Per capita NL has 4~5 times more cycling deaths than the US. And even without exact exposure data for the US it is clear to see that the Americans cycle far less than 4 or 5 times what the Dutch do. What you are arguing is that we can't tell anything because we don't know it exactly.

From what I've read, the Dutch time their traffic lights based on a speed of 20 kph, plus it doesn't make much sense to ride faster on a crowded bike path or lane. The Dutch ride in bike traffic and we ride in car traffic.

I'd wager that in the US, the speed that matters is the speed of cars.

When I was living in Baltimore there was a pedestrian crossing with traffic lights downtown, the streets were one way for cars and after 30 seconds of green light for pedestrians the turning cars on the parallel street would also get green and turn onto the street that pedestrians were crossing.

Now although pedestrians were crossing at a green light on the crossing, once the cars started to move, only people with a death wish would dare to walk up. And the baffling thing is that whenever there were traffic cops standing there they would shout at you for having the audacity to start crossing with green once the cars had their green light.

One thing that the Dutch try to do when designing roads is to build it for the speeds you are supposed to drive there. So a 15 mph limit means very narrow streets, sometimes with cobblestones and roadblocks where one car has to wait for the oncoming car to pass.

Another interesting concept that surprisingly makes things safer is how in some residential areas, there is only one road, with no markings and no sidewalk. This not a road for heavy traffic, just for people that live in that block. That one road is to be used by all traffic, and not just that, it is also meant to be used by playing children. Pedestrians are allowed to walk in the middle of the road and the speed limit for cars is defined as “walking-speed”.

Oddly enough it was like that by social convention in the neighborhood where I grew up. It was a suburb of Detroit, and there was car traffic in the streets, but kids played in the streets too. We played street hockey and all sorts of games. When a car was coming, someone yelled "car" and we cleared out of the street. We all rode bikes, probably not very well behaved. But the drivers were careful.

Today, same neighborhood, there are a lot more cars, and more traffic. So the streets are parked up with cars, and they're big cars -- SUV's and pickup trucks. And no kids playing in the streets. A difference between then and now is simply a lot more traffic. Not just cars, but more delivery and service vehicles as well.

In the town where I live, there's a street along my commute where the residents appear to have reclaimed their street. A sequence of maybe 4 or 5 houses all have kids, they put up some signs asking cars to slow down, and the kids are out playing. Usually, among those houses, there are one or two adults out, or at least keeping an eye on things. And it seems to be respected by the drivers and cyclists like myself.

We have experienced the same increase in traffic sinds the 50s, it does require city planning to achieve this. For example when I drive home, the largest part of the journey is on the highway and looks like this.

Then, the last 10 minutes before I get home, there is a major road, with no bikes allowed and separate bike path: link.

Then we start getting into the residential areas, but it is still a road that has traffic needing to go further than just this block: link. Narrow street, cobble stones, no separate bike lane. Speed limit is 15 mph, but streets are so narrow that cars can't really drive faster.

Then, for residential areas with only local traffic to that block, we sometimes see the one-road approach I mentioned above: link

I am explaining - not arguing actually - that we don't know *enough* about the cycling habits, not that we don't know something "exactly". The available data might fit either hypothesis.

If for example, most of the fatalities and serious injuries in the USA were from either commuters in high traffic areas and from casual riders (on a bike once or twice a year), then your hypothesis wouldn't necessarily hold. I'm not saying that is the case, but I AM saying that it's only one scenario out of a multitude of them. Without knowing the distribution of these, it's a mathematical fact that you can draw no specific conclusions from your (extremely) general data.

What you are arguing is that you are arguing. It’s all you do.

A few ounces of fabric will protect you though.

F’n 2020. 2019. 2018. 2017. 2016. 2015. 2014.

And that’s only everlasting gobstopper thread 2.


-mr. bill

It's funny when I peak under "This user is on your Ignore List." and it's always the same comment, with variations in phrasing.

365 posts. You’re number one!

You’ll never run out of nothing to say.

-mr. bill

A newb here. Just to be clear, is this a thread debating whether helmet is useful at all in the event of accident? Is this a mask-debate thing in cycling world?

Another more traditional model:

It is simply the repository of all helmet related thread.

Why is the thread dead? Did everyone decide to agree?

Mods, I guess you can unsticky and close this now :)

This subject is not as black and white as either side claims. What I see in this thread isn't people arguing whether helmets increase safety (to any degree, from marginal to significant), I think we can all agree that they do. What I do see are mainly 2 more reasonable/logical sides that people are getting too defensive about:

A: Helmets increase safety, and even if that increase is marginal, people should wear them, because any increase in safety is a good thing.

