Helmets Yes. Helmet Laws No.
March 1, 2021 8:11 AM Subscribe
Shitty laws and shitty policing should go.
Bicycle riders should wear their helmets!
posted by chavenet at 8:30 AM on March 1, 2021 [27 favorites]
Bicycle riders should wear their helmets!
posted by chavenet at 8:30 AM on March 1, 2021 [27 favorites]
I mean... isn't this
Isn't that a shitty first comment to go in a story?
Bicycle riders should wear their helmets!
You should mind your own business.
posted by ambrosen at 8:33 AM on March 1, 2021 [21 favorites]
Isn't that a shitty first comment to go in a story?
Bicycle riders should wear their helmets!
You should mind your own business.
posted by ambrosen at 8:33 AM on March 1, 2021 [21 favorites]
Pointing out that it is a systemic issue that goes far beyond helmet laws is a shitty comment?
posted by deadaluspark at 8:35 AM on March 1, 2021 [13 favorites]
posted by deadaluspark at 8:35 AM on March 1, 2021 [13 favorites]
Yes, if you do it like that.
posted by ambrosen at 8:36 AM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by ambrosen at 8:36 AM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Fair enough, I'll try to be more thoughtful in how I approach it in the future. Too late to edit it now.
posted by deadaluspark at 8:37 AM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by deadaluspark at 8:37 AM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Shitty laws and shitty policing should go.
Bicycle riders should wear their helmets!
... at least until it's safe to get around without having to interact with motor vehicles. :D
posted by aniola at 8:37 AM on March 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Bicycle riders should wear their helmets!
... at least until it's safe to get around without having to interact with motor vehicles. :D
posted by aniola at 8:37 AM on March 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Virginia just decriminalized jaywalking by making it a secondary offense (as of last night, I think).
posted by idb at 8:43 AM on March 1, 2021 [11 favorites]
posted by idb at 8:43 AM on March 1, 2021 [11 favorites]
Beyond racial profiling, mandatory helmet laws discourage bicycle use, especially by people who can't afford a helmet, the advocacy groups say.
This is a key aspect of helmet laws that isn't widely known. They discourage people from riding bikes. Even if an individual can afford a helmet, the hassle is significant. And the more people riding a bike, the safer things get for everyone b/c car drivers become more and more aware of bikes as the number of them increases.
posted by thatnerd at 8:45 AM on March 1, 2021 [34 favorites]
California doesn't have a bicycle helmet requirement for adults. And it seems unlikely that removing it from Seattle would change usage significantly there, either.
posted by mark k at 8:45 AM on March 1, 2021
posted by mark k at 8:45 AM on March 1, 2021
"Bicycle riders should wear their helmets!"
You should mind your own business.
Seatbelts faced exactly the same opposition.
Not to say that I'm in favour of laws with discretionary enforcement, or of helmet laws. But that cyclists should wear helmets should not itself be controversial.
posted by Dysk at 8:46 AM on March 1, 2021 [68 favorites]
You should mind your own business.
Seatbelts faced exactly the same opposition.
Not to say that I'm in favour of laws with discretionary enforcement, or of helmet laws. But that cyclists should wear helmets should not itself be controversial.
posted by Dysk at 8:46 AM on March 1, 2021 [68 favorites]
aniola, I was going to mention the Dutch model. That's their philosophy, although I've seen enough GoPro videos of cyclists actually riding in traffic over there to see that their motorists aren't much better than the ones in the United States.
posted by drstrangelove at 8:48 AM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by drstrangelove at 8:48 AM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Any scientific projections or historic parallels on how removing the law would affect helmet adoption/bicyclist safety?
posted by asra at 8:49 AM on March 1, 2021
posted by asra at 8:49 AM on March 1, 2021
Mandatory bicycle registration here in MPLS was handled in such a racist manner that it was dropped. I mean, I think the drawbacks outweigh the benefits anyway, but it was extremely striking.
I knew a white guy who was biking home and who saw the cops hassling a Black kid about his bike. The white guy yelled something at the cops, who took off after him and seized his bike, which was not registered. So both guys lost their bikes.
Minneapolis does not have a helmet law. The last time I checked, the head of the city bicycle program made a point of riding around without a helmet because she felt that the more complex and expensive it became to bike, the more public health benefit was lost.
And I think that's true - hardly anyone is going to carry a helmet around with them on the off chance that they might need/want to rent a city bike, for starters.
And of course, let's say that you're a BIPOC parent and you have a kid and you think to yourself, "if my kid forgets their helmet at the park or decides they are too cool to wear it, they are inviting a hostile interaction with police", what are you going to do? Maybe you're going to try to impress on your kid how important the helmet is...or maybe you're just not going to get them a bike. If money is tight and you could end up with a $200 ticket if your kid doesn't wear their helmet are you going to let your kid bike?
I mean, I have left my helmet places and ridden off without it a bunch of times. As a white person, I guess I wouldn't get stopped, but I would still rather not run that risk.
posted by Frowner at 8:49 AM on March 1, 2021 [35 favorites]
I knew a white guy who was biking home and who saw the cops hassling a Black kid about his bike. The white guy yelled something at the cops, who took off after him and seized his bike, which was not registered. So both guys lost their bikes.
Minneapolis does not have a helmet law. The last time I checked, the head of the city bicycle program made a point of riding around without a helmet because she felt that the more complex and expensive it became to bike, the more public health benefit was lost.
And I think that's true - hardly anyone is going to carry a helmet around with them on the off chance that they might need/want to rent a city bike, for starters.
And of course, let's say that you're a BIPOC parent and you have a kid and you think to yourself, "if my kid forgets their helmet at the park or decides they are too cool to wear it, they are inviting a hostile interaction with police", what are you going to do? Maybe you're going to try to impress on your kid how important the helmet is...or maybe you're just not going to get them a bike. If money is tight and you could end up with a $200 ticket if your kid doesn't wear their helmet are you going to let your kid bike?
I mean, I have left my helmet places and ridden off without it a bunch of times. As a white person, I guess I wouldn't get stopped, but I would still rather not run that risk.
posted by Frowner at 8:49 AM on March 1, 2021 [35 favorites]
Whether helmets are a good idea or not seems a bit out of the scope of the OP, but, at least here in Sweden, helmet laws are frequently and consistently suggested by organizations that want to reduce cycling.
posted by groda at 8:50 AM on March 1, 2021 [52 favorites]
posted by groda at 8:50 AM on March 1, 2021 [52 favorites]
Helmet laws cause a enough of a decrease in voluntary cycling that, counter intuitively, the aggregate health benefits of cycling to society are lost by helmets being required. Between that and extremely uneven enforcement, helmet usage should definitely not be mandatory over the age of twelve.
(Having said that: pretty please, with sugar on top, wear a damn helmet.)
posted by mhoye at 8:53 AM on March 1, 2021 [26 favorites]
(Having said that: pretty please, with sugar on top, wear a damn helmet.)
posted by mhoye at 8:53 AM on March 1, 2021 [26 favorites]
Searching is failing me thus far (or I'm failing it), but I remember credible references that while absolutely helmets are a safety measure, that there's counter-intuitive secondary effects: namely, that statistically automobile drivers behave more dangerously around helmeted cyclists (crowding into their space, etc), which as its own interrelated systemic issue reduces cycling safety. Helmet laws discouraging cycling reducing numbers of them on road play right into that, of course.
I expect that any study about drivers being more dangerous about and to cyclists would look even uglier when factoring race in.
posted by Drastic at 8:58 AM on March 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
I expect that any study about drivers being more dangerous about and to cyclists would look even uglier when factoring race in.
posted by Drastic at 8:58 AM on March 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
I see this more akin to the seatbelt law. Government trying to be a nanny state telling you what is best for you. I get the argument about healthcare costs, but that is bs. There is no real need to enforce this law with anything other than a "warning".
posted by AugustWest at 9:03 AM on March 1, 2021
posted by AugustWest at 9:03 AM on March 1, 2021
When motorcycle helmets became enforced, some biker was complaining to me, "If I want to take chances with MY body, that's MY right."
My response: "Yeah but as a car driver I have a right not to witness your brain smeared across the pavement"
posted by StickyCarpet at 9:03 AM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
My response: "Yeah but as a car driver I have a right not to witness your brain smeared across the pavement"
posted by StickyCarpet at 9:03 AM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
Know what I like lots better than the helmet laws? The "please keep your motor vehicle so far away from people on bikes that you're not endangering them as much when you pass" laws.
posted by aniola at 9:04 AM on March 1, 2021 [46 favorites]
posted by aniola at 9:04 AM on March 1, 2021 [46 favorites]
"Searching is failing me thus far" - Drastic
I remember a similar article... didn't it also show that it would actually save more lives if *pedestrians* wore helmets instead of bicyclists?
posted by Grither at 9:08 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
I remember a similar article... didn't it also show that it would actually save more lives if *pedestrians* wore helmets instead of bicyclists?
posted by Grither at 9:08 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
And even better than safe passing laws? Governments that invest in infrastructure to provide safe and accessible infrastructure for even the most vulnerable road users.
The helmet discussion is such a tiresome aspect of cycling advoacy. Helmet efficacy is not even a guaranteed thing, as cited results seem to be affected by publication bias.
That said, I am a vocal cycling advocate and nearly universally use a helmet. But I'm constantly coaching my fellow advocates to not appear to be "anti helmet" but rather "anti helmet law", a fine but important distinction.
posted by St. Oops at 9:10 AM on March 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
The helmet discussion is such a tiresome aspect of cycling advoacy. Helmet efficacy is not even a guaranteed thing, as cited results seem to be affected by publication bias.
That said, I am a vocal cycling advocate and nearly universally use a helmet. But I'm constantly coaching my fellow advocates to not appear to be "anti helmet" but rather "anti helmet law", a fine but important distinction.
posted by St. Oops at 9:10 AM on March 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
If every motor vehicle suddenly disappeared from your city, and all transportation consisted of public transit, pedestrians, and bicycles, I still don't see how riding without a helmet is a great idea. This is a separate issue from whether helmet use should be legislated, and how laws are enforced, etc.
A person can have an accident on their bike, you don't require careless auto drivers for that to happen. Am I missing something? And seatbelts.. is this another thing about enforcement? Because how is wearing a seatbelt not a good thing?
posted by elkevelvet at 9:12 AM on March 1, 2021 [9 favorites]
A person can have an accident on their bike, you don't require careless auto drivers for that to happen. Am I missing something? And seatbelts.. is this another thing about enforcement? Because how is wearing a seatbelt not a good thing?
posted by elkevelvet at 9:12 AM on March 1, 2021 [9 favorites]
hardly anyone is going to carry a helmet around with them on the off chance that they might need/want to rent a city bike, for starters.
The rentable motor scooters here in NYC all have a little compartment behind the back seat with a helmet for the renter to use. Maybe the city bikes could add this?....
Personally, though, I think that trying to ensure bicyclists actually obey traffic laws would be the more pressing concern. Helmets are important, but so is stopping at red lights, signaling turns, signaling with a bell when you're about to overtake someone from behind, etc. ....And in my experience, it's the weekend-warrior white dudes with the pro bike outfits who are the most egregious offenders here.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:17 AM on March 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
The rentable motor scooters here in NYC all have a little compartment behind the back seat with a helmet for the renter to use. Maybe the city bikes could add this?....
Personally, though, I think that trying to ensure bicyclists actually obey traffic laws would be the more pressing concern. Helmets are important, but so is stopping at red lights, signaling turns, signaling with a bell when you're about to overtake someone from behind, etc. ....And in my experience, it's the weekend-warrior white dudes with the pro bike outfits who are the most egregious offenders here.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:17 AM on March 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
My response: "Yeah but as a car driver I have a right not to witness your brain smeared across the pavement"
Fully agree. I'd add: "Yeah, but as a first responder I have a right not to have PTSD from your `Freedom Choices`"
There is a real toll on those that have to deal with people that steadfastly refuse to do obvious safety measures for their demonstrably dangerous activities.
I'd be fully on board with removing helmet and seat-belt laws if it came with a document you sign to also refuse EMT support because you're an idiot that wants to roll the dice.
posted by mcstayinskool at 9:18 AM on March 1, 2021 [27 favorites]
Fully agree. I'd add: "Yeah, but as a first responder I have a right not to have PTSD from your `Freedom Choices`"
There is a real toll on those that have to deal with people that steadfastly refuse to do obvious safety measures for their demonstrably dangerous activities.
I'd be fully on board with removing helmet and seat-belt laws if it came with a document you sign to also refuse EMT support because you're an idiot that wants to roll the dice.
posted by mcstayinskool at 9:18 AM on March 1, 2021 [27 favorites]
I'm not a fucking idiot for cycling without a helmet.
posted by ambrosen at 9:22 AM on March 1, 2021 [32 favorites]
posted by ambrosen at 9:22 AM on March 1, 2021 [32 favorites]
Searching is failing me thus far (or I'm failing it), but I remember credible references that while absolutely helmets are a safety measure, that there's counter-intuitive secondary effects: namely, that statistically automobile drivers behave more dangerously around helmeted cyclists (crowding into their space, etc), which as its own interrelated systemic issue reduces cycling safety. Helmet laws discouraging cycling reducing numbers of them on road play right into that, of course.
Wearing A Helmet Puts Cyclists At Risk, Suggests Research
Wearing A Helmet Puts Cyclists At Risk, Suggests Research
Dr Ian Walker, a traffic psychologist from the University of Bath, used a bicycle fitted with a computer and an ultrasonic distance sensor to record data from over 2,500 overtaking motorists in Salisbury and Bristol.posted by jamjam at 9:22 AM on March 1, 2021 [30 favorites]
Dr Walker, who was struck by a bus and a truck in the course of the experiment, spent half the time wearing a cycle helmet and half the time bare-headed. He was wearing the helmet both times he was struck.
He found that drivers were as much as twice as likely to get particularly close to the bicycle when he was wearing the helmet.
Across the board, drivers passed an average of 8.5 cm (3 1/3 inches) closer with the helmet than without
Helmets are good, enforcement is going to be racist. This is the perfect example of defunding the police being the answer - if we didnt waste 10BILLION dollars annually in NYC alone imagine how many creative solutions to this problem we could fund? Giving every child a helmet? having helmet vending machines or returnable/sanitizable "borrowable" helmets located around town. (or if we wanted to think really big, fully protected bike lanes and bicycle first infrastructure)
Ticketing riders is not an effective public safety tool.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 9:23 AM on March 1, 2021 [15 favorites]
Ticketing riders is not an effective public safety tool.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 9:23 AM on March 1, 2021 [15 favorites]
"Yeah but as a car driver I have a right not to witness your brain smeared across the pavement"
This comes across to me as blaming the victim.
posted by aniola at 9:24 AM on March 1, 2021 [21 favorites]
This comes across to me as blaming the victim.
posted by aniola at 9:24 AM on March 1, 2021 [21 favorites]
Though as someone with a close relative who is a reckless motorcycle rider that flouts speeding laws in a way most people who ride bicycles can't, in another sense, I get it.
posted by aniola at 9:26 AM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by aniola at 9:26 AM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
This comes across to me as blaming the victim.
Wait until you hear about why helmets are more dangerous for cyclists. . .
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 9:26 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
Wait until you hear about why helmets are more dangerous for cyclists. . .
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 9:26 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
The one time I was in a crash with a car, my helmet didn't do me a damn lick of good because I landed on my chin (and on my teeth). A helmet doesn't prevent you getting run over by a truck, or getting side-swiped by a car making taking a right without looking.
Helmets will protect you if you're going fast, or if you're on tricky terrain when you're mountain biking. But the average person doing 10mph on a Citibike isn't really at any more risk of a head injury than the pedestrian they are (safely) passing.
I'll wear a helmet when I'm on my road bike, but I'm not going to carry one with me at all times in case I want to hop on a bike share bike to save me 10 minutes getting cross-town.
posted by thecaddy at 9:27 AM on March 1, 2021 [22 favorites]
Helmets will protect you if you're going fast, or if you're on tricky terrain when you're mountain biking. But the average person doing 10mph on a Citibike isn't really at any more risk of a head injury than the pedestrian they are (safely) passing.
I'll wear a helmet when I'm on my road bike, but I'm not going to carry one with me at all times in case I want to hop on a bike share bike to save me 10 minutes getting cross-town.
posted by thecaddy at 9:27 AM on March 1, 2021 [22 favorites]
trying to ensure bicyclists actually obey traffic laws would be the more pressing concern
Traffic laws have generally not been developed with the interests of vulnerable road users in mind, but rather to increase traffic flow for majority users. Recognizing the unique position of cyclists and other road users leads to laws that differentiate between user groups, such as the Idaho Stop law.
posted by St. Oops at 9:28 AM on March 1, 2021 [50 favorites]
Traffic laws have generally not been developed with the interests of vulnerable road users in mind, but rather to increase traffic flow for majority users. Recognizing the unique position of cyclists and other road users leads to laws that differentiate between user groups, such as the Idaho Stop law.
posted by St. Oops at 9:28 AM on March 1, 2021 [50 favorites]
My brother managed to go head over the handlebars and smack his head without any help from a car, so yes, wear a helmet if you can afford one. The evidence appears to be that the *mandating* of such isn't worth the side effects of opening up a venue for racist policing and limiting the usage of bicycles, but the snotty remarks above aren't impressing me. Be a grownup, wear a fucking helmet without having someone force you to, and spare the people having to clean up the mess.
posted by tavella at 9:28 AM on March 1, 2021 [14 favorites]
posted by tavella at 9:28 AM on March 1, 2021 [14 favorites]
I think it's okay that there's a big difference between how we legislate safety for a 2-ton vehicle that can go 90 mph versus how we legislate bike safety. I don't think it's hypocritical to require seat belts (and motorcycle helmets) while leaving bike helmets up to the rider (still a good idea, my brother's life was saved by a bike helmet).
posted by rikschell at 9:29 AM on March 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 9:29 AM on March 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
"Yeah but as a car driver I have a right not to witness your brain smeared across the pavement"
Great! Please join us in advocating for dedicated street space for cyclists, lower speed limits for cars in shared areas, and enforced penalties for dangerous driver behavior!
posted by thecaddy at 9:29 AM on March 1, 2021 [51 favorites]
Great! Please join us in advocating for dedicated street space for cyclists, lower speed limits for cars in shared areas, and enforced penalties for dangerous driver behavior!
posted by thecaddy at 9:29 AM on March 1, 2021 [51 favorites]
A person can have an accident on their bike, you don't require careless auto drivers for that to happen. Am I missing something?
Biking with a helmet is always safer than biking without a helmet. But biking in a low traffic area does not start out risky, so a helmet doesn't move the needle on safety very much. I wear one, but even without one my bike trips are safer than the average car trip.
In quantitative terms, if we apply some of the logic here, I'm sure strangers on the internet would have more justification for haranguing me about my weight & diet than whether or not I used a helmet on quiet roads.
posted by mark k at 9:31 AM on March 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Biking with a helmet is always safer than biking without a helmet. But biking in a low traffic area does not start out risky, so a helmet doesn't move the needle on safety very much. I wear one, but even without one my bike trips are safer than the average car trip.
In quantitative terms, if we apply some of the logic here, I'm sure strangers on the internet would have more justification for haranguing me about my weight & diet than whether or not I used a helmet on quiet roads.
posted by mark k at 9:31 AM on March 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
I still don't see how riding without a helmet is a great idea.
Helmets are useful for what they are designed to do, which is to protect a rider's head during a fall from a height of roughly 5-7 feet to a hard surface. For the road warrior, this is a great tool - there are plenty of accidents involving people racing (officially or not) and hitting potholes/obstacles/other cyclists in the pack and going over the handlebars. This is what a helmet is designed to protect against.
A helmet will not help you if you get right-hooked by a driver not checking their mirrors. A helmet will not help you if you get doored. Head injuries are exceedingly rare when riding step-through (formerly known as "women's") bicycles at slow speeds, such as when you're on a bike share because a sudden stop will not send you to the ground but off your saddle into the gap in the frame where you can more easily put a foot down to arrest your fall.
Bicycle helmets do not protect against concussions.
The risk in urban cycling is almost completely due to the interactions between motor vehicles and cyclists, which helmets really do nothing to protect against.
Fun fact - did you know standard bike helmets have expiration dates? The foam core that most helmets are built around will degrade over time and with exposure to light and air, so you're supposed to replace your helmet every three years or so.
posted by backseatpilot at 9:31 AM on March 1, 2021 [42 favorites]
Helmets are useful for what they are designed to do, which is to protect a rider's head during a fall from a height of roughly 5-7 feet to a hard surface. For the road warrior, this is a great tool - there are plenty of accidents involving people racing (officially or not) and hitting potholes/obstacles/other cyclists in the pack and going over the handlebars. This is what a helmet is designed to protect against.
A helmet will not help you if you get right-hooked by a driver not checking their mirrors. A helmet will not help you if you get doored. Head injuries are exceedingly rare when riding step-through (formerly known as "women's") bicycles at slow speeds, such as when you're on a bike share because a sudden stop will not send you to the ground but off your saddle into the gap in the frame where you can more easily put a foot down to arrest your fall.
Bicycle helmets do not protect against concussions.
The risk in urban cycling is almost completely due to the interactions between motor vehicles and cyclists, which helmets really do nothing to protect against.
Fun fact - did you know standard bike helmets have expiration dates? The foam core that most helmets are built around will degrade over time and with exposure to light and air, so you're supposed to replace your helmet every three years or so.
posted by backseatpilot at 9:31 AM on March 1, 2021 [42 favorites]
After a year of seeing how big anti-mask wearing became and how much conservative media made fun of Obama for wearing a bicycle helmet, I'm a little skeptical that dropping helmet laws will have the intended benefits stated and be without negative side effects on it's own. It sounds to me that there's a lot of behaviors/issues that helmets may nudge a bit in one direction or the other, but they aren't necessarily the source. There are ways to increase bicycling, eliminate racist enforcement of safety laws, and make car drivers be more aware without having to take away the need to wear helmets.
posted by FJT at 9:34 AM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by FJT at 9:34 AM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
The risk in urban cycling is almost completely due to the interactions between motor vehicles and cyclists
This strikes me as true, although I have no data to support it -- but let's not entirely discount the effects of wheel-bending pot holes and pavement cracks. The worst bike accident I personally witnessed was a woman who struck her head on the curb after a crack grabbed her front wheel and bent it. Yay Chicago streets. Just about everyone on the right side of the bus I was on exclaimed simultaneously when she went down.
I sometimes still hope she's OK.
posted by aramaic at 9:42 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
This strikes me as true, although I have no data to support it -- but let's not entirely discount the effects of wheel-bending pot holes and pavement cracks. The worst bike accident I personally witnessed was a woman who struck her head on the curb after a crack grabbed her front wheel and bent it. Yay Chicago streets. Just about everyone on the right side of the bus I was on exclaimed simultaneously when she went down.
I sometimes still hope she's OK.
posted by aramaic at 9:42 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
I ride a recumbent-- should I still be mandated to wear a helmet when it's unlikely to provide me any real benefit?
posted by drstrangelove at 9:43 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by drstrangelove at 9:43 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
A helmet will not help you if you get doored
My helmet was the only thing that kept a door from swiping my ear off of my skull, when I was doored by an SUV. I got 11 stitches to hold my ear together, as it was.
I've also been right-hooked, the helmet protected my skull from the car frame when I hit it.
Doors of SUVs are head-height. Helmets protect your head from doors. It is utter nonsense to protest this fact.
Signed, my brain.
posted by Dashy at 9:45 AM on March 1, 2021 [33 favorites]
My helmet was the only thing that kept a door from swiping my ear off of my skull, when I was doored by an SUV. I got 11 stitches to hold my ear together, as it was.
I've also been right-hooked, the helmet protected my skull from the car frame when I hit it.
Doors of SUVs are head-height. Helmets protect your head from doors. It is utter nonsense to protest this fact.
Signed, my brain.
posted by Dashy at 9:45 AM on March 1, 2021 [33 favorites]
I see this more akin to the seatbelt law.
I think it goes beyond that: invasive motoring laws are often justified by the aphorism that "driving is a privilege, not a right". Which is basically true, but transportation of some form is actually a right. And in a country where public transportation isn't usually very good, and the presumption of cars means everything is so spread out beyond walking distance, bicycles often end up being the transport-of-last-resort for people who can't effectively exercise their rights any other way. Helmet laws, as a pragmatic world-as-we-try-to-live-it way, are closer to interfering with fundamental rights than seatbelt laws.
