our training systems, maintenance systems, and ability to track poor rider behaviour
Victim blaming. Assumes that accidents can be prevented by having a safer behaviour. They're lowered, sure, but anecdotally in all the bike accidents of people I know, the car involved did something stupid, and there's no prevention from that, whatever you train people for, short of not going on the road, they're at the mercy of people driving 2 tons of steel whilst texting. Multiply by the extended time they spend out, and it becomes statistics
It's irrelevant how much data and training they have. Accidents happen and an accident with a car and no helmet is a bad time.
I'd like to wear helmet as a passenger as well as a driver on such bike. The helmet doesn't add almost any inconvenience, is reasonably cheap and light. Why not wear it?
I use shared bikes one-way quite often and I usually carry my helmet around, strapped to a backpack. In colder weather I would cycle in a business shirt. No issue with a helmet.
I use shared bikes one-way quite often and I usually carry my helmet around, strapped to a backpack. In colder weather I would cycle in a business shirt. No issue with a helmet.
>Why not wear it?
The argument that is mentioned in the article -- "increasing helmet wearing rates make cycling more dangerous per mile... because while helmets definitely help in the event of a crash, that risk compensation results in more collisions. So riders wearing helmets take greater risks, and those driving around them take greater risks too."
The argument that is mentioned in the article -- "increasing helmet wearing rates make cycling more dangerous per mile... because while helmets definitely help in the event of a crash, that risk compensation results in more collisions. So riders wearing helmets take greater risks, and those driving around them take greater risks too."
Is it that drivers wearing helmets take greater risks, or that drivers in more risky settings opt more often to wear helmets? Who can tell?
Exactly. I've read the article but I don't find the argument very convincing. The helmet is light enough I don't think about it when driving. Does it really alter my driving style to be riskier?
I've cracked two helmets when I was younger. One in a forest, going downhill. Most probably, I wouldn't go there without a helmet. The other one was in a city, while distracted*. In the second case, the helmet definitely didn't have any influence on what I did. In both cases, I wore the helmet voluntarily and I was glad to have it.
The company from the article is definitely in a conflict of interests. Banning helmets, it doesn't have to provide (and check) protective gear for drivers and passengers. Also, it doesn't focus customers' attention towards potential risks.
* Putting a phone back into my bag, I accidentally hit a brake. Silly, don't ask me how I did that. Fortunately, no car was around.
I've cracked two helmets when I was younger. One in a forest, going downhill. Most probably, I wouldn't go there without a helmet. The other one was in a city, while distracted*. In the second case, the helmet definitely didn't have any influence on what I did. In both cases, I wore the helmet voluntarily and I was glad to have it.
The company from the article is definitely in a conflict of interests. Banning helmets, it doesn't have to provide (and check) protective gear for drivers and passengers. Also, it doesn't focus customers' attention towards potential risks.
* Putting a phone back into my bag, I accidentally hit a brake. Silly, don't ask me how I did that. Fortunately, no car was around.
> Why not wear it?
Car drivers often get head and brain injuries if they are involved in a collision with another car or with a tree/building. Do you wear a helmet when you drive? The helmet doesn't add almost any inconvenience, is reasonably cheap and light, as you say.
Unless you're on a racetrack or driving a test vehicle, probably not.
Car drivers often get head and brain injuries if they are involved in a collision with another car or with a tree/building. Do you wear a helmet when you drive? The helmet doesn't add almost any inconvenience, is reasonably cheap and light, as you say.
Unless you're on a racetrack or driving a test vehicle, probably not.
For the record, I do wear a helmet on a racetrack in a car. :-) It adds major inconvenience, but the general risk on a racetrack is greater because you're pushing the vehicle to its limits.
The risk/inconvenience ratio seems OK for me when driving a car without a helmet but not for biking without a helmet. I'm not advocating for mandatory helmets. But I would feel very uncomfortable if they would be banned.
The risk/inconvenience ratio seems OK for me when driving a car without a helmet but not for biking without a helmet. I'm not advocating for mandatory helmets. But I would feel very uncomfortable if they would be banned.
I think most people will disagree with you on how big of an inconvenience a helmet is. At least I will.
In Europe most people didn't even wear helmets when they went skiing (on-piste) until a few years ago. Now pretty much everyone does, but it's one more thing you'll carry with you everywhere you go. And on warm days I sometimes have to take my helmet off in the gondola because it gets very warm.
In Europe most people didn't even wear helmets when they went skiing (on-piste) until a few years ago. Now pretty much everyone does, but it's one more thing you'll carry with you everywhere you go. And on warm days I sometimes have to take my helmet off in the gondola because it gets very warm.
Yeah when I visited Europe I didn't wear a bicycle helmet either. American cities are a different story, with poorly designed roads and poorly designed vehicles with large blind spots around the A pillars especially.
Sure. It makes the profile slightly different. But is it enough different to eg say the risk of head injury is 99% reduced? I doubt it.
Theres plenty of scenarios left. What about and impact from the side and the rider falling in an arbitrary direction? A car rear ending it? And while a front-flip due to heavy breaking is unlikely, I’m sure if the front tire hits a high enough obstacle at enough speed it would still do it
Theres plenty of scenarios left. What about and impact from the side and the rider falling in an arbitrary direction? A car rear ending it? And while a front-flip due to heavy breaking is unlikely, I’m sure if the front tire hits a high enough obstacle at enough speed it would still do it
Cars change lanes and make unindicated turns. All the risks from the side are still there, plus over the handlebars the length from the seat to the front of this bike is not impossible. Even hitting the bike itself isn't some magic protection where a helmet wouldn't help, could even be worse.
I wish more people would see this! Judging by 95% of the comments on here, people think it's just "helmets in general" that they're talking about. The don't seem to realize that these are not normal bikes.
yes these are obviously special physics-defying bicycles where if you fall over you don't crack your skull open.
thats a massive strawnan. tfa is not saying accidents dont happen. theyre saing that their data show that wearing helmets has a net negative affect, all things considered. tfa is about statistics of large numbers of situations, and is not making any claims about individual bikes being magical.
My friend has given me permission to freely use the video of them falling and cracking their helmet.
I won't use it....because the internet is a cunt..but, things do go sideways, too.
I changed my mind; I don't think any of the people, the driver/pedaller nor the passengers should have to wear helmets because that would make them look stupid!
Okay, true story. Years ago I struggled with this exact logic regarding skiing with helmet. After serious consideration I decided to start skiing so carefully that I do not need a helmet. As you may guess at this point, The very first day I left my helmet home, I got into an accident and got a skull fracture.
I started using my helmet again after that.
(But another safety related thing I have started to really doubt. Skiing alone is supposed to be risky. I do ski alone, quite a lot actually. I have gotten into my share of accidents of various seriousness. And not a single of them has been when I have been alone.)
I started using my helmet again after that.
(But another safety related thing I have started to really doubt. Skiing alone is supposed to be risky. I do ski alone, quite a lot actually. I have gotten into my share of accidents of various seriousness. And not a single of them has been when I have been alone.)
I have the exact opposite experience.
My first time ever wearing a helmet on the slopes I slammed head-first into a tree. Got up, laughed it off, and rode away. Better lucky than good.
My first time ever wearing a helmet on the slopes I slammed head-first into a tree. Got up, laughed it off, and rode away. Better lucky than good.
My old boss was an experienced skier on an organised cross country ski tour and got killed by an avalanche. It was in a low avalanche risk area with no avalanches forecast, and he was wearing all safety equipment, including one of those balloons. Medical help was almost immediate and nobody else on the tour was seriously injured.
Sometimes the universe just wants you dead.
Sometimes the universe just wants you dead.
The fact is that experienced back country skiers are more likely to die in an avalanche.
Part of this is complacency, but honestly most of it is just probability. The more you do something, the more chances you have for just the wrong combination of factors to happen.
Part of this is complacency, but honestly most of it is just probability. The more you do something, the more chances you have for just the wrong combination of factors to happen.
I suspect skiing was invented to cull the clumsy (and the simply unlucky) from the ranks of the rich.
There was already Polo for that.
Well, you would need something when it's too cold for polo.
I had this exact talk with my rich buddy in high school once 15 years ago :) . He was heading for a ski trip that my family couldn't have afforded in my wildest dreams.
I have a ski helmet at home with a big crack in it. My daughter was wearing it. She's a cautious skier with a lot of training.
Michael Schumacher would disagree.
Are you one of the guys who doesn't wear a seat belt due to 1 in a million chance that it might actually not help you?
Michael Schumacher had a GoPro on his helmet that punched through.
I've never skied with a helmet. Ridiculous. The only thing you can do about the risk of hitting or being hit, is stay home.
Imagine applying this same non-logic to car seat belts, motorcycle helmets, rock climbing harnesses, et multa alia. If you don't want to wear a helmet, that's fine, but don't bother trying to justify it with anything other than "I don't want to", because you really can't.
Even strong and careful skiers wipe out occasionally. A helmet is the difference between shaking it off and brain injury.
Even strong and careful skiers wipe out occasionally. A helmet is the difference between shaking it off and brain injury.
In German speaking countries we went from 15% to 3% of the ski accidents with hospitalization being related to head injuries, this within the past 15/20 years.
This correlates very well with the increase of helmet usage.
This correlates very well with the increase of helmet usage.
Do you happen to know the overall change in accidents? That's the big question behind the motivation for this change. There's no doubt that helmets would reduce the percent of all accidents that are head related, but does some reduced concern about safety result in more accidents overall?
From the biggest Ski insurance/interest group in Germany (the ones from the Ski federation), the stats show a 50% decrease since the 80's.[0]
The trend is stable/slight increase in the past 5 years.
For the head injuries, it reduced from 2/1000 skier to about 1/1000 skier/year. It follows the general trend of the number of accidents per skier/year.
Looking at the material and the quality of the slopes in the past 40 years, they are definitely a big driver of this change, they improved a lot!
[0]: https://www.stiftung.ski/sis-lab/asu-unfallanalyse/
The trend is stable/slight increase in the past 5 years.
For the head injuries, it reduced from 2/1000 skier to about 1/1000 skier/year. It follows the general trend of the number of accidents per skier/year.
Looking at the material and the quality of the slopes in the past 40 years, they are definitely a big driver of this change, they improved a lot!
[0]: https://www.stiftung.ski/sis-lab/asu-unfallanalyse/
I have never had a serious accident but started wearing a helmet. I don't think there's a large risk either way because I don't do a lot of tree skiing. But I wouldn't call it ridiculous. No more so than wearing a bike helmet.
I've skied in Austria for the past 15 years and never wore a helmet for the first 8 years. I now have my own helmet. And I made sure it even has MIPS.
You can be as cautious as you want and never make a mistake, but if someone else skies into you you could still smash your head very hard. That's why you should wear a helmet. Not because of your own capabilities, but because of the capabilities of the people around you and the risk just being too high.
I wouldn't wear a helmet while cycling though. It's quite safe in The Netherlands.
You can be as cautious as you want and never make a mistake, but if someone else skies into you you could still smash your head very hard. That's why you should wear a helmet. Not because of your own capabilities, but because of the capabilities of the people around you and the risk just being too high.
I wouldn't wear a helmet while cycling though. It's quite safe in The Netherlands.
End of 2020 I had a serious bike accident. I was specifically riding slowly and carefully because I did not want to fall and end up in hospital - in the middle of the second wave in SA and a shortage of hospital space. Even so, I had the most ridiculous and embarrassing crash, whilst hardly moving, and ended up in the ER. I was wearing a helmet and I still got a concussion. My helmet was broken and certainly saved me from a much more serious head injury. Additionally, the peak on the front managed to prevent my nose from smashing into the ground too (it was a weird angle). I would never cycle without a helmet ever.
Yeah, not sure how more careful a rider you can be when you have your own toddler in a child-seat behind you — and yet my bike went down on an unexpectedly slick part of the pavement. I had a helmet on, as did my toddler.
I don't buy the argument that because someone has a helmet on they're intentionally (or even subconsciously) reckless. Shit can happen.
I don't buy the argument that because someone has a helmet on they're intentionally (or even subconsciously) reckless. Shit can happen.
> Yeah, not sure how more careful a rider you can be when you have your own toddler in a child-seat behind you — and yet my bike went down on an unexpectedly slick part of the pavement. I had a helmet on, as did my toddler.
How does one safely transport a toddler? I am not asking incredulously, but curiously. I am an experienced cyclist; I don't know if I'd feel safe doing it, but I haven't looked into it either. Maybe a helmet is sufficient? And cars aren't perfectly safe either.
How does one safely transport a toddler? I am not asking incredulously, but curiously. I am an experienced cyclist; I don't know if I'd feel safe doing it, but I haven't looked into it either. Maybe a helmet is sufficient? And cars aren't perfectly safe either.
The carrier (bike seat) I had for her had a kind of "roll cage" (more like a frame) around the perimeter such that if the bike went down on one side or the other, she would not be grinding against the pavement. Plus helmet.
Safe? Well, as you say, nothing is truly safe. But I stuck to back roads and probably never exceeded 15 MPH. We would ride to the local park where she could play in the sand for a bit before we rode home again.
Safe? Well, as you say, nothing is truly safe. But I stuck to back roads and probably never exceeded 15 MPH. We would ride to the local park where she could play in the sand for a bit before we rode home again.
Thanks. The 'roll cage' I hadn't thought of.
> But I stuck to back roads and probably never exceeded 15 MPH.
Seems safer than driving on a highway at 70 mph, even with the seatbelts, airbags, and steel.
> But I stuck to back roads and probably never exceeded 15 MPH.
Seems safer than driving on a highway at 70 mph, even with the seatbelts, airbags, and steel.
Reminds me of when I first learned that most snowboarding injuries are at low speed or standing still and slipping. Not sure if it's true, but could be. Slipped on ice a few times - my tail bone didn't appreciate it.
"riders wearing helmets take greater risks"
That's why I've glued 3-inch shards of broken glass to my steering wheel.
That's why I've glued 3-inch shards of broken glass to my steering wheel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Tullock#Tullock's_spike (I think this was mentioned earlier but I can't find the comment, so I'll just link it again)
I seem to remember old Camaros had this super pointy dashboard that seemed unnecessarily dangerous.
I personally am skeptical of some of the lines of reasoning that the idea of “risk compensation” leads people to. Like saying masks are bad because it leads people to isolate less, etc. (this was something some authorities were saying early in the pandemic, and it damaged their credibility later on.) Like yes, there is SOME compensation, in other words it allows risk/reward for some activities to rebalance a bit, but to use this as an argument against a pretty straightforward precaution is foolishness.
I’m also super skeptical of studies that aren’t, like, randomized and carefully done. Correlative studies can easily end up with the authors drawing conclusions of causation in the opposite direction of reality.
“Good things are bad because of convoluted logic” is always something I’ll be skeptical of.
I’m also super skeptical of studies that aren’t, like, randomized and carefully done. Correlative studies can easily end up with the authors drawing conclusions of causation in the opposite direction of reality.
“Good things are bad because of convoluted logic” is always something I’ll be skeptical of.
The first person fired for wearing a helmet is going to be so damn lucky. That settlement money will end up being equivalent of several lifetimes with of work.
There is absolutely no way that their logic holds up in court.
Almost everywhere in the US is at will so there’s likely no successful lawsuit in the situation you describe.
Sadly, it’s likely the first driver who dies without a helmet will result in their family filing a giant lawsuit. But that payout will be paid by insurance that is probably already factoring in the probability of such a payout.
Sadly, it’s likely the first driver who dies without a helmet will result in their family filing a giant lawsuit. But that payout will be paid by insurance that is probably already factoring in the probability of such a payout.
OSHA might have some thoughts on firing someone over protective equipment.
They might if a bicycle helmet was an osha recognized protective equipment. But it seems like the company did their homework and said it’s not. If there’s some regulation for helmets then it’s a different story.
My work doesn’t require a helmet, even though it would protect me. If I wore a helmet and my employer fired me, OSHA wouldn’t give a shit.
My work doesn’t require a helmet, even though it would protect me. If I wore a helmet and my employer fired me, OSHA wouldn’t give a shit.
Pedal Me is a British company. Not sure how the situation might differ there c.f. the USA.
From [the tweet], "People that are taking risks that are sufficient that they feel they need to wear helmets are not welcome to work for us"
[the tweet]: https://twitter.com/pedalmeapp/status/1489594692857647113?s=...
[the tweet]: https://twitter.com/pedalmeapp/status/1489594692857647113?s=...
Riding on roads isn't like mountain biking where you mostly control the amount of risk you take on. Riding on roads puts you at the mercy of other people's choices. I feel the need to wear a helmet anytime I'm riding on a road for that reason.
I don’t know any mountain biker that doesn’t wear a helmet. Most I ride with wear full face.
I don’t think there’s any riding situation where you can think you’re in complete control of the risk.
I don’t think there’s any riding situation where you can think you’re in complete control of the risk.
I wear a full-face helmet on a mountain bike, too.
My point is that when mountain biking, you encounter varied terrain and obstacles and you decide how to approach that based on your skill and experience. Some approaches are riskier than others. And sometimes you decide the best thing to do is just nope out and ride or walk around whatever it is.
My point is that when mountain biking, you encounter varied terrain and obstacles and you decide how to approach that based on your skill and experience. Some approaches are riskier than others. And sometimes you decide the best thing to do is just nope out and ride or walk around whatever it is.
The point is the risk on the road is smaller when you don't wear a helmet because drivers take less risk with you.
Even better if you are a woman in summer dress. Then the drivers give you way more space and are super careful around you. It was researched.
Even better if you are a woman in summer dress. Then the drivers give you way more space and are super careful around you. It was researched.
I think you're referring to Ian Walker's study. Yes, motorists on average passed helmeted cyclists closer than non-helmeted ones. The difference in average passing distance wasn't huge (1.3 m vs. 1.2 m) and was still a safe distance.
The amount of difference isn't as interesting as the fact of it. It indicates attention, which is worth a lot more than the inches.
Does it? That's a supposition, not a scientific fact. Presumably they all paid some attention by passing at a safe distance. I don't see why someone paying more attention would pass further away.
They moved over by coincidence? OK.
I have not read the study, but I would hope that they had the cyclists wearing the same clothes and riding on the same stretch of road in all tests. Otherwise you will end up with the situation where helmeted riders are more likely to be riding fast on roads that aren't as safe for cycling, Which would naturally lead to differences in driver behavior around them.
