Advocacy & Safety - Helmets Discourage Youth Cycling; Survey says "Yes"

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/do-bike-helmet-laws-discourage-bicycling/

Personally I tend to think that the author's #2 must have a big effect. In an age where mom drives the kids to school because walking seems dangerous it seems likely that she also discourages cycling because it's so dangerous that you need a helmet.

I've seen people get, what I would consider to be, far too worked up over kids wearing helmets. It was as if the fact that some kids skipped them was an atrocity...

Fanatic safety nannies are like that; climbing an 8-foot ladder would require some sort of safety strap to satisfy them.

My kids ride with me; they wear helmets. They like 'em -- or at least so casually accept them that they enjoy the ride anyway. Older nephews, 15 & 17, don't wear helmets when they ride. The 15-y-o wore his when he rode with me, but not by himself. Sister & her husband don't own helmets, but they barely ride. Sis could keep up with me for a while, but that's about it.

I won't ride without a helmet; that's me. I'm also car-free.

Maybe it's just where I live (Great Lakes area), but I don't remember too many kids biking it to school when I was a kid (60's). It was a big deal the few times I did back then. The biggest difference is the level of activity between then & now. TV wasn't something you watched for hours when it was daylight out -- too much to do outside! Toss a football, a baseball, shoot hoops, ride bikes, it was all about being out & about.

My kids spend a lot of time outside, too; they get bored easily, so they need to burn off that restless energy. Otherwise, they're grumpy, uncooperative little sh**s who 'need a nap'.

It IS more dangerous now, as there has been a lot of callus applied to society; child predators have multiplied alarmingly. THAT'S the biggest reason for the curtailment of kids' activities. (More than three DOZEN live within 2-3 miles of our address -- damn!)

It IS more dangerous now, as there has been a lot of callus applied to society; child predators have multiplied alarmingly. THAT'S the biggest reason for the curtailment of kids' activities. (More than three DOZEN live within 2-3 miles of our address -- damn!)

Child predators are an overestimated danger, especially strangers.

They were starting that "stranger danger" crap when I was a kid. I remember having to ask my parents if I could talk to certain neighbors.

Not all sex offenders, by the way, are child predators. I hope that you're filtering better than just looking at the sex offender registry.

Child predators are an overestimated danger, especially strangers.

They were starting that "stranger danger" crap when I was a kid. I remember having to ask my parents if I could talk to certain neighbors.

Not all sex offenders, by the way, are child predators. I hope that you're filtering better than just looking at the sex offender registry.

yep, children are molested more by people they know than by strangers.

They gotta watch out for them friendly safety-nannies bearing helmets too.

The one thing that has significantly changed since I was a child riding my bike to school is the shear amount of motor traffic now on the roads. "Everybody has a car."

So while the roads may be the same, while the destinations may be the same, flat out there are more people driving cars trying to get there. That is the change. Couple that with the fact that there are also far more new and interesting distractions for drivers... and viola the environment you bike in has become just a bit more dangerous.

But perhaps the biggest traffic density issue is that many kids are now driven to school. The biggest traffic jams around are at local elementary and middle schools, where mothers deliver their young charges personally due to the fear that there is so much traffic that it isn't safe out there... never mind that most of that "so much traffic" in and around schools is mothers delivering kids. And why do mothers drive their kids to school... well state laws mandate helmets, kids think helmets are dorky, AND many schools no longer permit bike parking or make cycling to school a paperwork nightmare, and mothers are afraid of the traffic congestion that their brood would have to face.

So in effect the state and mothers have made it difficult for kids to bike, so kids don't bike.

They gotta watch out for them friendly safety-nannies bearing helmets too.

I think I resemble that remark!

I really have to point out and agree with this comment:


Its worth noting that in countries with extremely high cycling rates, such as the Netherlands (where 25% of all trips by those over the age of 65 are made by bicycle) and Germany, helmet use is almost unheard of. Yet these countries have much lower injury and death rates than the U.S. where helmets are common.

There is little evidence that helmets are beneficial to safety.

I think I resemble that remark!

Sorry, I was exaggerating, everyone knows there ain't no such thing as a friendly safety-nanny - they're all big meanies. ;)

I really have to point out and agree with this comment:

Apples and, umm, anvils.

