This article suffers from many of the same ridiculous arguments that we see here from anti-helmet types. It boils down to essentially two premises:
Helmets won’t protect you from everything, so why bother with them?
People don’t wear helmets for statistically more dangerous activities, so why bother with them for cycling?
Neither of these really makes any sense and they’re basically just a way to deflect the issue and rationalize specific behavior.
Helmets are safety gear that can prevent and mitigate injuries, but they can’t make you safe. Nothing can, as safety is primarily a combination of mindset, experience, skill and circumstances. Safety gear only comes into play when those other things fail. While you can control your mindset, gain experience and develop skill, you can’t always control your circumstances. Hence, complete safety is impossible; the best you can do is to reduce your risk of injury or death.
I always wear a helmet when I ride and a PFD when I paddle, as they reduce my risk of head injury and drowning, respectively. My counter to the points in the helmet article is that I simply don’t see a significant downside to wearing one, so why wouldn’t I? It’s the same with PFDs.
Whether they should be mandated or not, especially for “adults”, is another discussion entirely.
“anti-helmet types”? What is that? In that Dutch article, I didn’t see anyone who was “anti-helmet”. I see people who don’t see the need for themselves or the need for mandatory wear, but no one was advocating for prohibiting wear or even suggesting others shouldn’t wear them. The article specifically stated this is why many/most Dutch people don’t wear them. BTW, the bicycling fatality rate per km traveled is much higher in the US than the Netherlands.
I assume you are not attributing the lower fatality rate in the Netherlands to helmet use (or not) there. To establish that sort of cause/effect relationship would require data that I am quite sure does not exist.
Bicycle helmet use in the Netherlands is almost non-existent as the article points out. Of course the lower fatality rate is a result of a number of factors, and goes beyond helmet use or non-use. This emphasizes the point that “anti-helmet” is untrue and isn’t useful in discussing bicycle safety.
Including (1) the very common availability of dedicated bike lanes, (2) low speed limits on urban and many rural roads, and (3) the fact that bicycles always have the right of way.
N. America and the Netherlands are in completely different universes when it comes to cycling.
Agee that cyclists are more accepted in Europe. American drivers range between courteous and what I consider criminal harrassment. I’ve blasted friends who were critical of bicycles on the road.
The high fatality rate in the US is probably due to a mix of innocent cyclists coming across ignorant drivers, and ignorant cyclists doing stupid things, and the rest are just victims of circumstance. I really don’t care what anyone else does, but driving on a highway without a helmet is a death wish.
I stopped cycling on roads, because some drivers become enraged at the cyclist presuming they have the right to drive on a road. If any driver feels that way, I feel sorry for them. Share the road and cyclists need to be courteous. Probably not a bad idea to wear a PFD as well, but I’m sure some driver would think it funny to hit you just for giggles. Hate to admit, but it’s a cross section of American society. That’s what I think.
It’s not about being against safety equipment, whether PFD or helmet, it’s about being anti-regulation (or “mandate” to use a more pejorative term). In my opinion, personal responsibility works better than regulation, at least in theory. The problem is that too few of us are actually willing to accept personal responsibility so the theory usually fails. Instead of taking responsibility for our poor decisions, the attitude among too many is “When bad stuff happens to me, I know it must be someone else’s fault and dammit I’m gonna sue everyone in sight until I find out who!”
Personally, I’m OK with people who are aware of the risks associated with their decisions and then choose to take them anyway. But that includes accepting the financial risk too. That is, don’t show up at the emergency room with a head injury that a helmet could have prevented and expect to be treated on the taxpayer’s dime. And if you haven’t told your insurance company about your higher-risk activities, don’t expect them to pay either.
I slipped mine up around my head once in a hail storm. It was short lived luckily because it’s efficacy was low percentage. I used to roll an lot a would shun the extra flotation when practicing rolls. With a pfd under a tuilik my kayaks would not fully capsize unless forced.
I always wear mine, I have been a life long nerd of compartments, zippers, and anything that incorporated them into an outdoor adventure outfit piece. I used to love to
wear the life jackets paddling the canoes at church camp. You had to be “certified” to take the canoes out. Amen
They used to have anti-helmet guys playing in the NHL, and you how that went… I would argue the bike fatality rate in the US is more dependent upon how people drive than how they ride bikes. People drive like maniacs in most places.
For PFDs, even in my limited time kayaking since I bought my Explorer this year, I would estimate something like 80 to 90% of the people I see on the water do not wear them. It’s crazy.