> It was researched.
It doesn’t mean the research wasn’t bullshit nor correctly understood what happened there.
It doesn’t mean the research wasn’t bullshit nor correctly understood what happened there.
> It was researched.
Citation needed please.
Citation needed please.
An attractive woman in a bikini on a bike probably elicits the slowest and carefullest passing by many of the drivers.
[deleted]
Helmets protect against falls. They don't protect against cars.
When you get side-swept by a car you're going to fall. Getting rammed from the side or behind is not the only collision scenario, and getting side-swept seems like an extremely more likely scenario in London out of all places, where traffic in general is slow.
Getting side swept will not happen if you don't undertake motor vehicles and don't allow motor vehicles to overtake you.
This is sarcasm, right?
Not sarcasm. If a car isn't beside you they can't side swipe you. You are aware that London basically doesn't have multi lane roads, right?
Why would I be aware of that? A quick Google Maps search shows some multi lane roads.
Because this is a discussion about a London company. If you don't understand the context, you should at least be prepared to learn.
A quick Google Maps search shows some multi lane roads. Do you have a good way for me to learn more?
I'm not sure I agree. I have a family member that had a car turn in front of the without warning (they were in a cycle lane, the car turned across the flow of traffic without looking or indicating), and they hit the side of the car and landed on the other side head first. They were left without any significant injuries - I'm not sure the outcome would have been as favourable without a helmet.
they aren't intended to protect against cars, only falls, which are more likely to happen around cars
glad I could help out here
glad I could help out here
I got doored while biking once. I fell head first into a van. Got away with nothing but scrapes.
Helmets absolutely protect against cars. If I'd been hit, I'd have fallen. Head hits ground, you're fucked.
Helmets absolutely protect against cars. If I'd been hit, I'd have fallen. Head hits ground, you're fucked.
[deleted]
I'm sorry, and pardonner mou Français, but what in the actual fuck?
Should delivery drivers not wear seatbelts because they might not be as afriad that they'll fly through the windshield? Should linemen not wear harnesses because they might be more confident working on power lines? Should warehouse workers not wear hi-vis jackets because they might be more confident working around forklifts? Should construction workers not wear helmets because they might be more confident working in areas with falling objects?
And I love the "if something bad happens, it's obviously the rider's fault" mentality here. I guess cars never hit bikes, right? Or bikes hitting other bikes? Or other accidents that, you know, are entirely unavoidable or otherwise have nothing to do with the rider being at fault?
If I was a staff rider, I'd be putting that helmet on and telling Pedal Me to eat an OSHA-sized bag of dicks if they have a problem with it. Banning helmets "for safety reasons" might not be the absolute dumbest thing I've read this year, but it's up there.
Should delivery drivers not wear seatbelts because they might not be as afriad that they'll fly through the windshield? Should linemen not wear harnesses because they might be more confident working on power lines? Should warehouse workers not wear hi-vis jackets because they might be more confident working around forklifts? Should construction workers not wear helmets because they might be more confident working in areas with falling objects?
And I love the "if something bad happens, it's obviously the rider's fault" mentality here. I guess cars never hit bikes, right? Or bikes hitting other bikes? Or other accidents that, you know, are entirely unavoidable or otherwise have nothing to do with the rider being at fault?
If I was a staff rider, I'd be putting that helmet on and telling Pedal Me to eat an OSHA-sized bag of dicks if they have a problem with it. Banning helmets "for safety reasons" might not be the absolute dumbest thing I've read this year, but it's up there.
The problem is that as another commenter points out, passengers wouldn't feel safe next to a helmet-wearing driver while not wearing one themselves.
The proper solution here is to provide helmets for passengers as well, but that raises more problems - they needs to be a way to sanitize them, multiple sizes might need to be available (I assume they need to be sized properly for adequate protection?), etc.
The aforementioned problems are hard (read: expensive) or impossible to solve, so while the ethical idea might be to just not offer this service at all, the objective here is to make money whatever-it-takes (or most likely, raise money, as I doubt this thing is profitable) as opposed to providing a good transport service (maybe because there's no actual demand for this?).
The proper solution here is to provide helmets for passengers as well, but that raises more problems - they needs to be a way to sanitize them, multiple sizes might need to be available (I assume they need to be sized properly for adequate protection?), etc.
The aforementioned problems are hard (read: expensive) or impossible to solve, so while the ethical idea might be to just not offer this service at all, the objective here is to make money whatever-it-takes (or most likely, raise money, as I doubt this thing is profitable) as opposed to providing a good transport service (maybe because there's no actual demand for this?).
> The problem is that as another commenter points out, passengers wouldn't feel safe next to a helmet-wearing driver while not wearing one themselves.
Too bad? If your business model depends on this then you just have to suck it up and deal with it, not compromise worker safety.
> The proper solution here is to provide helmets for passengers as well, but that raises more problems - they needs to be a way to sanitize them, multiple sizes might need to be available (I assume they need to be sized properly for adequate protection?), etc.
Too bad? Cost of doing business.
Too bad? If your business model depends on this then you just have to suck it up and deal with it, not compromise worker safety.
> The proper solution here is to provide helmets for passengers as well, but that raises more problems - they needs to be a way to sanitize them, multiple sizes might need to be available (I assume they need to be sized properly for adequate protection?), etc.
Too bad? Cost of doing business.
Just FYI, I'm not defending them by any means. I take a very dim view of this company.
If customer safety conflicts with worker safety, and the company cares about neither, even by contemporary standard it's a particularly callous corporation with a particularly unsound business plan.
"We're sorry your husband got a concussion, but at least his passenger felt safe!"
This isn't the 70s. Just give everyone helmets. Passengers included. And yes you should clean them. If you're running a business I'm sure you can afford some little bottles of alcohol spray.
This isn't the 70s. Just give everyone helmets. Passengers included. And yes you should clean them. If you're running a business I'm sure you can afford some little bottles of alcohol spray.
But if it's about safety, why don't actual car taxi cab companies provide helmets for their passengers? It's easier to get a serious head injury in a car than on a bicycle.
And if a taxi company banned their drivers from wearing seatbelts, that would also be absurd.
[deleted]
>The problem is that as another commenter points out, passengers wouldn't feel safe next to a helmet-wearing driver while not wearing one themselves.
By this logic, no one would feel safe riding a bus when the driver has a seatbelt and you don't.
By this logic, no one would feel safe riding a bus when the driver has a seatbelt and you don't.
I happen to subscribe to this logic. I will often specifically choose bus seats that I think will fare better in a crash, as I feel at risk without belts. I'm surprised others don't feel the same. I'm also worried those vertical grab poles for standing passengers will become effective skull crushers in a crash.
In all seriousness, this does actually bother me every time I ride the bus. Particularly if I end up in the open row of seats right along the back.
Even in Vietnam the scooter-taxi services provide helmets for passengers.
A first world country has zero excuse.
A first world country has zero excuse.
>> The problem is that as another commenter points out, passengers wouldn't feel safe next to a helmet-wearing driver while not wearing one themselves.
I actually laughed out loud reading this.
So what? It’s the company’s job to ensure safety for the riders and the staff. There are many places in the world where it’s actually illegal not to wear a helmet.
If you get into a business like this; and you didn’t factor this in, you’re a plain and simple idiot and your business deserves to fail if you make it the staff’s problem.
Shame on these idiots. I’d never heard of these guys before, and my first impression is one of the worst I could have. How is this even worth it for them from a PR side?
I actually laughed out loud reading this.
So what? It’s the company’s job to ensure safety for the riders and the staff. There are many places in the world where it’s actually illegal not to wear a helmet.
If you get into a business like this; and you didn’t factor this in, you’re a plain and simple idiot and your business deserves to fail if you make it the staff’s problem.
Shame on these idiots. I’d never heard of these guys before, and my first impression is one of the worst I could have. How is this even worth it for them from a PR side?
> the objective here is to make money whatever-it-takes..
This. Definitely. However if it came to court, as indeed it might, and they tried to argue helmets cause risky behavior, it wouldn't take Johnny Cochrane to get them slapped with a massive fine and laughed out of court.
They're gambling that the cost of safely resolving the issue will be more than any legal costs. Talk about preventing risky behavior!
This. Definitely. However if it came to court, as indeed it might, and they tried to argue helmets cause risky behavior, it wouldn't take Johnny Cochrane to get them slapped with a massive fine and laughed out of court.
They're gambling that the cost of safely resolving the issue will be more than any legal costs. Talk about preventing risky behavior!
I very much doubt this service is sustainable so most likely this is just a stop-gap/desperate hack until they reach their "exit", whether yet another round of VC money, a buy-out by a bigger idiot or quietly shutting down.
I bet they all know this isn't viable and just hope this problem disappears before an accident actually happens and brings this in front of a court.
I bet they all know this isn't viable and just hope this problem disappears before an accident actually happens and brings this in front of a court.
This is what my lawyer would tell me is willful. And high risk.
>passengers wouldn't feel safe next to a helmet-wearing driver while not wearing one themselves.
Wouldn't the same apply to mask wearing? Yet we consistently see service employees wearing them and customers not.
Wouldn't the same apply to mask wearing? Yet we consistently see service employees wearing them and customers not.
> Wouldn't the same apply to mask wearing?
No, for a ton of reasons. Off the top of my head:
(1) Masks are more effective at preventing transmission than reception.
(2) Different individuals have different levels of concern, which might lead one to choose a mask and another to choose not to wear one.
(3) Different individuals face different levels of risk. The person who is immunocompromised may wear a mask even when it would make no sense for other people.
(4) The customer may encounter 2-3 service employees in a day; the service employee may encounter hundreds of customers in the same time.
And that's without even getting into political issues (in the US, where mask-wearing has become politicized).
No, for a ton of reasons. Off the top of my head:
(1) Masks are more effective at preventing transmission than reception.
(2) Different individuals have different levels of concern, which might lead one to choose a mask and another to choose not to wear one.
(3) Different individuals face different levels of risk. The person who is immunocompromised may wear a mask even when it would make no sense for other people.
(4) The customer may encounter 2-3 service employees in a day; the service employee may encounter hundreds of customers in the same time.
And that's without even getting into political issues (in the US, where mask-wearing has become politicized).
An acquaintance of mine worked in a casino that banned mask wearing by employees early on during the pandemic out of concern for worrying customers. Unfortunately several of his coworkers died of COVID before the lockdowns shut everything down.
Passengers could always bring their own helmets if they feel they're safer wearing one.
EDIT: also, this doesn't explain prohibiting helmets for cargo bikes, too.
EDIT: also, this doesn't explain prohibiting helmets for cargo bikes, too.
> EDIT: also, this doesn't explain prohibiting helmets for cargo bikes, too.
I think it's a PR thing. They don't want prospective passengers seeing their branded bikes as dangerous enough to justify wearing a helmet, regardless of whether that particular bike is currently transporting passengers.
I think it's a PR thing. They don't want prospective passengers seeing their branded bikes as dangerous enough to justify wearing a helmet, regardless of whether that particular bike is currently transporting passengers.
I forget the name of them, but there's those expensive air bag helmets, I think those are a one size fits all.
Hövding?
I thought they had two sizes, but maybe not the new ones.
I thought they had two sizes, but maybe not the new ones.
> I'm sorry, and pardonner mou Français, but what in the actual fuck?
Do you wear a helmet when you drive inside your car? If not, why not? It might make you much safer in case of a crash, according to your reasoning.
Wearing a helmet can itself become a leading factor to cause an incident, and it's clearly what they are hinting at in the linked article: that data seems to indicate that riders wearing helmets may be getting more incidents on average. Then it's a simple equation: number of incidents x gravity of the incident in both A/B scenarios, and compare which one is the most favorable. It's not a question you answer with a "what the actual fuck" kind of reasoning.
Do you wear a helmet when you drive inside your car? If not, why not? It might make you much safer in case of a crash, according to your reasoning.
Wearing a helmet can itself become a leading factor to cause an incident, and it's clearly what they are hinting at in the linked article: that data seems to indicate that riders wearing helmets may be getting more incidents on average. Then it's a simple equation: number of incidents x gravity of the incident in both A/B scenarios, and compare which one is the most favorable. It's not a question you answer with a "what the actual fuck" kind of reasoning.
Correlation vs causation much?
In order to show that helmets *cause* accidents, they need to create a randomized study where they force employees to flip a coin to decide whether to wear a helmet or not.
Otherwise, here's one plausible scenario: Employees who work in tiny suburbs with small roads and very little traffic feel safer, and this are less likely to wear a helmet. They get in less crashes because their town has fewer and safer drivers. Employees working in the city have more crashes simply because of being in a busy city, so they are more likely to wear helmets.
Right now, you cannot prove that helmets cause crashes and not the above.
In order to show that helmets *cause* accidents, they need to create a randomized study where they force employees to flip a coin to decide whether to wear a helmet or not.
Otherwise, here's one plausible scenario: Employees who work in tiny suburbs with small roads and very little traffic feel safer, and this are less likely to wear a helmet. They get in less crashes because their town has fewer and safer drivers. Employees working in the city have more crashes simply because of being in a busy city, so they are more likely to wear helmets.
Right now, you cannot prove that helmets cause crashes and not the above.
I can prove that helmets reduce head injuries both in quantity and severity.
You can do so in lab environments, not in real world situations.
You have the exact same causal issue to untangle. Do safer riders wear helmets or does wear a helmet make you safer as a rider?
In reality there are confounds both directions. The effects of helmet wearing are higly contingent based on the geography and demographics.
In reality there are confounds both directions. The effects of helmet wearing are higly contingent based on the geography and demographics.
Yes, but it IS possible to do research that untangles these effects.
Here is a review (from just 3 years ago) of such studies:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136984781...
Here is a review (from just 3 years ago) of such studies:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136984781...
I have some issues with that study. One major one is they basically rule out half the effects of helmets as a "logical fallacy":
> Risk compensation, as it is typically defined and understood, is only one of six possible scenarios, namely a usual non-helmet wearer puts on a helmet and increases their risk taking. Importantly, evidence in the opposite direction, i.e., taking a helmet off leads to less risky behaviour, is not evidence in support of risk compensation as it is a type of logical fallacy
After reviewing that article none of the studies are convincing either way. The only studies that actually look for causality are the ones which only measure speed to asses risk. Those are also the one that I would qualify as positive results but were listed as negative results because of that above mentioned logical fallacy.
So while is is possible to untangle these effects, it has yet to be done properly to show a clear result either way.
> Risk compensation, as it is typically defined and understood, is only one of six possible scenarios, namely a usual non-helmet wearer puts on a helmet and increases their risk taking. Importantly, evidence in the opposite direction, i.e., taking a helmet off leads to less risky behaviour, is not evidence in support of risk compensation as it is a type of logical fallacy
After reviewing that article none of the studies are convincing either way. The only studies that actually look for causality are the ones which only measure speed to asses risk. Those are also the one that I would qualify as positive results but were listed as negative results because of that above mentioned logical fallacy.
So while is is possible to untangle these effects, it has yet to be done properly to show a clear result either way.
No, I really don't untangle anything. Safer riders ride safer, but they can and do sometimes have accidents and the road will not check your safety record before impact to see if it should hurt your more or less.
Research on helmets has been ongoing for 40 years, and has even led to ANSI standards for helmet design and protection. The UCI requires hemets in amateur and professional events. This isn't about risk taking behavior, it is simply about if you do have an accident, you won't be killed, turned into a vegetable or concussed when you hit your head.
> The effects of helmet wearing are higly contingent based on the geography and demographics.
I'm pretty sure that hitting your head on Ugandan cement will damage your head roughly the same as American Cement or European cement. S
Additionally, I've never seen any research showing any kind of demographic relationship to severity of head injuries in bicycle accidents. Nor have I once saw research that did anything other than present some statistical noise about distance cars give you based on helmet or not. Close shaves are not accidents or injuries, so even the basis of the research is questionable.
Research on helmets has been ongoing for 40 years, and has even led to ANSI standards for helmet design and protection. The UCI requires hemets in amateur and professional events. This isn't about risk taking behavior, it is simply about if you do have an accident, you won't be killed, turned into a vegetable or concussed when you hit your head.
> The effects of helmet wearing are higly contingent based on the geography and demographics.
I'm pretty sure that hitting your head on Ugandan cement will damage your head roughly the same as American Cement or European cement. S
Additionally, I've never seen any research showing any kind of demographic relationship to severity of head injuries in bicycle accidents. Nor have I once saw research that did anything other than present some statistical noise about distance cars give you based on helmet or not. Close shaves are not accidents or injuries, so even the basis of the research is questionable.
> Additionally, I've never seen any research showing any kind of demographic relationship to severity of head injuries in bicycle accidents.
The effects of a helmet on overall safety when ridden at low speed on dedicated bike paths is very different from when ridden at high speeds in traffic with no bike lane.
Thus the the design of the city and streets (geography is perhaps not the perfect term for this) and the what/how of the local culture's bike riding behavior (perhaps demographics is a bad term for this, not sure of a better one.) have huge impacts on how much a helmet affects your safety simply because the risk profiles are very different.
The data is messy due to regional variability plus the difficulty of reliably removing the confounds mentioned above. I would never discourage someone from wearing and will actively encourage it when riding in bicycle hostile areas. At the same time, I think the push for helmet laws and helmet education is often a cop out to avoid talking about how we need to redesign cities to support safe bicycling. If we did the later, we would see much larger safety gains and the former would be much less necessary.
The effects of a helmet on overall safety when ridden at low speed on dedicated bike paths is very different from when ridden at high speeds in traffic with no bike lane.
Thus the the design of the city and streets (geography is perhaps not the perfect term for this) and the what/how of the local culture's bike riding behavior (perhaps demographics is a bad term for this, not sure of a better one.) have huge impacts on how much a helmet affects your safety simply because the risk profiles are very different.
The data is messy due to regional variability plus the difficulty of reliably removing the confounds mentioned above. I would never discourage someone from wearing and will actively encourage it when riding in bicycle hostile areas. At the same time, I think the push for helmet laws and helmet education is often a cop out to avoid talking about how we need to redesign cities to support safe bicycling. If we did the later, we would see much larger safety gains and the former would be much less necessary.
The devil doesn't need an advocate, please stop.
>Correlation vs causation much?
Oh I'm so tired of this meme!
Plenty of times causation is found through correlation. Plenty. Of. Times.
Oh I'm so tired of this meme!