With 1/4 of all trips in the Netherlands by bike, there's a much better infrastructure to handle bikes, and the ubiquitous nature of bikes makes drivers more aware of them.

How many ignorant fools from the Netherlands would post about "bikes hogging the road"?

Having been privileged enough to get to fly through the air and slam my head into some asphalt at 25 MPH, I can assure you that there is quite a bit of evidence that, in very specific situations, helmets are beneficial to safety. Are they an annoying pain to use? Yep. Are those specific situations where a helmet can provide enough protection to make a difference rare? Yep. Are helmets a panacea and an absolute necessity for safe biking? No.

But trying to make a case that helmets are completely useless is like arguing the world is flat.

Just grow a pair and admit you don't think the marginal increase in safety is worth the inconvenience.

Apples and, umm, anvils.

With 1/4 of all trips in the Netherlands by bike, there's a much better infrastructure to handle bikes, and the ubiquitous nature of bikes makes drivers more aware of them.

How many ignorant fools from the Netherlands would post about "bikes hogging the road"?

Having been privileged enough to get to fly through the air and slam my head into some asphalt at 25 MPH, I can assure you that there is quite a bit of evidence that, in very specific situations, helmets are beneficial to safety. Are they an annoying pain to use? Yep. Are those specific situations where a helmet can provide enough protection to make a difference rare? Yep. Are helmets a panacea and an absolute necessity for safe biking? No.

But trying to make a case that helmets are completely useless is like arguing the world is flat.

Just grow a pair and admit you don't think the marginal increase in safety is worth the inconvenience.

Ah but the truth is that I do wear a helmet... for any ride that is either in traffic or on my MTB... and since rides that don't fit those parameters are not likely to be at 25MPH, I feel quite vindicated.

Now in the US, cycling by less than 2% of the nation tends to be done by young athletic males, who are likely to be trying to reach 25MPH or more, so a helmet here makes sense. In the countries I cited, speed is not a huge consideration of the cyclists, so why should they bother wearing a helmet.

Ah but the truth is that I do wear a helmet... for any ride that is either in traffic or on my MTB... and since rides that don't fit those parameters are not likely to be at 25MPH, I feel quite vindicated.

Now in the US, cycling by less than 2% of the nation tends to be done by young athletic males, who are likely to be trying to reach 25MPH or more, so a helmet here makes sense. In the countries I cited, speed is not a huge consideration of the cyclists, so why should they bother wearing a helmet.
Your original point seemed to me to be that since the US has a higher death rate than NL despite widespread helmet use in the US, helmets don't help safety. Yet you just admitted that there are significant differences between the US and the NL that would invalidate any comparison of cycling in the two countries and make it impossible to draw any conclusions regarding the impact of helmet use on safety.

FWIW, I tend to think that we're raising a nation of wussies. My nine-year-old daughter got a good look at my 80's Peugeot, noted the downtube shifters, and admonished me for riding a bike where I had to take my hands off the bars to shift.

And yes, I wear a helmet. With my kid around, I don't have much choice: "Daddy, PUT ON YOUR HELMET!" Sheesh. Of course, with the kid around I wouldn't want to go helmetless anyway.

Your original point seemed to me to be that since the US has a higher death rate than NL despite widespread helmet use in the US, helmets don't help safety. Yet you just admitted that there are significant differences between the US and the NL that would invalidate any comparison of cycling in the two countries and make it impossible to draw any conclusions regarding the impact of helmet use on safety.

FWIW, I tend to think that we're raising a nation of wussies. My nine-year-old daughter got a good look at my 80's Peugeot, noted the downtube shifters, and admonished me for riding a bike where I had to take my hands off the bars to shift.

And yes, I wear a helmet. With my kid around, I don't have much choice: "Daddy, PUT ON YOUR HELMET!" Sheesh. Of course, with the kid around I wouldn't want to go helmetless anyway.

And most of those wussies drive cars...!

Child predators are an overestimated danger, especially strangers.

They were starting that "stranger danger" crap when I was a kid. I remember having to ask my parents if I could talk to certain neighbors.

Not all sex offenders, by the way, are child predators. I hope that you're filtering better than just looking at the sex offender registry.


yep, children are molested more by people they know than by strangers.