The risk in urban cycling is almost completely due to the interactions between motor vehicles and cyclists, which helmets really do nothing to protect against.
Indeed the one injury I've gotten in 20 years of bike commuting was a dooring, my leather glove was the most important protective equipment saving me from a worse fate, and my insurance company did more to enforce any sort of 'justice' than the traffic police were ever interested in.
posted by traveler_ at 9:46 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
I think it goes beyond that: invasive motoring laws are often justified by the aphorism that "driving is a privilege, not a right". Which is basically true, but transportation of some form is actually a right. And in a country where public transportation isn't usually very good, and the presumption of cars means everything is so spread out beyond walking distance, bicycles often end up being the transport-of-last-resort for people who can't effectively exercise their rights any other way. Helmet laws, as a pragmatic world-as-we-try-to-live-it way, are closer to interfering with fundamental rights than seatbelt laws.
The risk in urban cycling is almost completely due to the interactions between motor vehicles and cyclists, which helmets really do nothing to protect against.
Indeed the one injury I've gotten in 20 years of bike commuting was a dooring, my leather glove was the most important protective equipment saving me from a worse fate, and my insurance company did more to enforce any sort of 'justice' than the traffic police were ever interested in.
posted by traveler_ at 9:46 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
Thank god. Enforcement of 'safety' by ticketing people for bike violations is so fricking racially biased.
a 2015 investigation by the Tampa Bay Times found that 80% of the 2,504 bike citations issued by the Tampa Bay Police Department were issued to black bikers, despite black people making up just 25% of the city’s population. (source)posted by spamandkimchi at 9:46 AM on March 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
I hope every person who expects cyclists to wear helmets because injuries also expects drivers to wear helmets for the same reason
posted by RobinofFrocksley at 9:50 AM on March 1, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by RobinofFrocksley at 9:50 AM on March 1, 2021 [12 favorites]
... at least until it's safe to get around without having to interact with motor vehicles. :D
the time I cracked my helmet (but not my skull) in a comparatively minor accident, a motor vehicle had zero to do with it. Hearing people argue against wearing bike helmets reminds me of all the arguments I used to hear against seat belts. Smart people just not making sense ...
posted by philip-random at 9:52 AM on March 1, 2021 [14 favorites]
the time I cracked my helmet (but not my skull) in a comparatively minor accident, a motor vehicle had zero to do with it. Hearing people argue against wearing bike helmets reminds me of all the arguments I used to hear against seat belts. Smart people just not making sense ...
posted by philip-random at 9:52 AM on March 1, 2021 [14 favorites]
drstrangelove: aniola, I was going to mention the Dutch model. That's their philosophy, although I've seen enough GoPro videos of cyclists actually riding in traffic over there to see that their motorists aren't much better than the ones in the United States.
I live here, and no, that is not true. I have spoken to enough people who tried riding bikes over in the USA, and they told me it's a world of difference. Our motorists are MUCH more used to sharing the road with two-wheelers. And of course there is the relevant fact that we have much better bike infrastructure.
I ride my bike pretty much every day. I never put any videos of it on the internet. Because nothing spectacular happens, so why would I show you a vid of my uneventful ride? In other words, the information you've been seeing is not neutral.
Here in the Netherlands, helmets are for children and for people riding fast (on trial bikes or sports bikes). Some older people wear them, too. We do not see a lot of head injuries caused by biking.
What we do see is a lot of accidents happening to seniors on electric bikes, but that's a topic for another thread.
posted by Too-Ticky at 9:53 AM on March 1, 2021 [25 favorites]
I live here, and no, that is not true. I have spoken to enough people who tried riding bikes over in the USA, and they told me it's a world of difference. Our motorists are MUCH more used to sharing the road with two-wheelers. And of course there is the relevant fact that we have much better bike infrastructure.
I ride my bike pretty much every day. I never put any videos of it on the internet. Because nothing spectacular happens, so why would I show you a vid of my uneventful ride? In other words, the information you've been seeing is not neutral.
Here in the Netherlands, helmets are for children and for people riding fast (on trial bikes or sports bikes). Some older people wear them, too. We do not see a lot of head injuries caused by biking.
What we do see is a lot of accidents happening to seniors on electric bikes, but that's a topic for another thread.
posted by Too-Ticky at 9:53 AM on March 1, 2021 [25 favorites]
This group's call is utterly bass-ackward and tail-dog-wagging.
If you want to protest racist enforcement of laws, go after the racism and the racists, not the laws. We can't erase every law out there just because it is badly enforced, that's just silly and self-defeating.
If you want to protest helmets, find a helmet-motivated reason for doing so. I don't agree with these people on that angle at all. They're trying to leverage racism into their issue, and I find that reprehensible.
Attack racism for what it is and who carries it forward.
posted by Dashy at 9:54 AM on March 1, 2021 [15 favorites]
If you want to protest racist enforcement of laws, go after the racism and the racists, not the laws. We can't erase every law out there just because it is badly enforced, that's just silly and self-defeating.
If you want to protest helmets, find a helmet-motivated reason for doing so. I don't agree with these people on that angle at all. They're trying to leverage racism into their issue, and I find that reprehensible.
Attack racism for what it is and who carries it forward.
posted by Dashy at 9:54 AM on March 1, 2021 [15 favorites]
Mod note: Ambrosen and JackFlash, now's a good time to hold off on commenting in this thread any further. Getting into scuffles with other users and personally attacking/insulting each other will not be tolerated. Please be considerate of others who are reading and participating here.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 9:54 AM on March 1, 2021 [9 favorites]
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 9:54 AM on March 1, 2021 [9 favorites]
Yeah "bike helmets" is definitely something MeFi does not do well. Calmly cite all the studies you want, shouted anecdata wins the day.
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:57 AM on March 1, 2021 [19 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 9:57 AM on March 1, 2021 [19 favorites]
Too-Ticky
That's good to know. I was hoping those videos I saw were exceptions to the rule.
posted by drstrangelove at 9:59 AM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
That's good to know. I was hoping those videos I saw were exceptions to the rule.
posted by drstrangelove at 9:59 AM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
But the average person doing 10mph on a Citibike isn't really at any more risk of a head injury than the pedestrian they are (safely) passing.
this runs contrary to my experience (see my comment above). Reminds me of the fact that when it comes to driving a car, the closer people are to home, the more likely they are to let their guard down, do something incautious, have a bad accident. It is safer to ride a low speed, no question. But accidents still happen. And high school physics reminds me that if you pile drive head first into a cement sidewalk at 10mph you're actually going to take a heavier hit than if you do it at 20mph. Because at 20mph your forward momentum will be mitigating some of that gravity ... or something like that.
posted by philip-random at 10:04 AM on March 1, 2021
this runs contrary to my experience (see my comment above). Reminds me of the fact that when it comes to driving a car, the closer people are to home, the more likely they are to let their guard down, do something incautious, have a bad accident. It is safer to ride a low speed, no question. But accidents still happen. And high school physics reminds me that if you pile drive head first into a cement sidewalk at 10mph you're actually going to take a heavier hit than if you do it at 20mph. Because at 20mph your forward momentum will be mitigating some of that gravity ... or something like that.
posted by philip-random at 10:04 AM on March 1, 2021
This group's call is utterly bass-ackward and tail-dog-wagging.
[ . . . ]
We can't erase every law out there just because it is badly enforced, that's just silly and self-defeating.
Again, (adult) bicycle helmet laws are already the exception, not the rule, in the US. A lot of energy on this thread arguing for the important roles these laws play, when they are so unimportant that they don't exist most places and most posters have never noticed their absence in their own locales.
posted by mark k at 10:06 AM on March 1, 2021 [9 favorites]
[ . . . ]
We can't erase every law out there just because it is badly enforced, that's just silly and self-defeating.
Again, (adult) bicycle helmet laws are already the exception, not the rule, in the US. A lot of energy on this thread arguing for the important roles these laws play, when they are so unimportant that they don't exist most places and most posters have never noticed their absence in their own locales.
posted by mark k at 10:06 AM on March 1, 2021 [9 favorites]
No to bike helmet laws, yes to bike helmets.
Of course helmets will not protect you from being doored, or from an accident that would leave your brains smeared on the road (I've seen it, not pretty).
But I am so happy I was waring my helmet when I took a spill on wet asphalt and slid on the floor long enough that the pavement ate through the helmets shell and a few centimeters into the foam. The plastic and foam I left on the road could have been my scalp and maybe bits of skull. I was also lucky that my pants got twisted and my wallet took most of the road rash on my hip.
Or the time I hit a branch with my helmet on a fast downhill. It knocked me off the bike and I got some road rash, but the small branches embedded on the helmet would likely have scalped me.
And the less dramatic but more concerning time when in avoiding a right turning car I laid down the bike and hit my head on the curb. The helmet looked fine, I still replaced it, but I lost consciousness for a few seconds and it took me a few minutes to recover my balance enough to keep riding. I can only imagine that if whatever amount of energy the helmet managed to absorb and whatever amount the g-force was reduced had gone straight into my skull I may have gotten a worse TBI.
Of course I love the feeling of riding fast with no helmet, the wind in my hair, the feeling of freedom. I love it even more when it is raining lightly. I do int once in a while, the way I take other risks. Helmets are expensive, uncomfortable, and take away from the joy of cycling.
But in my own case a helmet has saved me from 2 scalpings and probably some traumatic brain injuries.
I won't speak for anyone else, but in my case I would be a fucking idiot for regularly riding without a helmet.
posted by Dr. Curare at 10:08 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
Of course helmets will not protect you from being doored, or from an accident that would leave your brains smeared on the road (I've seen it, not pretty).
But I am so happy I was waring my helmet when I took a spill on wet asphalt and slid on the floor long enough that the pavement ate through the helmets shell and a few centimeters into the foam. The plastic and foam I left on the road could have been my scalp and maybe bits of skull. I was also lucky that my pants got twisted and my wallet took most of the road rash on my hip.
Or the time I hit a branch with my helmet on a fast downhill. It knocked me off the bike and I got some road rash, but the small branches embedded on the helmet would likely have scalped me.
And the less dramatic but more concerning time when in avoiding a right turning car I laid down the bike and hit my head on the curb. The helmet looked fine, I still replaced it, but I lost consciousness for a few seconds and it took me a few minutes to recover my balance enough to keep riding. I can only imagine that if whatever amount of energy the helmet managed to absorb and whatever amount the g-force was reduced had gone straight into my skull I may have gotten a worse TBI.
Of course I love the feeling of riding fast with no helmet, the wind in my hair, the feeling of freedom. I love it even more when it is raining lightly. I do int once in a while, the way I take other risks. Helmets are expensive, uncomfortable, and take away from the joy of cycling.
But in my own case a helmet has saved me from 2 scalpings and probably some traumatic brain injuries.
I won't speak for anyone else, but in my case I would be a fucking idiot for regularly riding without a helmet.
posted by Dr. Curare at 10:08 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
A difference between cars and bikes: The public health benefit of biking qua biking is substantial even when you figure in whatever injuries would have been prevented by helmets. The mere fact of riding in a car does not provide a public health benefit.
Laws aren't about making every individual the bestest individual ever; laws are [actually about letting the state fuck with you, but...] supposed to be about making a society where the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. This is why drug-testing benefits recipients is stupid - sure, maybe there are a tiny percentage of heroin-users who can be [punished] redirected to methadone clinics, etc, but the cost, intrusiveness and racist enforcement mean that as a society we're much, much worse off even if a tiny percentage of drug addicts become better off.
So it might be extremely cost-effective to enforce seat-belt law when you take things in total but extremely cost-ineffective to enforce helmet law.
(Also there's a mechanism question - it's easy to see when a cyclist isn't wearing a helmet and hard to see when people aren't wearing seatbelts. So there's obviously going to be lots and lots of opportunity to fuck with cyclists that isn't there with cars.)
posted by Frowner at 10:08 AM on March 1, 2021 [18 favorites]
Laws aren't about making every individual the bestest individual ever; laws are [actually about letting the state fuck with you, but...] supposed to be about making a society where the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. This is why drug-testing benefits recipients is stupid - sure, maybe there are a tiny percentage of heroin-users who can be [punished] redirected to methadone clinics, etc, but the cost, intrusiveness and racist enforcement mean that as a society we're much, much worse off even if a tiny percentage of drug addicts become better off.
So it might be extremely cost-effective to enforce seat-belt law when you take things in total but extremely cost-ineffective to enforce helmet law.
(Also there's a mechanism question - it's easy to see when a cyclist isn't wearing a helmet and hard to see when people aren't wearing seatbelts. So there's obviously going to be lots and lots of opportunity to fuck with cyclists that isn't there with cars.)
posted by Frowner at 10:08 AM on March 1, 2021 [18 favorites]
Again, (adult) bicycle helmet laws are already the exception, not the rule, in the US.
Neat! I figured they were more common because when I lived in Portland, you had to wear one if you were going into Washington, and when I lived in Queensland, they were required.
posted by aniola at 10:11 AM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Neat! I figured they were more common because when I lived in Portland, you had to wear one if you were going into Washington, and when I lived in Queensland, they were required.
posted by aniola at 10:11 AM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Maybe I’m terribly naive, but this strikes me as more of a “corrupt police” problem than a “bad laws” problem. And we already know we need to do something about the corrupt police, as reluctant as the white establishment is to admit it.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:11 AM on March 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by The Underpants Monster at 10:11 AM on March 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
This is definitely coming across as a conflation of the efficacy of some laws, plus how some laws are enforced, plus the economics of owning and replacing bicycle helmets. At the end of the day, the argument that somehow a helmet makes you less safe? Not buying it.
posted by elkevelvet at 10:14 AM on March 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
posted by elkevelvet at 10:14 AM on March 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
When motorcycle helmets became enforced, some biker was complaining to me, "If I want to take chances with MY body, that's MY right."
Wonder how he feels about decriminalizing jaywalking, something that can put his own risk tolerance in another person's hands.
I don't have an opinion on helmets, even though I wear one, because I simply don't want to be involved in intractable fights.
I had a self-inflicted crash a few years ago that I think would have been head-serious if I hadn't been wearing a helmet, but I can't be sure. I have a flash of concern when I see helmetless riders out on the road, but I have to admit that part of it is wishing I had the nerve to loose my free-flowing locks to the wind.
posted by rhizome at 10:15 AM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Wonder how he feels about decriminalizing jaywalking, something that can put his own risk tolerance in another person's hands.
I don't have an opinion on helmets, even though I wear one, because I simply don't want to be involved in intractable fights.
I had a self-inflicted crash a few years ago that I think would have been head-serious if I hadn't been wearing a helmet, but I can't be sure. I have a flash of concern when I see helmetless riders out on the road, but I have to admit that part of it is wishing I had the nerve to loose my free-flowing locks to the wind.
posted by rhizome at 10:15 AM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
As an urban cyclist in majority-black cities for the last 20 years, I was surprised to learn that bicycle helmet laws are enforced anywhere, although not surprised to learn against whom they're enforced.
I do have the rare distinction of being the only person I've ever met to lose his driver's license due to a bicycle moving violation (it was in Oakland, at a T stop. I didn't take the ticket seriously, moved addresses, and discovered too late that I'd received a FTA warrant. Didn't have a car at the time, took me years to bother fixing it).
As a native of Colorado (albeit one who hasn't lived there in the aforementioned 20 years), I feel like the history of Colorado's motorcycle helmet laws may be somewhat interesting in this context.
posted by aspersioncast at 10:17 AM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
I do have the rare distinction of being the only person I've ever met to lose his driver's license due to a bicycle moving violation (it was in Oakland, at a T stop. I didn't take the ticket seriously, moved addresses, and discovered too late that I'd received a FTA warrant. Didn't have a car at the time, took me years to bother fixing it).
As a native of Colorado (albeit one who hasn't lived there in the aforementioned 20 years), I feel like the history of Colorado's motorcycle helmet laws may be somewhat interesting in this context.
posted by aspersioncast at 10:17 AM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Wonder how he feels about decriminalizing jaywalking,
I am from Boston. This sentence surpasseth all understanding.
posted by Melismata at 10:19 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
I am from Boston. This sentence surpasseth all understanding.
posted by Melismata at 10:19 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
Helmet laws in my city prevented bike shares from being enacted, so the helmet law had to be removed to even allow bike shares.
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:20 AM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by The_Vegetables at 10:20 AM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
Yes, seatbelt laws and helmet laws impinge on personal freedoms. The argument for the laws is that choosing to not take those basic safety measures voluntarily ends up imposing excess costs on everyone else . There is now pretty strong evidence that seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmet laws do reduce fatalities and injuries to the wearer and reduce ancillary costs to society as a result. The scales end up balancing out to favor the collective interest over personal freedom.
With bicycle helmet laws, the calculus is different for multiple reasons. Since the net effect is counterproductive to the goal of increased safety, it’s reasonable to eliminate bicycle helmet laws.
But you should still wear a helmet.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 10:25 AM on March 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
With bicycle helmet laws, the calculus is different for multiple reasons. Since the net effect is counterproductive to the goal of increased safety, it’s reasonable to eliminate bicycle helmet laws.
But you should still wear a helmet.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 10:25 AM on March 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
The bike helmet stuff is complicated by Seattle's problems with racism, homelessness, and poorly-managed growth.
The Seattle PD has been under federal oversight since 2012, due to officers beating and killing Black and Latino people. The police chief "retired" last summer because she would not accept criticism for protecting dirty cops and for gassing city residents in the middle of a pandemic for a deadly respiratory illness. While FOX News was photoshopping pictures of the protests, families whose homes were unlucky enough to be located in the middle of the demonstrations were holed up and covering their babies' eyes, noses, and mouths with wet towels, to minimize exposure.
It's not entirely a policing problem, but there is also the matter of asking officers to perform roles they are not trained or equipped to do. Homelessness was declared a state of emergency in 2015, but it has grown since and particularly during the pandemic, with tents lining a number of city and neighborhood streets. This overlaps with drug use and mental health issues. Police have been tasked with being social workers, and they use existing laws (and a state-sanctioned monopoly on violence) for that task, because those are pretty much the only tools in the toolbox that they have.
There's also the problem of automobile traffic, which has gotten out of control over the last decade as the tech industry helped the city's population boom. Bike lanes and public transit are expensive, and there are lobbyists and assorted grifters who work the elections to get related projects shelved or defunded, just as Cascade Bicycle Club does its own local political advocacy in favor of its agendas — which I agree with, as far as encouraging less driving in favor of cycling.
All of which is to say that if you bike you really should wear a helmet, because it will protect your delicate brain from serious injury. But the situation in Seattle, specifically, is maybe a bit more than just about helmets and related laws.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:37 AM on March 1, 2021 [12 favorites]
The Seattle PD has been under federal oversight since 2012, due to officers beating and killing Black and Latino people. The police chief "retired" last summer because she would not accept criticism for protecting dirty cops and for gassing city residents in the middle of a pandemic for a deadly respiratory illness. While FOX News was photoshopping pictures of the protests, families whose homes were unlucky enough to be located in the middle of the demonstrations were holed up and covering their babies' eyes, noses, and mouths with wet towels, to minimize exposure.
It's not entirely a policing problem, but there is also the matter of asking officers to perform roles they are not trained or equipped to do. Homelessness was declared a state of emergency in 2015, but it has grown since and particularly during the pandemic, with tents lining a number of city and neighborhood streets. This overlaps with drug use and mental health issues. Police have been tasked with being social workers, and they use existing laws (and a state-sanctioned monopoly on violence) for that task, because those are pretty much the only tools in the toolbox that they have.
There's also the problem of automobile traffic, which has gotten out of control over the last decade as the tech industry helped the city's population boom. Bike lanes and public transit are expensive, and there are lobbyists and assorted grifters who work the elections to get related projects shelved or defunded, just as Cascade Bicycle Club does its own local political advocacy in favor of its agendas — which I agree with, as far as encouraging less driving in favor of cycling.
All of which is to say that if you bike you really should wear a helmet, because it will protect your delicate brain from serious injury. But the situation in Seattle, specifically, is maybe a bit more than just about helmets and related laws.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:37 AM on March 1, 2021 [12 favorites]
I was a year round cycle commuter in Boston for over 3 years. Dead of winter? Yes I cycled and/or ran. I stopped when a Buick hit me on a sunny warm day in May and crushed T12, spinal body fracture, no edema, no nerve impingement. I cite my miraculous lack of other injuries on two pieces of equipment: one an internal frame backpack that I was wearing, and the other my helmet.
Helmets should be law. They are the one of the very few safety pieces of equipment cyclists have. If you want to make it fair: put a minimum quota on helmet tickets for white people.
posted by Nanukthedog at 10:41 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
Helmets should be law. They are the one of the very few safety pieces of equipment cyclists have. If you want to make it fair: put a minimum quota on helmet tickets for white people.
posted by Nanukthedog at 10:41 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
I'm someone else who is much in favor of wearing helmets (including experiences where the helmet saved me from serious injury if not death), but has shifted his opinion somewhat about mandatory helmet laws. More cyclists on the roads equals better awareness on the part of drivers about driving around them--I'm still convinced that a significant percentage of drivers who hit cyclists didn't really see them, in terms of factoring in the speed at which they were traveling and likely behavior--so anything that discourages people from cycling makes the experience more dangerous for those who do.
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:46 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by Halloween Jack at 10:46 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
When motorcycle helmets became enforced, some biker was complaining to me, "If I want to take chances with MY body, that's MY right."
Strangely enough, there are arguments for the collective public good to be made in no-helmet laws in both cases!
But compared to the case of bicycle riding, where helmet laws can reduce usage enough that the aggregate health benefits of cycling to society - better physical fitness overall, fewer cardiovascular problems, and so forth - in the case of motorcycles the case against helmets is that motorcyclists who don't wear helmets are a reliable source of donated organs. That's why ER docs call them "donorcycles".
posted by mhoye at 10:51 AM on March 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Strangely enough, there are arguments for the collective public good to be made in no-helmet laws in both cases!
But compared to the case of bicycle riding, where helmet laws can reduce usage enough that the aggregate health benefits of cycling to society - better physical fitness overall, fewer cardiovascular problems, and so forth - in the case of motorcycles the case against helmets is that motorcyclists who don't wear helmets are a reliable source of donated organs. That's why ER docs call them "donorcycles".
posted by mhoye at 10:51 AM on March 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
If you want to make it fair: put a minimum quota on helmet tickets for white people.
Just subsidize helmets period. If you're buying a new bike, you get a helmet for free. It gets more complicated with used bikes and maybe would have to work though some kind of advocacy group.
posted by philip-random at 10:52 AM on March 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Just subsidize helmets period. If you're buying a new bike, you get a helmet for free. It gets more complicated with used bikes and maybe would have to work though some kind of advocacy group.
posted by philip-random at 10:52 AM on March 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
I'm still convinced that a significant percentage of drivers who hit cyclists didn't really see them, in terms of factoring in the speed at which they were traveling and likely behavior
Should drivers be required to establish some kind of mindfulness practice as part of their driver's license requirements?
posted by aniola at 11:10 AM on March 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Should drivers be required to establish some kind of mindfulness practice as part of their driver's license requirements?
posted by aniola at 11:10 AM on March 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Just subsidize helmets period. If you're buying a new bike, you get a helmet for free.
Yep, they should come with bike bells and pedal-powered bike lights, too.
posted by aniola at 11:11 AM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
Yep, they should come with bike bells and pedal-powered bike lights, too.
posted by aniola at 11:11 AM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
I think there's a real problem between people's preconceptions of "the bicycle" as an exercise toy for weekend warriors who are invariably spandex-clad, and the role of bicycles as a vehicle of last resort for people in rough situations.
I've avoided bringing up the analogy with voter id laws for fear of derailing but I do think it's apropos enough to merit: some people will live in situations where they have no personal experience of how such a thing could possibly be racist, or any sort of real burden at all, and if it is a burden then it's easily fixable by some extra policy clause or something, but certainly if there's any racism there or any other bias problems that's not the law's fault it's just an accident and we should go after the other things that are making it a problem.