Plenty of times causation is found through correlation. Plenty. Of. Times.
> Do you wear a helmet when you drive inside your car? If not, why not?
Cars already have airbags and seatbelts which help a lot for the kind of collisions that would otherwise result in head injuries.
> It might make you much safer in case of a crash, according to your reasoning.
I don't see what in their comment could be construed to say that helmets make you much safer regardless of vehicle.
> Wearing a helmet can itself become a leading factor to cause an incident
Is there a source for this? Should be a randomized A/B test as you mentioned, not just a correlation - wearing a hi-vis jacket or other precautions taken more often in dangerous situations probably also correlate with accidents.
Even if helmets do cause accidents through increased carelessness, some may still take issue to intentionally making a scenario more dangerous such that people are more careful. It's kind of settling for a local minimum, rather than aiming to reduce inherent risk alongside aligning people's risk estimates to not overestimate the precautions.
Cars already have airbags and seatbelts which help a lot for the kind of collisions that would otherwise result in head injuries.
> It might make you much safer in case of a crash, according to your reasoning.
I don't see what in their comment could be construed to say that helmets make you much safer regardless of vehicle.
> Wearing a helmet can itself become a leading factor to cause an incident
Is there a source for this? Should be a randomized A/B test as you mentioned, not just a correlation - wearing a hi-vis jacket or other precautions taken more often in dangerous situations probably also correlate with accidents.
Even if helmets do cause accidents through increased carelessness, some may still take issue to intentionally making a scenario more dangerous such that people are more careful. It's kind of settling for a local minimum, rather than aiming to reduce inherent risk alongside aligning people's risk estimates to not overestimate the precautions.
But a helmet will help even more. It costs nothing, what is there to reject?
I don't perceive the benefit from risk reduction of helmets in cars to overcome the hassle hurdle. But I wouldn't advocate banning others from wearing helmets in cars if they so wished.
Helmets reduce peripheral vision. I would absolutely be comfortable banning helmets in cars if people started wearing them and causing more accidents.
My bicycle helmet sits on top of my head, and has nothing to do with peripheral vision. Do you wear yours pulled down low over your forehead? If so you're doing it wrong.
The strap makes it more difficult to turn your head if it's properly tight. Probably also will hit your head on the ceiling if you're in a sedan.
I think you've been fitted into the wrong helmet. Do you really think MTB riders have any more difficulty turning their heads? It's not the case. And to back up what the other person said: modern road and XC/enduro MTB helmets do not obstruct peripheral vision unless it also has a non-retractable visor. Even modern full-face helmets limit vision less than you might think.
A competent bike helmet costs little, but not nothing; maybe $20 to start, and a little extra weight, and it messes up your hair a bit, takes seconds to put on if already adjusted and maybe a minute otherwise. May remove a bit of vision, but only vertically up.
A competent car helmet is probably a motorcycle helmet, which is more like $100 to start, but it impacts hearing, reduces vision in all directions, is a significant weight, usually doesn't adjust much for sizing, takes longer to put on (especially if you wear eyeglasses).
A bike helmet in a car would likely be more trouble than anything, it would interfere with the headrests and probably increase neck injuries.
A competent car helmet is probably a motorcycle helmet, which is more like $100 to start, but it impacts hearing, reduces vision in all directions, is a significant weight, usually doesn't adjust much for sizing, takes longer to put on (especially if you wear eyeglasses).
A bike helmet in a car would likely be more trouble than anything, it would interfere with the headrests and probably increase neck injuries.
No, it rightfully illicits that response. Wearing a safety device shouldn't make an activity less safe.
Your "simple equation" relies on your variables being solid. And they aren't.
It's important to stress that the behavioural studies from Bath (that show helmeted riders take more risks in simulations, that cars give them less space) are not data about whether helmeted users are at greater risk. Or that comparisons between US and NZ riders and outcomes are comparable because of vastly different road and rider profiles.
It's also hard to show how much helmets are helping because zero-harm accidents are rarely reported, so if we assume that they function correctly, and do reduce harm in impacts, we simply don't know how many near-misses there are.
You can look at hospital admission data two studies show 75 and 78% of cyclists admitted with serious-enough head/neck injuries hadn't worn a helmet. That still needs adjusting for total accidents, and proportion of helmeted riders on the road in the first place. Again, poor reporting makes this tough.
You also have to be aware that some studies and stats are polished up by people fervently for and against mandatory helmet laws. Biased reporting doesn't help anyone. There's a good selection here: https://www.helmets.org/stats.htm (domain suggests a strong bias, but I'm not sure).
Pedal Me doesn't provide a good argument here. It seems more like they're worried what their customers will think (do they need helmets too?) and nothing to do with actual safety outcomes.
Your "simple equation" relies on your variables being solid. And they aren't.
It's important to stress that the behavioural studies from Bath (that show helmeted riders take more risks in simulations, that cars give them less space) are not data about whether helmeted users are at greater risk. Or that comparisons between US and NZ riders and outcomes are comparable because of vastly different road and rider profiles.
It's also hard to show how much helmets are helping because zero-harm accidents are rarely reported, so if we assume that they function correctly, and do reduce harm in impacts, we simply don't know how many near-misses there are.
You can look at hospital admission data two studies show 75 and 78% of cyclists admitted with serious-enough head/neck injuries hadn't worn a helmet. That still needs adjusting for total accidents, and proportion of helmeted riders on the road in the first place. Again, poor reporting makes this tough.
You also have to be aware that some studies and stats are polished up by people fervently for and against mandatory helmet laws. Biased reporting doesn't help anyone. There's a good selection here: https://www.helmets.org/stats.htm (domain suggests a strong bias, but I'm not sure).
Pedal Me doesn't provide a good argument here. It seems more like they're worried what their customers will think (do they need helmets too?) and nothing to do with actual safety outcomes.
> No, it rightfully illicits that response. Wearing a safety device shouldn't make an activity less safe.
American Football vs Rugby and the difference in CTE is often cited as the prime example of where this is true. Helmets and shoulder pads encourage riskier hits.
American Football vs Rugby and the difference in CTE is often cited as the prime example of where this is true. Helmets and shoulder pads encourage riskier hits.
Often cited, sure, but I don't see cyclists (myself included) put a helmet on and start taking on 18-wheelers. What I'm trying to say is it matters how true these studies are. Say we accept there's an increased risk of having an accident, the data also shows that if you have an accident you're much more likely to die without a helmet.
I think a lot of people —including experienced cyclists— would be surprised how easily a silly little fall, a knock against a car, can just kill you.
So even if a helmet makes you marginally more likely to be involved in an accident, being a professional vulnerable road user, all day is no joke. I'd like to have safety equipment when my number comes up.
I think a lot of people —including experienced cyclists— would be surprised how easily a silly little fall, a knock against a car, can just kill you.
So even if a helmet makes you marginally more likely to be involved in an accident, being a professional vulnerable road user, all day is no joke. I'd like to have safety equipment when my number comes up.
I don't think that example is quite so obvious.
American Football is all about set plays. You line up and then charge at each other, meaning you have two lines effectively charging at each other and can focus all your effort on this one effort.
Rugby is much more fluid, so the amount of direct head-on-head collisions is much lower, and the distance someone typically runs before tackling someone is much lower as the 'engagements' are more frequent.
American Football is like going from 0-60mph every 10 minutes, whereas rugby is about sitting at 30mph constantly.
American Football is all about set plays. You line up and then charge at each other, meaning you have two lines effectively charging at each other and can focus all your effort on this one effort.
Rugby is much more fluid, so the amount of direct head-on-head collisions is much lower, and the distance someone typically runs before tackling someone is much lower as the 'engagements' are more frequent.
American Football is like going from 0-60mph every 10 minutes, whereas rugby is about sitting at 30mph constantly.
I don’t want to be rude, but wide receivers and running backs get CTE as much as other positions and their movement patterns are nearly identical to rugby.
I agree linemen are a novel concept, but they’re not the only victims.
I agree linemen are a novel concept, but they’re not the only victims.
I was not suggesting it's only linemen. I think my point still stands about NFL being all about 'set plays'. NFL is all "set up, set up, set up, RUN, TACKLE, STOP", whereas rugby is more "run run tackle run tackle run tackle stop".
Combine that with the fact when a Rugby player makes an extended run, they aren't often tackled directly head or side-on, it's more perhaps an "anchor" tackle from the back to pull them down. In american football, the safeties and deep players have more opportunity to get head-on with a receiver while the ball is in flight, while a rugby full-back having to watch and run horizontally while the player is running means they are less likely to be directly head-on.
Further combine that with the fact that Rugby governing bodies have penalised 'high tackles', and the rate of CTE drops significalty.
Combine that with the fact when a Rugby player makes an extended run, they aren't often tackled directly head or side-on, it's more perhaps an "anchor" tackle from the back to pull them down. In american football, the safeties and deep players have more opportunity to get head-on with a receiver while the ball is in flight, while a rugby full-back having to watch and run horizontally while the player is running means they are less likely to be directly head-on.
Further combine that with the fact that Rugby governing bodies have penalised 'high tackles', and the rate of CTE drops significalty.
>I think my point still stands about NFL being all about 'set plays'. NFL is all "set up, set up, set up, RUN, TACKLE, STOP", whereas rugby is more "run run tackle run tackle run tackle stop".
Is your core argument that rugby is safer because the players are more tired at any given point so they don't hit as hard? Other than that, I am struggling to figure out the mechanism between stopping more frequently and football being more dangerous.
>Combine that with the fact when a Rugby player makes an extended run, they aren't often tackled directly head or side-on, it's more perhaps an "anchor" tackle from the back to pull them down. In american football, the safeties and deep players have more opportunity to get head-on with a receiver while the ball is in flight, while a rugby full-back having to watch and run horizontally while the player is running means they are less likely to be directly head-on.
I'd suggest you watch videos like [0] to diligence your claim that head-on tackles aren't common in rugby.
The nuance that you are missing is the power equation - American football's best tacklers focus on short-duration, high-work contact (i.e. maximizing power) to knock an offensive player off their feet [1]. Think of it like placing a nail. You can swing a metal hammer and a rubber mallet (of the same mass) against the same nail and the metal hammer will always drive it better because the dt portion of the power equation (i.e. the denominator) is smaller.
The metaphor extends: rugby players may put in the same amount of work (or more!) on a given tackle, but the dt part of their power equation is much higher than in the NFL because humans are squishy (in practice this is also why you see so much more form tackling in rugby - it's hard to generate enough power to just knock someone over without wearing pads).
Ultimately, high power hits are what cause the rapid, high energy head movements that cause CTE and those are just easier to do in pads.
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOFO_MzZi50 [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3Bh9LHMEeY
Is your core argument that rugby is safer because the players are more tired at any given point so they don't hit as hard? Other than that, I am struggling to figure out the mechanism between stopping more frequently and football being more dangerous.
>Combine that with the fact when a Rugby player makes an extended run, they aren't often tackled directly head or side-on, it's more perhaps an "anchor" tackle from the back to pull them down. In american football, the safeties and deep players have more opportunity to get head-on with a receiver while the ball is in flight, while a rugby full-back having to watch and run horizontally while the player is running means they are less likely to be directly head-on.
I'd suggest you watch videos like [0] to diligence your claim that head-on tackles aren't common in rugby.
The nuance that you are missing is the power equation - American football's best tacklers focus on short-duration, high-work contact (i.e. maximizing power) to knock an offensive player off their feet [1]. Think of it like placing a nail. You can swing a metal hammer and a rubber mallet (of the same mass) against the same nail and the metal hammer will always drive it better because the dt portion of the power equation (i.e. the denominator) is smaller.
The metaphor extends: rugby players may put in the same amount of work (or more!) on a given tackle, but the dt part of their power equation is much higher than in the NFL because humans are squishy (in practice this is also why you see so much more form tackling in rugby - it's hard to generate enough power to just knock someone over without wearing pads).
Ultimately, high power hits are what cause the rapid, high energy head movements that cause CTE and those are just easier to do in pads.
[0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOFO_MzZi50 [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3Bh9LHMEeY
> Do you wear a helmet when you drive inside your car? If not, why not?
Because I have a seatbelt, an airbag, and a reinforced shock absorbing shell around me.
Because I have a seatbelt, an airbag, and a reinforced shock absorbing shell around me.
So you wear a helmet as a pedestrian then? You are so unprotected!
I guess if I was going to walk in the road with traffic.
like an everyday pedestrian you mean?
Everyday pedestrians generally walk on footpaths, not roads.
> So you wear a helmet as a pedestrian then?
I'm not going multiples of walking speed on something standing upright only thanks to gyroscopic forces, so no.
Also even when running I have way better maneuverability than as a cyclist.
Generally limbs > wheels when it comes to getting out of trouble.
I wear a helmet when skiing though.
I'm not going multiples of walking speed on something standing upright only thanks to gyroscopic forces, so no.
Also even when running I have way better maneuverability than as a cyclist.
Generally limbs > wheels when it comes to getting out of trouble.
I wear a helmet when skiing though.
If a car collides with you when you walk you could make the argument its safer to have a helmet. this is not evem remotely rare in terms of occurence.
> Do you wear a helmet when you drive inside your car? If not, why not?
My car has other safety measures in place to protect me from head injuries. A bicycle does not.
My car has other safety measures in place to protect me from head injuries. A bicycle does not.
sure, but if a helmet makes things even safer by all means lets mandate helmets in cars. I want people to follow that safety logic to the end.
Who here is saying helmets should be mandated even for bicycles, let alone cars? Why are the only options "pursue safety to its absolute maximum" v. "don't pursue it at all"? Why can't that decision be left to the individual rider, rather than forcing riders to forego safety equipment for astoundingly-lissencephalic rationale like "helmets reduce safety"?
> Do you wear a helmet when you drive inside your car? If not, why not? It might make you much safer in case of a crash, according to your reasoning.
Would it? I've never heard anyone recommend this, but if this did actually reduce the likelihood of a serious head injury in the event of a car crash, then I would seriously consider wearing a helmet while I drive a car. I have no problem wearing one while I ride a bicycle or motorbike.
Would it? I've never heard anyone recommend this, but if this did actually reduce the likelihood of a serious head injury in the event of a car crash, then I would seriously consider wearing a helmet while I drive a car. I have no problem wearing one while I ride a bicycle or motorbike.
Motor vehicle accidents are a leading cause of traumatic brain injury related deaths. If you are under 55 the obly higher cause is suicide. (If you qre older than 55, your chances of a TBI related death from an accidental fall start to skyrocket with age.) There is a reason why race car drivers wear helmets, and it isn't just to have another place to plaster sponsor logos.
I am not aware of any studies looking specifically at the effects of helmet wearing on TBI rates of regular drivers, but then good data on that for bicycles is also hard to come by but that doesn't stop people from pushing for bicycle helmets.
I am not aware of any studies looking specifically at the effects of helmet wearing on TBI rates of regular drivers, but then good data on that for bicycles is also hard to come by but that doesn't stop people from pushing for bicycle helmets.
Race car drivers are at a lot higher risk of a collision, spin, vehicle fire, or rapid disassembly in general than general traffic. And in many forms of racing, they usually go significantly faster than general traffic too. Helmets, neck restraints, five point harnesses, and flame retardant suits all reduce risk of injuries, and would likely reduce risk in general traffic as well, but the risks seem low enough that the expense (including time to equip) of that additional equipment is too much to justify its general use. Although, if there were an easier intervention to help with neck injuries, it might likely be adopted.
> And in many forms of racing, they usually go significantly faster than general traffic too.
Yet, lethal TBIs are more likely to come from motor vehicle accidents than from bicycle accidents.
> the risks seem low enough that the expense (including time to equip) of that additional equipment is too much to justify its general use.
Yet, somehow this argument is deemed irrelevant when helmets for bicycles are discussed.
There really is not a compelling reason why helmet usage in a car is different from on a bicycle. The main difference is social acceptability, not any objective risk analysis.
Yet, lethal TBIs are more likely to come from motor vehicle accidents than from bicycle accidents.
> the risks seem low enough that the expense (including time to equip) of that additional equipment is too much to justify its general use.
Yet, somehow this argument is deemed irrelevant when helmets for bicycles are discussed.
There really is not a compelling reason why helmet usage in a car is different from on a bicycle. The main difference is social acceptability, not any objective risk analysis.
> Yet, lethal TBIs are more likely to come from motor vehicle accidents than from bicycle accidents.
Is that per mile, per minute, or per lethal TBI? Also, is a collision between a bicycle and a motor vehicle a motor vehicle accident or a bicycle accident?
Of course, bike helmets protect against more than just brain injury. They also protect against road abrasion of some portion of the head, which is not usually a factor for car occupants, except if they're ejected or they're in a car that rolls over and doesn't have an roof or an effective roll bar.
Bike helmets are much lower expense and hassle than car helmets (which are mostly motorcycle helmets) and neck restraints, etc. If it's a public use bike system, especially the leave anywhere bikes, the expense and hassle gets overwelming, and helmets for customers of a pedal cab would be similar.
I've got a bike helmet with integrated lighting, which adds functionality and is kind of neat, although it was much more expensive than a good enough helmet.
Is that per mile, per minute, or per lethal TBI? Also, is a collision between a bicycle and a motor vehicle a motor vehicle accident or a bicycle accident?
Of course, bike helmets protect against more than just brain injury. They also protect against road abrasion of some portion of the head, which is not usually a factor for car occupants, except if they're ejected or they're in a car that rolls over and doesn't have an roof or an effective roll bar.
Bike helmets are much lower expense and hassle than car helmets (which are mostly motorcycle helmets) and neck restraints, etc. If it's a public use bike system, especially the leave anywhere bikes, the expense and hassle gets overwelming, and helmets for customers of a pedal cab would be similar.
I've got a bike helmet with integrated lighting, which adds functionality and is kind of neat, although it was much more expensive than a good enough helmet.
> per lethal TBI?
Per lethal TBI, I don't think the data exists for per mile or per minute.
> Also, is a collision between a bicycle and a motor vehicle a motor vehicle accident or a bicycle accident?
Good catch, looking at their methods, they do include IDC-10 codes for pedestrian and bicyclist injuries due to motor vehicles in that number so I am not sure how many of those are actual vehicle occupants and I can't find any data at the moment that breaks those numbers down per IDC code group.
> Bike helmets are much lower expense and hassle than car helmets (which are mostly motorcycle helmets) and neck restraints,
Per lethal TBI, I don't think the data exists for per mile or per minute.
