UnsafeAlpine

Thank god for that.

bikelifetv

Why would they not want children to wear helmets? A child died in my neighborhood because he didn't have a helmet on.

UnsafeAlpine

Mandatory helmet laws have the negative effect of reducing cycling.

dougmc

Really? Did a gang come up to him, see that he wasn't wearing a helmet, and shoot him until he was dead because there was no helmet on his head?

Certainly, if he had an accident and hit his head and died, there's no guarantee that a helmet would have saved him ...

Seattle Forrest

And if someone drives into a tree at 60 MPH, flies through the windshield, and dies, there's no guarantee that a seatbelt or air bag would have saved them. The truth is, there are very few guarantees of any kind in life. But that's really not a very good reason to abandon common sense. We require seatbelt use in cars, after all.

I can understand not wanting to wear a helmet, but I'm not sure why we're demanding a much higher standard of "reasonably knowing" than in other aspects of life? I don't think I've ever heard anybody argue about whether there exists any proof that stopping for red lights will always save lives in all conditions, to prevent traffic laws. But that's what people are asking for with bike helmets.

closetbiker

The truth is, the law makers feel there were more negative aspects of the bicycle helmet law than positive and that's why the requirement was rescinded.

It's a growing trend, as the rejection of proposed helmet laws has been a trend for some time now.

People are starting to understand, there's more to bike safety than wearing helmets, and forcing people to wear helmet doesn't achieve the goals that were wished for.

kuan

I don't get how it's a win. I never saw this issue as a contest.

dougmc

Yes, we do, and many of the arguments against mandatory seatbelt use are similar to those against helmet use.

However, seatbelts and helmets are very different beasts. Seatbelts are almost magical in how effective they are -- they greatly reduce injuries and this has been shown over and over and over again. People do still die while wearing seatbelts, but usually it's in the most serious of accidents. Lots of seatbelt wearing people walk away with minimal or no injuries after being in some very serious accidents.

Bicycle helmets are nowhere near as effective as seatbelts. They may help in some small percentage of accidents, but the percentage is far smaller than where seatbelts help. And even when they do help, the help tends to be limited as the helmet breaks or gets completely compressed. And finally, in serious accidents, even if the helmet does somehow protect your head -- the rest of your body may have life threatening injuries. (Motorcycle helmets are better -- stronger, cover more of the head. But they're rarely used by those on bicycles.)

But ultimately, my point really was that I'm pretty sure that nobody knows that a helmet would have saved that child's life. Sure, some doctor (if we're lucky!) may have decided "oh, the child hit their head -- a helmet would have prevented that!" -- but most doctors don't really realize just how weak bicycle helmets are, and really aren't qualified to recreate accident scenarios.

You mention common sense. Where exactly where you claiming that common sense came into this?

closetbiker

It's been shown that mandating helmet use results in worse negative consequences than if there was no helmet law.

It's a win because attention can now be better focused on more effective safety efforts.

Seattle Forrest

This is exactly what I'm getting at! People would take this argument a lot more seriously if somebody, somewhere, was able to produce some evidence, so people don't have to take your word for it. With all due respect, the fact that someone on the internet can assert anything, but that doesn't make it true. You can say "helmets don't provide any/enough protection" and I can say "Cats think in German."

If it's true that helmets don't make people any safer, there's evidence somewhere that this is true. If not, we're just arguing about Celestial Teapots.

I'm not sure what this uncertainty has to do with the law? Again, we can't be certain that any particular victim of an auto crash would or wouldn't have survived, had (s)he been wearing a seatbelt. Nobody has ever said "until this is 100 % certain that seatbelts will always protect everybody who wears one, we shouldn't require people in cars to use them."

closetbiker

Believe me, there's abundant evidence for this stance. This is not a new issue.

There has been quality, peer reviewed evidence that helmet laws have not achieved their desired effects.

You don't have to look to hard to find the evidence, but it seems if someone doesn't want to face up to the evidence, it doesn't exist.

mikeybikes

Rock on. Way to go senate. I saw that it had passed, but missed the amendments that removed the MHL component of it.

prathmann

There are plenty of citations given to peer-reviewed papers on both sides of this debate at:
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/
under 'Papers for and against ...'.

In general the studies showing positive results for helmets are those looking at ER data, which is subject to the criticism that the population that chooses to use helmets may differ in various ways from those who choose not to. On the other side, the studies finding limited or no benefit, are generally looking at the effects when mandatory helmets laws are first enacted for a country and find that despite substantial rises in helmet usage there is not the hoped-for decrease in serious injury or fatality rates. Check out the links referenced at the site above and you can find plenty of studies to support your view, whatever it is. More detailed study of the individual papers is required to determine any flaws in their methodologies and to decide which you still consider credible.

dougmc

The effectiveness of seatbelts is well established. But here, here's a citation (and it's not even a terribly good one, as it's purpose is to point out that the studies find too much benefit. But I didn't look very hard.)