B: Helmets increase safety, but the increase is too minute to warrant the burden of regulation/mandating their use.

I also believe that there is a side C, that people like wphamilton (correct me if I'm wrong) are arguing: Helmets increase safety, but the increase is marginal, and we would benefit from focusing our attention on other lower hanging fruit, such as infrastructure, enforcing road laws, etc.

I suppose there must also a side D that counter-argues C: Sure, there are lower hanging fruits in cycling safety that we could tackle, but that this stance is a false dilemma in that we could tackle those issues AND encourage helmet use.

Very few people in this thread are arguing that helmets are completely useless and do nothing whatsoever to increase safety. Sure, some have brought up helmet safety concerns, such as strangulation, etc., but those are few and far between. I think we can all agree that helmets do increase safety, but that this discussion is far more nuanced. No side is "stupid" for having their opinion, because most of those opinions hold at least some merit.

As for me, personally, I agree with wphamilton, that helmets have unfortunately stolen the spotlight when it comes to cycling safety. Additionally, 'cycling' is a vast category, and riding styles differ significantly. For my riding style (almost exclusively on dedicated paved paths in the city), I don't think a helmet is crucial. Forcing me to wear a helmet is tantamount to forcing every car to come with a fire extinguisher, racing cage, and forcing all drivers to wear helmets. Sure, it would probably increase safety marginally, but it is not worth the burden it would place on people. However, when it comes to race tracks (for cars), many enforce helmet/extinguisher/roll cage usage, just as many bike parks enforce helmet usage for cyclists. In those cases of an increased likelihood of injury, I fully support mandatory helmet regulations.

Also, after reading since page 115 of this thread, I'm surprised mr_bill has not been banned. He contributes very little to the discussion, and many of his posts are outright trolling.

Close enough, no argument from me. I involve myself here mainly just to provide objective facts and reason, as much as I'm able, and people are going to make up their own minds about what to do with it.

Regarding your point D, the downside to focusing on helmet usage is that the underlying premise is always that cycling is a dangerous activity. That discourages people from using their bikes for daily tasks, just as a means of transport.
Indeed it is a totally different story when cycling close to your limits, e.g. as a sport, a helmet becomes much more sensible to wear.

Not that I disagree with you, but just to play devil's advocate for a moment, I don't think you can make that argument because the same can be said about seatbelts and cars, for example. To make this claim, you have to have an inherently prejudiced view of helmets, or at least of their burden on cyclists. Some see helmets as something as natural as tying a shoe lace, and those people would never agree with you that helmets discourage people from using their bicycles. However, others see helmets as a major inconvenience, and a large burden on cyclists, and those people would definitely agree with your premise that generalized helmet enforcement will discourage some people from cycling.

Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to present a counter argument. As I said in my last post, I have the same opinion as you when it comes to helmets; they should be worn in certain scenarios, but should not be enforced for every type of bicycle riding. I personally don't wear a helmet when I'm going on dedicated paved cycling infrastructure or MUP.

ll
 

Well, it is exactly that argument that the Dutch cycling federation makes for not promoting helmet wear for regular daily cycling. The claim is even that the health benefits for the entire population from more cycling, outweigh the negative elements of not wearing helmets.


The perceived deterrent is not so much the inconvenience of a helmet, but the message that cycling is dangerous. Especially if you want to promote helmet usage without it being mandatory, you only have the safety argument. Seatbelts are so efficient at preventing damage in almost any car crash that they are mandatory and people can be compelled to wear them just to prevent fines.

Possibly both of those. Whatever the reasons, after Australia imposed mandatory helmet laws, and then made them more stringent, we have some data about that. Some of the participation data is "limited and inconsistent" but nevertheless plausible data.

In a nutshell, cycling participation declined but total cyclist injuries and head injuries increased. Fatalities decreased. We could argue about why and how, but here are the facts:
Pedal cyclist deaths and hospitalizations (Australian government)

i've been pleased with my nutcase. got it on year end close out....cheap

I have a Bern- It's a very nice hat.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...9b5edbbd_h.jpgNew Hat by Dave The Golden Boy, on Flickr

White Giro Synthe. The red Katusha is second.

https://i.imgur.com/cxLZJoMm.jpg

I only use Limar helmets. I bought one before they were available here in the U.S. It was my first helmet and was advertised as being "The Worlds Lightest Helmet". That first one saved me from becoming a vegetable or dead. That created brand loyalty for for me.