> Also, is a collision between a bicycle and a motor vehicle a motor vehicle accident or a bicycle accident?
Good catch, looking at their methods, they do include IDC-10 codes for pedestrian and bicyclist injuries due to motor vehicles in that number so I am not sure how many of those are actual vehicle occupants and I can't find any data at the moment that breaks those numbers down per IDC code group.
> Bike helmets are much lower expense and hassle than car helmets (which are mostly motorcycle helmets) and neck restraints,
Not that it correlates much to every day driving, since both speeds and driving patterns differ, but e.g. NASCAR drivers wear helmets (along with that whole neck protection setup that latches to the helmet).
I don't know, however, if a helmet may work worse in conjuction with an airbag though. So personally I think I'd stay away from helmets in cars (but I really have too little data to make an informed decision).
Having said that, in the case of this company, perhaps they could offer their passengers a "Hövding" device? (Hövding being the swedish word for a chieftain, but "hövve" is also slang for head, and in the case of this product it is a... "backpack/necklace thingy" that is a wearable airbag. Supposedly works really well, but probably comes with a price tag matching this function.
I don't know, however, if a helmet may work worse in conjuction with an airbag though. So personally I think I'd stay away from helmets in cars (but I really have too little data to make an informed decision).
Having said that, in the case of this company, perhaps they could offer their passengers a "Hövding" device? (Hövding being the swedish word for a chieftain, but "hövve" is also slang for head, and in the case of this product it is a... "backpack/necklace thingy" that is a wearable airbag. Supposedly works really well, but probably comes with a price tag matching this function.
If you take your car to a track day it’s generally required that you wear a helmet (and a bicycle helmet wouldn’t qualify).
All rally drivers wear helmets. Pretty sure its not just to have more sponsor stickers.
I've seen research stating adjacent car drivers will give less space to a cyclist wearing a helmet due to implied added safety.
This sounds like one of those papers that got published with just barely "significant statistical evidence" but never had follow-up to verify, meaning you can't really draw conclusions for it.
[deleted]
The study was barely scientific. The researcher was his own test subject, and the result has never been replicated. Also, most crashes probably occur under conditions where the driver can't be aware of whether the cyclist is wearing a helmet or not. "The cyclist suddenly came out of nowhere" is a common defense.
I know this will astonish you, but when I ride a bike, I don't always put a helmet on.
Whether I do or not has a lot to do with how likely it is that I might get in an accident. Wild right? Why would I opt for more safety gear in a more dangerous situation.
Whether I do or not has a lot to do with how likely it is that I might get in an accident. Wild right? Why would I opt for more safety gear in a more dangerous situation.
I once organized a workshop on reasoning about uncertainty and in it a woman attended who was in charge of cycling safety for a large government organization of some EU country. She confirmed that, statistically speaking, cycling without a helmet is safer than with but mentioned this as a good example of likely confounding factors and a case where you cannot take the statistics itself for policy making.
But besides that, even if the average nation-wide number of accidents can be taken as a basis for nation-wide policy making because confounders can be ignored (a huge assumption), you can still not use this data reliably for individual decision making or policy making for smaller groups without further analysis. You need to account the variance, where the confounders occur, and what these confounding factors are. For example, regarding individual decision making, it could be the case that certain people who cycle with helmets on the average cycle more recklessly, but you cycle even more carefully with a helmet and are better protected. If so, you cannot take the average to inform your cycling. The same holds for other groups, such as professional cyclists for a company like in this article.
To give another example, consider accident statistics of self-driving cars versus human drivers nationwide. The human driver statistics include each and every reckless and drunk driver in the country, including many people with whom you'd never share a car ride. At the same time, you might have been driving accident-free for more than 40 years. For you personally, or a specific group you belong to, self-driving cars could thus be way more dangerous than driving yourself.
But besides that, even if the average nation-wide number of accidents can be taken as a basis for nation-wide policy making because confounders can be ignored (a huge assumption), you can still not use this data reliably for individual decision making or policy making for smaller groups without further analysis. You need to account the variance, where the confounders occur, and what these confounding factors are. For example, regarding individual decision making, it could be the case that certain people who cycle with helmets on the average cycle more recklessly, but you cycle even more carefully with a helmet and are better protected. If so, you cannot take the average to inform your cycling. The same holds for other groups, such as professional cyclists for a company like in this article.
To give another example, consider accident statistics of self-driving cars versus human drivers nationwide. The human driver statistics include each and every reckless and drunk driver in the country, including many people with whom you'd never share a car ride. At the same time, you might have been driving accident-free for more than 40 years. For you personally, or a specific group you belong to, self-driving cars could thus be way more dangerous than driving yourself.
As a frequent mountain biker, I can attest that wearing additional safety gear results in me taking more risks. I ride downhill faster, I take corners more aggressively, I take more jumps and I am less cautious over dangerous terrain. When wearing only shorts, a jersey, and a standard helmet, without pads or a full-face helmet, I ride subdued.
Some of this difference is due to the innate and insidious sense of invulnerability with protective gear. It comes naturally even the first time you don it. It's a common source of accidents and something that must be trained out of you.
Being able to get back up unscathed from bad falls also reinforces your future confidence, or lack thereof, which I can also attest from having fallen many times both with and without protective gear.
I'd still never ride without (at least) a standard helmet. If helmets do factually cause more accidents, which is plausible for the reasons I just mentioned, I'd support making helmets mandatory for employees through legislation. It doesn't matter if the numbers support the opposite conclusion: maximizing individual safety in the eventuality of a crash is paramount. If you have ever had a head impact while wearing a helmet, you will understand why.
Some of this difference is due to the innate and insidious sense of invulnerability with protective gear. It comes naturally even the first time you don it. It's a common source of accidents and something that must be trained out of you.
Being able to get back up unscathed from bad falls also reinforces your future confidence, or lack thereof, which I can also attest from having fallen many times both with and without protective gear.
I'd still never ride without (at least) a standard helmet. If helmets do factually cause more accidents, which is plausible for the reasons I just mentioned, I'd support making helmets mandatory for employees through legislation. It doesn't matter if the numbers support the opposite conclusion: maximizing individual safety in the eventuality of a crash is paramount. If you have ever had a head impact while wearing a helmet, you will understand why.
Here’s the contrarian viewpoint just for the sake of being a contrarian, in spite of decades of evidence that helmets improve cyclist safety.
[deleted]
I understand where you’re coming from, but I’d like to see some data rather than “what the actual fuck”. I believe there are some cases where safety protections make people act dumber - and now I’m curious if this is or is not one them. I don’t take a position either way, but I don’t feel like shouting that you’d tell your employer to eat a bag of dicks really contributes much here.
> I believe there are some cases where safety protections make people act dumber
And I don't believe that to be a justification for removing those safety protections entirely. This ain't some data science problem to be solved; this is ethics and morality, and there is precisely nothing ethical or moral about demanding that your employees make themselves less safe and then having the gall to pretend that this somehow makes them safer.
> I don’t feel like shouting that you’d tell your employer to eat a bag of dicks really contributes much here.
You're right: all employees telling their employers to eat an OSHA-sized bag of dicks if they try prohibiting basic safety equipment would contribute far more greatly to society than just one. But we gotta start somewhere.
And I don't believe that to be a justification for removing those safety protections entirely. This ain't some data science problem to be solved; this is ethics and morality, and there is precisely nothing ethical or moral about demanding that your employees make themselves less safe and then having the gall to pretend that this somehow makes them safer.
> I don’t feel like shouting that you’d tell your employer to eat a bag of dicks really contributes much here.
You're right: all employees telling their employers to eat an OSHA-sized bag of dicks if they try prohibiting basic safety equipment would contribute far more greatly to society than just one. But we gotta start somewhere.
You believe that if the evidence indicates more people would die with the helmets, it would still be morally verboten even though it would be a statistical certainty your omission of action is basically causing people's deaths when we are talking about large numbers of people?
Crazy. I suspect you are actually reasoning from your thought that people are more likely to die without helmets and ignoring the premise of the question, or at least I hope that is what you are doing.
Crazy. I suspect you are actually reasoning from your thought that people are more likely to die without helmets and ignoring the premise of the question, or at least I hope that is what you are doing.
> You believe that if the evidence indicates more people would die with the helmets
That ain't what was argued. The commenter above argued that helmets encourage people to take more risks. Even assuming that to be true, the sane answer is to train people to ride safely even when wearing helmets, not to ban helmets.
> it would be a statistical certainty your omission of action is basically causing people's deaths
1. "statistical certainty" is an oxymoron.
2. correlation != causation
That ain't what was argued. The commenter above argued that helmets encourage people to take more risks. Even assuming that to be true, the sane answer is to train people to ride safely even when wearing helmets, not to ban helmets.
> it would be a statistical certainty your omission of action is basically causing people's deaths
1. "statistical certainty" is an oxymoron.
2. correlation != causation
1. It's may be an oxymoron but also there is no such thing as any other form of certainty.
2. Yes, this is why we have RCTs.
2. Yes, this is why we have RCTs.
if even 1 incident occurs which was unavoidable by an unhelmeted cyclist which harms them more than they would have been harmed wearing a helmet, then the policy is unconscionable
claiming you're removing safety equipment to reduce risky behavior is the tail wagging the dog. there are other ways to reduce risky behavior which do not have such tragic consequences as side effects to them.
claiming you're removing safety equipment to reduce risky behavior is the tail wagging the dog. there are other ways to reduce risky behavior which do not have such tragic consequences as side effects to them.
> then the policy is unconscionable
Let's say you do an A/B test on this policy and find 15 more people die with the helmet allowed policy, but in the other side, one person died who if they had chosen a helmet they likely wouldn't have. You're saying it is unconscionable to pick the policy where the 15 wouldn't have died?
Do the other things to reduce risky behavior, certainly, but if this is an uncorrelated improvement I don't see why that wouldn't be worth taking.
Note, I doubt that this is actually true, but I wanted to highlight your moral apriori claims as ridiculous.
Let's say you do an A/B test on this policy and find 15 more people die with the helmet allowed policy, but in the other side, one person died who if they had chosen a helmet they likely wouldn't have. You're saying it is unconscionable to pick the policy where the 15 wouldn't have died?
Do the other things to reduce risky behavior, certainly, but if this is an uncorrelated improvement I don't see why that wouldn't be worth taking.
Note, I doubt that this is actually true, but I wanted to highlight your moral apriori claims as ridiculous.
> Note, I doubt that this is actually true, but I wanted to highlight your moral apriori claims as ridiculous.
You failed to do that:
You didn’t address the agency problem where the 15 chose to engage in risky behavior while that 1 was coerced into dying — and ignoring the role of agency in the Trolley Problem is amateur hour. The helmets didn’t kill anyone, their following choices while wearing helmets did; which is in contrast to mandating no helmet, that is directly responsible for a death.
What you did was make a ridiculous argument that ignored the crux of the issue and pretend that the other person was wrong.
You failed to do that:
You didn’t address the agency problem where the 15 chose to engage in risky behavior while that 1 was coerced into dying — and ignoring the role of agency in the Trolley Problem is amateur hour. The helmets didn’t kill anyone, their following choices while wearing helmets did; which is in contrast to mandating no helmet, that is directly responsible for a death.
What you did was make a ridiculous argument that ignored the crux of the issue and pretend that the other person was wrong.
They were not coerced into dying. I prefer fewer people dying personally, your mileage might vary.
All I can say is I am glad that the actual people making decisions seem to also prefer fewer people dying over non-coercion.
All I can say is I am glad that the actual people making decisions seem to also prefer fewer people dying over non-coercion.
>They were not coerced into dying
Despite this bare denial, I believe "coerced into dying" to be an accurate description of someone coerced into not wearing a helmet dying of head injuries from an unavoidable accident
sorry, that's not a coercion I'm willing to make. First, do no harm. Come back when you've tried safer ways to reduce risky behavior.
Despite this bare denial, I believe "coerced into dying" to be an accurate description of someone coerced into not wearing a helmet dying of head injuries from an unavoidable accident
sorry, that's not a coercion I'm willing to make. First, do no harm. Come back when you've tried safer ways to reduce risky behavior.
I pretty clearly articulated exactly what was unconscionable:
> if even 1 incident occurs which was unavoidable by an unhelmeted cyclist which harms them more than they would have been harmed wearing a helmet, then the policy is unconscionable
if you can think of a scenario in which what I described as unconscionable happens, then I would find that scenario unconscionable.
> Do the other things to reduce risky behavior, certainly, but if this is an uncorrelated improvement I don't see why that wouldn't be worth taking.
whereas I DO see why such a helmet ban would be a risk not worth taking, it is at the top of this post.
> if even 1 incident occurs which was unavoidable by an unhelmeted cyclist which harms them more than they would have been harmed wearing a helmet, then the policy is unconscionable
if you can think of a scenario in which what I described as unconscionable happens, then I would find that scenario unconscionable.
> Do the other things to reduce risky behavior, certainly, but if this is an uncorrelated improvement I don't see why that wouldn't be worth taking.
whereas I DO see why such a helmet ban would be a risk not worth taking, it is at the top of this post.
I think there has to be substantial if not overwhelming evidence of increased risk before it would be moral to ban employees from using a given piece of safety equipment. And given the long history of companies not caring for the welfare of their workers, the evidence should be peer reviewed and coming from independent researchers rather than clearly biased sources
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136984781...
“In sum, this systematic review found little to no support for the hypothesis bicycle helmet use is associated with engaging in risky behaviour.”
“In sum, this systematic review found little to no support for the hypothesis bicycle helmet use is associated with engaging in risky behaviour.”
Maybe the problem set they are looking at, commercial riders on a schedule, is very different from the wide ranging meta study that you linked.
This would make sense for situations where the main risk was the driver/operator of the machine, but when it comes to cycling on the road (especially in crazy Central London traffic) I would expect the risk to primarily come from cars.
For which there is some evidence [1] that you are less likely to be involved in an accident doe to external causes when not wearing a helmet than when wearing one - in essence the same effect that helmet wearing has on the cyclist (taking greater risks) it also has on drivers passing cyclists.
[1] https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/1365/is-it-safer-to-wear-...
[1] https://www.cyclist.co.uk/in-depth/1365/is-it-safer-to-wear-...
I think that even bigger effect is that casual riders won't opt out cycling when helmets are mandatory. That is where helmets add least safety and comparably most unpracticality. When you are going to buy milk and some sausage in leisure pace or when you are going to work in speed guaranteed to not make you sweaty.
Those are safest rides, they are good for your health and the ones that drop first.
Those are safest rides, they are good for your health and the ones that drop first.
[deleted]
Don't take the job. Every occupation has risk. Nobody wants the nanny.
> If I was a staff rider, I'd be putting that helmet on and telling Pedal Me to eat an OSHA-sized bag of dicks if they have a problem with it.
And then they would fire you and you will have to find a company that allow helmets and everyone will be happy
And then they would fire you and you will have to find a company that allow helmets and everyone will be happy
> And then they would fire you, hand you a substantial financial settlement for your wrongful termination, and you will be able to collect unemployment benefits while you take your sweet time to find a company that's not garbage.
FTFY
FTFY
We can downgrade from OSHA to class action lawyers with this kind of thinking. Seriously why not require helmets and hire for safety, too?
Have friends that have been saved multiple times from serious head injury by their helmet. Cases of streetcar tracks and car doors opening on them unexpectedly, no extra risk taking happening there.
This approach is not right, the fact the bike is larger helps a bit but does not stop the driver or riders from being thrown from the bike.
The additional risk taking factor should be curbed through other means. Removing the helmet is not the right approach.
This approach is not right, the fact the bike is larger helps a bit but does not stop the driver or riders from being thrown from the bike.
The additional risk taking factor should be curbed through other means. Removing the helmet is not the right approach.
Wearing a helmet is a low-cost no-brainer and it provides increased protection. It does NOT turn riders into daredevils, fairly certain any statistics that say so don’t distinguish between single riders and those riding with cargo or passengers which are not idiots and know to adjust their riding accordingly.
I’m fine with riders being able to choose whether to wear a helmet based on their skill, confidence and situation. But saying “wearing a helmet turns you into a psycho so don’t, or we’ll fire you” is really nonsensical and irresponsible.
I’m fine with riders being able to choose whether to wear a helmet based on their skill, confidence and situation. But saying “wearing a helmet turns you into a psycho so don’t, or we’ll fire you” is really nonsensical and irresponsible.
> Wearing a helmet is a low-cost no-brainer
Or in this case, a low-cost keep-your-brainer.
Or in this case, a low-cost keep-your-brainer.
A low-cost brainer.
How dare those guys drive on roads with cars!
This seems insane. Even if the data supported this, anyone from the PR department should have seen how much bad press this generates from a mile away.
This seems insane. Even if the data supported this, anyone from the PR department should have seen how much bad press this generates from a mile away.
From their point of view, it's like if a delivery company banned drivers from installing roll-cages and racing harnesses - the initial question should be, why on earth do you think you need that?
A fall from bicycle height onto concrete can kill you if you hit your head—even if the bicycle is completely stationary. This rule is BS and I expect the company will be pressured to reverse their decision immediately.
Sincerely, a guy who's probably alive because of a bicycle helmet.
Sincerely, a guy who's probably alive because of a bicycle helmet.
It's more like if a delivery company banned their drivers from installing seat belts and airbags. Even if you are a perfect driver, other people aren't and on a bike, your will be the one hurting after a crash.
Not at all. Seatbelts are a legal requirement, helmets are not. This is employees wearing body amour, which is seen as either encouraging risk-taking, or giving the illusion that the activity is risky.
> or giving the illusion that the activity is risky.
Urban biking is inherently risky, especially in countries/states/cities with lackluster or nonexistent safe cycling infrastructure.
Wearing a helmet is just trying to reduce the potential damage from unforeseen and unexpected accidents - things that may likely be 100% outside of control of the biker once they are on the road. It's not a matter of "I want to wear a helmet so that I can take more risks" and it's ridiculous that Pedal Me is peddling such an excuse.
Urban biking is inherently risky, especially in countries/states/cities with lackluster or nonexistent safe cycling infrastructure.
Wearing a helmet is just trying to reduce the potential damage from unforeseen and unexpected accidents - things that may likely be 100% outside of control of the biker once they are on the road. It's not a matter of "I want to wear a helmet so that I can take more risks" and it's ridiculous that Pedal Me is peddling such an excuse.