They gotta watch out for them friendly safety-nannies bearing helmets too.

With the number of extended family members that have been **** victims, I'll stay cautious when it comes to my daughter -- especially when she's the target of so many eyes already, from 'men' my age and older.

Statistically, you're safer riding a bike in traffic than you are getting the flu; while neither of those really bothers me, you could ask the Miami cyclist on the causeway what he thinks -- 'cept he's dead now. Stats are good, until you're on the wrong side of them.

Funny thing, too; there was a girl in the neighborhood that I thought would be an ideal playmate for my daughter -- but her ditz mother was apparently terrified of me, cuz I'm not the most social person in the world. (Could even say I'm a little 'gruff')

I really have to point out and agree with this comment:

Its worth noting that in countries with extremely high cycling rates, such as the Netherlands (where 25% of all trips by those over the age of 65 are made by bicycle) and Germany, helmet use is almost unheard of. Yet these countries have much lower injury and death rates than the U.S. where helmets are common.

There is little evidence that helmets are beneficial to safety.


The "comment" is an example of two defective arguments: 1) the "correlation does not mean causality" error and 2) a non-sequator (the last sentence, like "donuts taste good", isn't really related to the first paragraph).

The "comment" is an example of two defective arguments: 1) the "correlation does not mean causality" error and 2) a non-sequator (the last sentence, like "donuts taste good", isn't really related to the first paragraph).

Yes, we must fight reality with logic.

>>
Its worth noting that in countries with extremely high cycling rates, such as the Netherlands (where 25% of all trips by those over the age of 65 are made by bicycle) and Germany, helmet use is almost unheard of. Yet these countries have much lower injury and death rates than the U.S. where helmets are common.

<<

The "comment" is an example of two defective arguments: 1) the "correlation does not mean causality" error


Half smart thinking. At best

You'd have been right if the poster had said that this ***proved*** helmets have a negative effect on safety. But he or she didn't. It is reasonable to read the above as a reminder that helmets don't have as strong an effect on safety as other factors.

Sorry, I was exaggerating, everyone knows there ain't no such thing as a friendly safety-nanny - they're all big meanies. ;)

I know, you're more intimidating than me from the pictures of you I've seen. Especially the photoshopped ones! :cry: They ran a story in the local paper about the group that pays for the helmets, and had a picture of me fitting a helmet on kid - I looked oh so wholesome.

Having been privileged enough to get to fly through the air and slam my head into some asphalt at 25 MPH, I can assure you that there is quite a bit of evidence that, in very specific situations, helmets are beneficial to safety.

Pity helmets aren't designed to help with anything above a 14mph fall. Still, I guess your personal experience trumps reality.



Just grow a pair and admit you don't think the marginal increase in safety is worth the inconvenience.

Heh, maybe by the time yours drop a penny will also drop and you'll realize that it's possibly a marginal decrease in some circumstances and a marginal increase in others.

In other words, not worth wasting time about wearing or not wearing.

The original paper[1] cited by the freakonomics guys is based upon a widely discredited statistic, namely that "[...] there is ample medical evidence that the likelihood of serious head trauma and brain injury in bicycle accidents by as much as 85%, particularly among children (see for example Thompson and Rivara 1989) [.]" That's on p2 where they're laying out their basic premises and suggests that Dubner hasn't done his research on the topic, preferring instead to found his speculations on a rickety pile of assumptions. Take a look at how awful the Thompson,Rivara, Thompson paper is if you don't believe me. Anyone citing the 85% figure is a credulous charlatan.

1. http://www.gse.uci.edu/docs/Carpenter_Stehr Bicycle_Manuscript_50409.pdf

Two weeks ago, I smashed the rear window of a car with my head. The next day, I walked out of the hospital. Had I not been wearing a helmet, I'm pretty sure I would have left in a body bag.

Two weeks ago, I smashed the rear window of a car with my head. The next day, I walked out of the hospital. Had I not been wearing a helmet, I'm pretty sure I would have left in a body bag.
How can you be so sure? What evidence do you have that the helmet did indeed save your life?

These types of statements are anecdotal at best. You cannot be sure you would have been dead without the helmet. There were no force readings, no measurement of helmet compression, no comparison with the same forces to head with and without helmet. Unfortunately, all's it takes is statements like these to keep the safety nannies going.

