Bicycle helmet laws = bad?

[garote]

"The Dangers of Helmets", a British Medical Journal article arguing against bicycle helmet laws:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582#SEC4

The basic arguments are:

1. Requiring helmets gives an impression that cycling is more dangerous than walking or driving, this scares off people who would be healthier if they cycled.
2. If a helmet is a legal requirement, people will think that simply having one is adequate, instead of learning how to bike cautiously.
3. Helmets don't actually protect riders (justification provided via a cartload of what is, to my eyes, rather questionable statistical analysis.)

Thoughts?

Comments

[rudetuesday.livejournal.com]

Yeesh. The tone of the article is pretty shrill.

If all conditions were ideal: perfect drivers, perfect riders, perfect equipment, I'd say that helmets should be suggested for riders, but not mandatory.

The title's rather inflammatory, since I don't think a helmet has actually caused anyone to have an accident or resulted in worse injury to a rider.

When I was a kid, part of civics was learning how to be a good neighbor. We had a small unit on bicycle safety during this time. People definitely should learn how to be good riders, including how to conduct themselves in traffic, as a vehicle in traffic.

[beatings.livejournal.com]

1. That's why god gave us Stairmasters (and parking spots close to the gym entrance, so you don't have to walk). What a wonderful world! So many ways to sweat.
2. It takes one brush with a careless driver, to encourage anyone to bike cautiously.
3. There's a chance that not wearing your seatbeat will save your life in a car wreck (you'll be thrown from the car) but the chance is still much smaller than the odds of the seatbelt saving your life. Is there a freak bicycle accident where not wearing a helmet is advantageous? I would like to know.

[robocowboy.livejournal.com]

People who choose not to wear bike helmets, just like people who choose not to wear car seat belts, should also opt-out of mandatory life support.

[conflictdswitch.livejournal.com]

They made similar arguments about people who drive SUVs or who have airbags in their vehicles. And some studies showed that, yes, they didn't drive as cautious as they should. But those people learned to be cautious when they realized how expensive it was to get into an accident (repairs and insurance). I'm sure bicyclists will learn in a similar manner. It's called Darwinism. 8)

[mommadona.livejournal.com]

all i know is some dude back in minnesota or something got in a bike accident and a car ran over his head. and he lived! because of his helmet.

[garote]

This is pretty typical of journalism in the UK, I understand... Even what you would expect to be impartial clinical publications have been infected with the sensationalism disease, spread up from the tell-all drama mags that lurk around supermarket checkouts... Maybe it's some sort of adaptive tactic to get people to give even half a shit, since they're all more hip and jaded than us Americans? :D

[garote]

#1: Complete flashback to when I was living in SoCal :D
#2: True dat. But they still have to learn how...
#3: I can't think of one...

[garote]

Yeah but, you know, what this study is saying is like, "we should not insist on putting airbags in cars, because that will give the impression that you NEED an airbag in a car, because you WILL get into an accident, and that will, like, scare people away from cars and they they won't drive and the whole goddamn economy will collapse!" :D

[garote]

And automatically be declared the loser in any personal injury lawsuit.

[rudetuesday.livejournal.com]

:D

Now that you've said that, I feel like the article was like watching their Parliamentary proceedings on C-SPAN. There's no attempt to be cool or calm. It's all about the theatrics, it seems.

[headless-chickn.livejournal.com]

I admit with deepest shame that I'm back to *not* wearing my helmet every day. I'm just one of those dumb fucks who's gonna need a skull injury to change my mind for me.

Let's just hope I survive that first skull injury that changes my mind.

[garote]

Personally, I wear one not just for safety concerns, but because THE SUN, IT BURRRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNS.....

Bicycle helmet laws

[android606.livejournal.com]

This sounds an awful lot like the arguments given against seatbelts when they were first made a legal necessity.

-Car manufacturers didn't like them because they gave consumers the impression that their products weren't safe.
-Many drivers didn't like them because they felt confined, and actually thought the belt prevented them from being able to "bail out" in an impending crash!
-Other lame arguments abounded, like the fact that seatbelts can break ribs and cause internal injuries in an accident. Also, the argument that people will drive less cautiously when wearing a seatbelt was used, too.