I'm pretty sure a professional looking branded helmet would be better for business. This is just a classic case of putting the employee at risk of injury to scire some tiny marketing points. This is an easy decision. Endanger employees or make a tiny bit more money. Factor in one lawsuit and all the profit will be gone.
In Germany it's actually discussed quite heavily whether to make helmets a legal requirement. I also don't see how you don't think of bikes driving on roads as risky. Even with a helmet, you can get very seriously injured; a helmet will just help you to not die and (hopefully) still walk again afterwards. Feel free to look up images from serious bike accidents; I can't imagine anyone sane risking that, helmet or not.
I cycle 10,000km+ a year in London, so I think I have a better idea about this than the vast majority of HN commenters. I generally wear a helmet, but encouraging and definitely enforcing helmet use is the least effective thing we can do to protect people [0].
https://lmb.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/FJKHORIVUAI799Z.j...
https://lmb.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/FJKHORIVUAI799Z.j...
Well, if you think wearing a helmet increases risk, why do you wear one?
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to force anyone to wear a helmet. It's completely fine if one wants to take that risk. But forbidding them is just insane.
Also, helmets are not a get-out-of-jail-free-card. They increase your chances of survival in case of a crash, you will still get injured. Protecting people might be the least effective thing compared to eliminating the hazard, but splitting cars and bikes is simply not always an option.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to force anyone to wear a helmet. It's completely fine if one wants to take that risk. But forbidding them is just insane.
Also, helmets are not a get-out-of-jail-free-card. They increase your chances of survival in case of a crash, you will still get injured. Protecting people might be the least effective thing compared to eliminating the hazard, but splitting cars and bikes is simply not always an option.
I never said I think wearing a helmet increases risk. I was pointing out their reasoning which many people here seem to be missing.
Fair enough, I did indeed miss that!
But I stand by my original comment, even if they do think forbidding helmets avoids a few accidents, they should have smelled the shitstorm from a mile away (and people running a bike company should really be more empathetic towards bikers).
But I stand by my original comment, even if they do think forbidding helmets avoids a few accidents, they should have smelled the shitstorm from a mile away (and people running a bike company should really be more empathetic towards bikers).
Nobody's even "encouraging" (let alone "enforcing") helmet use in this case. This is purely staff riders choosing on their own whether or not they should wear a helmet, and Pedal Me throwing a fit over it over some patently absurd "safety reasons".
If you generally wear a helmet, aren't you either encouraging risk-taking, or giving the illusion that the activity is risky?
Not at all, the other analogy was better
Yours seems to be based on the assumption that if it is not mandated by law, it is not a good idea that can save lives, which is the criteria by which others are evaluating this
It's also worth noting that biking in a city around cars and bikes and other people IS objectively risky, to the point where it is completely reasonable for someone to choose to wear a single piece of safety equipment over their single most important human organ
Yours seems to be based on the assumption that if it is not mandated by law, it is not a good idea that can save lives, which is the criteria by which others are evaluating this
It's also worth noting that biking in a city around cars and bikes and other people IS objectively risky, to the point where it is completely reasonable for someone to choose to wear a single piece of safety equipment over their single most important human organ
It's more like banning drivers from wearing seatbelts.
Oof. Most bicycle accidents I was in were not caused by me, and you can only reduce the risk so much by defensive cycling.
Bicycle helmets are the kind of thing that you don't need 99,9% of the time, but you will die (or be reduced to a vegetable) if you don't have it in the few cases you do need it. While they should not be mandated, they also should not be banned, IMO.
Reads a bit like "We don't want our car drivers to use airbags, as the vehicles are heavy and dangerous and as such we require them to feel confident without such a safety device, so they don't drive recklessly", IMO.
Bicycle helmets are the kind of thing that you don't need 99,9% of the time, but you will die (or be reduced to a vegetable) if you don't have it in the few cases you do need it. While they should not be mandated, they also should not be banned, IMO.
Reads a bit like "We don't want our car drivers to use airbags, as the vehicles are heavy and dangerous and as such we require them to feel confident without such a safety device, so they don't drive recklessly", IMO.
This assumes that the risk primarily originates from the riders, not from other traffic participants.
Is there any data to substantiate this?
Is there any data to substantiate this?
As an active cyclist that was my first thought. Auto drivers texting while driving is my bigger concern. I wear a helmet to hopefully survive that encounter.
> Is there any data to substantiate this?
Risk compensation is a known theory in psychology. But as is normal for psychology, arguments fly back and forth, and there is no settled consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Bicycle_helm...
Risk compensation is a known theory in psychology. But as is normal for psychology, arguments fly back and forth, and there is no settled consensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Bicycle_helm...
There is none, the “risk compensation” theory is a myth invented by Sam Peltzman without any evidence for the phenomenon (but as a good member of the Chicago school of Economics, his goal wasn't to make scientific discovery backed by facts, but to create a narrative against state regulations of any kind)
Other participants take less risk with riders not wearing helmets. There's data on this. For example they leave more room between the bicycle and a car when they are passing.
Is the data you're talking about the data from Ian Walker's study in Bath, England? The sample size was one rider - himself. Other folks have analyzed his raw data and disputed the statistical power of the effect described. That rebuttal has also been re-rebutted. So that's three published studies about this, and three sets of headlines, but as far as I can tell, there's only ever been one actual study that collected data, and it was based on one dude in one area of one country.
As long as they see me I don't worry. They might do stupid stuff like honk at me or pass with small distance, but it's unlikely they'll kill me.
The thing I'm afraid of is a car hitting me at high speed cause they didn't see me, that would probably kill me.
The thing I'm afraid of is a car hitting me at high speed cause they didn't see me, that would probably kill me.
There's an easy fix for that; drive in the middle of the lane. At least where I live it's impossible to legally overtake a cyclist without switching lanes so for anyone driving correctly it doesn't make a difference anyway. Of course that's not a hard rule for every situation, but after a couple situations that almost killed me I just try to reduce risks. Car drivers hate us either way.
Must be a cultural thing. If someone tried this here in Denmark, they would get such a shitstorm. Helmets are generally understood to increase cyclist safety.
Interesting!
AFAIK, in the Netherlands helmets are considered to slightly reduce safety in the general case (but this is not a strong effect).
The general objective is to make infrastructure sufficiently safe so that helmets become redundant.
AFAIK, in the Netherlands helmets are considered to slightly reduce safety in the general case (but this is not a strong effect).
The general objective is to make infrastructure sufficiently safe so that helmets become redundant.
No amount of infrastructure safety will help if you take a tumble and hit your head - a helmet would totally help.
Even experienced cyclists take the occasional fall :)
Even experienced cyclists take the occasional fall :)
Technically you are correct that wearing a helmet does reduce risk of head injury somewhat. However -when infrastructure for cycling is already very safe- you start seeing all sorts of strange statistical effects; and it is not immediately obvious that helmets are a net benefit.
As an example of one of the more funny&misleading statistics: People who wear bicycle helmets in the Netherlands actually end up in hospital more often. https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/who-are-al...
I looked around a bit to see if I could find a paper that takes a balanced view. This particular paper seems to be a bit more from your perspective where wearing helmets might be of some utility. However it does leave the impression that it is would actually be somewhat hard to break even on wearing helmets in the Netherlands. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...
As an example of one of the more funny&misleading statistics: People who wear bicycle helmets in the Netherlands actually end up in hospital more often. https://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/who-are-al...
I looked around a bit to see if I could find a paper that takes a balanced view. This particular paper seems to be a bit more from your perspective where wearing helmets might be of some utility. However it does leave the impression that it is would actually be somewhat hard to break even on wearing helmets in the Netherlands. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...
I assume the paper checked that the non-helmet wearers were not appearing in the morgue?
The first document explains that people who take risks (like riding at high speeds or on a mountain bike) DO wear helmets in the Netherlands. Which is the reason why helmet wearers show up in hospital more often.
The second is a recent paper that applies evenly to people who ride a bike "normally", [From experience: at low speeds on segregated infrastructure at around 15 km/h or so]. My interpretation is that it concludes that wearing a helmet would improve safety for cyclists somewhat; however it would not (currently) be risk-cost-effective according to their measure; and would require intervention to break even.
The second is a recent paper that applies evenly to people who ride a bike "normally", [From experience: at low speeds on segregated infrastructure at around 15 km/h or so]. My interpretation is that it concludes that wearing a helmet would improve safety for cyclists somewhat; however it would not (currently) be risk-cost-effective according to their measure; and would require intervention to break even.
There's a couple takeaways from the first article. The cyclists with helmets are the serious ones riding for sport. I'd also guess commuters who are going long distances wear helmets. These cyclists are putting in far more miles than unhelmeted cyclists. I see the same thing in my city; very casual bikers don't wear helmets. Commuters and sport cyclists do. And those groups are putting in the most miles by far.
If zero people rode bikes without helmets, you'd see 0 cyclists without helmets in the hospital. All those injured will be wearing helmets. It's a terrible measure.
If zero people rode bikes without helmets, you'd see 0 cyclists without helmets in the hospital. All those injured will be wearing helmets. It's a terrible measure.
You've got the gist of it. I'm trying to point out how .nl statistics come out funny because the infrastructure has been made so safe.
Commuters actually make up the majority of cyclists in the Netherlands, there are a lot of them (cycle commuting is heavily encouraged for all kinds of people at all ages), and they don't wear helmets. Despite the large number of commuters on bicycles, commuting is (apparently) so safe that the commuters are heavily outnumbered by the sports cyclists in the hospital statistics.
It is still a somewhat misleading measure of course. You probably should not conclude that wearing a helmet is highly unsafe. ;-)
And... that's the point I'm making. Take measures from the Netherlands with a few grains of salt, because the situation is atypical. On the one hand it's really cool that it's atypical, but then you do need to watch out. The numbers don't line up with the intuition of someone from a typical cars-are-more-important-than-safety country at all; so it's easy to make funny assumptions and draw wrong conclusions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD-uImSUlPo <- eg. arbitrary busy cycle crossing(s?) in Utrecht. Seems to be mostly commuters and university students.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAKMNr0P5r4 <- or eg here on dedicated paths, Nieuwegein. A lot of school children at that particular point in time by the look of it.
Commuters actually make up the majority of cyclists in the Netherlands, there are a lot of them (cycle commuting is heavily encouraged for all kinds of people at all ages), and they don't wear helmets. Despite the large number of commuters on bicycles, commuting is (apparently) so safe that the commuters are heavily outnumbered by the sports cyclists in the hospital statistics.
It is still a somewhat misleading measure of course. You probably should not conclude that wearing a helmet is highly unsafe. ;-)
And... that's the point I'm making. Take measures from the Netherlands with a few grains of salt, because the situation is atypical. On the one hand it's really cool that it's atypical, but then you do need to watch out. The numbers don't line up with the intuition of someone from a typical cars-are-more-important-than-safety country at all; so it's easy to make funny assumptions and draw wrong conclusions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD-uImSUlPo <- eg. arbitrary busy cycle crossing(s?) in Utrecht. Seems to be mostly commuters and university students.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAKMNr0P5r4 <- or eg here on dedicated paths, Nieuwegein. A lot of school children at that particular point in time by the look of it.
What distance are these commuters going?
What I see in those videos looks just like my university, a bunch of people on what we call beach cruisers going a very short distance. Their speed indicates they aren't going far and aren't in much of a rush. Are people in the Netherlands strict about arrival times? Do they usually move at a slower pace?
In my city commuters go fast. We're going a few miles on a commute at least.
What I see in those videos looks just like my university, a bunch of people on what we call beach cruisers going a very short distance. Their speed indicates they aren't going far and aren't in much of a rush. Are people in the Netherlands strict about arrival times? Do they usually move at a slower pace?
In my city commuters go fast. We're going a few miles on a commute at least.
They're going quite a few miles on bike alone. 30-60 min commutes are not uncommon. Kids, Adults, Seniors. Hot or cold, rain or shine.
The time culture is similar to Germany: you have to be punctual. This means you need to leave on time in order to arrive on time. As a general rule in real-world traffic: Speeding might not actually help you arrive all that much quicker, you just feel like you do. An objective instrument (such as a GPS) may well inform you otherwise.
Also, on a bike: if you're traveling longer distances, you need to pace yourself, lest you run out of steam half-way.
The infrastructure is good though, in municipal zones the cycle distance (and time!) can often be shorter than the car-distance; because bikes can take more short-cuts and are easier to park. And for longer distances it's possible to eg. park your bike at a station and continue by bus or train.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3-tUMgwCt8 <- bike parking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ <- start of video narrates a commuting trip (bike+train) to a business park near Amsterdam.
[edit] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UxCbmT9elk <- a commute with more biking in it
The time culture is similar to Germany: you have to be punctual. This means you need to leave on time in order to arrive on time. As a general rule in real-world traffic: Speeding might not actually help you arrive all that much quicker, you just feel like you do. An objective instrument (such as a GPS) may well inform you otherwise.
Also, on a bike: if you're traveling longer distances, you need to pace yourself, lest you run out of steam half-way.
The infrastructure is good though, in municipal zones the cycle distance (and time!) can often be shorter than the car-distance; because bikes can take more short-cuts and are easier to park. And for longer distances it's possible to eg. park your bike at a station and continue by bus or train.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3-tUMgwCt8 <- bike parking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDXB0CY2tSQ <- start of video narrates a commuting trip (bike+train) to a business park near Amsterdam.
[edit] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UxCbmT9elk <- a commute with more biking in it
Yeah, my dad almost died like that. On a separated bike path in very good condition, he would have only been going about 30 km/h given where it was (he can't actually remember what happened due to TBI but managed to make a full recovery after four months of hospital and rehab). Comparing the size of the foam on the impact side of the helmet vs. the other side was amazing, it was squashed to a fraction of the size. If that had been skull straight onto the concrete it would have been lights out pretty much instantly.
Which they mentioned in the article:
“A major cause of head injuries is going over the handlebars, which is not possible with a 3 metre long bike.
Helmets protect against falls. They don't protect against cars.
“A major cause of head injuries is going over the handlebars, which is not possible with a 3 metre long bike.
Helmets protect against falls. They don't protect against cars.
When a biker gets in a car accident, falling is generally going to be a part of that process.
Unless the bike is made of rubber, you can totally hit your head somewhere on the bike.
Also look at the amount of car vs. bike accidents where the cyclists head smashes against the windshield. A helmet protects in that case too.
Also look at the amount of car vs. bike accidents where the cyclists head smashes against the windshield. A helmet protects in that case too.
This viewpoint (that helmet wearers take bigger risks) only holds validity when helmet wearing is a choice.
In my country (Australia), helmet wearing is mandatory and the vast, vast majority seem to follow this rule. I've never felt "more protected" wearing a helmet, as I wouldn't ride without one. It's a default state.
In my country (Australia), helmet wearing is mandatory and the vast, vast majority seem to follow this rule. I've never felt "more protected" wearing a helmet, as I wouldn't ride without one. It's a default state.
relevant article: https://dutchreview.com/culture/cycling/5-reasons-why-the-du...
This feels a bit like the narrator in "Fight Club" explaining "the formula" car manufacturers use.
> Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Pedal Me has done the math on what the average settlement for a traumatic brain injury to it's staff is going to be, multiplied by the probability of such an event, and has decided that they'll make more money without helmets.
It ignores that much of the risk comes from outside of the drivers control. It ignores that driver behavior could otherwise be monitored to ensure safety.
It would just be nice if it was honest- a driver with a helmet on doesn't match the sexy appeal they're going for. That people might say "if the driver needs a helmet why don't I, the rider?".
> Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
Pedal Me has done the math on what the average settlement for a traumatic brain injury to it's staff is going to be, multiplied by the probability of such an event, and has decided that they'll make more money without helmets.
It ignores that much of the risk comes from outside of the drivers control. It ignores that driver behavior could otherwise be monitored to ensure safety.
It would just be nice if it was honest- a driver with a helmet on doesn't match the sexy appeal they're going for. That people might say "if the driver needs a helmet why don't I, the rider?".
> It ignores that much of the risk comes from outside of the drivers control.
True; on the other hand I remember (I don't have a handy reference, sorry) a study showing that car drivers were leaving less space around cyclists wearing a helmet (hence increasing the probability of a collision) than around those without...
True; on the other hand I remember (I don't have a handy reference, sorry) a study showing that car drivers were leaving less space around cyclists wearing a helmet (hence increasing the probability of a collision) than around those without...
Let's see how that works out for them. Being clever.
Edit: this was a tongue in cheek reference to the follow-up line in Fight Club (after the scene alluded to by OP).
Edit: this was a tongue in cheek reference to the follow-up line in Fight Club (after the scene alluded to by OP).
They're hugely successful in London, so pretty well I guess?
Are they? First time I'm hearing about those. Is there actual demand for this?
I live in their target area and I can't ever recall a time where I wanted to combine the risks & downsides of biking and ordering a cab.
If I want to bike (note: I wouldn't recommend it in Central London), I'd get the Santander bikes or the various bike-for-hire ones littering the streets and just do it myself.
If I wanted to spend time fiddling with my phone, I may as well just order an Uber instead of this thing? The prices would be similar considering they both have to pay drivers and driver wages represent a significant chunk of the sticker price of any manned transport-for-hire service so I really don't see why anyone would get this thing instead of a good old Uber.
I live in their target area and I can't ever recall a time where I wanted to combine the risks & downsides of biking and ordering a cab.
If I want to bike (note: I wouldn't recommend it in Central London), I'd get the Santander bikes or the various bike-for-hire ones littering the streets and just do it myself.
If I wanted to spend time fiddling with my phone, I may as well just order an Uber instead of this thing? The prices would be similar considering they both have to pay drivers and driver wages represent a significant chunk of the sticker price of any manned transport-for-hire service so I really don't see why anyone would get this thing instead of a good old Uber.
I see at least one or two of them every time I commute across London, they seem predominantly used for transporting items rather than people.
I didn't remember that the real-life Ford Pinto case [1] was mentioned in Fight Club. Time to watch it again.
[1] https://philosophia.uncg.edu/phi361-matteson/module-1-why-do...
[1] https://philosophia.uncg.edu/phi361-matteson/module-1-why-do...
I think the point is that you'll have less traumatic brain injuries without helmets than with helmets because you'll have less accidents over all and less severe ones.
If a cyclist have a helmet he and everyone around him behaves dumber. This was researched.