One important thing to remember is that we’re each free to make our own decisions. That’s one advantage of becoming an adult. Life involves risk. Its my decision to avoid risk, so I wear a bike helmet, I don’t free solo rock faces or climb Everest, I always wear a bike helmet when cycling and sometimes when sitting in a rocking chair while watching an action movie, seat belt fastened when driving, wear a PFD when in a boat, and sometimes take tums when I eat chili.
Look out for yourself. Be careful of imposing your fears on other. Some people live by the moto: Do you want to live 100 years or just feel like its100 years. The safer I am, the more I can experience, even if it doesn’t feel like I’m on the edge.
No incident. When I was a kid, I was told by my dad to wear a lifejacket when we went out on his runabout. Years later, when I took up kayaking, I was sold a PFD with my first boat and told to always wear it. I’ve never heard an argument against them. I occasionally read about somebody or some people who weren’t wearing a PFD and drowned. I don’t find them uncomfortable at all, and the pockets are very convenient (if it’s not on you, you don’t have it). The only possible downside I can think of is possibly hindering a cowboy scramble. I feel naked without a PFD on, similar to how I would feel driving around without a seatbelt.
That’s kind of the point, yes, wear your helmet. However, if you do you need to realize that it is only a small part of bicycle safety. A bicycle helmet in single bicycle crashes is useful, but when hit by a car it has little utility. Bicycle infrastructure and reworking of our roads and traffic will do more to make bicyclists safe than increased helmet wear.
Northern Germany in the 1970s had bike paths that paralleled the roadways between towns. In the US, cycling clubs raised money to build an awesome rail-to-trail bike. The trail 20 mile trail was built from the top of Baltimore to the PA line, then it was extended 20 miles to York, PA. Then pedestrians took over and the bikes got a speed limit, while pedestrian roam like grazing cattle and dogs on long leashes track from sude to sude like a Geiger Counter. The 2% of highway tax devited to bicycling imprivements took one of two traffic laned and converted it to bike traffic. That led to confusion, congestion and animus against bicycle riders, especially since the lanes are largely unused.
Share the road with bicycles. You’re correct that a bicycle has little hope against a motor vehicle, but the helmet hopefully keeps your scalp from skittering across the pavement.
Now that is what an anti-helmet argument looks like, versus an anti-helmet law argument.
In the early '90s, I was college student, newbie road racer, and new motorcyclist when I discovered USENET and the flame wars over helmet safety that were common in rec.bicycles and rec.motorcycles back then. Since then, I feel like I’ve read every rationalization imaginable.
People have told me society should be thankful, because if they hit their head in a crash, the insurance burden will be less because they will die instead of becoming a vegetable for life. I’ve been told that a fixie doesn’t need a hand brake because my legs can stop it faster, which is physically impossible. Or that helmets limit visibility and hearing, which some MTB helmets do but road helmets really don’t. There are motorcyclists who are convinced they can stop faster than ABS in all conditions so they avoid bikes with it or disable it. Another favorite that keeps coming back is that more powerful bikes are safer, because of some far-fetched hypothetical scenario about escaping an accident just in time by accelerating through a closing gap. Etc, etc.
I am fortunate that I didn’t suffer a serious crash over the many years when I was putting a lot of miles on my 2-wheelers. But I’m the lucky exception. All the long-time cyclists I know have hit something hard and broken bones at some point. Some of their parties turn into that scene from Jaws where everyone is showing scars and recounting stories. But nobody I know has ever had a head injury more serious than a concussion, and I attribute that largely to helmet wear.
I have always worn a helmet, because every time I ride, the chances of serious head injury or death are lower if I’m in an accident. For me, that simple fact cuts through all the FUD the author of that article is trying to spread.
I’m in favor of helmet laws for minors, but if you’re an adult, it’s your life. I don’t want to take away anyone’s individual liberty, but I wish people who chose to make bad decisions didn’t jump through hoops to rationalize it.
Again, “anti-helmet”, really? The author of the article specifically said, “I never, ever leave home without my neon yellow helmet.” The point of the article was not to tell people not to wear helmets, but rather “helmets have a far more complicated relationship to bike safety than many seem ready to admit.” In other words it is an anti-simplistic approach to bicycle safety.
I lived in Germany for three years and commuted to work everyday. The only time I touched a road was when I crossed one, and entered base. I never felt unsafe and frankly I really didn’t feel I needed a helmet, but I wore one because they were required on base.
Now, here in Fayetteville, NC, I am a lawbreaking bicyclist. I often jump on and ride on sidewalks. I’m simply not going to challenge car traffic whether I’m wearing a helmet or not. I trust no car, and do everything I can do to be seen and avoid confrontations with cars, and I believe that is more important than helmet wear.