As for the effectiveness of helmets, that's a bit more murky -- but I do think that we can all agree that a helmet isn't going to be effective if it never strikes anything (or did you need a citation for that too?) Beyond that, I think we're pretty familiar with the pros and cons of helmet studies. But seatbelts? They're almost magical -- they reduce injuries in smaller accidents, save lives in the bigger accidents. Not all injuries, not all lives -- but a very significant portion.

Ultimately, "we should have a helmet law -- after all, we have a seatbelt law!" arguments are weak -- the two items are very different in their effectiveness.
OK, but I didn't say "helmets don't provide any/enough protection". I said they're not as effective as seat belts.
Well, the sample size is a lot smaller, so there's less evidence. But more to the point, I never said helmets don't make people safer. I said they're not as effective as seat belts.
Nothing. And I didn't say it did. Somebody said that a child died in their neighborhood because they weren't wearing a helmet, and I pointed out that there's no way they could know that. Thread drift, perhaps, but it happens.

Seattle Forrest

Then I'm confused. Surely, the bike advocacy movement isn't pushing to stop and/or repeal mandatory helmet laws, just because helmets are less effective than seatbelts??? How is it a victory, "a win for Colorado," that a safety measure which it sounds to be effective, but less so than seatbelts, was defeated? If seatbelts work 2/3 of the time and helmets 1/3 ( pulling numbers from nowhere for the sake of example ), that's still better than 0/3.

Well I apologize if I've misunderstood you. I thought what you were saying was that because nobody has ever been able to conclusively prove that somebody who died in a bike accident while not wearing a helmet would have been guaranteed to survive with one, that it was silly to have laws mandating their use. I seem to be wrong in comparing this to Bertrand Russel's teapot.

kludgefudge

No, the "Bike advocacy movement" or more specifically a significant and growing part of it, is pushing to repeal/stop MHL's on the basis that

A) MHL's Discourage cycling in general.

B) statistically, there is little to no change in cycling related fatalities when MHL's go into effect. Basically that the negatives of MHL's outweigh the positives.

C) Helmets are for nerds.

D)some other reasons. go check out the helmets cramp my style thread or something.

You want citations? please find them yourself, this is an internet forum, and I don't feel compelled to back up everything I say with links.

joejack951

Your bias is obvious. You believe bicycle helmets have some significant impact on the injuries received by cyclists. My feeling is that you haven't really thought much about the limitations of what a piece of styrofoam on top of someone's head can do to protect them.

For starters, compare being securely strapped inside of a steel cage to having a relatively loosely fitting (look at most helmet wearing cyclists and see how well secured their helmets are) 1 inch thick piece of styrofoam on your head. Do you really think the helmet is 50% as effective as the former, or even 5%?

dougmc

I didn't claim that either. But you did bring up seat belts in a discussion about helmets. " We require seatbelt use in cars, after all." -- and I was pointing out that the two are very different in how effective they are.

As for the "bike advocacy movement" -- there really is no such single movement either. Instead, there's millions of people pushing for different things. Some bicycle advocates *are* pushing for mandatory helmet laws -- most aren't, but some are. Ultimately, just because we're all on bikes, that doesn't mean we agree about much of anything besides liking bikes (and really, we don't all agree on that!)

I don't even think the helmet odds are that good (but it's still a good example), but that's not really my point either.

Making motorists wear helmets would probably save lives too. Pedestrians wearing helmets -- especially motorcycle helmets -- would reduce injuries and save lives. Let's make them wear body armor too -- that would save even more lives. Ultimately, we have to draw the line somewhere -- "still better than 0/3" isn't good enough.

And really -- having a steel cage around you with a seat belt and air bags is likely safer than being protected only by a helmet. Using that argument, perhaps we should ban bicycling entirely ...

Giffen

There's only one problem with your logic -- bicycle helmets don't prevent serious head injuries.

Dchiefransom

Why are you sticking to seatbelts? Look up the stats for fatal head trauma and see what the largest slice of that pie chart is. Then explain why we don't mandate helmet use during THAT activity. After all, we want to use common sense, don't we?

ccd rider

While I agree they shouldn't be mandatory, it puzzles me why there's such a strong reaction to discouraging their use......regardless of how statistical evidence plays out.

I don't see why wearing a helmet and focusing on other forms of bike safety have to be mutually exclusive??? One would think if someone is wearing a helmet because they think it might be safer, then they would be MORE amenable to additional safety measures. I understand the argument against the notion of false security by wearing a helmet alone makes me safe, but I still think there would be more parents/peers (or even the child him/herself) equating the safety (perceived or otherwise) of a helmet with overall safety.....and therefore becoming more aware of those other habits.

As far as actual safety from wearing a helmet, it doesn't matter to me. I would wear one anyway. Anecdotal evidence is as powerful a force as supposed unequivocal statistical data. Variables run amok. I know for me I had an incident where I was barely moving, but fell over on my bike and hit my head (or in this case the helmet I was wearing) on the asphalt.....much harder than I would have anticipated from being almost stationery. The sheer force of the vertical fall was enough to make me realize there are situations where a helmet is beneficial (rather than just wearing one for cultural reasons). I felt like if I hadn't been wearing one......while perhaps not being seriously injured (I know asphalt gives a bit more than concrete).....I would have been shaken up to the point where I may have been rendered unable to continue (and perhaps even needed medical attention). Obviously that's a guess (more of those variables I mentioned earlier), but as it was, while I felt stunned with the helmet on, I think in that case having "an inch of styrofoam" was enough of an impact absorber to keep me on my merry way. I can't know for sure, but it's a hunch based on how I think that same fall would have felt otherwise.......and that's good enough for me.