I encourage those people to recognize the limitations of their experiences.
posted by traveler_ at 11:11 AM on March 1, 2021 [30 favorites]
I've avoided bringing up the analogy with voter id laws for fear of derailing but I do think it's apropos enough to merit: some people will live in situations where they have no personal experience of how such a thing could possibly be racist, or any sort of real burden at all, and if it is a burden then it's easily fixable by some extra policy clause or something, but certainly if there's any racism there or any other bias problems that's not the law's fault it's just an accident and we should go after the other things that are making it a problem.
I encourage those people to recognize the limitations of their experiences.
posted by traveler_ at 11:11 AM on March 1, 2021 [30 favorites]
I get what Cascade is trying to accomplish here, but I wonder if they wouldn't accomplish more with a bit more of an intersectional approach, working with homeless advocacy groups and groups like BLM to continue the calls for an overhaul of the way policing occurs in Seattle.
posted by OHenryPacey at 11:12 AM on March 1, 2021
posted by OHenryPacey at 11:12 AM on March 1, 2021
Enforcing bike helmet wearing is counter-productive. Every study shows that. There is no evidence that enforcing bike helmets actually has any positive outcomes, and lots of evidence for the negative ones (racist enforcement, reduced cycling). This is pretty well known, at this point.
Encouraging bike helmet wearing, through education and subsidies, is a great idea. Wearing a helmet is the smart thing to do, even if it only helps in certain kinds of accidents, like the time my wheel got caught in a tram line or the time I clipped a bench. I have to ride on cobbles and roads with large potholes, sometimes in the rain, I wear a helmet because the chance of me skidding out is not that close to zero.
I am actually confused that either of these points are controversial, actually.
(Re: cyclists in helmets and cars, a similar thing happens with long hair. If you have visible long hair drivers will give you more space, because they assume you are a woman and therefore more likely to be incompetent I guess. Asshole drivers gonna asshole, the solution is to address their attitude and create better spaces for bikes through urban planning, not abandoning helmets).
posted by stillnocturnal at 11:15 AM on March 1, 2021 [15 favorites]
Encouraging bike helmet wearing, through education and subsidies, is a great idea. Wearing a helmet is the smart thing to do, even if it only helps in certain kinds of accidents, like the time my wheel got caught in a tram line or the time I clipped a bench. I have to ride on cobbles and roads with large potholes, sometimes in the rain, I wear a helmet because the chance of me skidding out is not that close to zero.
I am actually confused that either of these points are controversial, actually.
(Re: cyclists in helmets and cars, a similar thing happens with long hair. If you have visible long hair drivers will give you more space, because they assume you are a woman and therefore more likely to be incompetent I guess. Asshole drivers gonna asshole, the solution is to address their attitude and create better spaces for bikes through urban planning, not abandoning helmets).
posted by stillnocturnal at 11:15 AM on March 1, 2021 [15 favorites]
I used to not wear a helmet. On my way to work at age 22, I was making a turn onto a fortunately quiet side street and did not see the patch of gravel; the next thing that happened was a planet hit me in the head.
I was mostly annoyed that I was going to be late for work, and that I had bent my bike’s front wheel (and broken my glasses). I peered around for a pay phone to call work but couldn’t spot one, so I hoisted my wrecked bike on my shoulder and knocked on someone’s door to ask if I could use their phone.
“To call an ambulance? We can drive you to the hospital.”
“No, I just need to call my work to let them know I’ll be late.”
“Mister... I can see your skull though your forehead right now.”
He drove me to the hospital, where the ER people spent 45 minutes stitching my forehead shut and patching up a medley of abrasions and contusions down one side of my body, including fishing chunks of what had been the lens of my glasses out from the orbit of my eye. I was off work for three weeks, and to this day when I raise my eyebrows you can better see the long scar that runs through one eyebrow and down past my eye.
Don’t be like 22-year-old me. Wear a helmet.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 11:18 AM on March 1, 2021 [17 favorites]
I was mostly annoyed that I was going to be late for work, and that I had bent my bike’s front wheel (and broken my glasses). I peered around for a pay phone to call work but couldn’t spot one, so I hoisted my wrecked bike on my shoulder and knocked on someone’s door to ask if I could use their phone.
“To call an ambulance? We can drive you to the hospital.”
“No, I just need to call my work to let them know I’ll be late.”
“Mister... I can see your skull though your forehead right now.”
He drove me to the hospital, where the ER people spent 45 minutes stitching my forehead shut and patching up a medley of abrasions and contusions down one side of my body, including fishing chunks of what had been the lens of my glasses out from the orbit of my eye. I was off work for three weeks, and to this day when I raise my eyebrows you can better see the long scar that runs through one eyebrow and down past my eye.
Don’t be like 22-year-old me. Wear a helmet.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 11:18 AM on March 1, 2021 [17 favorites]
Cycling is less dangerous than traveling by automobile: we've just normalized the bloodbath that is motor vehicle transport. Let's focus on measures that make streets safer for everyone. Helmet laws exist in practice to harass marginalized populations and they are bad.
posted by 3j0hn at 11:19 AM on March 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
posted by 3j0hn at 11:19 AM on March 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
I am actually confused that either of these points are controversial, actually.
It’s not controversial as in, both sides have good points and the issue is unresolved. It’s controversial in the sense that car drivers enjoy a position of structural privilege and would be mildly inconvenienced by more cyclists on the roads, and therefore are well served by having the “controversy” rage on rather than cede a few feet of lane to address a structural inequity.
posted by mhoye at 11:19 AM on March 1, 2021 [22 favorites]
It’s not controversial as in, both sides have good points and the issue is unresolved. It’s controversial in the sense that car drivers enjoy a position of structural privilege and would be mildly inconvenienced by more cyclists on the roads, and therefore are well served by having the “controversy” rage on rather than cede a few feet of lane to address a structural inequity.
posted by mhoye at 11:19 AM on March 1, 2021 [22 favorites]
I'm just old enough to remember smokers saying that cigarette filters would encourage get people to smoke more, looking for the same effect from the tars filtered out; and that people smoking pre-made cigarettes would lose the calming ritual of preparing a roll-your-own; later, that high tobacco excise was encouraging an underground market in possibly-toxic tobacco and certainly unfiltered cigarettes; later yet that Australia's horribly graphic health warnings on cigarette packets would just make smoking seem cool.
Obviously the two things aren't the same, but the defensive reaction seems similar. Yes, there are a bunch of other things that should be done to make cycling safer; but there's a reason most Western countries seem to have helmet laws for cyclists.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:20 AM on March 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Obviously the two things aren't the same, but the defensive reaction seems similar. Yes, there are a bunch of other things that should be done to make cycling safer; but there's a reason most Western countries seem to have helmet laws for cyclists.
posted by Joe in Australia at 11:20 AM on March 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Obviously the two things aren't the same, but the defensive reaction seems similar.
"Aren't the same" is a galaxy-level understatement. Smoking is something that is bad in almost every aspect and those were bad-faith arguments made by a predatory industry. Comparing those to good faith arguments by cycling advocates is border-line offensive.
posted by 3j0hn at 11:28 AM on March 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
"Aren't the same" is a galaxy-level understatement. Smoking is something that is bad in almost every aspect and those were bad-faith arguments made by a predatory industry. Comparing those to good faith arguments by cycling advocates is border-line offensive.
posted by 3j0hn at 11:28 AM on March 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
there's a reason most Western countries seem to have helmet laws for cyclists.
Citation needed. For adults, I think there are like three other countries where bike helmets are mandatory: Argentina, Australia and New Zealand
Some Canadian provinces I think?
And there have been a bunch of articles about how the laws in Australia reduce bike riding, like this one
posted by stillnocturnal at 11:29 AM on March 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
Citation needed. For adults, I think there are like three other countries where bike helmets are mandatory: Argentina, Australia and New Zealand
Some Canadian provinces I think?
And there have been a bunch of articles about how the laws in Australia reduce bike riding, like this one
posted by stillnocturnal at 11:29 AM on March 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
but there's a reason most Western countries seem to have helmet laws for cyclists
They don't! (Again, unless you are talking about kids. And even then maybe not.)
I swear, people have invented in their head some model of the way the world works that just doesn't map onto the actual planet.
posted by mark k at 11:30 AM on March 1, 2021 [26 favorites]
They don't! (Again, unless you are talking about kids. And even then maybe not.)
I swear, people have invented in their head some model of the way the world works that just doesn't map onto the actual planet.
posted by mark k at 11:30 AM on March 1, 2021 [26 favorites]
When I was a kid we didn't have mandatory helmet laws and so for the most part I didn't wear them. I did buy a helmet and use it in certain situations but putting that helmet on felt like a restriction. The laws in my Province changed and now minors need to wear one but it's still optional for adults. When I ride to work I wear one because I'm on roads all the time and my return ride is at night, but if I'm just riding around the neighbourhood or on a path with my kids (ie going slowly) then I don't. I know it's safer to wear the helmet but it still feels nicer not to wear it. I think I will decide to wear my helmet all the time - I'm going to have to buy a better looking helmet though because I've covered the one I use for my commute in retroreflective and reflective tape and it is kind of hideous now even if it is a shining beacon of safety at night.
I don't think there are mandatory helmet laws in any jurisdiction where a significant percentage of the population rides bikes. Once your riding population is down to kids, poor people, and weekend warriors, is when you get the helmet laws because we can't hold drivers or the way we've designed our roads accountable for injuries to people riding bikes.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 11:32 AM on March 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
I don't think there are mandatory helmet laws in any jurisdiction where a significant percentage of the population rides bikes. Once your riding population is down to kids, poor people, and weekend warriors, is when you get the helmet laws because we can't hold drivers or the way we've designed our roads accountable for injuries to people riding bikes.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 11:32 AM on March 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
I do wonder if any of the USians in this thread moralising about helmets realise there are other countries on this planet, countries that do have actual experience with significant numbers of people cycling in their streets? And that helmets have never played a part in getting there? Cycling is both safe and normal. Should pedestrians wear helmets? No. Car drivers? No. Urban cyclists? Certainly not.
Here is a statement of the Dutch cyclist’s union on bicycle helmets. It addresses most issues raised in this thread.
posted by trotz dem alten drachen at 11:34 AM on March 1, 2021 [24 favorites]
Here is a statement of the Dutch cyclist’s union on bicycle helmets. It addresses most issues raised in this thread.
posted by trotz dem alten drachen at 11:34 AM on March 1, 2021 [24 favorites]
… your Davies, Craig Motoring Helmet. Wear it and don’t feel self-conscious
posted by scruss at 11:38 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
posted by scruss at 11:38 AM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
RE: Seatbelt laws: All cars come with seatbelts. Bikes don't come with helmets, and helmets are not necessarily cheap. So I can absolutely understand why asking people to wear a helmet or risk a ticket can be classist or decrease bike use among persons at lower socioeconomic rungs on the financial ladder.
I figured out that the best way to get my kid to always wear a helmet is for me to always wear a helmet. But I can afford to buy helmets for us. Maybe we need two approaches here - dropping helmet laws + efforts to fund a "free helmets for bikers" movement for people who can't afford a helmet to begin with. Are there programs out there to collect and donate helmets? More bikes on the street means healthier people and fewer cars. If a free helmet would encourage more people to bike, I'm all for it.
posted by caution live frogs at 11:44 AM on March 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
I figured out that the best way to get my kid to always wear a helmet is for me to always wear a helmet. But I can afford to buy helmets for us. Maybe we need two approaches here - dropping helmet laws + efforts to fund a "free helmets for bikers" movement for people who can't afford a helmet to begin with. Are there programs out there to collect and donate helmets? More bikes on the street means healthier people and fewer cars. If a free helmet would encourage more people to bike, I'm all for it.
posted by caution live frogs at 11:44 AM on March 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
I've had two crashes where bike helmets probably saved my brain that involved no cars at all. I've also had crashes where cars were involved and helmets probably saved my brain.
I wear a helmet because I enjoy reasonably effective cognitive function and wish to continue having it.
posted by srboisvert at 11:45 AM on March 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
I wear a helmet because I enjoy reasonably effective cognitive function and wish to continue having it.
posted by srboisvert at 11:45 AM on March 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
I just assumed bicycle helmets were compulsory in most places and am in the "really never thought about it" camp. That's definitely a hang-over from coming from NZ were they are and it been drilled into me that you don't get on a bike without one. Which incidentally made me look up if helmets were compulsory on any ski fields (seems like yes for kids in New Jersey and a few European countries, but on the whole no - just highly recommended and sometimes compulsory with rentals), which is actually concerning me as I've been in the terrain park a little with the kids recently, and seen a number of fairly young folks hitting fairly large park features / doing aerials without one - which freaks me out. I've also been clipped around the head solidly a few times last few seasons by people carrying their skis on their shoulders and then turning around suddenly....certainly not the defining use case for helmet while skiing/boarding, but glad I had mine on. (I can certainly see the need difference between say a gentle nordic ski and an aggressive alpine downhill run through)
posted by inflatablekiwi at 11:50 AM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by inflatablekiwi at 11:50 AM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
I was today years old when i learned that Bike Helmets were on the list of things metafilter doesnt do well.
As one of the people participating in this threat who can directly chalk up my continued existence/non-brain-dead status to the fact that i was wearing a helmet when i took a gnarly spill (it split the foam in half) i really would be curious to know what percentage of the anti-helmet/helmets do no good crown has personally experienced a bike crash? someone pointed out above that helmets dont prevent tbi/cant save you if a car runs over you, but like a whole lot of people end up with only mild concussions where they could have died, and that, to me, seems pretty significant (especially on the morning when it was my own life in question). Other than the argument advanced upthread that helmets make cyclists less safe because when they wear them car drivers kill them with even further impunity, has anyone made a reasoned case for why universal helmet wearing would actually increase anyones risk?
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 11:54 AM on March 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
As one of the people participating in this threat who can directly chalk up my continued existence/non-brain-dead status to the fact that i was wearing a helmet when i took a gnarly spill (it split the foam in half) i really would be curious to know what percentage of the anti-helmet/helmets do no good crown has personally experienced a bike crash? someone pointed out above that helmets dont prevent tbi/cant save you if a car runs over you, but like a whole lot of people end up with only mild concussions where they could have died, and that, to me, seems pretty significant (especially on the morning when it was my own life in question). Other than the argument advanced upthread that helmets make cyclists less safe because when they wear them car drivers kill them with even further impunity, has anyone made a reasoned case for why universal helmet wearing would actually increase anyones risk?
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 11:54 AM on March 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
RE: Seatbelt laws: All cars come with seatbelts.
They do now. It wasn’t always the case.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 12:06 PM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
They do now. It wasn’t always the case.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 12:06 PM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Bike safety equipment is about more than helmets too. When I bought a new bike last summer I had to ask the shop employee multiple times to put on reflectors and a bell. You would think that normal sales practice would have been for him to ask if I wanted to get them if for no other reason than to sell me something else but it seemed like making sure the bike was legal to ride wasn't a big concern of theirs. Mind you my Province's laws around reflectors are pretty much impossible to satisfy (need reflective tape 25cm long and 2.5cm wide front and back) and maybe they figure that no one buying a bike from their store is going to be hassled by a cop about it anyway.
has anyone made a reasoned case for why universal helmet wearing would actually increase anyones risk?
It's been pointed out upthread that the reduced number of people riding bikes because of helmet laws means that the loss of other health benefits of bike riding outweigh the reduction in head injuries that mandatory helmets would reduce. Fewer people biking and wearing helmets is a worse outcome than more people biking and not wearing helmets. If it wasn't a law and everyone was given helmets then yes it would be better for everyone.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:06 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
has anyone made a reasoned case for why universal helmet wearing would actually increase anyones risk?
It's been pointed out upthread that the reduced number of people riding bikes because of helmet laws means that the loss of other health benefits of bike riding outweigh the reduction in head injuries that mandatory helmets would reduce. Fewer people biking and wearing helmets is a worse outcome than more people biking and not wearing helmets. If it wasn't a law and everyone was given helmets then yes it would be better for everyone.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:06 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
With skiing I think you can be a lot less concerned about being classist because it's not a cheap sport to begin with. I certainly grew up skiing sans helmet, and never wore one at all on the slopes until a trip to Colorado in 2011 or so. Since then it's become somewhat startling to me to notice a person skiing without one. But whatever you feel about the safety offered by a ski helmet, I have to say, my dad's argument in favor of ski helmets was the winner: "It's so much warmer than a hat, and it gives you a place to park your goggles so they don't get fogged up!"
Bike helmets: I have landed on my head after a jump went wrong. My helmet looked like a large dog had been chewing on it. I have a fairly obvious scar on my neck and earlobe from that accident, but my head is just fine. I have heard the arguments that helmets don't help much, that an impact hard enough to crack or crush the foam does not mean your life was saved. BUT. An impact hard enough to crack or crush the foam would AT MINIMUM have caused a pretty severe scalp laceration, and if you've ever cut your head or witnessed someone who has, you end up with a shit-ton of blood pouring down your face and it's scary as hell. I am personally quite happy to let the helmet take that abuse rather than having my skin be the place that directly touches the concrete, dirt, or gravel that I land on. I am in my late 40s and have more than enough scars by now, and I sure don't heal as fast as I used to.
I personally feel that a minor in a sport that involves potential for high-speed or repeated impact head injury (cycling, football, skiing, hockey, etc.)* should absolutely be wearing a helmet. At best it could save a life. At worst the kid will have helmet hair. The tradeoff is worth it.
For casual sports (biking around town, for example) I see no reason not to ENCOURAGE helmet use but punishing people who don't comply is (as we can see above) problematic.
*I include sledding in that list too. Have you ever had a conversation with a guy who was first on the scene when a kid hit a tree head-on? I've had that conversation. It was less than a week after the accident. The guy was absolutely HAUNTED by that, the kid did not survive, it was fucking awful. If there is any chance your kid will come near a tree when sledding either put a helmet on him/her or find a different goddamn hill.
posted by caution live frogs at 12:10 PM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
Bike helmets: I have landed on my head after a jump went wrong. My helmet looked like a large dog had been chewing on it. I have a fairly obvious scar on my neck and earlobe from that accident, but my head is just fine. I have heard the arguments that helmets don't help much, that an impact hard enough to crack or crush the foam does not mean your life was saved. BUT. An impact hard enough to crack or crush the foam would AT MINIMUM have caused a pretty severe scalp laceration, and if you've ever cut your head or witnessed someone who has, you end up with a shit-ton of blood pouring down your face and it's scary as hell. I am personally quite happy to let the helmet take that abuse rather than having my skin be the place that directly touches the concrete, dirt, or gravel that I land on. I am in my late 40s and have more than enough scars by now, and I sure don't heal as fast as I used to.
I personally feel that a minor in a sport that involves potential for high-speed or repeated impact head injury (cycling, football, skiing, hockey, etc.)* should absolutely be wearing a helmet. At best it could save a life. At worst the kid will have helmet hair. The tradeoff is worth it.
For casual sports (biking around town, for example) I see no reason not to ENCOURAGE helmet use but punishing people who don't comply is (as we can see above) problematic.
*I include sledding in that list too. Have you ever had a conversation with a guy who was first on the scene when a kid hit a tree head-on? I've had that conversation. It was less than a week after the accident. The guy was absolutely HAUNTED by that, the kid did not survive, it was fucking awful. If there is any chance your kid will come near a tree when sledding either put a helmet on him/her or find a different goddamn hill.
posted by caution live frogs at 12:10 PM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
The Underpants Monster: "RE: Seatbelt laws: All cars come with seatbelts.
They do now. It wasn’t always the case."
Yeah I considered a note on this point but given that the US required all cars post-1964 to have them, for a huge percentage of MeFi readers it's reasonably safe to assume that seatbelts have effectively always been a thing.
posted by caution live frogs at 12:13 PM on March 1, 2021
They do now. It wasn’t always the case."
Yeah I considered a note on this point but given that the US required all cars post-1964 to have them, for a huge percentage of MeFi readers it's reasonably safe to assume that seatbelts have effectively always been a thing.
posted by caution live frogs at 12:13 PM on March 1, 2021
Metafilter doesn’t do this topic well because these three well-supported observations are all in tension:
1. Wearing a helmet makes you safer as an individual cyclist
2. Mandating helmets makes cycling less widespread, esp. among commonly-targeted populations
3. Widespread cycling makes individual cyclists safer
Personally I’m in the mostly-wear-a-helmet / do-not-support-helmet-laws camp. It’s a profoundly better use of government time (the subject of this post) to ignore helmets and focus on other aspects of cycling safety such as slowing down cars, promoting bikeshares or scooters, and reserving street space for light, individual transportation options.
posted by migurski at 12:24 PM on March 1, 2021 [29 favorites]
1. Wearing a helmet makes you safer as an individual cyclist
2. Mandating helmets makes cycling less widespread, esp. among commonly-targeted populations
3. Widespread cycling makes individual cyclists safer
Personally I’m in the mostly-wear-a-helmet / do-not-support-helmet-laws camp. It’s a profoundly better use of government time (the subject of this post) to ignore helmets and focus on other aspects of cycling safety such as slowing down cars, promoting bikeshares or scooters, and reserving street space for light, individual transportation options.
posted by migurski at 12:24 PM on March 1, 2021 [29 favorites]
i really would be curious to know what percentage of the anti-helmet/helmets do no good crown has personally experienced a bike crash
At the risk of providing anecdata, I've been in many bike crashes, both with and without helmets. I'd say only one was caused by me wearing a helmet, but helmets have neither prevented nor caused any injuries on me. Generally, I'll wear a helmet if I'm doing something dangerous (group rides, going fast, mountain biking) and I won't for everyday riding (cruising along at 10-12 mph on established bike paths and roads, commuting and shopping and Sunday riding).
My expectation is that I never will get in an accident that requires a helmet during everyday riding and that expectation is based on the fact that everyday riding is extremely safe. Upthread I likened helmet opinions to n-rays, and the reason is that bicycle riding is so safe that it's difficult to get clear results on whether helmets actually work. (See all the pushback in this thread) Yes people get injured all the time on bicycles, but the vast majority of those injuries are minor, because bicycles move slowly and the masses involved are relatively small, unlike cars, for example.
Unequal enforcement of helmet laws makes me think those laws are even worse than I already thought they were.
posted by surlyben at 12:26 PM on March 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
At the risk of providing anecdata, I've been in many bike crashes, both with and without helmets. I'd say only one was caused by me wearing a helmet, but helmets have neither prevented nor caused any injuries on me. Generally, I'll wear a helmet if I'm doing something dangerous (group rides, going fast, mountain biking) and I won't for everyday riding (cruising along at 10-12 mph on established bike paths and roads, commuting and shopping and Sunday riding).
My expectation is that I never will get in an accident that requires a helmet during everyday riding and that expectation is based on the fact that everyday riding is extremely safe. Upthread I likened helmet opinions to n-rays, and the reason is that bicycle riding is so safe that it's difficult to get clear results on whether helmets actually work. (See all the pushback in this thread) Yes people get injured all the time on bicycles, but the vast majority of those injuries are minor, because bicycles move slowly and the masses involved are relatively small, unlike cars, for example.
Unequal enforcement of helmet laws makes me think those laws are even worse than I already thought they were.
posted by surlyben at 12:26 PM on March 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
I like my helmet. When I ride on the miles of nice bike paths around here, it doesn't feel super-necessary. Even so, I like the idea that if I do fall, there's something between by skull and a hard surface or object. If the law isn't enforced in an equitable way (given the terrible truth about how police wield such laws), I'm okay with no law in this area.
Back when I taught first-year college writing courses, I tired of reading about certain topics in our "persuasive essay" required assignment. So I banned evolution, abortion, seatbelt/helmet laws, and no-smoking policies (this was the early 90s), among others.
I regret that, though it certainly saved me from rehash #147 of these topics. The cost was denying students a safe space to think through some weighty topics, and that was wrong.
BUT! The universe played the long game and gave me a chance at atonement today; I felt an obligation to plow through this thread ;) I do appreciate the range of notions and information.
posted by Caxton1476 at 12:34 PM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Back when I taught first-year college writing courses, I tired of reading about certain topics in our "persuasive essay" required assignment. So I banned evolution, abortion, seatbelt/helmet laws, and no-smoking policies (this was the early 90s), among others.
I regret that, though it certainly saved me from rehash #147 of these topics. The cost was denying students a safe space to think through some weighty topics, and that was wrong.