If a cyclist have a helmet he and everyone around him behaves dumber. This was researched.
> less traumatic brain injuries without helmets than with helmets because you'll have less accidents over all and less severe ones.
Less accidents overall? I can believe that, maybe. But you'll need to back up "less severe ones".
If a new driver who's phone distracted them for a split second is going to hit me on my bike, I feel like it's going to be more severe if I don't have a helmet on.
Less accidents overall? I can believe that, maybe. But you'll need to back up "less severe ones".
If a new driver who's phone distracted them for a split second is going to hit me on my bike, I feel like it's going to be more severe if I don't have a helmet on.
> I feel like it's going to be more severe if I don't have a helmet on.
Without the helmet you die on the road. With the helmet you die at the hospital.
Without the helmet you die on the road. With the helmet you die at the hospital.
> If a cyclist have a helmet he and everyone around him behaves dumber. This was researched.
This seems like an extraordinary claim, given that safety systems in all other places have no such effects (or at least, not as significant). I would very much like to see this research, and even then I would be very wary of it.
Either way, it's irrelevant given the levels of training that they are claiming they demand of their drivers. Given those claims, it's obvious that they helmets + training would be safer than just the training, if the training is good enough to protect the drivers at all.
This seems like an extraordinary claim, given that safety systems in all other places have no such effects (or at least, not as significant). I would very much like to see this research, and even then I would be very wary of it.
Either way, it's irrelevant given the levels of training that they are claiming they demand of their drivers. Given those claims, it's obvious that they helmets + training would be safer than just the training, if the training is good enough to protect the drivers at all.
> This seems like an extraordinary claim, given that safety systems in all other places have no such effects (or at least, not as significant).
There are examples where safety systems cause increased risk.
Football helmets are one. The helmet doesn't protect very well against concussions and the presence of the helmet makes it more likely for players to use their heads as a weapon.
I don't know about this bike helmet example since the actual data isn't available, but there are definitely times when counterintuitively having a safety feature is riskier.
There are examples where safety systems cause increased risk.
Football helmets are one. The helmet doesn't protect very well against concussions and the presence of the helmet makes it more likely for players to use their heads as a weapon.
I don't know about this bike helmet example since the actual data isn't available, but there are definitely times when counterintuitively having a safety feature is riskier.
polote(1)
Do drivers take greater risks from wearing a seatbelt? Where’s the data to substantiate their claims?
> Do drivers take greater risks from wearing a seatbelt?
Some people have suggested even that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Seat_belts
Some people have suggested even that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation#Seat_belts
It seems completely debunked in that case at least.
I can imagine how somebody could have thought risk compensation might be a thing in the short term - such as when seatbelts were a new invention. I've seen the kind of thing like people demonstrating how their active cruise control won't let their new car crash into the car in front, which is a pretty dumb idea (even if it will almost certainly work). But that seems to wear off pretty quickly, and then having it just becomes the default and you don't think of it anymore, so I imagine any risk compensation would quickly evaporate.
With bicycle helmets, they're mandatory here for riding out on the street, so it was just always the default. Anecdotally, putting on a helmet was and is just something we always did, and never changed the perception of risk because it was just the normal default. I don't even think about it, just like how I always put on the seatbelt and then don't think about it anymore.
I can imagine how somebody could have thought risk compensation might be a thing in the short term - such as when seatbelts were a new invention. I've seen the kind of thing like people demonstrating how their active cruise control won't let their new car crash into the car in front, which is a pretty dumb idea (even if it will almost certainly work). But that seems to wear off pretty quickly, and then having it just becomes the default and you don't think of it anymore, so I imagine any risk compensation would quickly evaporate.
With bicycle helmets, they're mandatory here for riding out on the street, so it was just always the default. Anecdotally, putting on a helmet was and is just something we always did, and never changed the perception of risk because it was just the normal default. I don't even think about it, just like how I always put on the seatbelt and then don't think about it anymore.
> I've seen the kind of thing like people demonstrating how their active cruise control won't let their new car crash into the car in front, which is a pretty dumb idea (even if it will almost certainly work)
Guilty as charged lol (though in my case it's to better understand how ACC behaved in various situations, given my unfamiliarity with it.
Guilty as charged lol (though in my case it's to better understand how ACC behaved in various situations, given my unfamiliarity with it.
Followed immediately in the same section by a wider, more comprehensive, more recent study roundly asserting the exact opposite.
The risk compensation myth was crafted in the 70s as an argument against guardrails! And it was indeed reused as an argument again seatbelts a few years later. And of course, there has never been any data to substantiate these arguments.
They justify their decision basically saying that helmets increase the driver's (and the people in its surroundings) willingness to take risks, while mentioning that their training system is so good that it minimizes risks, so drivers won't be in danger because of the lack of helmets.
It's funny that could assume a totally different posture here: if helmets increase risks, we will use our great training system to make sure our drivers won't put themselves in dangerous situations even when wearing helmets. That would reduce dangerous driving and keep drivers' heads safer, instead of just reducing dangerous driving (which allegedly is the reason behind this decision).
It's funny that could assume a totally different posture here: if helmets increase risks, we will use our great training system to make sure our drivers won't put themselves in dangerous situations even when wearing helmets. That would reduce dangerous driving and keep drivers' heads safer, instead of just reducing dangerous driving (which allegedly is the reason behind this decision).
I haven't seen anyone mentioning the Ian Walker study on drivers' responses to cyclists with and without helmets.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014...
I don't have access to the study, but wasn't it the one where:
- the author was the only person studied
- the difference wasn't that big
?
- the author was the only person studied
- the difference wasn't that big
?
That's the one. Due to its small size, it's more indicative of an effect - it would be interesting to see if it could be replicated. There's some bike cams (Garmin?) that include a radar to measure closeness of vehicles passing, so it would be relatively easy to conduct a much larger scale.
This is extremely context specific. It calls to mind another counter-intuitive Dutch effort, in which stop signs and speed limits were removed, which slowed traffic down and made a village safer. Traffic engineers know that too many stop signs increase the speed of driving as impatient drivers speed up between stop signs.
http://www.godutch.com/newspaper/index.php?id=1557
http://www.godutch.com/newspaper/index.php?id=1557
In amateur boxing (olympic & certainly in the UK) headguards have been banned because fighters are likely to take more blows to the head if they're wearing a headguard, causing more trauma and more eventual damage to the brain - not sure the analogy holds up for cycles or motorcycles though.
Interestingly, bare handed boxing often results in far less head trauma - and while it tends to result in more cuts it has far less of an effect on fighters long term health.
Interestingly, bare handed boxing often results in far less head trauma - and while it tends to result in more cuts it has far less of an effect on fighters long term health.
Is Pedal me going to pay if a cyclist is gravely injured without his own fault because he did not wear a helmet?
Risk compensation ( the reason they give for the decision ) is incredible hard to measure, since it involves causality. We suck at detecting causality in observational data. Basing a decision on ( most likely ) bad statistics is madness.
Risk compensation ( the reason they give for the decision ) is incredible hard to measure, since it involves causality. We suck at detecting causality in observational data. Basing a decision on ( most likely ) bad statistics is madness.
Possibly they might consider any fatal crash to be company-ending event? After all they could be paying the passengers' families as well as the employee's. This is the purpose of a limited-liability company, to enable the operation of potentially-insanely-risky businesses.
Is this true?
Anecdotally I bought a very fast electric scooter last year, but initially I didn't have a helmet. It took about two weeks to finally receive a helmet that fit me, and I didn't take it at top speed until then. I definitely feel much more secure riding with the helmet on...and take more risks than I would without it.
Anecdotally I bought a very fast electric scooter last year, but initially I didn't have a helmet. It took about two weeks to finally receive a helmet that fit me, and I didn't take it at top speed until then. I definitely feel much more secure riding with the helmet on...and take more risks than I would without it.
Translation: If you're an organ transplant candidate on a waiting list, move to an area with more Pedal Me riders.
It seems like the correct approach is to penalize their staff that does risky stuff instead of this proxy metric that presumes people who ride with helmets are going to take bigger risks because of it.
There is an equation governing fatality along the lines of:
D% = A% * F%
A% = Chance of getting into an accident
F% = Chance of a given accident being fatal
D% = Chance of cyclist dying in a given time period
There is a possibility that the increase in A% caused by wearing a helmet is greater than the corresponding decrease in F%, in this case it is indeed safer not to wear helmets. To justify this there would have to be some VERY conclusive statistical evidence support both sides of the calculation, or the company will open itself up to a massive lawsuit the first time someone has an accident.
D% = A% * F%
A% = Chance of getting into an accident
F% = Chance of a given accident being fatal
D% = Chance of cyclist dying in a given time period
There is a possibility that the increase in A% caused by wearing a helmet is greater than the corresponding decrease in F%, in this case it is indeed safer not to wear helmets. To justify this there would have to be some VERY conclusive statistical evidence support both sides of the calculation, or the company will open itself up to a massive lawsuit the first time someone has an accident.
This whole idea of wearing helmet results riskier behavior is about bullshit as the WMD theory of Iraq invasion.
If pedal me indeed is spending resources on education and training of their employees, which they claimed allow them to maintain high standard of safety. Then, it's self evident that wearing helmet will be better, as the same training can help them overcome the tendance to be riskier wearing helmet.
There is no reason to claim that training for wearing helmet and not wearing helmet would not result into equally effective results.
If pedal me indeed is spending resources on education and training of their employees, which they claimed allow them to maintain high standard of safety. Then, it's self evident that wearing helmet will be better, as the same training can help them overcome the tendance to be riskier wearing helmet.
There is no reason to claim that training for wearing helmet and not wearing helmet would not result into equally effective results.
> seem to be ‘much more likely’
I'd expect something more solid than "seem to be" as evidence from someone demanding I not wear a cycle helmet.
There is evidence that some drivers are less careful around cyclists wearing helmets meaning there are more accidents, but if you look deeper into to those stats most of the extra incidents are relatively minor and on the major ones significant head injuries are more common. So more a few more incidents, but the survivability rate is still better overall with a helmet.
I'd expect something more solid than "seem to be" as evidence from someone demanding I not wear a cycle helmet.
There is evidence that some drivers are less careful around cyclists wearing helmets meaning there are more accidents, but if you look deeper into to those stats most of the extra incidents are relatively minor and on the major ones significant head injuries are more common. So more a few more incidents, but the survivability rate is still better overall with a helmet.
It is insane to presuppose that a particular employee will take additional risk load if you allow them to take appropriate safety measures.
It tries to maximize expected utility based on dubious analysis while denying people the privilege of making the vastly simpler and actually maximum choice of riding safely and wearing a helmet.
Privileging complicated nonsense over straightforward analysis and the companies analysis of net utility over individual freedom to protect themselves is nuts.
This is important to all but likely more so to people who would experience a larger than average risk and thus likely to be denied the ability to work in a profession they could do sufficient safety if not denied safety gear.
It is thus inherently biased against many riders who have a higher risk of injury than average but not unacceptably so.
It also keeps users from responding to increased risk driven by changing road conditions by substituting the companies policy for individuals judgement.
For example riders cannot respond to icy road conditions or known dangerous areas.
I see this as ripe for inevitable claims as far as bias against classes of individuals and injury claims.
People are going to be injured in situations where they can trivially argue that a helmet would have mitigated the damage. With the rate of injury everyone who would prefer to wear a helmet ought to send a certified letter to that effect to the company.
The ones that have the misfortune to be seriously injured will at least have the comfort of owning whatever is left of the company in 2023/24
It tries to maximize expected utility based on dubious analysis while denying people the privilege of making the vastly simpler and actually maximum choice of riding safely and wearing a helmet.
Privileging complicated nonsense over straightforward analysis and the companies analysis of net utility over individual freedom to protect themselves is nuts.
This is important to all but likely more so to people who would experience a larger than average risk and thus likely to be denied the ability to work in a profession they could do sufficient safety if not denied safety gear.
It is thus inherently biased against many riders who have a higher risk of injury than average but not unacceptably so.
It also keeps users from responding to increased risk driven by changing road conditions by substituting the companies policy for individuals judgement.
For example riders cannot respond to icy road conditions or known dangerous areas.
I see this as ripe for inevitable claims as far as bias against classes of individuals and injury claims.
People are going to be injured in situations where they can trivially argue that a helmet would have mitigated the damage. With the rate of injury everyone who would prefer to wear a helmet ought to send a certified letter to that effect to the company.
The ones that have the misfortune to be seriously injured will at least have the comfort of owning whatever is left of the company in 2023/24
[deleted]
If they can tell if riders are being unsafe then the rest of it is drivel and helmets should be worn. Train them, monitor them, and helmet them. Whoever set this policy is an idiot. I can see helmets being optional, but banning them is some big brain stats guy who can't look at anything but stats.
I personally ride without a helmet because the added weight and reduction invisibility reduces my awareness.
That said, id never force someone else to eschew wearing a helmet. You have zero guarantee that what applies for one person applies to another rider in this context
That said, id never force someone else to eschew wearing a helmet. You have zero guarantee that what applies for one person applies to another rider in this context
Seems unreachable using Brave. Continually redirects.
I'm getting this as well
Same on iOS Safari. Forcibly redirects to an /amp/ suffix. Thankfully, Archive.ph could swallow that AMP garbage: https://archive.ph/I6XGG
I'd assume their dataset are professional couriers, <30, skewing male, which would be a high risk-taking pool. If that's the case wouldn't that make their conclusion conditional on being in that demographic? What if you're not?
Despite that, there are actually a few good examples of safety equipment causing more injury. Off the top of my head, striking combat sports have a similar opinion of headgear in sparring, it causes the participants to throw harder resulting in more head trauma. Similar sentiments with helmets & padding in football.
A bit apples and oranges with cycling as these are more example of mutually assured self destruction vs a car pulling out in front of you.
Despite that, there are actually a few good examples of safety equipment causing more injury. Off the top of my head, striking combat sports have a similar opinion of headgear in sparring, it causes the participants to throw harder resulting in more head trauma. Similar sentiments with helmets & padding in football.
A bit apples and oranges with cycling as these are more example of mutually assured self destruction vs a car pulling out in front of you.
I’m really looking forward to following this line of thinking to it’s eventual replacement of car airbags with nuclear bombs. How much more careful would drivers be if they knew a collision would kill everyone in a 100 mile radius?
[deleted]
So if a staff rider is hit by a car and they die from their head slapping against the ground, is this not a mega risk to this business that they didn't have a policy to mitigate a simple risk.
I had a traumatic brain injury as a kid from a fairly-low speed* fall where my skull cracked on a sewer manhole. If someone told me I couldn’t wear a helmet I would tell them to eff off.
*I have no memory of it.
*I have no memory of it.
Common sense suggests that forbidding the use of safety equipment for frivolous reasons should be ridiculously illegal. Is it not so in the third world countries where Pedal Me operates?
Survivorship bias ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
I've often thought about how it'd affect traffic accidennts if we kept airbags and seatbelts but also placed a huge metal spike in the middle of the steering wheel.
It's interesting that in the country where you have most bikes, the Netherlands, nobody is wearing helmets. Probably because it has the safest bike road network in the world. but still. Couple of deadly incidents every year occur because of no helmet.
Something similar you see in France with skiing. While in Austria everybody is wearing a helmet in France is less than half of the skiers.
Something cultural i guess.
"increasing helmet wearing rates make cycling more dangerous per mile – although there are confounding factors"
WTAF kind of statistics-twisting garbage is that?
WTAF kind of statistics-twisting garbage is that?
It is interesting to see the various categories of reactions/objections, which point in different or conflicting directions.
1) The theory that this change reduces overall injury rate is true, therefore this is a good change.
2) The theory is false because of some mistake, or intentionally false, therefor this is a bad change.
3) The theory is true, but nonetheless this is a bad change because there are other factors more important than the injury rate.
1) The theory that this change reduces overall injury rate is true, therefore this is a good change.
2) The theory is false because of some mistake, or intentionally false, therefor this is a bad change.
3) The theory is true, but nonetheless this is a bad change because there are other factors more important than the injury rate.
They'll change their position once a catastrophic injury lawsuit really changes their mind. Unfortunately it's going to take death and injury for that to happen.
If you're a worker that is injured on the job there are plenty of laws and torts in place to receive compensation. My favorite catastrophic injury attorney, Attorney Tom has a YouTube channel that goes into details.
If you're a worker that is injured on the job there are plenty of laws and torts in place to receive compensation. My favorite catastrophic injury attorney, Attorney Tom has a YouTube channel that goes into details.
Is this the same argument as 'we should ban condoms, because people have more sex when they think they have some protection' ...
I worked with traumatic brain injury patients as part of my job in a neuroimaging research lab. Holy shit, wear a god damned helmet!
"If you're driving so dangerously that you feel the need to wear a seat belt, you shouldn't be driving a car."
That is actually true. If your driving style involves you feeling those seat belts or situations in which you think you might crash, the your driving style is too dangerous. Once in a few years close call? ok. Regularly feeling like you need seatbelts? You should not be driving and should take safety focused additional lessons.
It's not even remotely true for a car seat belt or a bike helmet. You can be extremely cautious, and still through no fault of your own have someone crash into you.
Yes accidents happen to innocent people.
But no. If your driving style is such that you feel the need of seatbelt or helmet, then it is too aggressive. Otherwise said, if your biking story is "helmet saved my life 5 times" then your crash rate is super high and the common determinant is you.
Likewise, safe driving style never ends with anyone saying "I am so glad I has seatbelts". It ends with people unbuckling without thinking about seatbelts at all.
But no. If your driving style is such that you feel the need of seatbelt or helmet, then it is too aggressive. Otherwise said, if your biking story is "helmet saved my life 5 times" then your crash rate is super high and the common determinant is you.
Likewise, safe driving style never ends with anyone saying "I am so glad I has seatbelts". It ends with people unbuckling without thinking about seatbelts at all.
This reminds me. I recently saw some idiots on one wheels (electric "skateboard" with a single wheel) in full stunt motorcycle garb (body armor, shin guards, motorcycle helmets and all) on a busy mixed use trail, going at least 30mph and doing stunts.
It was a negligent homicide suit waiting to happen.
However, banning staff from wearing bike helmets is idiotic.
It was a negligent homicide suit waiting to happen.
However, banning staff from wearing bike helmets is idiotic.
I’m annoyed so many HNers have trouble getting their head round this.