So pencil me in as a helmet advocate....but not just based on that one incident. It's because I believe it could be beneficial in less extreme situations than the ones people like to point to as a reason NOT to wear one. And in this case advocate is a relative term. Other than this obscure post on this forum, I'm not going around pushing the idea on others (hence the opposition to the mandatory). Advocacy in this sense means "promoting by wearing" (if it actually does). Everybody has their choices (even if it's "mandated" it doesn't mean everyone will do it), but I find the vigor of "opposition" to a law of that kind comes across as an emphatic "dissuasion" for someone to wear one for any reason (I like having one to hold my headlamp too), rather than just a disagreement over their safety related effectiveness (or concern about detracting from other safety).

Giffen

Could you clarify this statement? I'm not sure what other habits you are referring too.

Could you say why?

On the ignorant.

In what sense? I've studied statistics and never came accross this phenomemon.

It happens -- sorry to hear it.


How so? I'm dying to hear.

Your helmet did not lower your risk of a permanent brain injury.

Ahh, yes. Those pesky facts and variables again.


It's interesting that you think you can predict head injuries in hypothetical scenarios when you clearly have no idea of how they occur.


The same can be said about knee pads, elbow pads, shoulder pads, toothguard. You should wear those too.

So what do you think about my commentary? Does it go beyond discussing their effectiveness, to discouraging people to wear them? Notice that nowhere did I say that you should stop wearing yours.

wsbob

Coloradan.com's reporter Nate Taylor's story says very little as to the reasons Colorado lawmakers supposedly did not favor the mandatory helmet part of the proposed House Bill 1147. More info that would have come closer to the truth would have been helpful. An important bit of information he did provide in his story:This seems to suggest the House did support mandatory helmet use for younger Coloradans of certain age levels. Democratic Rep Kefalas's co-sponsor of the bill was Senator Bob Bacon. Both are democrats. Took a web search to help me remember an earlier story about this bill:Article doesn't report what jokes the republicans offered in the way of jokes. Maybe that's a good thing.

Interesting possibility as to how the Arizona Senate shaped up on the helmet requirement part of the proposed bill: Arizona's Senate has 29 members (assuming my count is correct). 18 are Republicans. Of course, some of the senators opposed to a helmet requirement may have been Democrats, but the suggestion is that Republican opposition was responsible for Kefalas and Bacon finding they were unable to get the required votes from the Senate.

UnsafeAlpine

My problem is not the use of helmets. I've read the pros and cons and have decided the evidence against the use of helmets (rotational brain injuries, etc.) isn't strong enough to undermine the possible good they do (reduce head trauma and cuts, etc.) Both of my kids were helmets whenever they ride because studies have shown a strong correlation to helmet use and a decrease in head trauma in children. To encourage their behavior, I also wear a helmet.

No, I would consider myself pro-helmet use, especially for children. My major concern is the mandating of helmet use. There does appear to be a strong correlation between mandatory helmet laws and a decrease in cyclists. This is not something we can compare to mandatory seatbelt laws because the ease of auto transport will always overcome the mandatory use of auto protection systems. However, the more we make cycling appear dangerous, the less inclined people are to put themselves or their children on a bicycle. I want to see more cyclists on the road. I want children to grow up thinking that cycling is normal and not an activity for crazy people with death wishes. I would also like helmets to be normal, especially in a culture with such a low number of cyclists that motorists don't look for us but doing that isn't going to mean we mandate helmets, it means we teach people how to be safe while riding, and yes, I see both riding education and helmets as a two-fold solution.

The problem with Colorado's MHL is this, as I see it. As I have already said, MHL's seem to decrease ridership among the population which to me, is a bad thing. This law also allowed LEO's to "educate" children about safety, which, to me, means LEO's, untrained in real cycling safety, will have the opportunity to scare children away from cycling by "educating" them on the use of helmets. I commend Rep. Kefalas and Rep. Bacon in trying to do something to increase safety for cyclists, but this is the wrong way to do it. What we need to see is vulnerable road user laws becoming stronger. We need to see harsher penalties for distracted motorists. We need more cycling safety programs that don't specifically rely on helmet use but teach cyclists how to ride safely.

To sum up, I am pro-helmet use, pro-cycling education and safety, pro-cyclist numbers, and anti-mandatory helmet laws.

Laserman

Interesting article and interesting that you should link to it as evidence of...what exactly?
That Republicans suck and want to see your children die?
That Democrats are geniuses who can save lives with the wave of a magic law?
I am no particular fan of Republicans or Democrats for that matter but I can recognize a political smear piece when I read one. Take it to moveon.org.