BUT! The universe played the long game and gave me a chance at atonement today; I felt an obligation to plow through this thread ;) I do appreciate the range of notions and information.
posted by Caxton1476 at 12:34 PM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
I used to use my bike helmet as a container for potatoes at the grocery store. I'd hand the helmet to the cashier and explain that my helmet tared at exactly one pound (true fact).
posted by aniola at 12:42 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by aniola at 12:42 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
It's funny, I've never heard someone lament that a driver or pedestrian would be alive today, if only they had been wearing a helmet.
posted by TurnKey at 12:43 PM on March 1, 2021 [15 favorites]
posted by TurnKey at 12:43 PM on March 1, 2021 [15 favorites]
what surlyben said. Gloves? Of course: who wants to get gravel scrubbed out of their palms more than once? Eye protection? Naturally: a bug or grit in the eye's gonna hurt, and I'd get one every other day. Magic plastic hat? Not so much, as it wouldn't make my everyday cycling safer.
posted by scruss at 12:43 PM on March 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
posted by scruss at 12:43 PM on March 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
tl;dr but Hear, Hear! This near-elderly cyclist (who's survived numerous wipe-outs and collisions) knows the places which need extra protection are the hips, knees, and hands. Gloves, not helmets. And you drivers who never ride, just STFU.
posted by Rash at 12:44 PM on March 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
posted by Rash at 12:44 PM on March 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
Mind you my Province's laws around reflectors are pretty much impossible to satisfy (need reflective tape 25cm long and 2.5cm wide front and back) and maybe they figure that no one buying a bike from their store is going to be hassled by a cop about it anyway.
Nobody?
posted by aniola at 12:46 PM on March 1, 2021
Nobody?
posted by aniola at 12:46 PM on March 1, 2021
It was a bike store in a fairly well-to-do area. My bike was around $2,000 and was on the lower end of what they sell. I don't think their customer base gets hassled by the cops with any regularity.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:52 PM on March 1, 2021
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 12:52 PM on March 1, 2021
caution live frogs: Bike helmets: I have landed on my head after a jump went wrong.
Your comment points out something that must be difficult for many Americans to realise: that cycling is not a sport. It is a form of transport, of going from one place to another. Of course you should wear a helmet when making jumps. That is about the only circumstance where no-one doubts their efficacy! But why should you ever, ever want to jump with a bicycle?
To me, having used (and fallen off) cycles all my life, this conflation of cycling with sports and leasure seems really out-of-touch with the actual uses and needs people have for bicycles (especially of those who by poverty of disability cannot drive cars), not to mention the necessity of cycling for salvaging our urban and natural environments from destruction.
posted by trotz dem alten drachen at 12:53 PM on March 1, 2021 [19 favorites]
Your comment points out something that must be difficult for many Americans to realise: that cycling is not a sport. It is a form of transport, of going from one place to another. Of course you should wear a helmet when making jumps. That is about the only circumstance where no-one doubts their efficacy! But why should you ever, ever want to jump with a bicycle?
To me, having used (and fallen off) cycles all my life, this conflation of cycling with sports and leasure seems really out-of-touch with the actual uses and needs people have for bicycles (especially of those who by poverty of disability cannot drive cars), not to mention the necessity of cycling for salvaging our urban and natural environments from destruction.
posted by trotz dem alten drachen at 12:53 PM on March 1, 2021 [19 favorites]
The one time I was in a crash with a car, my helmet didn't do me a damn lick of good because I landed on my chin (and on my teeth).
Yeah my worst crash was similar, landed on my face. A typical bike helmet wouldn't have offered any protection.
posted by Rash at 12:55 PM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Yeah my worst crash was similar, landed on my face. A typical bike helmet wouldn't have offered any protection.
posted by Rash at 12:55 PM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
In 2021 are people seriously still calling for cop shit like helmet laws?
I wouldn't call myself anti-helmet, rather a wear one if you want to personally feel comfortable and stop policing others for their helmet use sort of person.
I don't own a car and haven't for 10+ years living in the cycling paradise that is Los Angeles. I find it hilarious that people who mostly get around by driving in their personal automobile at 35+ mph want to lecture me about safety. Like if you really cared about safety you'd be out there lobbying for protected bike infrastructure and lower speed limits everywhere. And holding drivers liable when they hit someone.
Also jay walking is some pro-car bullshit made up by AAA and makes about as much sense as helmet laws. And is also selectively enforced to harass marginalized people because that is how cops use their power.
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 12:57 PM on March 1, 2021 [24 favorites]
I wouldn't call myself anti-helmet, rather a wear one if you want to personally feel comfortable and stop policing others for their helmet use sort of person.
I don't own a car and haven't for 10+ years living in the cycling paradise that is Los Angeles. I find it hilarious that people who mostly get around by driving in their personal automobile at 35+ mph want to lecture me about safety. Like if you really cared about safety you'd be out there lobbying for protected bike infrastructure and lower speed limits everywhere. And holding drivers liable when they hit someone.
Also jay walking is some pro-car bullshit made up by AAA and makes about as much sense as helmet laws. And is also selectively enforced to harass marginalized people because that is how cops use their power.
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 12:57 PM on March 1, 2021 [24 favorites]
I have been hospitalized once in a helmetless bike accident, got pretty bad road rash on my hands, thigh, arm and a cut on my face, but my head was fine. I was engaged in risky behavior, and I stopped doing that (riding at night on unfamiliar, poorly-paved roads).
Looking at some bike fatality statistics, it seems a lot of U.S. bike fatalities are connected to risky behavior: ~20% of fatalities occur while intoxicated, and something like 85% of all fatalities are males. I still don't wear a helmet, but I ride in daylight, low traffic, on well-paved streets/paths, while not intoxicated, not trying to break land-speed records, not blowing through intersections, I feel it's quite safe. And I don't think a helmet is any more necessary for that kind of riding than it would be if I were driving a car in rush hour traffic.
Not everyone has the privilege of just biking for fun or exercise, of course. If I needed to start commuting to work on a bike and dealing with traffic, I'd wear a helmet, but I'd also try to do what I could to avoid it, probably go into significant debt to buy a car, since bike-commuting is scary, since not enough people ride bikes where I live.
posted by skewed at 1:08 PM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Looking at some bike fatality statistics, it seems a lot of U.S. bike fatalities are connected to risky behavior: ~20% of fatalities occur while intoxicated, and something like 85% of all fatalities are males. I still don't wear a helmet, but I ride in daylight, low traffic, on well-paved streets/paths, while not intoxicated, not trying to break land-speed records, not blowing through intersections, I feel it's quite safe. And I don't think a helmet is any more necessary for that kind of riding than it would be if I were driving a car in rush hour traffic.
Not everyone has the privilege of just biking for fun or exercise, of course. If I needed to start commuting to work on a bike and dealing with traffic, I'd wear a helmet, but I'd also try to do what I could to avoid it, probably go into significant debt to buy a car, since bike-commuting is scary, since not enough people ride bikes where I live.
posted by skewed at 1:08 PM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Also jay walking is some pro-car bullshit made up by AAA and makes about as much sense as helmet laws. And is also selectively enforced to harass marginalized people because that is how cops use their power.
A century ago it was motorists who were implored to watch for people in the street--- it was their responsibility to avoid running them over. But then the car companies and other automobile-related corporations started running ads telling pedestrians to always "look both ways" when crossing the street. Gradually the burden shifted from the motorist to the pedestrians and this was codified into the law.
Virtually no one alive today saw the days when the street was actually a giant outdoor meeting area. My little town of 450 people has an incongruously wide main street-- you could literally land a 747 here. Obviously this was never needed for automobile traffic but photos from the 1930s and earlier showed that the street was once used for the townspeople to congregate. Dances were held every weekend during the summers and that sort of thing. But even on a typical day the street was full of people. The automobile killed civic life in the United States. And it killed pedestrians. The Dutch were smart enough to figure this out.
posted by drstrangelove at 1:12 PM on March 1, 2021 [17 favorites]
A century ago it was motorists who were implored to watch for people in the street--- it was their responsibility to avoid running them over. But then the car companies and other automobile-related corporations started running ads telling pedestrians to always "look both ways" when crossing the street. Gradually the burden shifted from the motorist to the pedestrians and this was codified into the law.
Virtually no one alive today saw the days when the street was actually a giant outdoor meeting area. My little town of 450 people has an incongruously wide main street-- you could literally land a 747 here. Obviously this was never needed for automobile traffic but photos from the 1930s and earlier showed that the street was once used for the townspeople to congregate. Dances were held every weekend during the summers and that sort of thing. But even on a typical day the street was full of people. The automobile killed civic life in the United States. And it killed pedestrians. The Dutch were smart enough to figure this out.
posted by drstrangelove at 1:12 PM on March 1, 2021 [17 favorites]
The bumper sticker would be: 'Helmets Yes. Helmet Laws No.'"
Twenty years ago, the Cochrane Collaborative conducted an analysis of controlled studies evaluating the effect of bicycle helmets on injury prevention. The review found that helmets provide up to a 63 to 88 % reduction in the risk of head, brain, and severe brain injury for cyclists of all ages as well as a 65 % reduction of injuries to the upper- and mid-face [...] This protection was sustained independent of the mechanism of bicycle injury (crashes involving motor vehicles vs. crashes from all causes). (Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists, Thompson et al. 2000).
Three years ago: A meta-analysis has been conducted of the effects of bicycle helmets on serious head injury and other injuries among crash involved cyclists. 179 effect estimates from 55 studies from 1989–2017 are included in the meta-analysis. The use of bicycle helmets was found to reduce head injury by 48%, serious head injury by 60%, traumatic brain injury by 53%, face injury by 23%, and the total number of killed or seriously injured cyclists by 34%. -- Høye, Alena. (2018). Bicycle helmets - To wear or not to wear? A meta-analyses of the effects of bicycle helmets on injuries. Accident; analysis and prevention. 117. 85-97. 10.1016/j.aap.2018.03.026.
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:30 PM on March 1, 2021 [12 favorites]
Twenty years ago, the Cochrane Collaborative conducted an analysis of controlled studies evaluating the effect of bicycle helmets on injury prevention. The review found that helmets provide up to a 63 to 88 % reduction in the risk of head, brain, and severe brain injury for cyclists of all ages as well as a 65 % reduction of injuries to the upper- and mid-face [...] This protection was sustained independent of the mechanism of bicycle injury (crashes involving motor vehicles vs. crashes from all causes). (Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists, Thompson et al. 2000).
Three years ago: A meta-analysis has been conducted of the effects of bicycle helmets on serious head injury and other injuries among crash involved cyclists. 179 effect estimates from 55 studies from 1989–2017 are included in the meta-analysis. The use of bicycle helmets was found to reduce head injury by 48%, serious head injury by 60%, traumatic brain injury by 53%, face injury by 23%, and the total number of killed or seriously injured cyclists by 34%. -- Høye, Alena. (2018). Bicycle helmets - To wear or not to wear? A meta-analyses of the effects of bicycle helmets on injuries. Accident; analysis and prevention. 117. 85-97. 10.1016/j.aap.2018.03.026.
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:30 PM on March 1, 2021 [12 favorites]
This is a key aspect of helmet laws that isn't widely known. They discourage people from riding bikes.
That is a feature, at least in places like Australia where elections are decided by car-dependent outer-suburban marginal seats and where, were any politician to propose looking at repealing helmet laws, the Murdoch tabloids would scream how "_ wants to flood the roads in front of YOU with thousands of cyclists".
This argument falls apart on closer inspection, because unless all those cyclists appeared from nowhere, many of them are people who would otherwise be driving and being more in the way of other motorists, but the argument is meant to just go to the lizard brain.
posted by acb at 1:30 PM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
That is a feature, at least in places like Australia where elections are decided by car-dependent outer-suburban marginal seats and where, were any politician to propose looking at repealing helmet laws, the Murdoch tabloids would scream how "_ wants to flood the roads in front of YOU with thousands of cyclists".
This argument falls apart on closer inspection, because unless all those cyclists appeared from nowhere, many of them are people who would otherwise be driving and being more in the way of other motorists, but the argument is meant to just go to the lizard brain.
posted by acb at 1:30 PM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Given the number of people who here who seem to think this was the launch of some general campaign against helmet laws--which it isn't, as such laws generally do not exist--I am wondering how differently the discussion would have gone if the advocacy group phrased it more like:
"Seattle is one of the few areas that lets police stop adult riders who don't have a helmet. They are disproportionately targeting riders of color. We want this to stop and Seattle enforcement powers to revert to the national standard."
posted by mark k at 1:32 PM on March 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
"Seattle is one of the few areas that lets police stop adult riders who don't have a helmet. They are disproportionately targeting riders of color. We want this to stop and Seattle enforcement powers to revert to the national standard."
posted by mark k at 1:32 PM on March 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
at least here in Sweden, helmet laws are frequently and consistently suggested by organizations that want to reduce cycling.
Do you have a source for that, groda? I read Swedish.
posted by Bella Donna at 1:32 PM on March 1, 2021
Do you have a source for that, groda? I read Swedish.
posted by Bella Donna at 1:32 PM on March 1, 2021
RoF, I came to the same conclusion. I started driving quite late for an American, and I always wore a helmet when bicycling. At first, I felt naked without my helmet in the car (later I felt naked without seatbelts on the bike).
As a pedestrian and bicyclist in an urban area, I had spent a lot of time being "talked to" by cops when they didn't have anything better to do, at night or in non-residential areas, and I imagined that wearing my white Tourlite Bell helmet while driving would attract the same kind of unwanted attention, so I didn't.
Repealing a law that has relatively small positive effect in order to prevent demonstrably racist enforcement seems like a promising harm-reducing approach.
posted by the Real Dan at 1:33 PM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
As a pedestrian and bicyclist in an urban area, I had spent a lot of time being "talked to" by cops when they didn't have anything better to do, at night or in non-residential areas, and I imagined that wearing my white Tourlite Bell helmet while driving would attract the same kind of unwanted attention, so I didn't.
Repealing a law that has relatively small positive effect in order to prevent demonstrably racist enforcement seems like a promising harm-reducing approach.
posted by the Real Dan at 1:33 PM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
I just assumed bicycle helmets were compulsory in most places and am in the "really never thought about it" camp. That's definitely a hang-over from coming from NZ were they are and it been drilled into me that you don't get on a bike without one.
In Australia, they even photoshop helmets onto photographs of street scenes from Amsterdam used to advertise travel. Not sure if it's a legal requirement, someone at the ad agency CYAing in case they get sued, or someone making that call to avoid freaking out people not used to that many of what they'd presume to be wantonly suicidal cyclists.
posted by acb at 1:39 PM on March 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
In Australia, they even photoshop helmets onto photographs of street scenes from Amsterdam used to advertise travel. Not sure if it's a legal requirement, someone at the ad agency CYAing in case they get sued, or someone making that call to avoid freaking out people not used to that many of what they'd presume to be wantonly suicidal cyclists.
posted by acb at 1:39 PM on March 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
Exponentially more brain injuries coming from accidents while riding in a car every year - why are drivers and passengers not required to wear helmets?
posted by SoundInhabitant at 1:41 PM on March 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by SoundInhabitant at 1:41 PM on March 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
Also, who in Sweden wants to reduce cycling? Is it a SD policy or something?
posted by acb at 1:45 PM on March 1, 2021
posted by acb at 1:45 PM on March 1, 2021
While I am in principle against bicycle helmet laws for adults, I would say the vast majority of adults in my neck of the woods are wearing a helmet while bike riding.
A quick glance through wikipedia suggests that, for kids especially, mandatory helmet laws have been around since the 90s, which means there is a entire generation of children that are basically growing up with helmets.
Around here, kids wear helmets for virtually every activity that could lead to head trauma.
Bicycling is required by law, but skateboarding, scootering, hockey, skiing, none of those require helmets but it is rare to see a kid without one.
It's kind of like seatbelts. Yes, there is a law, but it has been the law for so long that for most people it is just what you do. I'm not sure if you took away the seatbelt requirement tomorrow that the vast majority of people would suddenly stop wearing them.
posted by madajb at 1:51 PM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
A quick glance through wikipedia suggests that, for kids especially, mandatory helmet laws have been around since the 90s, which means there is a entire generation of children that are basically growing up with helmets.
Around here, kids wear helmets for virtually every activity that could lead to head trauma.
Bicycling is required by law, but skateboarding, scootering, hockey, skiing, none of those require helmets but it is rare to see a kid without one.
It's kind of like seatbelts. Yes, there is a law, but it has been the law for so long that for most people it is just what you do. I'm not sure if you took away the seatbelt requirement tomorrow that the vast majority of people would suddenly stop wearing them.
posted by madajb at 1:51 PM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
I do wonder if any of the USians in this thread moralising about helmets realise there are other countries on this planet, countries that do have actual experience with significant numbers of people cycling in their streets? And that helmets have never played a part in getting there? Cycling is both safe and normal. Should pedestrians wear helmets? No. Car drivers? No. Urban cyclists? Certainly not.
Here is a statement of the Dutch cyclist’s union on bicycle helmets. It addresses most issues raised in this thread.
posted by trotz dem alten drachen at 1:34 PM on March 1 [14 favorites +] [!]
I've lived mostly in the US, but also in the Netherlands. Comparing the safety of cycling in both cultures without taking account of bias seems really ill-informed. The cultures are extremely different as far as cycling goes. I think a simple accounting of sodas thrown from a vehicle towards a bicycler the car is passing would make the difference obvious. Not a thing in the Netherlands. Extremely common in the US. Safety in the two places can't be compared.
posted by Quonab at 1:53 PM on March 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
Here is a statement of the Dutch cyclist’s union on bicycle helmets. It addresses most issues raised in this thread.
posted by trotz dem alten drachen at 1:34 PM on March 1 [14 favorites +] [!]
I've lived mostly in the US, but also in the Netherlands. Comparing the safety of cycling in both cultures without taking account of bias seems really ill-informed. The cultures are extremely different as far as cycling goes. I think a simple accounting of sodas thrown from a vehicle towards a bicycler the car is passing would make the difference obvious. Not a thing in the Netherlands. Extremely common in the US. Safety in the two places can't be compared.
posted by Quonab at 1:53 PM on March 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
In the Seattle area, Black people, who make up 8% of the population, received 17% of the tickets.
The accusation of systemic racism in helmet law enforcement seems to rely on this statistic. However, before agreeing, I would like to know what percentage of the bicycle riding population is black.
I'm not saying there isn't systemic racism in every aspect of the system. There is, obviously. But by leaving the question open, the simplistic comparison in the lede makes it seem as if they are working the numbers and so, for me, it works against the purpose of the article.
posted by hypnogogue at 1:54 PM on March 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
The accusation of systemic racism in helmet law enforcement seems to rely on this statistic. However, before agreeing, I would like to know what percentage of the bicycle riding population is black.
I'm not saying there isn't systemic racism in every aspect of the system. There is, obviously. But by leaving the question open, the simplistic comparison in the lede makes it seem as if they are working the numbers and so, for me, it works against the purpose of the article.
posted by hypnogogue at 1:54 PM on March 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
I'm on record on MeFi being very vocal in the "Helmet laws suck" and "We're doing helmets wrong, anyway!" camps, and I love riding a bike without a helmet because it just feels really nice and I can hear better.
But that being said I now wear a helmet and gloves all the time, and it's not at all due to a crash or anything but because last summer I upgraded my bike to a seriously overpowered e-bike conversion and I can go scary fast for a bicycle. Before I even installed the e-bike conversion I invested in a really good hardshell action sports style helmet that isn't based on the bare minimums of Snell spec disposable foam thin shell helmets and is designed for risky sports like hang gliding, kite surfing, snowboarding, skateboarding pro vert ramps and so on.
I do wear my helmet all the time now on the e-bike for some form safety and because I can also now mix it up riding in car traffic at much higher speeds.
But if I'm honest and objective with myself about it I know it can be useless in a serious car related crash.
And that I'm also wearing it to make my friends who love me more comfortable and feeling more secure about me.
And that I also wear it because it looks fucking badass. It's in trans pride colors in teal or eggshell blue and pink and white with a huge iridescent lightning bolt graphic on it and it's just ridiculously eye-searing color nonsense like a Lisa Frank sticker.
And last - I want to say loudly and clearly that MetaFilter doesn't do helmets, bikes or bike advocacy very well.
I would like to ask that anyone who puts any energy at all into the idea that helmets should be mandatory stance - especially if you aren't yourself a cyclist or daily rider and you still have strong opinions about it - to seriously consider putting that energy in to advocacy for real bike safety and infrastructure and mass adoption and less into being mad at other cyclists who chose to not ride with a helmet.
Because seriously? Let's get real and pull the zoom way back on an imaginary documentary camera looking at this issue and have a pan and scan for other things to get righteously mad about for public safety.
Let's look at the public health issues of cars (and industry) burning fossil fuels and how much damage is being done by that. Let's look at the political landscape and industry and marketing of vehicles. Let's look at vehicular accident mortality rates whether it's only people in cars, cars vs. bikes or cars vs. pedestrians.
The stark reality of all that has a very high and complicated mortality rate and cost. Look at how leaded gasoline drove caused so many mental health issues and drove up crime rates.
That kind of toll on all of us is very real and it's not just statistical noise about respiratory illness deaths or other ambient pollution but all of those complex hydrocarbons toxins and pollutants involved with the petrochemical and fossil fuel industry are rather solidly on record as being bad for our collective physical and mental health on vast scales because it's not just in the air we breath but non-figuratively surrounding us every time we get in a car. It's in our homes, or garages, our schools and even our food and farms.
It's not some vague thing, it's chemically all around us taking it's toll in ways from the molecular to the socio-political and economic.
And it's not just about the pollution caused by gassing up your car and using it. Look at the wide scale industrial pollution from extraction to manufacturing and the entire industry of how cars has dominated not just our natural environment and landscape but our political sphere. Look at the dirty political bullshit around it. Look at the economic inequality and the history of the car and labor and unions and industrialization.
You want to get mad about people not wearing helmets riding a bike?
Perhaps you should really be mad as hell about the almost always exploitative labor practices that made it, the industrial petrochemical plastics it's made of and the pollution it created and the truck that shipped it to the bike store second only to the car culture that made it possible and more necessary.
posted by loquacious at 1:54 PM on March 1, 2021 [31 favorites]
But that being said I now wear a helmet and gloves all the time, and it's not at all due to a crash or anything but because last summer I upgraded my bike to a seriously overpowered e-bike conversion and I can go scary fast for a bicycle. Before I even installed the e-bike conversion I invested in a really good hardshell action sports style helmet that isn't based on the bare minimums of Snell spec disposable foam thin shell helmets and is designed for risky sports like hang gliding, kite surfing, snowboarding, skateboarding pro vert ramps and so on.
I do wear my helmet all the time now on the e-bike for some form safety and because I can also now mix it up riding in car traffic at much higher speeds.
But if I'm honest and objective with myself about it I know it can be useless in a serious car related crash.
And that I'm also wearing it to make my friends who love me more comfortable and feeling more secure about me.
And that I also wear it because it looks fucking badass. It's in trans pride colors in teal or eggshell blue and pink and white with a huge iridescent lightning bolt graphic on it and it's just ridiculously eye-searing color nonsense like a Lisa Frank sticker.
And last - I want to say loudly and clearly that MetaFilter doesn't do helmets, bikes or bike advocacy very well.
I would like to ask that anyone who puts any energy at all into the idea that helmets should be mandatory stance - especially if you aren't yourself a cyclist or daily rider and you still have strong opinions about it - to seriously consider putting that energy in to advocacy for real bike safety and infrastructure and mass adoption and less into being mad at other cyclists who chose to not ride with a helmet.
Because seriously? Let's get real and pull the zoom way back on an imaginary documentary camera looking at this issue and have a pan and scan for other things to get righteously mad about for public safety.
Let's look at the public health issues of cars (and industry) burning fossil fuels and how much damage is being done by that. Let's look at the political landscape and industry and marketing of vehicles. Let's look at vehicular accident mortality rates whether it's only people in cars, cars vs. bikes or cars vs. pedestrians.
The stark reality of all that has a very high and complicated mortality rate and cost. Look at how leaded gasoline drove caused so many mental health issues and drove up crime rates.
That kind of toll on all of us is very real and it's not just statistical noise about respiratory illness deaths or other ambient pollution but all of those complex hydrocarbons toxins and pollutants involved with the petrochemical and fossil fuel industry are rather solidly on record as being bad for our collective physical and mental health on vast scales because it's not just in the air we breath but non-figuratively surrounding us every time we get in a car. It's in our homes, or garages, our schools and even our food and farms.