Before commenting understand that :
Research studies show bike helmets increase number of injuries, due to complex reasons NOT attributed to the vehicle type or whether it was the riders fault.
It is why they are not legally required in bike heavy countries like the Netherlands.
I recommend you DONT comment unless you’ve done your research.
Before commenting understand that :
Research studies show bike helmets increase number of injuries, due to complex reasons NOT attributed to the vehicle type or whether it was the riders fault.
It is why they are not legally required in bike heavy countries like the Netherlands.
I recommend you DONT comment unless you’ve done your research.
What studies? Also, the purpose of helmets is not to reduce the number of injuries, but the severity.
You’re most probably another American as there is less bike use there.
Google the studies.
They create more accidents with varying severities including death while wearing said helmet hence they are more dangerous and so aren’t made mandatory.
Google the studies.
They create more accidents with varying severities including death while wearing said helmet hence they are more dangerous and so aren’t made mandatory.
It's on you to prove the claim. Post the full text of studies.
This thread is plagued with anecdotes. Very unproductive
Realising I’m surrounded by HNers giving a confident opinions when they are ignorant of the subject really rattles me makes me realise I take this place far too seriously. Look at the guy who replied to my comment above he just repeated another anecdote.
The title is weird.
1. […] wearing helmets because it is less safe to wear helmets
2. […] wearing helmets if such helmet-wearing is motivated by safety concerns
I’m guessing that only the first one makes sense now that I think about it. But I first thought that the riders had said, hey we want to wear helmets because we have safety concerns. And then the management said no.
1. […] wearing helmets because it is less safe to wear helmets
2. […] wearing helmets if such helmet-wearing is motivated by safety concerns
I’m guessing that only the first one makes sense now that I think about it. But I first thought that the riders had said, hey we want to wear helmets because we have safety concerns. And then the management said no.
Wouldn't it be so much easier to just slow these things down, considering they're electric?
I always wondered why I'm such a slow cyclist. Turns out it was because I was riding shared bikes, which have a total of three gears, all of them relatively low.
To reach 16km/h or 10mph in such a vehicle one would have to pedal like a maniac.
I always wondered why I'm such a slow cyclist. Turns out it was because I was riding shared bikes, which have a total of three gears, all of them relatively low.
To reach 16km/h or 10mph in such a vehicle one would have to pedal like a maniac.
Why are these monstrous things allowed in bike lanes anyway? Simple understanding of high school physics shows these things can have massive momentum not remotely comparable to that of a normal bike.
KE = 1/2 m v^2
Missing info : what are the company's riders carrying ? How much are they incentived to ride fast and take risk ?
I don't think barring Uber eats driver from wearing helmet would be safe. I don't know about this company, though I hope they don't absolutely ban helmet so much as not mandating them.
I don't think barring Uber eats driver from wearing helmet would be safe. I don't know about this company, though I hope they don't absolutely ban helmet so much as not mandating them.
So now that they track risky behavior at the source, logically they can all wear helmets for increased safety.
What a pointless hill to die on for a business. Do they not have more important things to be worrying about?
Yet another example of the terrible and lasting impact the so called
risk compensation myth has had on society. Another great contribution of the Chicago school of Economics to the misery of the world.
About the story behind this harmful myth https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/risk-compensation-debun...
About the story behind this harmful myth https://slate.com/technology/2021/11/risk-compensation-debun...
I wonder what the largest negative impact from this kind of thought has been.
My guess is it is going to be related to PrEP and HIV rates. PrEP is extremely effective and yet stigmatized due to the worry that it will decrease condom wearing.
My guess is it is going to be related to PrEP and HIV rates. PrEP is extremely effective and yet stigmatized due to the worry that it will decrease condom wearing.
Individual choice? Perhaps some people really do have more awareness without a helmet? Maybe the individual involved is the only one that can decide if a helmet is better for them or not?
Why can't our prejudices on this be just our own? We don't have to mandate them for others.
Why can't our prejudices on this be just our own? We don't have to mandate them for others.
They argue that helmets are bad because they encourage riskier behavior, but also that they are unique in being able to track the behavior of their bikers. Shouldn't they be able to allow helmets and fire the people who behave in a riskier way due to wearing them?
That reminds me this hilarious french ad for bicycle helmets inspired by anti-mask's arguments : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FwSqfOUAM0&t=64s
One good head injury and a lawsuit, and this company will be out of business. And rightfully.
196 points and 513 comments at the moment... obviously a very controversial topic. But would it be a very controversial topic if a taxi company announced the same thing, that taxi drivers should not wear helmets? Formula 1 drivers wear helmets, so maybe car drivers should too. People that insist on bike helmets because of their bad experience have as much to say to overall safety as people that got a head injury while driving in a car. How many injuries would a car helmet prevent and why is there no push for this, since the answer is a lot.
I guess this is my roundabout way of saying that I don't think this discussion is very rational. We accept a ton of risk in everyday life, but people get up in arms over this one thing. I guess one reason for this is that it's not viewed as a normal activity, which is a shame. And personally I view it as an instrument in preventing it ever becoming one.
I guess this is my roundabout way of saying that I don't think this discussion is very rational. We accept a ton of risk in everyday life, but people get up in arms over this one thing. I guess one reason for this is that it's not viewed as a normal activity, which is a shame. And personally I view it as an instrument in preventing it ever becoming one.
Cars have other safety mechanisms that provide the same safety as helmets, most notably seatbelts and airbags. A better comparison would be a taxi company asking drivers to drive without those.
Then why do so many people end up with head injuries after a car crash? Falling down, especially among the elderly, is another one of the top reasons.
Quote: "People most commonly get TBIs from a fall, firearm-related injury, motor vehicle crash, or an assault"
https://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/get_the_facts.html#...
Quote: "People most commonly get TBIs from a fall, firearm-related injury, motor vehicle crash, or an assault"
https://www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/get_the_facts.html#...
Car drivers and passengers should wear helmets. Car travel is the most dangerous thing most people do regularly. It's only normalized due to a deliberate campaign of domestic propaganda: "The Real Reason Jaywalking Is A Crime (Adam Ruins Everything)" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxopfjXkArM
Post is just this twitter thread: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1489598941326974976.html
Is their insurance aware of the "no helmet" requirement?
Because if not, they might have another problem.
Like motorcycles, you never see a "just a scratch" collision bike vs car.
Maybe solves the cost of hospitalization if they are dead instead.
Because if not, they might have another problem.
Like motorcycles, you never see a "just a scratch" collision bike vs car.
Maybe solves the cost of hospitalization if they are dead instead.
That's the most London-based startup thing I've heard of
I owe my life to a helmet; I sustained a brain injury from a motocross accident as a kid which I would be here had I been helmet-less. Damn you to hell Pedal Me.
[deleted]
I can’t real the article, the page keeps reloading itself but please please wear a helmet. It’s so incredibly irresponsible not to.
Here is a excerpt from the article titled "Pedal Me bans staff riders from wearing helmets for safety reasons" by Rebecca Morley (no idea who she is or how to find her on google/linkedin) on 08/02/2022 at https://bikebiz.com/pedal-me-bans-staff-riders-from-wearing-...:
> Pedal Me has explained the reasons why it has banned staff riders from wearing helmets.
> In a Twitter thread, the pedal-powered passenger and cargo service said people that are taking risks that are sufficient that they feel they need to wear helmets are 'not welcome to work for us' – because its vehicles are heavy and could cause harm, and because they carry small children on the bikes.
> Instead, it said it systematically works to reduce risk at the source– by thorough risk assessment, a high level of training, and near-miss reporting.
> “We know that increasing helmet wearing rates make cycling more dangerous per mile – although there are confounding factors here, this indicates that overall they do not provide a strong protective effect in the round – otherwise the opposite effect,” said the company. “Extensive reading of the literature suggests that this is because while helmets definitely help in the event of a crash, that risk compensation results in more collisions. So riders wearing helmets take greater risks, and those driving around them take greater risks too.
> “A major cause of head injuries is going over the handlebars, which is not possible with a 3 metre long bike. Another thing that makes us unique is our training systems, maintenance systems, and ability to track poor rider behaviour.”
> [photo of twitter thread, the official place where all important things are said and done]
> Pedal me: People that are taking risks that are sufficient that they feel they need to wear helmets are not welcome to work for us - because our vehicles are heavy and could cause harm, and because we carry small children on our bikes.
> Clive Andrews: That would indeed be interesting to know. Compulsion is a bad idea - in either direction. What's the score, @pedalmeapp?
Instead - we systematically work to reduce risk.(1/n)
> Pedal Me said it observes that companies that use helmets while wearing cargo bikes seem to be ‘much more likely’ to jump red lights and take greater risks. The company said the majority of injuries to its riders occur off the bike, which it knows because of its near miss and incident reporting, and that’s its focus for tackling danger.
Not sure if sharing articles here is against the rules, please let me know.
> Pedal Me has explained the reasons why it has banned staff riders from wearing helmets.
> In a Twitter thread, the pedal-powered passenger and cargo service said people that are taking risks that are sufficient that they feel they need to wear helmets are 'not welcome to work for us' – because its vehicles are heavy and could cause harm, and because they carry small children on the bikes.
> Instead, it said it systematically works to reduce risk at the source– by thorough risk assessment, a high level of training, and near-miss reporting.
> “We know that increasing helmet wearing rates make cycling more dangerous per mile – although there are confounding factors here, this indicates that overall they do not provide a strong protective effect in the round – otherwise the opposite effect,” said the company. “Extensive reading of the literature suggests that this is because while helmets definitely help in the event of a crash, that risk compensation results in more collisions. So riders wearing helmets take greater risks, and those driving around them take greater risks too.
> “A major cause of head injuries is going over the handlebars, which is not possible with a 3 metre long bike. Another thing that makes us unique is our training systems, maintenance systems, and ability to track poor rider behaviour.”
> [photo of twitter thread, the official place where all important things are said and done]
> Pedal me: People that are taking risks that are sufficient that they feel they need to wear helmets are not welcome to work for us - because our vehicles are heavy and could cause harm, and because we carry small children on our bikes.
> Clive Andrews: That would indeed be interesting to know. Compulsion is a bad idea - in either direction. What's the score, @pedalmeapp?
Instead - we systematically work to reduce risk.(1/n)
> Pedal Me said it observes that companies that use helmets while wearing cargo bikes seem to be ‘much more likely’ to jump red lights and take greater risks. The company said the majority of injuries to its riders occur off the bike, which it knows because of its near miss and incident reporting, and that’s its focus for tackling danger.
Not sure if sharing articles here is against the rules, please let me know.
Yeah, but what if they get hit? The danger isn't in the speed of these bikes, but in the speed of surrounding traffic.
Had an accident a few years back, not my fault. If it wasn't for the helmet I would sit on a wheelchair.
At my scale, I know that when I go mountain biking, when I have an helmet, I go faster and take much more risk than when I don't have an helmet. I don't have any data point about road biking, because I never wear a helmet. But thinking about it, I would also take more risks with more protective equipments
I know me, I was already going as fast as possible on a city bike. With a helmet I'm safer when actually having an accident.
But what is your overall safety. Like can you still get seriously injured being careful not wearing a helmet
Pedal Me should instead mandate that all staff riders wear helmets, but that those helmets must be 'high-visibility' (painted neon yellow, green, or pink, and with reflective stickers.)
They can then tell customers that the helmets are there to improve visibility and therefore safety of their passengers.
They can then tell customers that the helmets are there to improve visibility and therefore safety of their passengers.
Even better, put their own logo on the helmets and treat it as a kind of uniform, just like the pink mustache that Lyft used to have. That would double as free advertising, too.
The first wrongful death lawsuit over this is going to be a real wake-up call.
This website just reloads in a loop and is impossible to read on iOS.
Oof, this page just keeps reloading on mobile, article is unreadable.
Are we getting dumber as a nation? This feel like the mask thing.
This kind of analysis - that safety gear inspires reckless behavior - is used over and over again to argue against safety measures. The automobile industry used it to fight against seat belts. More recently, some people used it to argue against vaccines and/or masks.
I've never bought into it.
I've never bought into it.
the big question is whether or not they're forced to drive on the side of any roads, if they are then this is dumb
IIRC it is studied that cars behave more dangerously around bikers with helmets while they give a wide berth to unhelmeted bikers.
"it is studied" Source please? This sounds like absolute bullshit. I've known so many people who have been killed or permanently disfigured because they didn't wear a helmet while biking in a large city. Cars don't give a fuck about us.
> This sounds like absolute bullshit. I've known so many people who have been killed or permanently disfigured because they didn't wear a helmet while biking in a large city.
When I was at uni and was cycling to a 10am lecture, a small van pulled out of a side road across my path. I was in a cycle lane and had right of way. He simply didn't look in my direction until he had already started to pull out. I was unable to stop or avoid him, so hit the front of his van head on, was briefly airborne, and landed on the road on the other side. Miraculously only scuffs and bruises, although my bike was a write-off. At that point I started wearing a helmet(!!!)
The next year, one of my friends went over the handlebars of her bike during a collision, except she landed head-first on the road, thankfully she was wearing a helmet. The helmet was split, she walked away with nothing other than mild concussion. Another friend and I walked out to rescue her bike later from the accident location, it also was a write-off.
Once you've seen a bike accident up-close there is simply no justification for not wearing a helmet. Even if you haven't seen an accident, wear a helmet!
When I was at uni and was cycling to a 10am lecture, a small van pulled out of a side road across my path. I was in a cycle lane and had right of way. He simply didn't look in my direction until he had already started to pull out. I was unable to stop or avoid him, so hit the front of his van head on, was briefly airborne, and landed on the road on the other side. Miraculously only scuffs and bruises, although my bike was a write-off. At that point I started wearing a helmet(!!!)
The next year, one of my friends went over the handlebars of her bike during a collision, except she landed head-first on the road, thankfully she was wearing a helmet. The helmet was split, she walked away with nothing other than mild concussion. Another friend and I walked out to rescue her bike later from the accident location, it also was a write-off.
Once you've seen a bike accident up-close there is simply no justification for not wearing a helmet. Even if you haven't seen an accident, wear a helmet!
https://psyarxiv.com/nxw2k
To be clear, I am not saying that it is safer to ride without a helmet, just an interesting study of behavior.
I get that you know people who are harmed by cars (as do I), but your appeal to pathos & anecdote should not have a bearing here.
To be clear, I am not saying that it is safer to ride without a helmet, just an interesting study of behavior.
I get that you know people who are harmed by cars (as do I), but your appeal to pathos & anecdote should not have a bearing here.
From the abstract:
> The distribution of overtaking events shifted just over one-fifth of a standard deviation closer to the rider – a potentially important behaviour if, as theoretical frameworks suggest, near-misses and collisions lie on a continuum.
Looking at the graph in figure 1, "one-fifth of a standard" looks as unimpressive as expected. The distance from the kerb looks much more relevant.
IIUC all the analysis is based on 2355 data gathered by Walker riding a bike himself a few years ago between two cities. It's not a mix of data from different persons or a mix of city and countryside rides. The most interesting part is that Walker published 5 articles about the same data, and he got a different result in each one.
> The distribution of overtaking events shifted just over one-fifth of a standard deviation closer to the rider – a potentially important behaviour if, as theoretical frameworks suggest, near-misses and collisions lie on a continuum.
Looking at the graph in figure 1, "one-fifth of a standard" looks as unimpressive as expected. The distance from the kerb looks much more relevant.
IIUC all the analysis is based on 2355 data gathered by Walker riding a bike himself a few years ago between two cities. It's not a mix of data from different persons or a mix of city and countryside rides. The most interesting part is that Walker published 5 articles about the same data, and he got a different result in each one.
Yes, but you're missing that overtaking events is just one of the metrics in question.
You're right that perhaps it is a big difference between cyclists, my guess would be the number of cars matters more than the number of cyclists. The study has been replicated elsewhere.
> Walker published 5 articles about the same data, and he got a different result in each one.
Uh, no? The 8.5 cm result has been consistent.
At the margin, these things make a difference, especially given that collisions are rare as a fraction for rides taken.
You're right that perhaps it is a big difference between cyclists, my guess would be the number of cars matters more than the number of cyclists. The study has been replicated elsewhere.
> Walker published 5 articles about the same data, and he got a different result in each one.
Uh, no? The 8.5 cm result has been consistent.
At the margin, these things make a difference, especially given that collisions are rare as a fraction for rides taken.
Indeed the researcher was his own test subject.
Wikipedia links to this study[1] which found a difference of about 8,5cm in average, which sounds far from significant from a safety perspective (and again according to Wikipedia this study has been disputed).
[1] https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.aap.2006.08.010
[1] https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.aap.2006.08.010
As a biker who understands marginal thinking, 8.5 cm could absolutely be significant from a safety perspective.
The study is disputed by one researcher, the paper I linked contains a rebuttal and I think it is convincing.
The study is disputed by one researcher, the paper I linked contains a rebuttal and I think it is convincing.
The problems is that cars passing cyclists isn't the only time adverse car-cyclist interactions occur.
I have been T-boned by a driver approaching from the opposite direction, in full daylight with no visual disruptions, when they failed to "look bike" and turned across my lane. They totally did not see me - so they fact I was wearing a helmet did not factor at all into the situation.
I was flipped through the air and landed 10m down the side road on my back. My backpack took the brunt of of the impact but my head still snapped back and hit the ground. The helmet protected my head and prevented what would have at least been a concussion and possibly a fractured skull.
In my 30+ years of regularly cycling on roads, I'd say the majority of close calls I've had have happened in with cars turning out of side streets of with cars turning across my lane from the opposite direction. Those are due to a combination of the following in my perceived order of likelihood:
- the driver checking for cars/buses/trucks and not looking for motorcycles or bicycles - the driver seeing the cyclist but totally misjudging their speed and assuming they have time to complete their turn in front of the bike - the driver being as asshole and cutting off the cyclist.
_Maybe_ the cyclist wearing helmet could affect the second scenario. It doesn't affect the first scenario and assholes are assholes regardless of helmet wearing.
I've had less trouble with close/reckless overtaking. It does happen, but it is highly unlike the car driver completely fails to see a cyclist they are overtaking.
Saying helmets reduce rider safety due to one scenario, where the car driver has to see the helmet and thus the cyclist in order to make a more risky overtaking gap judgement call, seems like a massive stretch to me.
I have been T-boned by a driver approaching from the opposite direction, in full daylight with no visual disruptions, when they failed to "look bike" and turned across my lane. They totally did not see me - so they fact I was wearing a helmet did not factor at all into the situation.