I also have a majorly cracked helmet. With blood on it. And considering that I walked out of the hospital the next day with a grand total of four stitches on my face says, at a minimum, that I would have been seriously injured at best. As it was, I didn't even suffer a concussion.


http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=133146&d=1263564145

I also have a majorly cracked helmet. With blood on it. And considering that I walked out of the hospital the next day with a grand total of four stitches on my face says, at a minimum, that I would have been seriously injured at best. As it was, I didn't even suffer a concussion.


http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=133146&d=1263564145

I hope that's not the Big Lesson you took away from that incident.

I hope that's not the Big Lesson you took away from that incident.

It probably was. He's bound to repeat his mistakes of the past.

Half smart thinking. At best
You'd have been right if the poster had said that this ***proved*** helmets have a negative effect on safety. But he or she didn't. It is reasonable to read the above as a reminder that helmets don't have as strong an effect on safety as other factors.
Dumb thinking on your part.

Since it doesn't say anything about what those factors might be, it's propaganda. Those "factors" might be "moving to the Netherlands", which isn't very practical.

Keep in mind, too, that the audience of "Freaknomics" isn't going to interpret the comment they way you did.

There are reasonable criticism of helmets but that "comment" isn't one of them.


Yes, we must fight reality with logic.
The reality is that the US isn't the Netherlands and isn't likely to become anything like the Netherlands anytime soon.

If you agree with the comment, the following is a contradiction.


Ah but the truth is that I do wear a helmet... for any ride that is either in traffic or on my MTB... and since rides that don't fit those parameters are not likely to be at 25MPH, I feel quite vindicated.

Now in the US, cycling by less than 2% of the nation tends to be done by young athletic males, who are likely to be trying to reach 25MPH or more, so a helmet here makes sense. In the countries I cited, speed is not a huge consideration of the cyclists, so why should they bother wearing a helmet.

I also have a majorly cracked helmet. With blood on it. And considering that I walked out of the hospital the next day with a grand total of four stitches on my face says, at a minimum, that I would have been seriously injured at best. As it was, I didn't even suffer a concussion.


http://www.bikeforums.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=133146&d=1263564145
Based on this photo I can make some unwarranted conjectures.
1. The cycle pilot was travelling at a high rate of speed while not paying attention to road conditions.
2. The car did not suddenly appear out of thin air, therefore part of the cause of the collision was either faulty brakes or faulty riding technique.
3. People who ride like this really should wear a helmet and have cycling insurance.

I hope that's not the Big Lesson you took away from that incident.


It probably was. He's bound to repeat his mistakes of the past.

what mistakes were those? i'm super keen to hear! please, conjecture away about an incident you didn't participate in or witness...

what mistakes were those? i'm super keen to hear! please, conjecture away about an incident you didn't participate in or witness...

I presuming MrCjolsen didn't want to crash, so if he didn't, the mistakes that led to the crash.

If he did want to crash, he's bound to repeat the steps and continue to crash.

I hope that's not the Big Lesson you took away from that incident.


It probably was. He's bound to repeat his mistakes of the past.


I presuming MrCjolsen didn't want to crash, so if he didn't, the mistakes that led to the crash.

so, you are conjecturing that the crash was avoidable by cyclist action and are comfortable saying that if the cyclist had definitely done "x" then the crash would not have happened?

so, you are conjecturing that the crash was avoidable by cyclist action and are comfortable saying that if the cyclist had definitely done "x" then the crash would not have happened?

Well, you have to admit that the pattern of damage on the car is suggestive of a fairly inattentive rider. Not a certainty, but certainly suggestive. If MrCjolsen plowed blindly into the back of a car, and his take away was that it was a good thing he was wearing a helmet, I think you would agree that he needs to do a little soul searching.

Speedo

Well, you have to admit that the pattern of damage ... bzz bzz bzz ...I think you would agree that ... bzz bzz bzz

whoa! are you appealing to my common sense or grasp of the "obvious"?

i have to admit that i'm a little disappointed. i was under the impression that i couldn't possibly know to any degree of certainty what an alternate outcome of a situation could be given a change in certain variables. isn't that right?

whoa! are you appealing to my common sense or grasp of the "obvious"?

i have to admit that i'm a little disappointed. i was under the impression that i couldn't possibly know to any degree of certainty what an alternate outcome of a situation could be given a change in certain variables. isn't that right?