Proper safety equipment saves the lives of motorcyclists on a daily basis. Appropriate gear on a motorcycle consists of the following:
-A good fitting DOT approved helmet
-An armored and padded leather or kevlar riding jacket
-Chaps or riding pants
-Riding gloves or gauntlets
-Appropriate footwear

What do you think your chances are of avoiding serious injury or even _surviving_ after falling off of a motorcycle at 65 MPH, without all or most of the above?

Motorcyclists that get into high-speed accidents without safety equipment often get SEVERE injuries. We're talking multiple compound fractures, nearly severing limbs, and flesh scraped down to the bone. Not to mention fatal head and neck injuries, severe disfiguration, etc. etc.

Obviously, falling off of a bike at 20 MPH is a little different. Neck-down injuries would more likely include contusions, road rash and lacerations, maybe a broken bone or two; relatively minor stuff. But, hitting your head on the pavement at 20 could still cause severe injury or death.

Also, motorcyclists that wear all of the correct gear (vs. a tiny helmet, jeans, and a t-shirt) are usually the ones riding the most responsibly.

So, in my opinion, arguing that helmets are ineffective or that they will cause reckless cycling is unfounded bulls**t.

ON THE OTHER HAND...

There are a small number of cyclists on the road, and they sustain a small number of severe head injuries annually. Would instating and enforcing a bicycle helmet law be cost effective? Would it prevent injuries that cost the public money, or would it just cost more money in law enforcement? Or, more likely, would it just not be enforced at all, and therefore be a waste of everyone's time?

Maybe that same money should be used to do research into the effectiveness of bike helmets, possibly improving them? Or, maybe it should be used to provide subsidies or rebates to make good helmets more affordable for those individuals riding $25 bikes that can't afford a $40 helmet?

Or, maybe it should be used for education; try to make people *want* helmets, rather than trying to force them to wear them? After all, look at how the motorcycle helmet law has worked out; people that don't want to wear helmets get the cheapest, tiniest little helmet they can find. They're concerned with avoiding a ticket, not with their personal safety.

Maybe bikes should be regulated a little bit more? People should have training in safe riding technique and proper maintenance before they're allowed to ride a bike on public streets?


In summary:
1) [Good quality, properly-fitting] helmets obviously save lives, so stop arguing about that.
2) There are a lot of other socio-economical issues that need to be addressed before you go making bike helmets a legal requirement.

[macramedildo.livejournal.com]

There's no helmet law here in NY, unlike WA where they are required. Since I'm doing A LOT of pedaling lately (sans helmet, because I don't have one), here's my $0.02:

-It might give an impression that biking is less safe (which, let's face it, it is) but they protect you anyway.

-People are too image-conscious still to do biking. They think helmets make you look dorky, so even if they DO bike, it's hard to get them to wear a helmet. Interesting that people would rather risk serious injury or death than look uncool. It's like getting people to eat healthy: it ain't gonna happen unless it tastes good.

-Finally, you could argue Darwinism, that people dumb enough to not wear helmets "deserve" serious injury... but you can be totally safe and obey all laws and it still, some idiot could knock you down or hit you. Even with a helmet, you could end up seriously injured.

When I get my own bike I'll get a helmet for it (force of habit if not skiddishness because the drivers here have NO respect for bicycles... or even basic traffic laws), but I'm not down with forcing them on anyone.

[garote]

I generally agree with your sentiment. But on the Darwinism point, the problem is that people do not always immediately die from their injury. So we end up paying for their stupidity.

From http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/helmet_use.html:

In November 2002, NHTSA reported that 25 studies of the costs of injuries from motorcycle crashes "consistently found that helmet use reduced the fatality rate, probability and severity of head injuries, cost of medical treatment, length of hospital stay, necessity for special medical treatments, and probability of long-term disability. A number of studies examined the question of who pays for medical costs. Only slightly more than half of motorcycle crash victims have private health insurance coverage. For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs are paid by the government."

...

"After California introduced a helmet use law in 1992, studies showed a decline in health care costs associated with head-injured motorcyclists. The rate of motorcyclists hospitalized for head injuries decreased by 48 percent in 1993 compared with 1991, and total costs for patients with head injuries decreased by $20.5 million during this period."

10-15 million bucks in savings a year (depending on how many riders are insured) ain't bad. Spread all out it probably only costs me, personally, as much as a couple squares of chocolate off a chocolate bar -- but that's chocolate I'm going to ENJOY. >:)

Re: Bicycle helmet laws

[garote]

1) is unassailable, I agree
2) some thoughts about addressing the issues

The cost-effectiveness of enforcing a helmet law is an open question, because there are many ways the law can be enforced. There are also aspects of bicycle use that make law enforcement for it very different than, say, for driving motorcycles or cars.