I was flipped through the air and landed 10m down the side road on my back. My backpack took the brunt of of the impact but my head still snapped back and hit the ground. The helmet protected my head and prevented what would have at least been a concussion and possibly a fractured skull.
In my 30+ years of regularly cycling on roads, I'd say the majority of close calls I've had have happened in with cars turning out of side streets of with cars turning across my lane from the opposite direction. Those are due to a combination of the following in my perceived order of likelihood:
- the driver checking for cars/buses/trucks and not looking for motorcycles or bicycles - the driver seeing the cyclist but totally misjudging their speed and assuming they have time to complete their turn in front of the bike - the driver being as asshole and cutting off the cyclist.
_Maybe_ the cyclist wearing helmet could affect the second scenario. It doesn't affect the first scenario and assholes are assholes regardless of helmet wearing.
I've had less trouble with close/reckless overtaking. It does happen, but it is highly unlike the car driver completely fails to see a cyclist they are overtaking.
Saying helmets reduce rider safety due to one scenario, where the car driver has to see the helmet and thus the cyclist in order to make a more risky overtaking gap judgement call, seems like a massive stretch to me.
Absolutely agree, just thought it was interesting piece of evidence.
As a regular biker, close passes are also a smaller of my concerns compared to most of the other hazards on the road.
As a regular biker, close passes are also a smaller of my concerns compared to most of the other hazards on the road.
There was one study about that, which was... not very robust science. It relied on self-report of the biker (and if I remember correctly, it was just a single one, so not enough data).
> There was one study about that, which was... not very robust science. It relied on self-report of the biker
Here is another study, where they measured the distance to overtaking cars with a distance sensor:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014...
"A Trek hybrid bicycle was fitted with a Massa M-5000/95 temperature-compensated ultrasonic distance sensor with its centre 0.77 m from the ground, facing perpendicularly to the direction of travel and feeding into a laptop computer running MultiLab software via a MultiLog Pro data-logger sampling from the sensor at 50 Hz."
Here is another study, where they measured the distance to overtaking cars with a distance sensor:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014...
"A Trek hybrid bicycle was fitted with a Massa M-5000/95 temperature-compensated ultrasonic distance sensor with its centre 0.77 m from the ground, facing perpendicularly to the direction of travel and feeding into a laptop computer running MultiLab software via a MultiLog Pro data-logger sampling from the sensor at 50 Hz."
This study is done by the same researcher as the first. I applaud Walker for studying this, but both his studies have a sample size of one cyclist - himself, riding in one area of one country. [He did put a wig on sometimes, so maybe you could say the sample size is 2? ]
Fair enough, although it relied on video data, not self report, and included over 2300 cars. Perhaps it would have been different for different cyclists.
Here is a study investigating this methodology of studying car behavior and ultimately concluding it is useful: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014...
Here is a study investigating this methodology of studying car behavior and ultimately concluding it is useful: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00014...
... or in different cities, or even different countries, or at different times of day, or in different seasons.
You're right, although I think you would find that it is very common for people to incorrectly generalize all sorts of studies beyond their geographic purview given that most psychological studies are conducted in regions close to major research unis. See also the "WEIRD" phenomenon.
Not sure about the time or season though.
Not sure about the time or season though.
> It relied on self-report of the biker (and if I remember correctly, it was just a single one, so not enough data).
Unless I'm misunderstanding what's meant by "self-reporting", it sounds like regardless of how many riders they got data from, it would say that there are 0 fatalities to bikers because people who are dead don't respond to surveys.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what's meant by "self-reporting", it sounds like regardless of how many riders they got data from, it would say that there are 0 fatalities to bikers because people who are dead don't respond to surveys.
The study was performed by Ian Walker. Self reporting means he was both the researcher and the cyclist - he rode his bike, reported the data, then analyzed it. There were no surveys or other riders. Unless you count "female Walker", when he wore a wig.
This is not a study of biker fatalities and my intuitive guess is they would be significantly higher for bikers without helmets for a number of reasons.
I agree that they would likely be higher for bikers without helments; I guess I misunderstood what the study was about, but my point was that if you relied on self-reporting for the number of fatalities, nobody would be able to report that they died for obvious reasons.
Yeah, there is always a study made somewhere by somebody supporting whatever you want to believe in.
Individual studies are on average fairly useless.
Individual studies are on average fairly useless.
Could you reply with the study showing the opposite using new data? It should be pretty easy given that there is always a study showing you what you want.
I'll be waiting :)
I'll be waiting :)
There is a big asymmetry of effort in these kinds of requests, that are easily mistaken for winning the argument.
It's pretty easy to win the argument when the opposing side is "studies are meaningless."
It's pointless to argue with someone who doesn't even understand your argument.
sounds like a scummy company, with a bullshit business model.
why not replace car airbags with bayonets?
slackfan(2)
Helmets are trying to reduce an already tiny risk.
We live in a world of safety fanaticism.
We live in a world of safety fanaticism.
Sorry, but this is a bad, dumb comment. Your point is valid generally, but not here.
What is the COST of wearing a helmet? $60 purchase and 5 seconds every time you ride. Essentially nothing.
Compare to, e.g. TSA, which has a cost of billions of dollars and millions of person-hours. Unlike helmets, which are known to actually prevent some injuries, TSA is also effectively useless at its intended goal.
What is the COST of wearing a helmet? $60 purchase and 5 seconds every time you ride. Essentially nothing.
Compare to, e.g. TSA, which has a cost of billions of dollars and millions of person-hours. Unlike helmets, which are known to actually prevent some injuries, TSA is also effectively useless at its intended goal.
It's hypocritical of you to not be wearing full body chain mail to protect yourself from bullets and stabbings.
There's more gunshots and stabbings than people injuring their head on bicycles.
You can buy a suit of chainmail for the same price as a modern bicycle.
Its minimal cost.
There's more gunshots and stabbings than people injuring their head on bicycles.
You can buy a suit of chainmail for the same price as a modern bicycle.
Its minimal cost.
> It's hypocritical of you to not be wearing full body chain mail to protect yourself from bullets and stabbings.
In most countries, the risk of shootings or stabbings are orders of magnitude lower than having a fall or accident on a bike on the road with other types of vehicles.
In certain parts of the US, though? Yeah, wearing body armor would probably be a good idea. I think people just generally try to avoid going to those places as their strategy of risk avoidance, which negates the need for any body armor.
In most countries, the risk of shootings or stabbings are orders of magnitude lower than having a fall or accident on a bike on the road with other types of vehicles.
In certain parts of the US, though? Yeah, wearing body armor would probably be a good idea. I think people just generally try to avoid going to those places as their strategy of risk avoidance, which negates the need for any body armor.
I bet if you looked up just about any region in the world shootings and stabbings have been way more frequently than bicycle head injuries.
to be absolutely safe you should wear both full body chainmail and a bicycle helmet.
to be absolutely safe you should wear both full body chainmail and a bicycle helmet.
>What is the COST of wearing a helmet? $60 purchase and 5 seconds every time you ride. Essentially nothing.
For me the main cost is having to carry around a bulky helmet when I'm off the bike and ugly indentations on my hair and forehead.
For me the main cost is having to carry around a bulky helmet when I'm off the bike and ugly indentations on my hair and forehead.
Unlikely in the average but catastrophic to the individuals who lose the bet. Often society has to pay for the consequence to the victim.
Which reminds me I need to get a helmet for my youngest, even though she's only a rider.
Which reminds me I need to get a helmet for my youngest, even though she's only a rider.
You should get them some full body Kevlar and chain mail as well. There are more shootings and stabbings than bicycle head injuries. Just to be safe.
Curious what sources you have.
Because several family members and I have experienced head injuries riding bicycles, none of us have been shot at or attacked with a knife. That said, I'm down for making all private gun possession illegal.
Because several family members and I have experienced head injuries riding bicycles, none of us have been shot at or attacked with a knife. That said, I'm down for making all private gun possession illegal.
There's like 250,000 shootings and stabbings in the US per year estimated.
There's like 27000 bicycle head injuries in the US.
I'm surprised you haven't googled it.
Here's the head injury source. You can easily Google shooting and stabbings per year and add them together. https://www.nsc.org/safety-first-blog/bicycle-safety-statist...
Its pretty clear you should pick up some Kevlar and chain mail for your kids.
There's like 27000 bicycle head injuries in the US.
I'm surprised you haven't googled it.
Here's the head injury source. You can easily Google shooting and stabbings per year and add them together. https://www.nsc.org/safety-first-blog/bicycle-safety-statist...
Its pretty clear you should pick up some Kevlar and chain mail for your kids.
There may be some reporting issues with your data. For example how many helmets prevented would've-been-reported head injuries? How many injuries aren't reported? And how many hours on bicycle are there compared to constantly living around so many guns?
A natural experiment may require comparing similar communities with and with helmet laws.
Shootings and stabbings on the other had are difficult to not report. And can happen regardless of proximity to bicycles.
Ultimately let's do both: get helmets for kids and get rid of so many guns.
A natural experiment may require comparing similar communities with and with helmet laws.
Shootings and stabbings on the other had are difficult to not report. And can happen regardless of proximity to bicycles.
Ultimately let's do both: get helmets for kids and get rid of so many guns.
A minor fall on a bike that results in a blow to the head can kill you or give you major brain damage. I am not a social person and I know as in we would hug if we saw each other 2 people who had life altering brain damage not wearing a helmet.
If you fall on asphalt without a helmet, you can very easily get seriously injured
I used to be an EMT. There was one week when I went to two different calls that illustrated this perfectly. Both riders middle aged, both at low speed. One wearing a helmet hit a pothole and had minor facial injuries despite going over the handlebars. The other no helmet and out of practice fell sideways and the first thing to hit the kerb was her head. She's permanently disabled and living in a care facility.
Anecdotal fear inducing internet story.
Statistically 'in real life' extremely rare for this to happen.
Statistically 'in real life' extremely rare for this to happen.
> Statistically 'in real life' extremely rare for this to happen.
Just like most forms of harm; most of the time that you take some form of insurance against a negative event, it's not necessarily because of the likelihood of that event, but the sheer totality of the harm that will occur if that extremely rare event comes to pass.
Just like most forms of harm; most of the time that you take some form of insurance against a negative event, it's not necessarily because of the likelihood of that event, but the sheer totality of the harm that will occur if that extremely rare event comes to pass.
Yeah. But the family of the rider probably wishes she wasn't a statistic.
You can become a statistic just by walking outside.
And this is why you always wear a helmet when walking or going for a jog?
Unless you're Usain Bolt, you probably ain't jogging or walking at bicycle speeds.
At bicycle speeds?
15-35 kmph for recreational usage. It's sprinting speeds for people who walk.
It’s very hard to fall on your head at 10 mph or greater when jogging
If you cycle a lot, you're almost guaranteed to crash at some point. Falling from walking or jogging is extremely unlikely. You also have much better chance of blocking the fall with your arms, as they're not on a handlebar, but rather already balancing your body.
Many walkers and joggers wear a lit up harness (or even bicycle lights) to improve their visibility while walking after dark in my area. So yes, some wear safety gear.
When did anyone fall off a walk or a jog?
Every single winter lots of people fall when walking or jogging.
When was the last time you've been outside?
How often do people fall off of bicycles?
The "tiny risk" and potentially large consequences is why people should choose to wear helmets, regardless of experience. You never quite know when an accident is going to happen and it is difficult to account for that. The big risks are easier to account for, to be alert and modify your behaviour accordingly.
I have seen experienced ice skaters go from not wearing a helmet to being fanatical about wearing one, simply because they had an accident and had to deal with the consequences. I have also seen experienced cyclists who would have likely lost their life if they weren't wearing a helmet.
As for the company in question, which (incidently) was insisting that employees not wear helmets, it sounds more like a decision based upon the perceptions of customers. If they were truly interested in hiring people who are safety conscious, they would hire people who are safety conscious rather than those who are willing to ride without a helmet. There are more than a few people who don't wear helmets who have an astronomically high tollerance of risk.
I have seen experienced ice skaters go from not wearing a helmet to being fanatical about wearing one, simply because they had an accident and had to deal with the consequences. I have also seen experienced cyclists who would have likely lost their life if they weren't wearing a helmet.
As for the company in question, which (incidently) was insisting that employees not wear helmets, it sounds more like a decision based upon the perceptions of customers. If they were truly interested in hiring people who are safety conscious, they would hire people who are safety conscious rather than those who are willing to ride without a helmet. There are more than a few people who don't wear helmets who have an astronomically high tollerance of risk.
Out of all the people who are vehemently arguing that it is pure idiocy not to wear a helmet, how many of them wear a helmet when driving? I can pretty safely guess that the answer is a big fat zero.
Driving is high risk activity that can lead to severe head injuries. It is even easier to keep a helmet with your car than with your bike. The cost to risk profile here is extremely similar but the resultant behavior is quite different.
People rarely approach risks rationally and risk avoidance behavior is highly influenced by social acceptability.
During my lifetime of skiing, I have seen the shift from nobody wearing helmets to most people wearing them. The ski patrols worked hard to make helmet wearing first socially acceptable and then socially expected (at least in some groups.) The risks didn't changed, there was some rise in awareness, but the biggest change (from my perspective) is social.
This I see the vehement support for helmet wearing as predominantly cultural alignment enforcement rather than reasoned risk avoidance analysis.
Personally, I always wear a helmet skiing because it is more comfortable, plus I ski FAST sometimes. I rarely wear a helmet on a bicycle because I bike slow and strongly try to avoid situations where my safety is in the hands of other drivers. Instead I stick to mostly quiet residential streets, bike paths, or separated bike lines. The helmet has a much larger impact on my risk profile when skiing than biking because of my behaviors.
All that said, I don't think that the company should ban standard safety gear for their riders. Especially since they claim to have good incident tracking, they should be able to find and let go any riders who act recklessly with a helmet.
Driving is high risk activity that can lead to severe head injuries. It is even easier to keep a helmet with your car than with your bike. The cost to risk profile here is extremely similar but the resultant behavior is quite different.
People rarely approach risks rationally and risk avoidance behavior is highly influenced by social acceptability.
During my lifetime of skiing, I have seen the shift from nobody wearing helmets to most people wearing them. The ski patrols worked hard to make helmet wearing first socially acceptable and then socially expected (at least in some groups.) The risks didn't changed, there was some rise in awareness, but the biggest change (from my perspective) is social.
This I see the vehement support for helmet wearing as predominantly cultural alignment enforcement rather than reasoned risk avoidance analysis.
Personally, I always wear a helmet skiing because it is more comfortable, plus I ski FAST sometimes. I rarely wear a helmet on a bicycle because I bike slow and strongly try to avoid situations where my safety is in the hands of other drivers. Instead I stick to mostly quiet residential streets, bike paths, or separated bike lines. The helmet has a much larger impact on my risk profile when skiing than biking because of my behaviors.
All that said, I don't think that the company should ban standard safety gear for their riders. Especially since they claim to have good incident tracking, they should be able to find and let go any riders who act recklessly with a helmet.
Is there even a need for a helmet in most motor vehicles? Many safety features are already incorporated into the vehicle and the vehicle itself must meet safety standards. Contrast that to bicycles, which are often sold without legally mandated safety features and it is very much possible to purchase a new bicycle which should be considered criminally unsafe.[1]
The only reason why we are asking these questions is because things that are legally required for automakers is left, at best, as a responsibility to the consumer when it comes to bicycles.
[1] To be specific, any department store should be regarded as a death trap prior to a knowledgeable person verifying that it has been assembled properly. Even then one has to be careful since the components are typically intended for very light use.
The only reason why we are asking these questions is because things that are legally required for automakers is left, at best, as a responsibility to the consumer when it comes to bicycles.
[1] To be specific, any department store should be regarded as a death trap prior to a knowledgeable person verifying that it has been assembled properly. Even then one has to be careful since the components are typically intended for very light use.
> Driving is high risk activity that can lead to severe head injuries. It is even easier to keep a helmet with your car than with your bike. The cost to risk profile here is extremely similar but the resultant behavior is quite different.
Just FTR, don't wear a helmet while driving a car. It will massively increase the strain on your spine in the case of a crash and your airbags are not built with helmets in mind. Additionally, car helmets are usually of the full-size kind and reduce your field of vision quite a bit. There's a reason helmets are not recommended for normal driving.
Just FTR, don't wear a helmet while driving a car. It will massively increase the strain on your spine in the case of a crash and your airbags are not built with helmets in mind. Additionally, car helmets are usually of the full-size kind and reduce your field of vision quite a bit. There's a reason helmets are not recommended for normal driving.
It’s political correctness gone mad!
I've wondered about this phenomenon in general, that safety equipment could cause people to take more risks because it makes them feel safer. Many years ago on Monday night football John Madden remarked that some of the hits during games seemed to occur because players felt safe using their body as a missile. The protective gear allowed them to do that, while the old leather helmets of his era did not.
I know I've done incredibly risky things with equipment like wood chippers because I felt like their designs would let me stop them fast enough. I've hung off the back of boats at high speed because I had a GPS tracking radio collar on and felt confident if I fell off they'd find me. These things seemed to make sense at the time.
I've thought for a while that the best safety gear is training. Rail yards to this day show some unbelievably gory videos to inculcate people to the inherent risks present there. High vis gear, helmets, etc all are important but actually knowing the risks and owning them personally is essential.
Little of that seems applicable to this case though. I think wzdd's thinking is most accurate, unhelmeted passengers probably don't feel great looking ahead and seeing their driver's helmeted head.
I know I've done incredibly risky things with equipment like wood chippers because I felt like their designs would let me stop them fast enough. I've hung off the back of boats at high speed because I had a GPS tracking radio collar on and felt confident if I fell off they'd find me. These things seemed to make sense at the time.
I've thought for a while that the best safety gear is training. Rail yards to this day show some unbelievably gory videos to inculcate people to the inherent risks present there. High vis gear, helmets, etc all are important but actually knowing the risks and owning them personally is essential.
Little of that seems applicable to this case though. I think wzdd's thinking is most accurate, unhelmeted passengers probably don't feel great looking ahead and seeing their driver's helmeted head.
If some riders choose to not wear a helmet, that may be fine, but prohibiting helmets is irresponsible. Riders have a much higher cumulative risk of accidents that are not their fault than customers. It's a workplace safety issue.