True, and that was the direction that the MrCjolsen comments were headed after he posted:


Had I not been wearing a helmet, I'm pretty sure I would have left in a body bag.

But then he posted the picture of the car, which put a different slant on the whole thing, and took the conversation in a different direction. I would love to hear from MrCjolsen what the details of his crash were. There's certainly an interesting story there.

Speedo

Not a certainty, but certainly suggestive.

editing to add this sentence is not really "grammar", but no matter. i understand your desire to moderate your previous statement as it's pretty obvious where i'm going with this line of questioning.

editing to add this sentence is not really "grammar", but no matter. i understand your desire to moderate your previous statement as it's pretty obvious where i'm going with this line of questioning.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I did not add that sentence when I edited the post. I originally had written

"If the MrCjolsen plowed blindly ..."

I took out the "the" for grammar reasons to the final version:

"If MrCjolsen plowed blindly ..."

My original post had all of the moderation of the final, because, unlike you, I am careful about what is certain, and what is not.

Speedo

True, and that was the direction that the MrCjolsen comments were headed after he posted:

i'm not talking about what MrCjolsen said or implied or the "direction of his comments". i'm talking about the fact that you are using an appeal to common sense to state that an alternate outcome could have happened (the avoidance of the crash) if one of the preceeding variables (MrCjolsen's cycling) had been altered.

and, let me be the first to say to MrCjolsen that i'm glad he's okay. crashes like that are scary!

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I did not add that sentence when I edited the post. I originally had written

"If the MrCjolsen plowed blindly ..."

I took out the "the" for grammar reasons to the final version:

"If MrCjolsen plowed blindly ..."

My original post had all of the moderation of the final, because, unlike you, I am careful about what is certain, and what is not.

Speedo

if that's what you say happened, then i won't argue you on it as i don't want to distract from the main line of discussion.

if that's what you say happened, then i won't argue you on it as i don't want to distract from the main line of discussion.

It's what happened. That you are paranoid enough to think otherwise puts an end to this discussion.

Speedo

Well i could say after being in a couple car accidents nothing major THANK GOD! but one ill admit being my falt sometimes **** HAPPENS! whether you like it or not and you don’t always have time to react even if your the only thing moving. With that said every once in awhile people make mistakes sometimes your not working at full capacity not thinking quite straight sometimes you got something on your mind sometimes something stupid catches the corner of your eye and you happen to glance just long enough, were not robots, and to just say that he should have made a slit alteration to avoid the accident is really easy to say when you weren’t there.


and i agree with frymaster, im glad to hear that he is okay and if the helmet really didn't help who cares it helps him feel better, with that i will always wear a helmet no matter how stupid it may look as i <3 the shape of my skull and i would love to keep it that way. I have personally seen way to much to feel any different.

It's what happened. That you are paranoid enough to think otherwise puts an end to this discussion.

"paranoid"?. hm. resorting to name calling and still trying for the moral high ground all in one sentence. very nicely done.

also, a very graceful exit on your behalf from a thread you knew was going to effectively address one of the prime fallacies that the anti-helmet argument rests upon. well done.

paranoid par"a*noid`, a.
1. (Med.) Affected with paranoia; as, a paranoid
schizophrenic.

Syn: paranoiac.
[PJC]

2. Suffering from delusions of being persecuted by the
conspiratorial actions of others; having an unwarranted
suspicion of the motives of others; -- used loosely in a
negative sense, not as a medical term; as, just because
you're paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you.
[Colloq.]
[PJC]

In context the use of the term "paranoid" is an observation of behavior and not "name calling".

so, you are conjecturing that the crash was avoidable by cyclist action and are comfortable saying that if the cyclist had definitely done "x" then the crash would not have happened?

Since there was a 6 page thread about him hitting the parked car where he said "I think I was either looking down at something or fiddling with my computer," I would be comfortable saying something like that.

so, you are conjecturing that the crash was avoidable by cyclist action and are comfortable saying that if the cyclist had definitely done "x" then the crash would not have happened?

not at all. I'm saying, prevention is a superior method of injury reduction than is mitigation.

