Bike helmet debate
I had no idea there was such an active debate about the utility of bicycle helmets. My assumption had always been that they provided unambiguous protection from direct contact between hard materials and the skull and had a limited secondary value in diminishing momentum at the time of collision by crushing.
Some of the arguments against helmets linked above do seem to have some merit. If it can be demonstrated that they significantly reduce bicycle usage, the general health benefits lost may well be more significant than the avoided injuries associated with unhelmeted crashes. It would also be interesting to see a properly controlled experiment on whether helmet wearing decreases the caution employed by both riders and cyclists.
Walking to and from work every day, I spend twenty minutes beside a noisy six-lane road. That road has certainly increased my aesthetic opposition to private automobiles. Along with the carbon emissions, cost of roads, need to stay cozy with oil producing governments, and other standard externalities associated with the automobile, all the space they take up and noise they produce should be considered as well. There is no uglier element in most cities than the various bits of infrastructure that cater to cars (some bridges excepted).
September 27th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
See also: Effects of the automobile on societies
September 29th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
The introduction of mandatory helmet laws in Britain correlate strongly with a sharp increase in cycling fatalities, at a time when the numbers of cyclists was falling, according to the British Medical Journal.
September 30th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
It seems as if, individually, helmet use might make one safer but that collectively it makes society less safe (if deterring other cyclists etc). I also recall reading research suggesting that cars leave more space for cyclicts without helmets, thus reducing the chance of collisions. However, it seems clear that more research is needed, particularly into issues other than fatality.
I also have personal experience of 2 crashes without a helmet and many without: the first helmetless one produced several minutes of unconciousness, substantial memory loss (lasting days, and obviously I can’t remember how much I still don’t remember) and a lot of lost skin; the second helmetless produced a broken nose and concussion. I’ve only ever been concussed once from a helmeted crash (of which I have had a great many mtbing) & never seriously. Based on that, I would suggest that cyclists who care about their brains ought to wear a helmet & I do so myself (both on and off road).
September 30th, 2007 at 4:57 pm
Neal and Sarah,
Interesting points. All this has made me a lot less sure that mandatory helmet laws are a good idea. I am going to keep wearing mine, however.
October 1st, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Concerns about the environmental effects of automobile use are reaching unprecedented levels. Our whole way of life is adversely affected by dependence on the automobile as a primary mode of transportation in urban areas. Automobiles are an increasingly large source of air pollution, a fact Canadians are concerned about. They also consume a much greater amount of energy per person moved than other modes, they demand much more infrastructure support than other modes, and they contribute to urban sprawl which in turn leads to serious reductions in arable land (see The Environmental Benefits of Urban Transit, CUTA, 1990). The urban forms that develop to serve the automobile are in most cases at the same time hostile to pedestrians and bicyclists. This fact, combined with the common problem of urban traffic congestion reduces the mobility of some groups of the population.
October 1st, 2007 at 4:44 pm
My belief in wearing helmets on any set of wheels was re-affirmed when I saw a collision between a 50 year old man on roller blades skate right into a couple of guys on a tandem bike in Stanley Park. He fell backwards and slammed his head so hard into the ground that his helmet cracked. Had he not been wearing a helmet it would have been a grisly scene.
“Along with the carbon emissions, cost of roads, need to stay cozy with oil producing governments, and other standard externalities associated with the automobile, all the space they take up and noise they produce should be considered as well.”
I am baffled by the double-standards we have when it comes to cigarette smoke vs. car fuel-exhaust emissions. I’d frankly rather have looser laws on smoking in public, and much tighter laws on the amount of exhaust that is being pumped into the atmosphere and my lungs. I can stand away from a smoker, but when I’m standing on the side of the road, I have no method of escape.
October 1st, 2007 at 7:08 pm
I’d frankly rather have looser laws on smoking in public, and much tighter laws on the amount of exhaust that is being pumped into the atmosphere and my lungs. I can stand away from a smoker, but when I’m standing on the side of the road, I have no method of escape.
Let’s take it all one step at a time. Producing a less hazardous, more respectful world is a hard slog.
October 2nd, 2007 at 7:25 pm
The point of the anti-helmet debate is to disconnect the argument “it is good to wear a helmet” from “wearing a helmet should be mandatory”. Anyone making arguments of the first kind to imply the latter has missed the point of the debate. Anyone wishing to argue for the second must argue for the connection between the two arguments, which is, as you point out, more contentious than people outside the debate assume.
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Well said, Tristan.
October 9th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Safe streets
Not pedaling can kill you
“Here’s what I learned: Biking is safer than it used to be. It’s safer than you might think. It does incur the risk of collision, but its other health benefits massively outweigh these risks. And it can be made much safer. What’s more, making streets truly safe for cyclists may be the best way to reverse Bicycle Neglect: it may be among communities’ best options for countering obesity, climate disruption, rising economic inequality, and oil addiction.”
October 6th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Interventions for increasing pedestrian and cyclist visibility for the prevention of death and injuries
We found no trials assessing the effect of visibility aids on pedestrian and cyclist-motor vehicle collisions and injuries. We identified 39 trials assessing the effect of visibility aids on drivers’ responses. Fluorescent materials in yellow, red and orange colours improve detection and recognition in the daytime. For night-time visibility, lamps, flashing lights and retroreflective materials in red and yellow colours increase detection and recognition. Retroreflective materials arranged in a ‘biomotion’ configuration also enhance recognition. Substantial heterogeneity between and within the trials limited the possibility for meta-analysis. Summary statistics and descriptive summaries of the outcomes were presented for individual trials when appropriate.