It's not some vague thing, it's chemically all around us taking it's toll in ways from the molecular to the socio-political and economic.
And it's not just about the pollution caused by gassing up your car and using it. Look at the wide scale industrial pollution from extraction to manufacturing and the entire industry of how cars has dominated not just our natural environment and landscape but our political sphere. Look at the dirty political bullshit around it. Look at the economic inequality and the history of the car and labor and unions and industrialization.
You want to get mad about people not wearing helmets riding a bike?
Perhaps you should really be mad as hell about the almost always exploitative labor practices that made it, the industrial petrochemical plastics it's made of and the pollution it created and the truck that shipped it to the bike store second only to the car culture that made it possible and more necessary.
posted by loquacious at 1:54 PM on March 1, 2021 [31 favorites]
I have been in multiple accidents (flipping over the handlebars, falling to the side and hitting my head on the curb) while cycling-as-transport where the helmet provided a barrier between my brain and the pavement. It boggles my mind that people are in here arguing that I would be just fine without said helmet. I saw the cracks in the helmet. I would not prefer to have those cracks in my skull. Are brave internet warriors seriously trying to tell me that my skull could take it?
I understand arguments against helmet laws, but extending that to "helmets do nothing"? Seriously? I feel like people attempting to make that point are just trying to justify their unsafe choices.
Exponentially more brain injuries coming from accidents while riding in a car every year - why are drivers and passengers not required to wear helmets?
What is the lifetime risk of a car driver getting into a head injury-threatening accident versus the lifetime risk of a cyclist getting into a head injury-threatening accident? That is a real question, I do not know. My gut feeling is that in any given accident a seatbelt-wearing airbag-having driver or passenger in a car is far less likely to be exposed to head injury than a cyclist, but it's just a gut feeling.
posted by Anonymous at 1:55 PM on March 1, 2021
I understand arguments against helmet laws, but extending that to "helmets do nothing"? Seriously? I feel like people attempting to make that point are just trying to justify their unsafe choices.
Exponentially more brain injuries coming from accidents while riding in a car every year - why are drivers and passengers not required to wear helmets?
What is the lifetime risk of a car driver getting into a head injury-threatening accident versus the lifetime risk of a cyclist getting into a head injury-threatening accident? That is a real question, I do not know. My gut feeling is that in any given accident a seatbelt-wearing airbag-having driver or passenger in a car is far less likely to be exposed to head injury than a cyclist, but it's just a gut feeling.
posted by Anonymous at 1:55 PM on March 1, 2021
In Australia, they even photoshop helmets onto photographs of street scenes from Amsterdam used to advertise travel
Oh interesting. I've definitely heard this in relation to smoking etc. I found an Australian Advertising Standards compliant case report directly on the depiction of cycling without a helmet. The salient part is below - so definitely seems like the Amsterdam advert would have been modified to avoid similar issues/complaints being upheld.
posted by inflatablekiwi at 1:58 PM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Oh interesting. I've definitely heard this in relation to smoking etc. I found an Australian Advertising Standards compliant case report directly on the depiction of cycling without a helmet. The salient part is below - so definitely seems like the Amsterdam advert would have been modified to avoid similar issues/complaints being upheld.
The Board noted that community standards are very clear on the issue of health and safety whilst riding a bicycle and considered that a depiction of an adult riding a bicycle without a helmet is a depiction which is in breach of these community standards.
The Board determined that the advertisement does breach of Section 2.6 of the Code. Finding that the advertisement breached Section 2.6 of the Code, the Board upheld the complaint.
posted by inflatablekiwi at 1:58 PM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
It boggles my mind that people are in here arguing that I would be just fine without said helmet.
Please quote one of these arguments, I am having trouble finding them.
posted by skewed at 2:00 PM on March 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Please quote one of these arguments, I am having trouble finding them.
posted by skewed at 2:00 PM on March 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
I'm just old enough to remember smokers saying that cigarette filters would encourage get people to smoke more, looking for the same effect from the tars filtered out
Last I checked it was pretty widely accepted that “light” cigarettes have exactly this issue - well, that they have little net health effect because smokers compensate by taking more and deeper pulls, not that they necessarily go through more cigarettes per day. I don’t know whether this argument actually applies to filters and at this point we’re a ways off the topic of bike helmets but hey sometimes the contrarian consequentialist argument is right!
(Actually I thought all of the innovations in “cleaner” smoking were from the tobacco companies catering to consumer health concern, anyway, so it’s sort of an opposite context to the one in which these arguments usually come up.)
posted by atoxyl at 2:14 PM on March 1, 2021
Last I checked it was pretty widely accepted that “light” cigarettes have exactly this issue - well, that they have little net health effect because smokers compensate by taking more and deeper pulls, not that they necessarily go through more cigarettes per day. I don’t know whether this argument actually applies to filters and at this point we’re a ways off the topic of bike helmets but hey sometimes the contrarian consequentialist argument is right!
(Actually I thought all of the innovations in “cleaner” smoking were from the tobacco companies catering to consumer health concern, anyway, so it’s sort of an opposite context to the one in which these arguments usually come up.)
posted by atoxyl at 2:14 PM on March 1, 2021
Here is an example of someone I know and love showing that the key to staying safe on the road is to wear a helmet.
posted by RobinofFrocksley at 2:16 PM on March 1, 2021
posted by RobinofFrocksley at 2:16 PM on March 1, 2021
American car culture is as irrational and deadly as American gun culture and a whole raft of social and environmental ills are going to continue to get considerably worse in this country until that changes. I don't suggest anyone hold their breath
posted by aiglet at 2:21 PM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by aiglet at 2:21 PM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
loquacious, your comment flagged as fantastic.
posted by Bella Donna at 2:24 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by Bella Donna at 2:24 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
Isn't it amazing how all the "common sense" and "gut feelings" in this thread is all about how bicyclists should do X, Y, or Z obviously and none of it is about how both public infrastructure and racist policing are actually counterproductive to their own stated goals? Doesn't matter how many people cite actual data. Gee I wonder.
What is the lifetime risk of a car driver getting into a head injury-threatening accident versus the lifetime risk of a cyclist getting into a head injury-threatening accident? That is a real question, I do not know. My gut feeling is that in any given accident a seatbelt-wearing airbag-having driver or passenger in a car is far less likely to be exposed to head injury than a cyclist, but it's just a gut feeling.
The simple answer is that motorists are traveling at drastically higher speeds in a several ton metal cage and since F=ma, motorists are far more likely to injure their precious noodles than a cyclist traveling at human speed propelling their own body weight, helmet or no helmet.
edit: if you want to be safe on a bicycle buy a dynamo wheel & lights, then you won't end up underneath someone's car because they "didn't see you" while they stand over your corpse and blame the "accident" on your lack of helmet
posted by bradbane at 2:36 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
What is the lifetime risk of a car driver getting into a head injury-threatening accident versus the lifetime risk of a cyclist getting into a head injury-threatening accident? That is a real question, I do not know. My gut feeling is that in any given accident a seatbelt-wearing airbag-having driver or passenger in a car is far less likely to be exposed to head injury than a cyclist, but it's just a gut feeling.
The simple answer is that motorists are traveling at drastically higher speeds in a several ton metal cage and since F=ma, motorists are far more likely to injure their precious noodles than a cyclist traveling at human speed propelling their own body weight, helmet or no helmet.
edit: if you want to be safe on a bicycle buy a dynamo wheel & lights, then you won't end up underneath someone's car because they "didn't see you" while they stand over your corpse and blame the "accident" on your lack of helmet
posted by bradbane at 2:36 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
Oh and for the seatbelt comparisons - with their massively increased size, today's cars (really large SUVs and trucks, because that's what actually sells in America now) are considerably safer to ride in than cars were when seatbelt laws were introduced, but have become much more deadly for the pedestrians/cyclists that they get into collisions with. I don't have numbers off the top of my head for this, but Angie Schmitt has written a book about this stuff and is a good follow on twitter as well. I bring this up because I suspect the helmet law kerfuffle is some kind of misdirection to distract us all from the far more pressing issue of a continuing uptick in cyclist (and pedestrian) deaths-by-collision in this country
posted by aiglet at 2:38 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by aiglet at 2:38 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
Topics that are fairly unique experiences in the US on which I feel many western Europeans aren't qualified to have much of an opinion:
- racism
- bicycle helmets
Please quote one of these arguments, I am having trouble finding them.
I have one but it's obviously and entirely anecdotal and some large amount of dumb luck.
I've had some pretty serious bike crashes both on road and off road with and without helmets and I have legitimately never, ever hit my head on the ground. I even recently crashed on my ebike and laid it down at 20+ mile an hour speeds just like a scooter or small motorcycle crash and still didn't need the helmet, though I was really glad I was wearing it.
I grew up skateboarding and surfing and doing other risky things and it has taught me a lot about how to crash, tuck and roll and keep my head off the ground.
For whatever it's worth with this particular or specialist skill - I know I'm not the only one who has it, and it's a skill that isn't just limited to biking, board sports or gravity sports. Gymnasts also don't wear helmets. Neither do martial arts practitioners that do tumbling work. Aerialists also don't generally wear helmets.
This list of sports, activities and people that should wear helmets could go on and on and on even before you get to the point where you're asking why motorcyclists wear helmets but people in cars with entire families in them going 85+ mph down a freeway don't wear helmets.
Shoot, my dad has to wear a helmet right now when he goes for walks because he's dealing with brain cancer.
I do have experience with concussions and TBIs but none of them are from bicycling, and I used to huck my dumb ass off cliffs and huge dirt jumps on BMX and mountain bikes and have crashed so many times I can write an encyclopedia or dictionaries of bike crashes.
The biggest or worst TBI I've had in my life was making the mistake of kind of accidentally going crowd surfing at a ska concert and getting dropped on my head. The other few have probably been from surfing, skimboarding or bodysurfing.
It's honestly kind of ridiculous to me that people get so worked up that everyone on a bike should be wearing a helmet yet they'd also think it was silly to wear one while going down a road or freeway at any speed over 50 miles an hour.
And, yeah, despite my knack and dumb luck for keeping my head off the ground I'll keep wearing my helmet just in case. It's comfy and part of the all the gear all the time for me at this point. I have enough road rash scars and I don't want to push my luck even further and I know my skills and reflexes are slowing down and I'm getting old.
If I have any real stake in this argument is that the amount of controversy about bike helmets is totally out of perspective and scale and completely imbalanced and often not completely rational.
I'll keep wearing my helmet but I can't help but feel that a lot of this energy about helmets is classist and/or misplaced.
posted by loquacious at 2:42 PM on March 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
I have one but it's obviously and entirely anecdotal and some large amount of dumb luck.
I've had some pretty serious bike crashes both on road and off road with and without helmets and I have legitimately never, ever hit my head on the ground. I even recently crashed on my ebike and laid it down at 20+ mile an hour speeds just like a scooter or small motorcycle crash and still didn't need the helmet, though I was really glad I was wearing it.
I grew up skateboarding and surfing and doing other risky things and it has taught me a lot about how to crash, tuck and roll and keep my head off the ground.
For whatever it's worth with this particular or specialist skill - I know I'm not the only one who has it, and it's a skill that isn't just limited to biking, board sports or gravity sports. Gymnasts also don't wear helmets. Neither do martial arts practitioners that do tumbling work. Aerialists also don't generally wear helmets.
This list of sports, activities and people that should wear helmets could go on and on and on even before you get to the point where you're asking why motorcyclists wear helmets but people in cars with entire families in them going 85+ mph down a freeway don't wear helmets.
Shoot, my dad has to wear a helmet right now when he goes for walks because he's dealing with brain cancer.
I do have experience with concussions and TBIs but none of them are from bicycling, and I used to huck my dumb ass off cliffs and huge dirt jumps on BMX and mountain bikes and have crashed so many times I can write an encyclopedia or dictionaries of bike crashes.
The biggest or worst TBI I've had in my life was making the mistake of kind of accidentally going crowd surfing at a ska concert and getting dropped on my head. The other few have probably been from surfing, skimboarding or bodysurfing.
It's honestly kind of ridiculous to me that people get so worked up that everyone on a bike should be wearing a helmet yet they'd also think it was silly to wear one while going down a road or freeway at any speed over 50 miles an hour.
And, yeah, despite my knack and dumb luck for keeping my head off the ground I'll keep wearing my helmet just in case. It's comfy and part of the all the gear all the time for me at this point. I have enough road rash scars and I don't want to push my luck even further and I know my skills and reflexes are slowing down and I'm getting old.
If I have any real stake in this argument is that the amount of controversy about bike helmets is totally out of perspective and scale and completely imbalanced and often not completely rational.
I'll keep wearing my helmet but I can't help but feel that a lot of this energy about helmets is classist and/or misplaced.
posted by loquacious at 2:42 PM on March 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
Topics that are fairly unique experiences in the US on which I feel many western Europeans aren't qualified to have much of an opinion:
* racism
* bicycle helmets
I could easily turn that right on its head. And yet we all know that many US Americans do indeed have rather much of an opinion, about both of these topics, as pertains to the experiences of Western Europeans.
So maybe, just maybe, we should all be a little less eager to have opinions on the experiences of people elsewhere.
posted by Too-Ticky at 2:48 PM on March 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
* racism
* bicycle helmets
I could easily turn that right on its head. And yet we all know that many US Americans do indeed have rather much of an opinion, about both of these topics, as pertains to the experiences of Western Europeans.
So maybe, just maybe, we should all be a little less eager to have opinions on the experiences of people elsewhere.
posted by Too-Ticky at 2:48 PM on March 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
they'd also think it was silly to wear one while going down a road or freeway at any speed over 50 miles an hour.
I mean, cars have mechanisms built in to protect an occupant’s head these days. The manufacturers are required to do it. Would wearing a helmet provide any additional protection? I have no idea. I guess they do in motorsport, right? But on a bike it’s all you’ve got, really.
posted by atoxyl at 2:53 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
I mean, cars have mechanisms built in to protect an occupant’s head these days. The manufacturers are required to do it. Would wearing a helmet provide any additional protection? I have no idea. I guess they do in motorsport, right? But on a bike it’s all you’ve got, really.
posted by atoxyl at 2:53 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
Cars have seatbelts, and airbags. (Honda worked on airbag design in 2019). The Bicycle Helmet That’s Invisible (Until You Need It): the pricey Hövding.
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:54 PM on March 1, 2021
posted by Iris Gambol at 2:54 PM on March 1, 2021
A modern car itself is something like a helmet, in that it’s designed to sacrificially deform in a collision to reduce the force exerted on the occupants.
Of course all this was necessary to make a medium-automobile-speed collision even remotely survivable. And I’m sure many more people die driving cars than riding bikes. All the same I just don’t really get the comparison because it’s pretty fundamental to the design of most bikes that the only place to put protective equipment is on one’s person.
posted by atoxyl at 3:04 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
Of course all this was necessary to make a medium-automobile-speed collision even remotely survivable. And I’m sure many more people die driving cars than riding bikes. All the same I just don’t really get the comparison because it’s pretty fundamental to the design of most bikes that the only place to put protective equipment is on one’s person.
posted by atoxyl at 3:04 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
The simple answer is that motorists are traveling at drastically higher speeds in a several ton metal cage and since F=ma, motorists are far more likely to injure their precious noodles than a cyclist traveling at human speed propelling their own body weight, helmet or no helmet.
I would agree with you except cars are equipped with numerous safety features that prevent people from hitting their heads (and successfully do). That is why people do not wear helmets, there are many features that do the same thing (and better). So you are not making a fair comparison.
posted by Anonymous at 3:05 PM on March 1, 2021
I would agree with you except cars are equipped with numerous safety features that prevent people from hitting their heads (and successfully do). That is why people do not wear helmets, there are many features that do the same thing (and better). So you are not making a fair comparison.
posted by Anonymous at 3:05 PM on March 1, 2021
That is why people do not wear helmets
Well, cars didn’t used to have all those safety features. But my impression is that people didn’t used to wear bike helmets, either.
posted by atoxyl at 3:08 PM on March 1, 2021
Well, cars didn’t used to have all those safety features. But my impression is that people didn’t used to wear bike helmets, either.
posted by atoxyl at 3:08 PM on March 1, 2021
schroedinger: cars are equipped with numerous safety features that prevent people from hitting their heads (and successfully do).
And yet almost half of all serious head injuries happen in car crashes*. There might still be room for improvement there.
*this link was posted above but it's really good and it seems that people have missed it.
posted by Too-Ticky at 3:09 PM on March 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
And yet almost half of all serious head injuries happen in car crashes*. There might still be room for improvement there.
*this link was posted above but it's really good and it seems that people have missed it.
posted by Too-Ticky at 3:09 PM on March 1, 2021 [8 favorites]
I know a black guy who has been written 5 seat belt tickets because he has to unbuckle it to get his wallet out and he thinks it is prudent to already have his license in his hand rather than be reaching behind him. Never mind why he gets pulled over way more often than I do.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 3:17 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
posted by Mr. Yuck at 3:17 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
And yet almost half of all serious head injuries happen in car crashes*. There might still be room for improvement there.
Do look at this link and reposting for visibility.
The car industry only begrudgingly has addressed this issue for the entire known history of cars and people think nothing about driving around with explsosive airbags and stuff and how much trauma those can cause all on their own.
Or that you're not as well protected by crumple zones and engineering in the chaos of high speed accidents as you might think despite all of the relative advances in crash safety.
I take lots of risks on a bicycle and the speed that cars generally go at with mixed opposing traffic mixed with distracted or drunk drivers totally terrify me.
If given the choice I'd much rather lay my bike down at 20+ mph or fall off a trail into the brush or even take a mild "dooring" than get in a head on collision in any car on the road at 30+ each or get rear ended by surprise by anyone going over 30 MPH.
Either one of those extremely common car accident scenarios has a higher probability of wrecking my body than the lower speed bike crash. I've seen what seatbelts alone can do to someone in a fairly low speed crash even while it's keeping them in the car. I've seen airbag abrasions on people's faces and what happens to someone wearing glasses if one goes off.
Yeah, these safety measures save lives and they're good things but they're arguably not enough and the risks are higher than bicycling even without a helmet because of how velocity works.
I would seriously much rather crash into a patch of thistle or cactus (again!) than get into either of those kinds of relatively mild car crashes.
posted by loquacious at 3:30 PM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
Do look at this link and reposting for visibility.
The car industry only begrudgingly has addressed this issue for the entire known history of cars and people think nothing about driving around with explsosive airbags and stuff and how much trauma those can cause all on their own.
Or that you're not as well protected by crumple zones and engineering in the chaos of high speed accidents as you might think despite all of the relative advances in crash safety.
I take lots of risks on a bicycle and the speed that cars generally go at with mixed opposing traffic mixed with distracted or drunk drivers totally terrify me.
If given the choice I'd much rather lay my bike down at 20+ mph or fall off a trail into the brush or even take a mild "dooring" than get in a head on collision in any car on the road at 30+ each or get rear ended by surprise by anyone going over 30 MPH.
Either one of those extremely common car accident scenarios has a higher probability of wrecking my body than the lower speed bike crash. I've seen what seatbelts alone can do to someone in a fairly low speed crash even while it's keeping them in the car. I've seen airbag abrasions on people's faces and what happens to someone wearing glasses if one goes off.
Yeah, these safety measures save lives and they're good things but they're arguably not enough and the risks are higher than bicycling even without a helmet because of how velocity works.
I would seriously much rather crash into a patch of thistle or cactus (again!) than get into either of those kinds of relatively mild car crashes.
posted by loquacious at 3:30 PM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
But on a bike it’s all you’ve got, really.
You can literally say the same thing about being a pedestrian, what if a car careens on the sidewalk and hits you? It seems like such common sense because as a pedestrian it's all you've got! Certainly there's nothing we can do about the fact that cars are killing pedestrians every single day in every American city. We must simply accept the fact that the streets run with blood and hey, that motorist probably didn't see you there on the sidewalk! Safety first.
posted by bradbane at 3:41 PM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
You can literally say the same thing about being a pedestrian, what if a car careens on the sidewalk and hits you? It seems like such common sense because as a pedestrian it's all you've got! Certainly there's nothing we can do about the fact that cars are killing pedestrians every single day in every American city. We must simply accept the fact that the streets run with blood and hey, that motorist probably didn't see you there on the sidewalk! Safety first.
posted by bradbane at 3:41 PM on March 1, 2021 [6 favorites]
I would agree with you except cars are equipped with numerous safety features that prevent people from hitting their heads (and successfully do).
And yet the third leading cause of death in America is automobile accidents. That's some success.
posted by bradbane at 3:43 PM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
And yet the third leading cause of death in America is automobile accidents. That's some success.
posted by bradbane at 3:43 PM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
The accusation of systemic racism in helmet law enforcement seems to rely on this statistic. However, before agreeing, I would like to know what percentage of the bicycle riding population is black.
About the same (per this Seattle Times article), though this article specifically addressing the question indicates that Black people make less than five percent of all the bike rides in Seattle.
posted by wotsac at 3:44 PM on March 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
About the same (per this Seattle Times article), though this article specifically addressing the question indicates that Black people make less than five percent of all the bike rides in Seattle.
posted by wotsac at 3:44 PM on March 1, 2021 [5 favorites]
Man, I wish I had time to read all of these comments. I love it that this community is so passionate that bike helmet laws.
I'm in the "shouldn't be a law, but please wear your helmet" camp. I ride. I have been a Education Director for a large (1+K) member bike club and taught bike safety.. I have close friends who have been injured riding bikes. I have seen a friend first-hand who, in my opinion, would have died in front of me without one.
posted by grimjeer at 3:46 PM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
I'm in the "shouldn't be a law, but please wear your helmet" camp. I ride. I have been a Education Director for a large (1+K) member bike club and taught bike safety.. I have close friends who have been injured riding bikes. I have seen a friend first-hand who, in my opinion, would have died in front of me without one.
posted by grimjeer at 3:46 PM on March 1, 2021 [1 favorite]
There is a ton of really good safety tech to prevent head and neck injuries in a car crash. But never in my life have I seen someone driving on the road with any of it. A helmet and neck collar would save a ton of lives, to say nothing of roll cages and other mandatory safety gear in auto racing.
No to car helmet laws, but please wear a helmet in your car.
posted by ryanrs at 4:23 PM on March 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
No to car helmet laws, but please wear a helmet in your car.
posted by ryanrs at 4:23 PM on March 1, 2021 [10 favorites]
Profiling, oppressive fines and creating opportunities for escalation: The case against mandatory seat-belt laws (Radley Balko, Washington Post)
The ACLU of Florida just released a report showing that in 2014, black motorists in the state were pulled over for seat belt violations at about twice the rate of white motorists... Differences in seat belt use don’t explain the disparity. Blacks in Florida are only slightly less likely to wear seat belts...posted by chortly at 4:30 PM on March 1, 2021 [3 favorites]
The are a couple of arguments against these laws. The first is a pretty straightforward civil libertarian position: The government has no business protecting us from ourselves. The decision not to wear a seat belt really affects only the person who opts not to wear it. Yes, you could argue that if that person dies in a car accident, there are secondary effects on family and friends. And perhaps it has a negligible impact on insurance rates or health care. But in terms of highway safety, the decision to to not wear a seat belt doesn’t negatively affect other drivers, passengers or pedestrians. In fact, some studies have suggested that the added feeling of safety that comes with a buckled seat belt may cause drivers to act a bit more recklessly.
But there’s another argument against seat-belt laws that’s much more pertinent to the policing issues now in the news: Seat-belt laws create an entirely new class of police-citizen interactions. They’re another excuse for pretext stops. Moreover, unless there’s clear dash-camera footage, whether you were wearing a seat belt at the time the police officer spotted you is basically your word against the officer’s. It’s another opportunity for police to look for probable cause for a search, or for behavior that could justify a forfeiture of your cash, your car or anything inside of it. And as we’ve seen in South Carolina, Indiana, California and elsewhere, they create more interactions that could potentially lead to escalation, violence and even death...
Of course, beatings, shootings and seat-belt arrests are fairly rare. The real damage these laws do is inflicted in much more mundane ways — poor people can’t afford the fines. In California, a single seat-belt violation can be as much as $490. In other areas, it’s closer to $25. But that can still be a lot of money for someone on a tight budget... Black Americans are disproportionately cited for seat-belt violations, disproportionately searched after such stops, and have a disproportionately difficult time paying the fine...