Since there was a 6 page thread about him hitting the parked car where he said "I think I was either looking down at something or fiddling with my computer," I would be comfortable saying something like that.

there you go.

Now, if possible, could we address the issue at hand? That helmets discourage youth cycling?

not at all. I'm saying, prevention is a superior method of injury reduction than is mitigation.

i wish that were the case. what, in fact, is often said by anti-helmetists is that it is impossible to predict the outcome of a crash, the severity of the injuries &c., if a helmet had not been worn, even when said predictions are made as part of an appeal to common sense, and that as such, the value of helmets is easily negated. the old "you can't know you would have been hurt worse without a helmet" argument.

however, anti-helmetists never seem to be hampered in making conjectures about what could have happened when the variable switches from being helmet wearing to operator "error". everyone rushes to just "knowing" that somehow this or that incident could have been avoided thus eliminating the need for helmets. some even go so far as to say that helmets actually cause operator error by giving a false sense fo security causing them to take uneccessary risks. a bizzare statement at best, a deliberate muddying of the waters at worst.

so, here's the bottom line. you don't know this accident or any other was avoidable. you just don't. so stop saying it. your other alternative is to continue to be an armchair critic of everyone else's bike handling skills, confident that alternate outcomes can be predicted using things like "common sense", but you have to let people who are pro-helmet take the same course of prediction. no more double standards.

is that fair?

i think so.

anti-helmetists :rolleyes:

you don't know this accident or any other was avoidable. :rolleyes:

You're way off the mark and missing the entire point.

You're way off the mark and missing the entire point.

glad to hear!


Now, if possible, could we address the issue at hand? That helmets discourage youth cycling?


again, 100% wrong. helmet laws may discourage youth cycling, but helmets themselves do nothing of the sort.

Just a few notes, since everyone seems to be talking about me.

I'm normally a very attentive rider. I commute 5000-6000 miles a year, often in busy downtown traffic or in the dark, fog, or rain. I've raced cyclocross, done a few centuries, triathlons and time trials. I own two fixed gears (with brakes, I might add)

But it was a moment's inattention at just the wrong time that cause the mishap. I think I was either looking down at something on my bike or had just moved over to let a car go by on a stretch of wide road that is normally devoid of parked cars. I had on my prescription bifocals which I don't normally ride with and that may have altered my depth perception.

The accident happened at the very start of my commute home, right in front of the school where I teach. I was accelerating, I think, since I had just made a U-turn. It was about 100 yards from the turn.

I was heading home earlier than usual and planning to catch Amtrak because I had a meeting at my house at 4:30. For that reason I was mostly dressed in street clothes and had everything I usually carry in my messenger bag. I really don't know how fast I was going. My guess is somewhere between 10 and 15 mph.

Since I did not see the car, I did not brace for the impact in any way. My first words were "what did I hit?"

I wear a helmet when occasion warrants it, which is rarely on the road. My children wear helmets at their discretion. I don't believe in Magic Foam Hats, and my children don't either.

I'm not anti-helmet. I'm anti-using it as a panacea for safety on a bicycle.

As I think the discussion was trying to go towards, safety discussions for bicycles should not be so helmet-focused. As Copenhagen is showing, it is entirely possible to have a safe cycling population without helmets.

The discussion should go towards how to educate cyclists with proper riding technique, how to improve bicycle infrastructure and how to avoid injuries in the first place.

So many people however seem so stuck on making sure everyone and their mother wears a helmet.

Pity helmets aren't designed to help with anything above a 14mph fall.

Well ... the horizontal vector is different than the vertical vector.

More generally ...

... at least after a single read, the statistical analysis seems fine to me. The differences in differences in differences approach is widely accepted and would account for a lot of unobservables. Unlike a lot of other papers, it obtains an estimate of the reduction in fatalities due to helmet use versus reduction in cycling. It appears to be a step forward.

It IS more dangerous now, as there has been a lot of callus applied to society; child predators have multiplied alarmingly. THAT'S the biggest reason for the curtailment of kids' activities. (More than three DOZEN live within 2-3 miles of our address -- damn!)

I don't think there actually are more child predators, just in the 1970's and before, we didn't have Crappy News Network, spending a week blabbing about every case, which gives it the appearance that there is a lot more then there used to be.