The biggest difference is that bicycles themselves aren't registered. You can't write a ticket for a rider who has just gone past without a helmet, because you can't efficiently pursue or track or stop them, and there's no license plate to read to know who to blame. For the same reason, you can't write a ticket for an improperly configured bicycle or one parked in the wrong spot. Your only option is to somehow "boot" the bicycle or have it hauled away, and both of these options are extremely expensive.

Basically, what this and other issues boil down to is, you can't enforce helmet use during helmet use because it's dangerous, and you can't enforce it at other times because bikes aren't traceable.

So why don't we leverage helmet use into the registration of bikes, and enforce it en-masse?

The state could get together with helmet manufacturers and importers and tell each one to burn a bar code into the underside of their helmets. Any helmet with a bar code then becomes a "state approved" helmet for use while bicycling, and if you get injured while you are not wearing a state approved helmet, you are disqualified from state or govermnent medical fee compensation. If you have your own health insurance, then good for you ... the burden to the taxpayer is avoided either way.

Every helmet sold has a bar code embedded in it, but also comes with a weatherproof sticker much like the license-plate registration stickers sold for cars. When you buy the helmet, the bar code in the helmet is registered to you, the purchaser. Then you take the matching sticker and put it on the trunk-bar of your bike.

You could conceivably leave the helmet at home and go riding without it, now, but either way, you have to own it. So you might as well use it. Meanwhile, a couple of cops come along with a pickup truck and some cutting tools, and stop at any of the large tangle of bicycle racks in the city. There, they proceed to cut out and collect every bike that lacks a sticker, all at once. They all go back to a warehouse and are then auctioned to bike dealers. They took your bike? Sorry, no sticker. You obviously should not have been riding it in the first place. Go catch a bus.

You could take this a step further and declare that your helmet must be locked up with your bike, as proof that you used the helmet. Then the cops can also cut out any bike with a sticker but without a helmet, and since the sticker is associated with your helmet, they could hold it for 30 days or so, and if you show up with the matching helmet and pay a small fine, the bike is returned to you. Or perhaps delivered (on the same pickup truck) to the rack from where it was taken, so that you don't have to transport your bike from the warehouse/police station if you are unable.

This same mechanism could be used as a deterrent of thievery in large cities. For example, the city could designate a chunk of some parking garage or park space a "bike parking facility". Enclose the whole thing in hurricane fence and post a guy there with a couple of security cameras. His job is to accept bikes from people who come in and show a matching helmet, and put the helmet on a shelf. Then later on, those same people pick up their bikes by showing ID that matches the helmet. Their ID is linked to their face and their face is linked to the bike they are seen wheeling out the front gate by the camera. If they wheel out a bike that isn't theirs, this can be discovered by playing back the log. The cops can go right to their door. You can set up a facility exactly like this in any large department store or restaurant cluster: All you need is a room with one entrance, a desk, a camera, and an array of racks. You can even train the busboy to do it. Bike thievery in the city drops like a stone, and helmet use goes WAY up, both at once.

Thoughts?

helmets

[(Anonymous)]

dudes i think u guys need to chill cause when i was a kid i got in a huge accident on my bike with my helmet on. And i still got injured pretty bad and i was bleeding and stuff. I was wearing the hole set and stuff u know like helmet
and nee pads and elbow pads. So the moral is that i looked like sh@$ even though i was wearing the helmet and the pads

chill

[(Anonymous)]

dude u need to relax and also u have to try to think. Cause if u r smart and stuff then u know the right way to fall cause i dont wear a helmet and im still fine. And not only that u should wear a helmet though if your going to do stunts etc. Please try to control your language because its people like your that has made the future generations so disrespectful.

chill

[(Anonymous)]

though helmets and etc. was made to make u safe it shouldn't be manditory it should be optiniol.

chill

[(Anonymous)]

i am wondering what the point of this is but like u said some people are really selfconsouse about the helmet they wear especially if you are already not really attractive. what they need to do is improve how the helmet looks so be will not feel insecure wearing it.

chill

[(Anonymous)]

God bless the world and may all of you be safe.