If a seat-belt violation causes a low-income man to be pulled over, searched, fined and fined again for nonpayment, then results in a suspended license, and then arrest and incarceration for driving on a suspended license, the state is no longer protecting him — it’s ruining him.
And yet the third leading cause of death in America is automobile accidents. That's some success.
That link lumps all accidents, automotive and otherwise, together. Using the numbers on that page car accidents as a separate category (which average something more than 30k per year) don't make the top 10.
posted by mark k at 4:47 PM on March 1, 2021
That link lumps all accidents, automotive and otherwise, together. Using the numbers on that page car accidents as a separate category (which average something more than 30k per year) don't make the top 10.
posted by mark k at 4:47 PM on March 1, 2021
And yet the third leading cause of death in America is automobile accidents. That's some success.
You are being very disingenuous with your numbers. First of all, as mark k points out, that's all accidents, not just car accidents. Second of all, more people drive than cycle, so of course you are going to have more car deaths. More people die in a year from drowning than from lightning strikes. Does that mean you'd prefer to be hit by lightning over going swimming, or could it perhaps be that just overall more people go swimming, so even with the lower death rate it produces more total deaths? You cannot just look at raw numbers when considering how deadly an activity is. Third, deaths are not telling me anything about head injuries. We are comparing risks of head injuries when driving versus cycling.
You seem to be arguing that getting into a helmetless car accident is more likely to produce a head injury than getting into a helmetless cycling accident. Given that cars are (as mentioned) equipped with all sorts of safety features that exist to take the place of helmets, I would like to see your data that helmetless bicycle riding is safer.
posted by Anonymous at 5:33 PM on March 1, 2021
You are being very disingenuous with your numbers. First of all, as mark k points out, that's all accidents, not just car accidents. Second of all, more people drive than cycle, so of course you are going to have more car deaths. More people die in a year from drowning than from lightning strikes. Does that mean you'd prefer to be hit by lightning over going swimming, or could it perhaps be that just overall more people go swimming, so even with the lower death rate it produces more total deaths? You cannot just look at raw numbers when considering how deadly an activity is. Third, deaths are not telling me anything about head injuries. We are comparing risks of head injuries when driving versus cycling.
You seem to be arguing that getting into a helmetless car accident is more likely to produce a head injury than getting into a helmetless cycling accident. Given that cars are (as mentioned) equipped with all sorts of safety features that exist to take the place of helmets, I would like to see your data that helmetless bicycle riding is safer.
posted by Anonymous at 5:33 PM on March 1, 2021
Crazy how almost every post on cycling on MF devolves into this same kind of thing.
posted by Windopaene at 5:39 PM on March 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
posted by Windopaene at 5:39 PM on March 1, 2021 [7 favorites]
But there’s another argument against seat-belt laws that’s much more pertinent to the policing issues now in the news: Seat-belt laws create an entirely new class of police-citizen interactions. They’re another excuse for pretext stops.
You could say that about a whole lot of laws. I mean, "racist cop stops someone and creates a pretext to justify it" is a movie cliche. But many of those laws enforce norms that are unarguably beneficial to the community as a whole, even if they're abused by racist police. The answer isn't to get rid of the laws; it's to get rid of racist policing.
In this case it has been argued that making helmets mandatory isn't unarguably beneficial, which is a different matter. And I suppose that the same would apply even if mandatory helmets were only trivially beneficial, because racist policing is a serious problem. But Balko is approaching this from a very limited—almost blinkered—libertarian viewpoint, in which seatbelts should not be mandatory because a failure to wear one "doesn’t negatively affect other drivers, passengers or pedestrians".
I suspect Balko's argument isn't true if you include the cost of care for drivers who end up on Medicare/Medicaid or who can't pay the costs of emergency medical treatment, but it definitely shouldn't persuade anyone who believes, as I do, that the US ought to have universal health care. And it also shouldn't persuade people who want parents to live long enough to care for their children. As for it not affecting passengers, it ignores the moral hazard of having one rule for drivers and one for passengers, particularly since many passengers are children; it also ignores the fact that we only have the opportunity to wear seatbelts because of laws making them mandatory.
I confess that I'm very susceptible to libertarian arguments, and I respect a lot of Balko's work on racist and otherwise unfair policing, but this particular straw man should be buckled in.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:58 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
You could say that about a whole lot of laws. I mean, "racist cop stops someone and creates a pretext to justify it" is a movie cliche. But many of those laws enforce norms that are unarguably beneficial to the community as a whole, even if they're abused by racist police. The answer isn't to get rid of the laws; it's to get rid of racist policing.
In this case it has been argued that making helmets mandatory isn't unarguably beneficial, which is a different matter. And I suppose that the same would apply even if mandatory helmets were only trivially beneficial, because racist policing is a serious problem. But Balko is approaching this from a very limited—almost blinkered—libertarian viewpoint, in which seatbelts should not be mandatory because a failure to wear one "doesn’t negatively affect other drivers, passengers or pedestrians".
I suspect Balko's argument isn't true if you include the cost of care for drivers who end up on Medicare/Medicaid or who can't pay the costs of emergency medical treatment, but it definitely shouldn't persuade anyone who believes, as I do, that the US ought to have universal health care. And it also shouldn't persuade people who want parents to live long enough to care for their children. As for it not affecting passengers, it ignores the moral hazard of having one rule for drivers and one for passengers, particularly since many passengers are children; it also ignores the fact that we only have the opportunity to wear seatbelts because of laws making them mandatory.
I confess that I'm very susceptible to libertarian arguments, and I respect a lot of Balko's work on racist and otherwise unfair policing, but this particular straw man should be buckled in.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:58 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
Comparing risk levels is tricky, given the time / distance / frequency variables and how nothing is really equivalent. This page pulls out a bunch of papers and if you trust them, cycling is way safer than cars in terms of lifetime risk, significantly safe for equal time, and about the same risk per km travelled.
Of course, a huge number (80% in one sample) of bicycle deaths involve cars, so cycling where you're not going to be hit by a car is really quite safe by any measure.
It doesn't break down by helmet / no helmet, but the numbers involve places without widespread helmet laws. I'm firmly in the "why start outlawing behavior that doesn't hurt anyone else and is much less risky than many other acceptable choices?" camp. Especially when you consider the disproportionate impact on disadvantaged or POC populations.
FWIW: I wear a helmet when I ride. I started late, though, as it was never a thing in my childhood. I have been in one bad accident, helmet-less, in my teen years which involved falling on my face and would not have been helped by a helmet.
posted by mark k at 7:03 PM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
Of course, a huge number (80% in one sample) of bicycle deaths involve cars, so cycling where you're not going to be hit by a car is really quite safe by any measure.
It doesn't break down by helmet / no helmet, but the numbers involve places without widespread helmet laws. I'm firmly in the "why start outlawing behavior that doesn't hurt anyone else and is much less risky than many other acceptable choices?" camp. Especially when you consider the disproportionate impact on disadvantaged or POC populations.
FWIW: I wear a helmet when I ride. I started late, though, as it was never a thing in my childhood. I have been in one bad accident, helmet-less, in my teen years which involved falling on my face and would not have been helped by a helmet.
posted by mark k at 7:03 PM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
(Btw, my posting of that Post article above was not an endorsement of his position. Mostly I was just struck by how many of the analogies and dis-analogies discussed upthread were captured in that single essay.)
posted by chortly at 7:09 PM on March 1, 2021
posted by chortly at 7:09 PM on March 1, 2021
I'm never ever get on my bike without a helmet. But that's me. These laws are just stupid for all the reasons mentioned above.
But I am, perhaps just to be vindictive, almost in favor of mandatory helmets for automobile drivers.
posted by cccorlew at 9:06 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
But I am, perhaps just to be vindictive, almost in favor of mandatory helmets for automobile drivers.
posted by cccorlew at 9:06 PM on March 1, 2021 [4 favorites]
The decision not to wear a seat belt really affects only the person who opts not to wear it. Yes, you could argue that if that person dies in a car accident, there are secondary effects on family and friends. And perhaps it has a negligible impact on insurance rates or health care.
This logic simply does not hold in countries with socialised healthcare. If the NHS can refuse you treatment for certain things for being overweight or a smoker (and they can) then there is a damn good argument for not being willing to subject paramedics to your bullshit because you couldn't be bothered with a crash hat.
Like Joe in Australia, I'm not necessarily on favour of helmet laws, but fuck me am I against that bullshit argument, and firmly in favour of helmets.
posted by Dysk at 11:38 PM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
This logic simply does not hold in countries with socialised healthcare. If the NHS can refuse you treatment for certain things for being overweight or a smoker (and they can) then there is a damn good argument for not being willing to subject paramedics to your bullshit because you couldn't be bothered with a crash hat.
Like Joe in Australia, I'm not necessarily on favour of helmet laws, but fuck me am I against that bullshit argument, and firmly in favour of helmets.
posted by Dysk at 11:38 PM on March 1, 2021 [2 favorites]
weekend warriors who are invariably spandex-clad
A minor quibble, but can we stop with this ridiculous trope of wardrobe-shaming? I mean sure, once upon a time cycling outfits were unusually tight-fitting, but most workout wear worn by all forms of fitness fanatics for almost two decades is basically indistinguishable from cycling gear anymore.
posted by St. Oops at 12:09 AM on March 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
A minor quibble, but can we stop with this ridiculous trope of wardrobe-shaming? I mean sure, once upon a time cycling outfits were unusually tight-fitting, but most workout wear worn by all forms of fitness fanatics for almost two decades is basically indistinguishable from cycling gear anymore.
posted by St. Oops at 12:09 AM on March 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
Two things can be true:
1) Police are racist af and unjustly impose laws, and maybe there are better ways to protect people from danger.
2) Wear a helmet, please.
The University of NSW study presented to an injury prevention conference in Finland this week showed helmets reduced fatal head injuries by about 65 per cent.
Statistician Jake Olivier presented the findings and told 774 ABC Melbourne's Libbi Gorr the results were overwhelming.
"We collected data from 40 different studies using data from over 64,000 injured cyclists," he said.
"We found that helmet use was associated with about a 50 per cent reduction in head injuries of any severity, about a 70 per cent reduction in serious head injuries and those are usually skull fractures and inter-cranial injury or bleeding in the brain."
Helmet laws 'don't stop people riding'
"We published a study right before this one in the Medical Journal of Australia where we looked back at some really good high-quality studies ... before and after helmet laws, and we found there was no change in the number of people cycling," he said.
posted by daybeforetheday at 12:44 AM on March 2, 2021
1) Police are racist af and unjustly impose laws, and maybe there are better ways to protect people from danger.
2) Wear a helmet, please.
The University of NSW study presented to an injury prevention conference in Finland this week showed helmets reduced fatal head injuries by about 65 per cent.
Statistician Jake Olivier presented the findings and told 774 ABC Melbourne's Libbi Gorr the results were overwhelming.
"We collected data from 40 different studies using data from over 64,000 injured cyclists," he said.
"We found that helmet use was associated with about a 50 per cent reduction in head injuries of any severity, about a 70 per cent reduction in serious head injuries and those are usually skull fractures and inter-cranial injury or bleeding in the brain."
Helmet laws 'don't stop people riding'
"We published a study right before this one in the Medical Journal of Australia where we looked back at some really good high-quality studies ... before and after helmet laws, and we found there was no change in the number of people cycling," he said.
posted by daybeforetheday at 12:44 AM on March 2, 2021
Old study but still accurate.
posted by daybeforetheday at 12:45 AM on March 2, 2021
posted by daybeforetheday at 12:45 AM on March 2, 2021
I won't try to keep anyone from wearing a helmet, I promise.
Can all y'all get off my case and stop trying to make me wear one? That would be neat.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:49 AM on March 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
Can all y'all get off my case and stop trying to make me wear one? That would be neat.
posted by Too-Ticky at 12:49 AM on March 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
Also, who in Sweden wants to reduce cycling? Is it a SD policy or something?
SD is not as reactionary on all matters of policy as they are on, for example, immigration. I imagine the idea of safe cycling kind of plays with their nostalgia for a fictive past. Anyway, the recent vote on improvements for cycling infrastructure was opposed by the Social Democrats, representing the status quo, and the liberal center right parties, representing capital.
In general, nobody wants to say they're opposed to cycling in Swedish politics, but the policies of Trafikverket and NTF (the traffic safety organization) make it clear that they see increased cycling as a hinderance to achieving Vision Zero and that the onus is on cyclists to protect themselves rather than society to provide safe infrastructure for cycling.
posted by St. Oops at 1:13 AM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
SD is not as reactionary on all matters of policy as they are on, for example, immigration. I imagine the idea of safe cycling kind of plays with their nostalgia for a fictive past. Anyway, the recent vote on improvements for cycling infrastructure was opposed by the Social Democrats, representing the status quo, and the liberal center right parties, representing capital.
In general, nobody wants to say they're opposed to cycling in Swedish politics, but the policies of Trafikverket and NTF (the traffic safety organization) make it clear that they see increased cycling as a hinderance to achieving Vision Zero and that the onus is on cyclists to protect themselves rather than society to provide safe infrastructure for cycling.
posted by St. Oops at 1:13 AM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
Jake Olivier is kind of a notorious cheerleader for Australia's disasterous mandatory helmet law. A more nuanced analysis of the available data paints a less clear picture than the one he presents.
posted by St. Oops at 1:30 AM on March 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by St. Oops at 1:30 AM on March 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
I cycle to work daily and don't wear a helmet. I've had one accident in 4 years, but that was me laying down my bike when a car tried to hook me. Admittedly, this is in a country where bike use is totally normal (China). Loads of bike lanes are still filled with parked cars but drivers expect to see bikes, delivery carts, old people in wheelchairs, and all kinds of weird shit on the side of the road. Perhaps the problem is American drivers are too coddled, not cyclists' headwear.
If you tried to make helmets mandatory, there would be a lot more people taking the bus or a taxi. Why? People enjoy using sharebikes and also we're not cycling for pleasure. Hauling around a helmet wherever you go makes biking for transport annoying.
posted by Trifling at 3:06 AM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
If you tried to make helmets mandatory, there would be a lot more people taking the bus or a taxi. Why? People enjoy using sharebikes and also we're not cycling for pleasure. Hauling around a helmet wherever you go makes biking for transport annoying.
posted by Trifling at 3:06 AM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
I think a simple accounting of sodas thrown from a vehicle towards a bicycler the car is passing would make the difference obvious. Not a thing in the Netherlands. Extremely common in the US. Safety in the two places can't be compared.
This brought back a 33-year old memory and now I'm chuckling. I was riding on the shoulder of a four lane road and a kid in a CJ-5 in the opposing lane chucked a can of beer at me but timed it incorrectly and instead hit a primer-bodied Camaro driven by a guy who didn't look like the kind with whom one should trifle. He flipped a u-turn with all of the on-power oversteer he could muster and chased them down.
posted by drstrangelove at 4:19 AM on March 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
This brought back a 33-year old memory and now I'm chuckling. I was riding on the shoulder of a four lane road and a kid in a CJ-5 in the opposing lane chucked a can of beer at me but timed it incorrectly and instead hit a primer-bodied Camaro driven by a guy who didn't look like the kind with whom one should trifle. He flipped a u-turn with all of the on-power oversteer he could muster and chased them down.
posted by drstrangelove at 4:19 AM on March 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
Just to make sure I understand: We don’t do racism well, cultural appropriation well, nor bike helmets? Jesus, no wonder this place is starting to empty out.
posted by Bella Donna at 4:53 AM on March 2, 2021 [12 favorites]
posted by Bella Donna at 4:53 AM on March 2, 2021 [12 favorites]
Just to make sure I understand: We don’t do racism well, cultural appropriation well, nor bike helmets? Jesus, no wonder this place is starting to empty out.
You forgot dieting as well.
posted by drstrangelove at 5:46 AM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
You forgot dieting as well.
posted by drstrangelove at 5:46 AM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
Prefacing this that I am a bike commuter who always wears a helmet. But honestly, I wear one largely for the performative value. I know that if a driver hits me, without a helmet I'd be blamed in full regardless of fault because it will be seen as admission that I am irresponsible (reminders that there is no single case in the U.S. of a cyclist fatality in which the driver was prosecuted, except for D.U.I. or hit-and-run and that cyclists don't break laws more than drivers).
Sciencewise, research demonstrates that helmet benefits are canceled out by helmet risks. There is a good roundup from Bikesafe.org here: While helmets obviously decrease some injuries, they actually promote other kinds of injuries.
Helmet laws have been on the books since the 90s and have not reduced the number of injuries because a foam hat cannot protect someone from getting hit by a two-ton vehicle. What they do is shift the blame of a systemic problem to individuals, while also creating these racist effects that ultimately harm the invisible low-income riders more — the people who have no choice but to ride bikes for transportation.
This study is not new news, there have been many similar studies in other cities. We also know from studies of bike-friendly cities that what does work is designing streets effectively so that cyclists can safely use them. And that bike lanes could be the most cost effective way to improve public health. We need to include people like these girls, who I doubt have ever found a helmet that fit their hairstyle.
posted by veery at 5:58 AM on March 2, 2021 [22 favorites]
Sciencewise, research demonstrates that helmet benefits are canceled out by helmet risks. There is a good roundup from Bikesafe.org here: While helmets obviously decrease some injuries, they actually promote other kinds of injuries.
Helmet laws have been on the books since the 90s and have not reduced the number of injuries because a foam hat cannot protect someone from getting hit by a two-ton vehicle. What they do is shift the blame of a systemic problem to individuals, while also creating these racist effects that ultimately harm the invisible low-income riders more — the people who have no choice but to ride bikes for transportation.
This study is not new news, there have been many similar studies in other cities. We also know from studies of bike-friendly cities that what does work is designing streets effectively so that cyclists can safely use them. And that bike lanes could be the most cost effective way to improve public health. We need to include people like these girls, who I doubt have ever found a helmet that fit their hairstyle.
posted by veery at 5:58 AM on March 2, 2021 [22 favorites]
As if I needed another example, my local newspaper/site had this headline today:
Homeless Black man killed by cop in Southern California was stopped for jaywalking, recordings show
posted by cccorlew at 7:35 AM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
Homeless Black man killed by cop in Southern California was stopped for jaywalking, recordings show
posted by cccorlew at 7:35 AM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
I think a simple accounting of sodas thrown from a vehicle towards a bicycler the car is passing would make the difference obvious.
My college roommate had 3 different experiences of this while walking across campus my freshman year. Drivers throwing stuff at him. Passersby just hated that guy for some reason. He was a bit quirky, but mostly a lovely person. I had never heard of this happening before I met him. It's real!
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:59 AM on March 2, 2021
My college roommate had 3 different experiences of this while walking across campus my freshman year. Drivers throwing stuff at him. Passersby just hated that guy for some reason. He was a bit quirky, but mostly a lovely person. I had never heard of this happening before I met him. It's real!
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:59 AM on March 2, 2021
The aggressive enforcement is in entirely the wrong place (in addition to being a means by which latent bias can be expressed).
Every police force/department needs to pair up some plain-clothes officers on unmarked bicycles with marked roads-policing units in radio contact. Non-obvious cameras on the bikes, facing both front and rear. An electronic non-contact distance measure device to give a calibrated readout of just HOW close that close-pass was. Go fishing for shitty terrible drivers and aggressively enforce the laws against THEM.
If the law doesn't define a minimum width margin for passing a cyclist, that's the law that should be created and enforced. If there is no law against dooring a cyclist, or driving/parking in a marked cycle lane, or if those laws are not aggressively enforced, that's a defect. I wear a helmet when cycling, I think every cyclist should, but "helmet laws" are legislating the wrong thing.
But of course, the aggressive enforcement is in the wrong place by design - because if it were in the right place, it would conflict with the same sense of entitlement that shitty drivers have that leads to them causing their car-bike collisions in the first place. And that is, of course, utterly absurd to even consider.
posted by BuxtonTheRed at 8:03 AM on March 2, 2021 [8 favorites]
Every police force/department needs to pair up some plain-clothes officers on unmarked bicycles with marked roads-policing units in radio contact. Non-obvious cameras on the bikes, facing both front and rear. An electronic non-contact distance measure device to give a calibrated readout of just HOW close that close-pass was. Go fishing for shitty terrible drivers and aggressively enforce the laws against THEM.
If the law doesn't define a minimum width margin for passing a cyclist, that's the law that should be created and enforced. If there is no law against dooring a cyclist, or driving/parking in a marked cycle lane, or if those laws are not aggressively enforced, that's a defect. I wear a helmet when cycling, I think every cyclist should, but "helmet laws" are legislating the wrong thing.
But of course, the aggressive enforcement is in the wrong place by design - because if it were in the right place, it would conflict with the same sense of entitlement that shitty drivers have that leads to them causing their car-bike collisions in the first place. And that is, of course, utterly absurd to even consider.
posted by BuxtonTheRed at 8:03 AM on March 2, 2021 [8 favorites]
Police enforcement against drivers is also racially biased. Municipalities and provincial/state authorities should design cycling and walking infrastructure that passively enforces itself, and is impossible to drive into or onto (or at least, impossible without totaling your car). More policing is not the solution to transportation equity. I thought this article was a good analysis of the problems with criminalization as an approach to street safety.
posted by threementholsandafuneral at 8:17 AM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by threementholsandafuneral at 8:17 AM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
The decision not to wear a seat belt really affects only the person who opts not to wear it.
Or anyone they are sharing the car with as their unbelted body becomes a loose object that pummels the other occupants of the car. This is why you should strap your dog in driving. Dog seat belts probably aren't going to save your dog's life but they might save yours.
I would totally wear a helmet full time while driving any automobile without side curtain airbags if it wouldn't mean getting pulled over by every cop you pass. This is the biggest problem with caged street cars that require helmet use IME rather than the pain in the ass of entry/exit. Wearing a helmet while driving on the streets attracts cops like free doughnuts. If automobiles were introduced today and not relics from two centuries ago there wouldn't even be a debate; the law would mandate their use.
My jurisdiction is mandatory bike helmets for everyone but I wear a helmet regardless and don't find it any more irritating than a toque or ball cap. I also [am required to] wear a much heavier, unventilated, hard hat for 10 hours a day at work.
I kind of wish we had some signalling tier between mandatory enforced with punishment and government suggestion. Something the government issues that says we really strongly and emphatically want you to do this but we won't make it the law because ACAB.
posted by Mitheral at 8:28 AM on March 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
Or anyone they are sharing the car with as their unbelted body becomes a loose object that pummels the other occupants of the car. This is why you should strap your dog in driving. Dog seat belts probably aren't going to save your dog's life but they might save yours.
I would totally wear a helmet full time while driving any automobile without side curtain airbags if it wouldn't mean getting pulled over by every cop you pass. This is the biggest problem with caged street cars that require helmet use IME rather than the pain in the ass of entry/exit. Wearing a helmet while driving on the streets attracts cops like free doughnuts. If automobiles were introduced today and not relics from two centuries ago there wouldn't even be a debate; the law would mandate their use.
My jurisdiction is mandatory bike helmets for everyone but I wear a helmet regardless and don't find it any more irritating than a toque or ball cap. I also [am required to] wear a much heavier, unventilated, hard hat for 10 hours a day at work.
I kind of wish we had some signalling tier between mandatory enforced with punishment and government suggestion. Something the government issues that says we really strongly and emphatically want you to do this but we won't make it the law because ACAB.
posted by Mitheral at 8:28 AM on March 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
If the law doesn't define a minimum width margin for passing a cyclist, that's the law that should be created and enforced.
BC has a minimum safe passing law which I have never heard of someone getting a ticket for even when they sideswiped a cyclist. At least part of that, not that I have any sympathy for the car driver, is that it is pretty much impossible to legally pass a cyclist in anything but the narrowest car and still maintain your lane. I'd had way to many pedal/handlebar contacts with cars to give a shit if a car driver is delayed till they can safely and legally pass. I've had the thought to magnetically fasten a hockey stick cross wise to my rear rack to guerrilla enforce the safe passing requirement.
posted by Mitheral at 8:35 AM on March 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
BC has a minimum safe passing law which I have never heard of someone getting a ticket for even when they sideswiped a cyclist. At least part of that, not that I have any sympathy for the car driver, is that it is pretty much impossible to legally pass a cyclist in anything but the narrowest car and still maintain your lane. I'd had way to many pedal/handlebar contacts with cars to give a shit if a car driver is delayed till they can safely and legally pass. I've had the thought to magnetically fasten a hockey stick cross wise to my rear rack to guerrilla enforce the safe passing requirement.
posted by Mitheral at 8:35 AM on March 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
It's interesting to look at how much of this discussion ended up litigating bike crash statistics, and completely ignored the context of the article - racially biased policing. It reminds me of when marijuana legalization was on the ballot in Washington, and the Stranger (a Seattle alt-weekly newspaper) published this piece about racial discrepancies in policing and legalization as a anti-racist move. The article is absolutely worth the read, and is in fact very relevant to this conversation!
For context, Dominic Holden was working to pass an initiative to make marijuana possession low-priority for arrest in Seattle, and he did so because of the racially biased policing – “African Americans made up only 8.5 percent of the city's population but 35 percent of the city's pot possession busts”. (Sounds familiar!) While working on the campaign for this initiative, a poll found that voters didn’t respond to the message about racism. So, in order to win, they changed their messaging to a bland bit encouraging police to focus on “serious and violent crime”. And it worked! Not only did that initiative pass, so did legalization (I-502) a few years later. Holden goes on to say,
“Have you heard of concern trolls? They're typically internet commenters, but they could be anyone who attempts to undermine your argument by pretending to share your goal but disagrees with your strategy. They say your method will have unintended ramifications….
… I-502's loudest critics are concern trolls. Moreover, they're concern trolls who have got theirs—folks who aren't going to get busted because they're largely white, authorized as medical marijuana patients, or wealthy from the medical marijuana market—and have little to gain by passing the initiative. Despite being a monumental leap for civil rights, they quibble, I-502 isn't ideal.”
I’m seeing the same thing play out in this thread – people are largely ignoring the racist police angle (and racist police are a huge problem in Seattle) and instead choose to bicker about their particular pet theories on bicycle safety. Honestly, it’s a shame. I’m not really surprised that the Seattle population is indifferent to racism (look at our history of racial restrictive covenants if you want to be further disappointed), but I had hoped the framing of this post would have directed the conversation here better.
A lot of this looks like concern trolling about bicycle safety because the actual issue – racist policing – neither affects nor interests the people here.
posted by Behemoth, in no. 302-bis, with the Browning at 9:19 AM on March 2, 2021 [20 favorites]
For context, Dominic Holden was working to pass an initiative to make marijuana possession low-priority for arrest in Seattle, and he did so because of the racially biased policing – “African Americans made up only 8.5 percent of the city's population but 35 percent of the city's pot possession busts”. (Sounds familiar!) While working on the campaign for this initiative, a poll found that voters didn’t respond to the message about racism. So, in order to win, they changed their messaging to a bland bit encouraging police to focus on “serious and violent crime”. And it worked! Not only did that initiative pass, so did legalization (I-502) a few years later. Holden goes on to say,
“Have you heard of concern trolls? They're typically internet commenters, but they could be anyone who attempts to undermine your argument by pretending to share your goal but disagrees with your strategy. They say your method will have unintended ramifications….
… I-502's loudest critics are concern trolls. Moreover, they're concern trolls who have got theirs—folks who aren't going to get busted because they're largely white, authorized as medical marijuana patients, or wealthy from the medical marijuana market—and have little to gain by passing the initiative. Despite being a monumental leap for civil rights, they quibble, I-502 isn't ideal.”
I’m seeing the same thing play out in this thread – people are largely ignoring the racist police angle (and racist police are a huge problem in Seattle) and instead choose to bicker about their particular pet theories on bicycle safety. Honestly, it’s a shame. I’m not really surprised that the Seattle population is indifferent to racism (look at our history of racial restrictive covenants if you want to be further disappointed), but I had hoped the framing of this post would have directed the conversation here better.
A lot of this looks like concern trolling about bicycle safety because the actual issue – racist policing – neither affects nor interests the people here.
posted by Behemoth, in no. 302-bis, with the Browning at 9:19 AM on March 2, 2021 [20 favorites]
For the record: I have been an exclusive, year round bike commuter in Seattle for the better part of a decade. I always wear a helmet when riding my own bike. I also have quality lights, reflective accents, and aggressively colored rain gear so that if I am run over by a car, I will at least be a perfect victim and hard to pillory.
But recently, bike shares have been popping up all over the city! They're great if you want a short one way trip, because you can park them almost anywhere. The drawback: no helmets available! And really, who would carry one around in case they felt like renting a rideshare bike? Literally nobody.
In my experience, nobody who uses rideshares has an available helmet. So here you have a situation where typical use of a service (rideshare with no helmet) is inherently riskier for POC. It's not just theoretical.
posted by Behemoth, in no. 302-bis, with the Browning at 9:41 AM on March 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
But recently, bike shares have been popping up all over the city! They're great if you want a short one way trip, because you can park them almost anywhere. The drawback: no helmets available! And really, who would carry one around in case they felt like renting a rideshare bike? Literally nobody.
In my experience, nobody who uses rideshares has an available helmet. So here you have a situation where typical use of a service (rideshare with no helmet) is inherently riskier for POC. It's not just theoretical.
posted by Behemoth, in no. 302-bis, with the Browning at 9:41 AM on March 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
The decision not to wear a seat belt really affects only the person who opts not to wear it.
Or anyone they are sharing the car with as their unbelted body becomes a loose object that pummels the other occupants of the car.
Yes, I'm sick of people offering up this when they aren't belted. Don't belt up alone if you want. In my car, belt up please.
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:56 AM on March 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
Or anyone they are sharing the car with as their unbelted body becomes a loose object that pummels the other occupants of the car.
Yes, I'm sick of people offering up this when they aren't belted. Don't belt up alone if you want. In my car, belt up please.
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:56 AM on March 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
Are there other issues in tension like this? From a public health perspective, we want people to wear helmets. And I sure as shit don't want police hassling anyone about it, since the police are so frighin racist. So I am all for no laws to wear one. It seems like there can be a campaign to wear helmets and no law and that would be ideal. I promise to rail against helmet laws for this reason.
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:59 AM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by tiny frying pan at 9:59 AM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
A lot of people suffer from optimism bias - we tend to say, "if we had less racist police, helmet laws wouldn't be a problem, so let's proceed with the helmet laws and at the same time we can make the police less racist!"
Leaving aside the public health angle on helmet laws, consider the con job that the government pulled on us in re mental health in the late seventies/early eighties - everyone knew that the mental health hospitals were bad and coercive and had to be changed, perhaps to lots of small programs in people's communities. The government made a lot of noises about doing that...but first, they said, we can deinstitutionalize all these people who've been penned up for years! We'll build the new facilities quickly! And of course, what that meant was a lot of very ill people with literally nowhere to go, and that was the start of the homeless crisis in the US.
Or think of all the times that cities say they're going to replace affordable housing - they just have to knock down this old, decrepit, bad housing and soon, in a couple of years, there will be new, better housing in quantities sufficient to house the people who are displaced. (Who will go...where?...in the interval). And then it turns out that whoops, that housing doesn't get built, or it's built such that "affordable" is an unrealistic amount or they build two market rate apartments for every one affordable apartment and as a result, homelessness and overcrowding and housing poverty increase.
We can't - can't! - advocate for helmet laws with the idea that somehow while the laws are enacted something is going to happen to make the enforcement less racist. 'Something" never happens, and if by some miracle it happens this time, it's unlikely to happen soon. If we can't radically alter policing, it's incumbent upon us not to throw more people to the cops. Head injuries are bad, innumerable racist interactions with the cops, some of which will be violent or fatal, are worse.
You want to talk about what "we" don't do well? The United States doesn't do cops well, and if we can't do cops well, we need to be real about that and not even try.
posted by Frowner at 10:01 AM on March 2, 2021 [22 favorites]
Leaving aside the public health angle on helmet laws, consider the con job that the government pulled on us in re mental health in the late seventies/early eighties - everyone knew that the mental health hospitals were bad and coercive and had to be changed, perhaps to lots of small programs in people's communities. The government made a lot of noises about doing that...but first, they said, we can deinstitutionalize all these people who've been penned up for years! We'll build the new facilities quickly! And of course, what that meant was a lot of very ill people with literally nowhere to go, and that was the start of the homeless crisis in the US.
Or think of all the times that cities say they're going to replace affordable housing - they just have to knock down this old, decrepit, bad housing and soon, in a couple of years, there will be new, better housing in quantities sufficient to house the people who are displaced. (Who will go...where?...in the interval). And then it turns out that whoops, that housing doesn't get built, or it's built such that "affordable" is an unrealistic amount or they build two market rate apartments for every one affordable apartment and as a result, homelessness and overcrowding and housing poverty increase.
We can't - can't! - advocate for helmet laws with the idea that somehow while the laws are enacted something is going to happen to make the enforcement less racist. 'Something" never happens, and if by some miracle it happens this time, it's unlikely to happen soon. If we can't radically alter policing, it's incumbent upon us not to throw more people to the cops. Head injuries are bad, innumerable racist interactions with the cops, some of which will be violent or fatal, are worse.
You want to talk about what "we" don't do well? The United States doesn't do cops well, and if we can't do cops well, we need to be real about that and not even try.
posted by Frowner at 10:01 AM on March 2, 2021 [22 favorites]
Behemoth, this thread got exactly 3 comments deep before things got fractious, and frankly a lot of comments here are talking past other comments and the focus of the article has been buried under anecdata and conflicting reports.
I don't see the 'concern trolling' you mention, so much as almost universal agreement that helmet laws are problematic, police often enforce laws to oppress visible minorities, and there is a question in some minds as to whether helmet use is even desirable, in complete isolation of the previous questions.
posted by elkevelvet at 10:14 AM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
I don't see the 'concern trolling' you mention, so much as almost universal agreement that helmet laws are problematic, police often enforce laws to oppress visible minorities, and there is a question in some minds as to whether helmet use is even desirable, in complete isolation of the previous questions.
posted by elkevelvet at 10:14 AM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
tiny frying pan: From a public health perspective, we want people to wear helmets.
That is not as cut and dried as many people think it is.
https://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html
posted by Too-Ticky at 10:37 AM on March 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
That is not as cut and dried as many people think it is.
https://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1052.html
posted by Too-Ticky at 10:37 AM on March 2, 2021 [5 favorites]
For the record: I have been an exclusive, year round bike commuter in Seattle for the better part of a decade. I always wear a helmet when riding my own bike. I also have quality lights, reflective accents, and aggressively colored rain gear so that if I am run over by a car, I will at least be a perfect victim and hard to pillory.
Or, in other words, a model minority; one of the good ones.
posted by acb at 10:49 AM on March 2, 2021
Or, in other words, a model minority; one of the good ones.
posted by acb at 10:49 AM on March 2, 2021
I will never accept that's it's better to not wear a helmet while riding a bike. I will peruse those studies but I know too many people who have died, thanks.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:17 AM on March 2, 2021
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:17 AM on March 2, 2021
Suit yourself, and that includes your headwear of choice. You do you.
It's just that 'we want people to wear helmets' is by itself too broad a brush stroke. It's not at all clear whether fewer people will die if every cyclist wears a helmet.
Thank you for being willing to look at the studies.
posted by Too-Ticky at 11:23 AM on March 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
It's just that 'we want people to wear helmets' is by itself too broad a brush stroke. It's not at all clear whether fewer people will die if every cyclist wears a helmet.
Thank you for being willing to look at the studies.
posted by Too-Ticky at 11:23 AM on March 2, 2021 [3 favorites]
My friends wouldn't have died. So I can't really change my mind on it. That's an anecdote not statistics but of course it rings way louder for me.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:27 AM on March 2, 2021
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:27 AM on March 2, 2021
All in all it seems a hard area of study and definitely complicated.
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:30 AM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by tiny frying pan at 11:30 AM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
Philip-random: And high school physics reminds me that if you pile drive head first into a cement sidewalk at 10mph you're actually going to take a heavier hit than if you do it at 20mph. Because at 20mph your forward momentum will be mitigating some of that gravity ... or something like that.
Well, no. The vertical speed of your head hitting the ground (which is what matters to its contents ) is exactly the same in both scenarios if your head is at the same height and hits the ground first, and even when you would be going 200mph instead of 20. The horizontal component of your speed would have to be dissipated by sliding to a stop, and we'd have to discount what would happen if you hit a wall or a curb, as well as ignoring (from a physics point of view) the resulting road rash. What does make a difference is the reaction of your body, other body parts hitting the ground first and taking some of the energy, nothing else. And that may well be different at 20mph versus 10, but in a hard to quantify way.
I've biked a lot, also at higher speeds (35..40kmh), never with a helmet, with few falls, and only a small fraction of those involving other vehicles. NONE of them had me hitting my head on something solid, pavement, trees, whatever. Maybe I'm extraordinarily good at tucking my head in and rolling before it hits something, but I doubt it. Still, that's what apparently happens. Same with the few motorbike falls I had (in over 400kkm); the worst outcome was hitting the side of my helmet on the branch of a tree. Real falls? Rolling, damage to gloves, boots and jacket, impact mitigated by protector pads, never an impact to my helmet, except that one time.
posted by Stoneshop at 11:56 AM on March 2, 2021
Well, no. The vertical speed of your head hitting the ground (which is what matters to its contents ) is exactly the same in both scenarios if your head is at the same height and hits the ground first, and even when you would be going 200mph instead of 20. The horizontal component of your speed would have to be dissipated by sliding to a stop, and we'd have to discount what would happen if you hit a wall or a curb, as well as ignoring (from a physics point of view) the resulting road rash. What does make a difference is the reaction of your body, other body parts hitting the ground first and taking some of the energy, nothing else. And that may well be different at 20mph versus 10, but in a hard to quantify way.
I've biked a lot, also at higher speeds (35..40kmh), never with a helmet, with few falls, and only a small fraction of those involving other vehicles. NONE of them had me hitting my head on something solid, pavement, trees, whatever. Maybe I'm extraordinarily good at tucking my head in and rolling before it hits something, but I doubt it. Still, that's what apparently happens. Same with the few motorbike falls I had (in over 400kkm); the worst outcome was hitting the side of my helmet on the branch of a tree. Real falls? Rolling, damage to gloves, boots and jacket, impact mitigated by protector pads, never an impact to my helmet, except that one time.
posted by Stoneshop at 11:56 AM on March 2, 2021
Are there other issues in tension like this? From a public health perspective, we want people to wear helmets.
Covid masks is pretty much the same. Is it guaranteed that you will get sick if you do not wear one? No it is not. It is for your own best? Yes it is.
Should there be laws against it? IMO there should not, because it energizes crazy people and they run for office and win.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:56 AM on March 2, 2021
Covid masks is pretty much the same. Is it guaranteed that you will get sick if you do not wear one? No it is not. It is for your own best? Yes it is.
Should there be laws against it? IMO there should not, because it energizes crazy people and they run for office and win.
posted by The_Vegetables at 11:56 AM on March 2, 2021
Wearing a helmet doesn't protect others from an infectious disease. Wearing a mask does.
But you're right about it energizing the crazies. In Asian it has been the courteous thing to do for decades if you have a cold or the flu and are out in public.
posted by drstrangelove at 12:05 PM on March 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
But you're right about it energizing the crazies. In Asian it has been the courteous thing to do for decades if you have a cold or the flu and are out in public.
posted by drstrangelove at 12:05 PM on March 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
From an accidental injury standpoint there are better low hanging fruit than bicycle helmets: for example, many times more people drown every year, and probably a substantial fraction of those lives could have been saved if everyone simply wore a life vest (or other floatation device) every time they went swimming.
posted by Pyry at 12:13 PM on March 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by Pyry at 12:13 PM on March 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
people are largely ignoring the racist police angle (and racist police are a huge problem in Seattle) and instead choose to bicker about their particular pet theories on bicycle safety.
I am not sure I would call this bickering exactly but this particular white lady is noticing the paucity of commentary around the racism angle and this discussion does feel very white to me. But then, if we are mostly white people in this thread (which I do not know is the case but it sure feels like it) then we will do our thing. Sigh.
posted by Bella Donna at 1:33 PM on March 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
I am not sure I would call this bickering exactly but this particular white lady is noticing the paucity of commentary around the racism angle and this discussion does feel very white to me. But then, if we are mostly white people in this thread (which I do not know is the case but it sure feels like it) then we will do our thing. Sigh.
posted by Bella Donna at 1:33 PM on March 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
So much of the research is contradictory in large part because a lot of it is comparing apples to oranges. "Helmets" is not, in fact, one thing - there is a big difference between a proper, in date EN1078/EN1080/CPSC (other standards are no doubt available) and a cheap soft shell thing from ebay. Not all standards-compliant helmets will be equal either. Wear a proper helmet, not a helmet-shaped object.
And of course, the anti-helmet sites are quick to point out disagreements or discrepancies as problems with studies that show helmets have beneficial effects, then somehow fail to bring that same discrepancy up when citing the handful of studies they like to focus on instead. I'm sure there are countless sites and organisations in favour of helmets and/or helmet laws that do the same thing.
posted by Dysk at 4:22 PM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
And of course, the anti-helmet sites are quick to point out disagreements or discrepancies as problems with studies that show helmets have beneficial effects, then somehow fail to bring that same discrepancy up when citing the handful of studies they like to focus on instead. I'm sure there are countless sites and organisations in favour of helmets and/or helmet laws that do the same thing.
posted by Dysk at 4:22 PM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
I'm approaching the issue from the angle that I probably wouldn't be in favour of repealing a racistly-enforced helmet law if I thought it saves lives. If you can get people to understand that bike helmet laws are worse from a public health and bike rider safety perspective then you can add the racism part to add urgency to getting the laws repealed. But as long as people are on the "I am safer if I wear a helmet => there should be a law mandating helmet use" train I don't see anti-racist arguments to repeal the laws working. If I think that helmet laws work and want to make them anti-racist then maybe the thing to do would be to have cops give people helmets, or vouchers for them, instead of tickets, in the same way they should be giving out bells or reflectors instead of tickets for not having them.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 4:30 PM on March 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 4:30 PM on March 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
I am glad that cyclists are taking the correct stance on this, although I'm unsure if it's a declaratively anti-racist stance.
It might be harder to talk to cyclists about tackling equity issues in infrastructure, although I feel like transport nerds can understand a common struggle for holding DOTs (DsOT?) accountable to communities, instead of state or federal priorities.
I dream of cyclist orgs allying with housing advocates against racism, if cyclists orgs can develop a critique of how bike infrastructure can spur racialized displacement, via the housing market.
posted by eustatic at 5:12 PM on March 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
It might be harder to talk to cyclists about tackling equity issues in infrastructure, although I feel like transport nerds can understand a common struggle for holding DOTs (DsOT?) accountable to communities, instead of state or federal priorities.
I dream of cyclist orgs allying with housing advocates against racism, if cyclists orgs can develop a critique of how bike infrastructure can spur racialized displacement, via the housing market.
posted by eustatic at 5:12 PM on March 2, 2021 [4 favorites]
My sister was violently debiked by NYPD during a Bush/Gore critical mass protest. She sued and won enough to go to Fordham and become a civil rights atty.
We throw things at cops when we bike.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 6:39 PM on March 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
We throw things at cops when we bike.
posted by Mr. Yuck at 6:39 PM on March 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
Or at least I think it's coming. Not anything specific. But I see cycling people caring about both.
posted by aniola at 9:24 PM on March 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
posted by aniola at 9:24 PM on March 2, 2021 [2 favorites]
Mod note: Couple comments removed. Let's steer clear of the metadiscussion please folks, thanks.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 11:55 PM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane (staff) at 11:55 PM on March 2, 2021 [1 favorite]
There is only one way to make biking safer:
BUILD BETTER INFRASTRUCTURE.
Demand proper street planning from your local government and make sure they actually pour concrete (not just paint).
While y'all debate endlessly about helmets, the Netherlands just opened yet another massive bike parking garage (youtube). (Well, not as big as the one in Utrecht, but still). Watch the other videos in that channel and count the helmets -- this is a country with more bikes than people and where most kids bike to school. Elderly people bike, parents bike with infants and children, the prime minister bikes to work. Over 90% of the population rides a bike at least once a week, with the average person riding more than 5 days per week. Looking out my window the only time don't see several bikes rolling by is after the pandemic-enforced curfew. None of them wear helmets. There is only one group of people you'll see wearing helmets here: spandex-clad racing cyclists, and only while they are training. They are going fast on purpose and usually in a tight pack, a situation where a helmet is actually warranted.
Cycling in the US feels dangerous because you feel pressured to go fast enough to keep up with traffic and stay out of blind spots and not get honked at or run over by impatient drivers. And, you are usually small and alone on streets crowded with cars. Here in NL people cycle at a much slower, more comfortable pace on upright bikes, because they can, because the infrastructure allows it. Good infrastructure keeps cyclists and motorists out of conflict. Cars and bikes only mix on slow streets, and here motorists will silently and politely putter behind you as you do your slow roll. After all, they were probably on a bike that morning so they get it.
The constant victim-blaming "cyclists should wear a helmet" messaging is the ugliest and most self-defeating part of US cycling culture. The more people out cycling the safer cycling is. Requiring helmets reduces the number of people who bike, reducing everyone's safety in the process. If you really want to increase cycling, call your reps and tell them to build better infrastructure. If you want to know what, exactly, to ask for, see the youtube channel linked above for examples of safe infrastructure.
posted by antinomia at 3:27 AM on March 3, 2021 [15 favorites]
BUILD BETTER INFRASTRUCTURE.
Demand proper street planning from your local government and make sure they actually pour concrete (not just paint).
While y'all debate endlessly about helmets, the Netherlands just opened yet another massive bike parking garage (youtube). (Well, not as big as the one in Utrecht, but still). Watch the other videos in that channel and count the helmets -- this is a country with more bikes than people and where most kids bike to school. Elderly people bike, parents bike with infants and children, the prime minister bikes to work. Over 90% of the population rides a bike at least once a week, with the average person riding more than 5 days per week. Looking out my window the only time don't see several bikes rolling by is after the pandemic-enforced curfew. None of them wear helmets. There is only one group of people you'll see wearing helmets here: spandex-clad racing cyclists, and only while they are training. They are going fast on purpose and usually in a tight pack, a situation where a helmet is actually warranted.
Cycling in the US feels dangerous because you feel pressured to go fast enough to keep up with traffic and stay out of blind spots and not get honked at or run over by impatient drivers. And, you are usually small and alone on streets crowded with cars. Here in NL people cycle at a much slower, more comfortable pace on upright bikes, because they can, because the infrastructure allows it. Good infrastructure keeps cyclists and motorists out of conflict. Cars and bikes only mix on slow streets, and here motorists will silently and politely putter behind you as you do your slow roll. After all, they were probably on a bike that morning so they get it.
The constant victim-blaming "cyclists should wear a helmet" messaging is the ugliest and most self-defeating part of US cycling culture. The more people out cycling the safer cycling is. Requiring helmets reduces the number of people who bike, reducing everyone's safety in the process. If you really want to increase cycling, call your reps and tell them to build better infrastructure. If you want to know what, exactly, to ask for, see the youtube channel linked above for examples of safe infrastructure.
posted by antinomia at 3:27 AM on March 3, 2021 [15 favorites]
it split the foam in halfThere's a lot that's been said in 200+ comments on a topic that the blue has a bit of trouble keeping civil, but I wanted to address this aspect specifically, and in isolation. Note that I am not making any claim about whether any particular collision was made better or worse by the wearing of a helmet, or whether that was enough to cross a threshold to make it life-saving.
But a split helmet is a failed helmet.
The foam used in cycle helmets absorbs energy through compression, not fracture. You can find the same foam used to pack office printers or other heavy machinery. You can take a block of the stuff, stand on it, carry a friend piggy-back, and measure the compression as it takes on a thousand Newtons or so.
But pick up a piece of fresh printer-packing foam and break it apart in your fingers, some time. It's trivial to do. It's a difference in so many orders of magnitude that it's not even worth measuring. I can gently place a bicycle helmet on my knee and crack it with my hands, but that doesn't mean I could kill someone in the same way.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 4:12 AM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
If you really want to increase cycling, call your reps and tell them to build better infrastructure. If you want to know what, exactly, to ask for, see the youtube channel linked above for examples of safe infrastructure.
This.
I would also like to see better enforcement of the laws. All too often when a cyclist is killed by an inattentive or aggressive motorist the worst they'll get is the wrist-slapping of a lifetime. In my hometown a young woman was killed on her bicycle riding home from work late one night. It was a hit and run. Admittedly I was impressed that the police actually checked with body shops in the area and were able to track down the perp who eventually pled guilty to driving drunk and fleeing the scene of an accident. He got-- drumroll-- probation for this, no jail time. A veritable wrist-slap. I doubt it was more than a few weeks before he was back on the road if not sooner.
As an aside to the above, I've learned that NOT reading the comments for the online news articles about these sorts of things is a form of self-care because it was just a series of posts demanding to know the poor woman's blood-alcohol level (she was stone sober, but the same guy continued to post this question with each update even though it was clearly stated she was sober), whether she was wearing a helmet (she was), etc. Along with the usual "The other day I done seen a biker blow right through a stop sign" nonsense. The real story was that an innocent person was killed by a drunk driver and left to die in the gutter and rather than being charged appropriately with manslaughter he got off on relatively minor charges. Oh and I forgot to mention that also in the comments of those articles were the usual "I know so-and-so and he's a fine upstanding young man and doesn't deserve jail time because I know he's going to suffer forever for this." As if HIS suffering was greater than that of the woman and her family.
posted by drstrangelove at 4:24 AM on March 3, 2021 [7 favorites]
This.
I would also like to see better enforcement of the laws. All too often when a cyclist is killed by an inattentive or aggressive motorist the worst they'll get is the wrist-slapping of a lifetime. In my hometown a young woman was killed on her bicycle riding home from work late one night. It was a hit and run. Admittedly I was impressed that the police actually checked with body shops in the area and were able to track down the perp who eventually pled guilty to driving drunk and fleeing the scene of an accident. He got-- drumroll-- probation for this, no jail time. A veritable wrist-slap. I doubt it was more than a few weeks before he was back on the road if not sooner.
As an aside to the above, I've learned that NOT reading the comments for the online news articles about these sorts of things is a form of self-care because it was just a series of posts demanding to know the poor woman's blood-alcohol level (she was stone sober, but the same guy continued to post this question with each update even though it was clearly stated she was sober), whether she was wearing a helmet (she was), etc. Along with the usual "The other day I done seen a biker blow right through a stop sign" nonsense. The real story was that an innocent person was killed by a drunk driver and left to die in the gutter and rather than being charged appropriately with manslaughter he got off on relatively minor charges. Oh and I forgot to mention that also in the comments of those articles were the usual "I know so-and-so and he's a fine upstanding young man and doesn't deserve jail time because I know he's going to suffer forever for this." As if HIS suffering was greater than that of the woman and her family.
posted by drstrangelove at 4:24 AM on March 3, 2021 [7 favorites]
Since it was my story about splitting the helmet in half i guess i should clarify - the helmet did fail to the extent that i was still hospitalized with a concussion. At the time i was led to believe this was not uncommon, but ive never stood on top of the foam used to pack heavy machinery.
I think in this case it is perfectly fine for us each to have differing, subjective, views on whether or not my helmet was (partly) successful or not based on the different value we each place on my continuing ability to exist and function. your argument is focused on the ways the foam is supposed to work (and i do think its worth noting this happened 20 years ago and helmet tech has advanced significantly) and mine is based in the (potentially flawed) assumption things would have gone much worse for me than they actually did had i not been wearing it.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 4:39 AM on March 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
I think in this case it is perfectly fine for us each to have differing, subjective, views on whether or not my helmet was (partly) successful or not based on the different value we each place on my continuing ability to exist and function. your argument is focused on the ways the foam is supposed to work (and i do think its worth noting this happened 20 years ago and helmet tech has advanced significantly) and mine is based in the (potentially flawed) assumption things would have gone much worse for me than they actually did had i not been wearing it.
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 4:39 AM on March 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
Helmet tech has advanced some, but mainly for advanced sport cycling (where it is perhaps more justified as a general expenditure). In particular, only recently have there been designs that even attempt to deal with the problem of concussion.
There is an argument still being made in helmet research, primarily around US football, that helmets take something shocking-looking and recoverable such as head abrasions, profuse bleeding, or skull fracture, and transform the energy into torque. This torque then translates to forces on the corpus callosum, resulting in invisible yet debilitating brain damage such as concussion.
I would not presume to claim that this happened in your individual circumstance, but research suggests that many people who suffer concussions and other brain damage from helmeted collisions may have instead survived with mere skull fracture, temporary swelling, and short-term blood loss.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 5:45 AM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
There is an argument still being made in helmet research, primarily around US football, that helmets take something shocking-looking and recoverable such as head abrasions, profuse bleeding, or skull fracture, and transform the energy into torque. This torque then translates to forces on the corpus callosum, resulting in invisible yet debilitating brain damage such as concussion.
I would not presume to claim that this happened in your individual circumstance, but research suggests that many people who suffer concussions and other brain damage from helmeted collisions may have instead survived with mere skull fracture, temporary swelling, and short-term blood loss.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 5:45 AM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
BUILD BETTER INFRASTRUCTURE
Can someone please remind me of the argument that this can be a white-centric approach? I don't remember how it goes. My best guess is that better infrastructure is probably associated with gentrification and displacement.
posted by aniola at 7:07 AM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
Can someone please remind me of the argument that this can be a white-centric approach? I don't remember how it goes. My best guess is that better infrastructure is probably associated with gentrification and displacement.
posted by aniola at 7:07 AM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
Bike Lanes Are White Lanes covers this, but it's been a couple years since I read it. My recall is that it mostly showed that cycling infrastructure tended to be installed from central authority controlled by majority-white politicians and engineers, and was therefore tailored to meet their requirements often more than the needs of local residents.
Gentrification was certainly a part of it, but Hoffman cautions us not to take the argument as "people who aren't white don't want or need safe cycling infrastructure." It's largely a call to more inclusive ground-up decision making and resident-led design processes, coupled with an acknowledgement of the mechanisms of gentrification and the ways in which white policymakers will think of majority-non-white neighbourhoods more as thouroughfares than destinations.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 7:31 AM on March 3, 2021 [4 favorites]
Gentrification was certainly a part of it, but Hoffman cautions us not to take the argument as "people who aren't white don't want or need safe cycling infrastructure." It's largely a call to more inclusive ground-up decision making and resident-led design processes, coupled with an acknowledgement of the mechanisms of gentrification and the ways in which white policymakers will think of majority-non-white neighbourhoods more as thouroughfares than destinations.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 7:31 AM on March 3, 2021 [4 favorites]
But a split helmet is a failed helmet.
pretty sure the helmets are supposed to split or in some way break down in a major impact. At least, that's what I was told twenty years ago. If you have a major impact, even if the helmet shows no signs of damage, replace it, it's done its job.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the thinking/science in this regard has evolved since.
may have instead survived with mere skull fracture
this is the first time I've ever heard of a mere skull fracture. In fact, a quick google reveals a mere 73 results in .31 seconds. Have you considered a career in PR?
posted by philip-random at 7:45 AM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
pretty sure the helmets are supposed to split or in some way break down in a major impact. At least, that's what I was told twenty years ago. If you have a major impact, even if the helmet shows no signs of damage, replace it, it's done its job.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised if the thinking/science in this regard has evolved since.
may have instead survived with mere skull fracture
this is the first time I've ever heard of a mere skull fracture. In fact, a quick google reveals a mere 73 results in .31 seconds. Have you considered a career in PR?
posted by philip-random at 7:45 AM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
I used the word "mere" to contrast it against lasting brain damage. Do you argue that permanent brain damage is not dramatically worse, as an outcome, than a skull fracture?
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 7:51 AM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 7:51 AM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
Bike Lanes Are White Lanes covers this, but it's been a couple years since I read it. My recall is that it mostly showed that cycling infrastructure tended to be installed from central authority controlled by majority-white politicians and engineers, and was therefore tailored to meet their requirements often more than the needs of local residents.
It just occurred to me that I have an example of this. I frequently bike through South Minneapolis. If you're biking along 28th Street between the hospital and Cedar (for any mefites who live here) you know that there's a decent enough bike lane there, and you know that for one block it changes into a much better bike lane that is raised and next to the sidewalk. For one block, then it goes back. It's been like this for years.
And you know what? It was clearly some kind of test for the bike lanes that were installed downtown near the luxury lofts and the Whole Foods. They're all raised and fancy, and there are special bike streetlights.
28th Street between the hospital and Cedar is a low income area. 28th Street is a crosstown street that is always crowded and a bit stressful to bike, but it's one of the only streets that goes across the freeway. We could use the same kind of fancy cycling amenities that they get downtown, but of course the loft-dwelling bank and tech money deserve it and we don't.
posted by Frowner at 8:12 AM on March 3, 2021 [7 favorites]
It just occurred to me that I have an example of this. I frequently bike through South Minneapolis. If you're biking along 28th Street between the hospital and Cedar (for any mefites who live here) you know that there's a decent enough bike lane there, and you know that for one block it changes into a much better bike lane that is raised and next to the sidewalk. For one block, then it goes back. It's been like this for years.
And you know what? It was clearly some kind of test for the bike lanes that were installed downtown near the luxury lofts and the Whole Foods. They're all raised and fancy, and there are special bike streetlights.
28th Street between the hospital and Cedar is a low income area. 28th Street is a crosstown street that is always crowded and a bit stressful to bike, but it's one of the only streets that goes across the freeway. We could use the same kind of fancy cycling amenities that they get downtown, but of course the loft-dwelling bank and tech money deserve it and we don't.
posted by Frowner at 8:12 AM on March 3, 2021 [7 favorites]
pretty sure the helmets are supposed to split or in some way break down
The padding is supposed to compress, which is the way helmets absorb (and distribute) impact. Splitting doesn't take nearly as much energy as compressing, so that would be a rather shitty way of dealing with the collision.
posted by Stoneshop at 8:22 AM on March 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
The padding is supposed to compress, which is the way helmets absorb (and distribute) impact. Splitting doesn't take nearly as much energy as compressing, so that would be a rather shitty way of dealing with the collision.
posted by Stoneshop at 8:22 AM on March 3, 2021 [2 favorites]
Can someone please remind me of the argument that this can be a white-centric approach?
I would say that the argument itself isn't, the implementation can definitely be, as Rum-Soaked Space Hobo illustrates.
posted by Stoneshop at 8:34 AM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
I would say that the argument itself isn't, the implementation can definitely be, as Rum-Soaked Space Hobo illustrates.
posted by Stoneshop at 8:34 AM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
My street got a bike lane put in last summer. When they were doing the community consultations they weren't sure if it would be physically separated and even when they were doing the roadworks I wasn't sure what the end product would be but once everything was done they came and then put up barriers and it is a very nice bike lane. After the snow it gets cleared pretty quickly by the same small plow that does the sidewalks. This was spearheaded by the local Councillor and there was some opposition from a few residents but thankfully it got made. Sadly I almost never get to ride this bike lane because my commute goes in a perpendicular direction.
The city also put in bike lanes on the road that I'm on for half of my commute but its only painted lines. There are parked cars, stopped cars and junk in it all the time. After the snow the street plows do a poor job of clearing it and there are lots of snow banks on it. It is still better than nothing and the amount of parked cars is definitely less than it was before but its a pretty poor bike lane. From what I know of the neighbourhood I would be surprised if the local Councillor was really interested in making it happen or if it was supported by the people who live on that street.
The street I live on is definitely a lot wealtheir than the ones I ride through during my commute so there may be an element of bike infrastructure being built in wealthier neighbourhoods (they're probably equally non-white) but here anyway this kind of thing gets spearheaded at the local ward level and the people in the ward would probably prefer more space to park their cars. My street is only residential houses and one convenience store so there isn't much to travel to along it whereas my commuting street has parks, plazas, schools, and some walking trails so having a bike lane connecting these things makes a whole lot of sense.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 11:26 AM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
The city also put in bike lanes on the road that I'm on for half of my commute but its only painted lines. There are parked cars, stopped cars and junk in it all the time. After the snow the street plows do a poor job of clearing it and there are lots of snow banks on it. It is still better than nothing and the amount of parked cars is definitely less than it was before but its a pretty poor bike lane. From what I know of the neighbourhood I would be surprised if the local Councillor was really interested in making it happen or if it was supported by the people who live on that street.
The street I live on is definitely a lot wealtheir than the ones I ride through during my commute so there may be an element of bike infrastructure being built in wealthier neighbourhoods (they're probably equally non-white) but here anyway this kind of thing gets spearheaded at the local ward level and the people in the ward would probably prefer more space to park their cars. My street is only residential houses and one convenience store so there isn't much to travel to along it whereas my commuting street has parks, plazas, schools, and some walking trails so having a bike lane connecting these things makes a whole lot of sense.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 11:26 AM on March 3, 2021 [1 favorite]
So addressing the "white solution" issue, the Netherlands gets around this by having national road standards that include safe cycling infrastructure. I'm worried that people will write off an effective solution as racist when it's the unequal deployment that is racist. It feels a bit like saying having accomodations for mental health in schools should not be done because it won't be deployed in all neighborhoods. The thing itself is a good idea -- and we also need to fix the country's racism problem so that we can deploy a good idea for everyone.
And the point about liability in accidents is a really good one. Being able to get away with murder as long as you use your car to do it is .. well I don't even have words for how messed up it is. Here in NL if you hit a cyclist with your car you are at fault. It's nearly impossible to get out of it.
posted by antinomia at 3:55 AM on March 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
And the point about liability in accidents is a really good one. Being able to get away with murder as long as you use your car to do it is .. well I don't even have words for how messed up it is. Here in NL if you hit a cyclist with your car you are at fault. It's nearly impossible to get out of it.
posted by antinomia at 3:55 AM on March 4, 2021 [7 favorites]
Being able to get away with murder as long as you use your car to do it is .. well I don't even have words for how messed up it is.
Again, if you run someone over with your car you'll actually end up getting sympathy and the pedestrian/cyclist will be scorned. Many years ago a man ran over a young child on their bicycle and left them to die in the street. It took the police some time but they eventually managed to find the perp. When they did his response was that "she shouldna been there." I believe his total callousness about the situation is why he received a little more than the usual wrist-slapping of a lifetime; if he had just used the usual "I didn't know I hit anyone" or "I thought it was a dog/deer" line he would have likely gotten off. After all, "the child's suffering is over but the driver's will last for the rest of his life."
posted by drstrangelove at 4:08 AM on March 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
Again, if you run someone over with your car you'll actually end up getting sympathy and the pedestrian/cyclist will be scorned. Many years ago a man ran over a young child on their bicycle and left them to die in the street. It took the police some time but they eventually managed to find the perp. When they did his response was that "she shouldna been there." I believe his total callousness about the situation is why he received a little more than the usual wrist-slapping of a lifetime; if he had just used the usual "I didn't know I hit anyone" or "I thought it was a dog/deer" line he would have likely gotten off. After all, "the child's suffering is over but the driver's will last for the rest of his life."
posted by drstrangelove at 4:08 AM on March 4, 2021 [2 favorites]
Pyry: "for example, many times more people drown every year"
Let me tell you about the racial/ethnic disparities in drowning
posted by chavenet at 6:15 AM on March 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
Let me tell you about the racial/ethnic disparities in drowning
posted by chavenet at 6:15 AM on March 4, 2021 [4 favorites]
Cycling back to the topic of the OP, I think it's perhaps worth noting that in the US-vehicular-homicide subthread here, several voices have expressed an opinion that reads to me as "we need cops and prosecutors to be Tough On [vehicular] Crime To Keep Us Safe". Of course, heavy sentences have minimal deterrent value even for intentional crimes, so the only way enforcement could actually Keep Us Safe would be if cops were aggressively enforcing more minor violations. At which point it seems inevitable that "I saw you drive a little too close to that cyclist" would become the new "I noticed your license plate light was out, you don't mind if I search your vehicle, do you?"
I'm not pointing this out to cast any doubt on the many ways in which our society devalues the lives of cyclists and pedestrians (of which I am frequently one). But I think it shows that cycling advocacy is no exception to the general rule that, in a pervasively racist society, the only way that advocacy can hope to have non-racist/anti-racist outcomes is if it has anti-racism at the root.
posted by Not A Thing at 6:52 PM on March 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
I'm not pointing this out to cast any doubt on the many ways in which our society devalues the lives of cyclists and pedestrians (of which I am frequently one). But I think it shows that cycling advocacy is no exception to the general rule that, in a pervasively racist society, the only way that advocacy can hope to have non-racist/anti-racist outcomes is if it has anti-racism at the root.
posted by Not A Thing at 6:52 PM on March 4, 2021 [5 favorites]
> But a split helmet is a failed helmet.pretty sure the helmets are supposed to split or in some way break down in a major impact. At least, that's what I was told twenty years ago. If you have a major impact, even if the helmet shows no signs of damage, replace it, it's done its job.
This is true. A split helmet with an intact head is a successful helmet. And it's not just major impacts, the state of the art in helmets is that they're actually kind of fragile and will crack with many minor hits, and a cracked helmet is a helmet that should not be worn. And sometimes a crack is invisible, or can only be seen if you try kind of pulling the whole thing apart. It sucks, but if you're a helmet person, any impact = new helmet.
posted by rhizome at 12:10 PM on March 5, 2021 [2 favorites]
so the only way enforcement could actually Keep Us Safe would be if cops were aggressively enforcing more minor violations
This is not the way to keep cyclists safe. You can never increase the police presence enough to catch all the minor violations, and trying just adds more cars (containing all those police) to the road. In the Netherlands I rarely see a police car. That's not the path forward.
What does work is, again, changing infrastructure in a way that physically separates motorists and cyclists, and where mixing is necessary nudges drivers towards better behavior. Here is a one min video with a bunch of examples of how successful cities do this. (tl;dr: narrowing streets, making turns sharper, adding speed bumps and raised areas, adding chicanes to make the streets more complex which forces drivers to pay closer attention and drive slower, etc.) In the US streets are designed to help cars go fast and wizz around turns without slowing down. You can't have that be the priority (at least not on surface streets in neighborhoods and in cities) and also have infrastructure that is safe for cycling.
Putting more cops on the traffic enforcement beat is counterproductive if you actually want to make cycling safer. That said, putting cops on bicycles would probably help in a lot of jurisdictions where cops don't seem to see cyclists as human and don't understand why some biking behaviors are done to increase safety (crossing with the walk light to get out of a car's turn zone) and how some seemingly minor infractions (parking in a bike lane) are actually seriously dangerous to cyclists. (Although, proper street design makes parking in a bike lane difficult.)
Being tough on vehicular crime is not about giving out more speeding tickets, it's about changing the assumption of liability in motorist/cyclist crashes.
posted by antinomia at 3:19 AM on March 7, 2021 [10 favorites]
This is not the way to keep cyclists safe. You can never increase the police presence enough to catch all the minor violations, and trying just adds more cars (containing all those police) to the road. In the Netherlands I rarely see a police car. That's not the path forward.
What does work is, again, changing infrastructure in a way that physically separates motorists and cyclists, and where mixing is necessary nudges drivers towards better behavior. Here is a one min video with a bunch of examples of how successful cities do this. (tl;dr: narrowing streets, making turns sharper, adding speed bumps and raised areas, adding chicanes to make the streets more complex which forces drivers to pay closer attention and drive slower, etc.) In the US streets are designed to help cars go fast and wizz around turns without slowing down. You can't have that be the priority (at least not on surface streets in neighborhoods and in cities) and also have infrastructure that is safe for cycling.
Putting more cops on the traffic enforcement beat is counterproductive if you actually want to make cycling safer. That said, putting cops on bicycles would probably help in a lot of jurisdictions where cops don't seem to see cyclists as human and don't understand why some biking behaviors are done to increase safety (crossing with the walk light to get out of a car's turn zone) and how some seemingly minor infractions (parking in a bike lane) are actually seriously dangerous to cyclists. (Although, proper street design makes parking in a bike lane difficult.)
Being tough on vehicular crime is not about giving out more speeding tickets, it's about changing the assumption of liability in motorist/cyclist crashes.
posted by antinomia at 3:19 AM on March 7, 2021 [10 favorites]
→
Stats are lovely and all, but they can only measure what they see. Like survivorship bias, these studies only know about cases that got to hospital. I know it only takes one to stop me, but these stats don't take into account the many, many times people fall off bikes and/or are hit by cars and don't report to hospital. The trick is to avoid being a "crash involved cyclist" for as long as possible.
There's a huge deal of exclusion in hostile road and vehicle design. It seems to be an inversion of the "Nothing about us, without us" concept
posted by scruss at 5:49 AM on March 9, 2021
Twenty years ago, the Cochrane Collaborative conducted an analysis …
→ Three years ago: A meta-analysis has been conducted of …
Stats are lovely and all, but they can only measure what they see. Like survivorship bias, these studies only know about cases that got to hospital. I know it only takes one to stop me, but these stats don't take into account the many, many times people fall off bikes and/or are hit by cars and don't report to hospital. The trick is to avoid being a "crash involved cyclist" for as long as possible.
There's a huge deal of exclusion in hostile road and vehicle design. It seems to be an inversion of the "Nothing about us, without us" concept
posted by scruss at 5:49 AM on March 9, 2021
I see that the Cochrane Collaboration meta-analysis has been mentioned. I am sorry to say that this is a notoriously poor study. The meta-analysis is
* Thompson, Rivara & Thompson (1999). "Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists" https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001855
The authors' summary of the analysis is "Wearing a helmet dramatically reduces the risk of head and facial injuries for bicyclists involved in a crash". This is grossly misleading, because the analysis they presented is not capable of finding this result. That is because all the studies they included in the analysis are case-control studies, based on cyclists who presented at a hospital after a crash. These studies are not capable of answering questions about relative risk because there is no denominator for the risk ratio (the cyclists who are uninjured, or less seriously injured, in crashes, do not present at hospital and so do not get included in this kind of study). Some of the studies attempted to handle the lack of denominator by comparing the relative severity of the injuries in the helmeted and un-helmeted populations, but this is "controlling on a collider" — the same attitude to risk that leads people to wear helmets also leads people to present at hospital with a lower severity of injury.
(It is also suspicious that the authors chose inclusion/exclusion criteria that meant that the majority (four out of seven) of the studies included in the analysis are by Thompson, Rivara & Thompson themselves. This effectively allows the authors to launder their own results and re-present them as if they constituted an impartial meta-analysis.)
posted by cyanistes at 5:53 AM on March 31, 2021 [6 favorites]
* Thompson, Rivara & Thompson (1999). "Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists" https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001855
The authors' summary of the analysis is "Wearing a helmet dramatically reduces the risk of head and facial injuries for bicyclists involved in a crash". This is grossly misleading, because the analysis they presented is not capable of finding this result. That is because all the studies they included in the analysis are case-control studies, based on cyclists who presented at a hospital after a crash. These studies are not capable of answering questions about relative risk because there is no denominator for the risk ratio (the cyclists who are uninjured, or less seriously injured, in crashes, do not present at hospital and so do not get included in this kind of study). Some of the studies attempted to handle the lack of denominator by comparing the relative severity of the injuries in the helmeted and un-helmeted populations, but this is "controlling on a collider" — the same attitude to risk that leads people to wear helmets also leads people to present at hospital with a lower severity of injury.
(It is also suspicious that the authors chose inclusion/exclusion criteria that meant that the majority (four out of seven) of the studies included in the analysis are by Thompson, Rivara & Thompson themselves. This effectively allows the authors to launder their own results and re-present them as if they constituted an impartial meta-analysis.)
posted by cyanistes at 5:53 AM on March 31, 2021 [6 favorites]
« Older Go with the $flow$ | Trader Joe's Fearful Flyer Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I mean... isn't the reason those minor infractions even exist is so the police can harass the populace at their discretion? (and yes, their discretion is usually of the racist variety)
It's terrible, it shouldn't be this way, but it's also one of those "working as intended" kind of things.
Which is why dumping laws like that is probably a good thing.
EDIT: Also really tempted to make a joke about Seattle being an "anarchist jurisdiction" because of all the people without bike helmets. Anarchy!!
posted by deadaluspark at 8:28 AM on March 1, 2021 [18 favorites]