agr

Almost right. Cycle helmets offer much less protection than is commonly supposed - they will be helpful in a very narrow range of accident severities. Gentle impacts would not have caused a serious injury, hard impacts will still cause serious injury even with a helmet, but in the middle is a sweet spot. So in a small proportion of the already-small number of cycling injuries, a helmet may have helped. Not enough to show up in statistics, and certainly not enough to justify making it illegal not to use one.

But there is another problem. To get people to use helmets, you have to make the case that they are necessary and effective. That means you have to exaggerate both the danger and the protection. This has two consequences: one, people are scared away from cycling; and two, people using helmets think they are better protected than they really are, leading to more hazardous behaviour, which tends to undermine improvements in injury rates.

Scaring people away from cycling is the worst part of this, for two reasons: it removes an option for being active, which would have by far the greatest impact on healthcare costs; and two, there is a pronounced 'safety in numbers' effect for cyclists on the road.

So what I'm saying is that people should be allowed to make informed choices about managing risk, as they can in many more hazardous activities. All this carping about healthcare costs is extremely unhelpful: cycling accident costs are lost in the noise of diabetes, stroke and heart disease, and we should be doing everything we can to get people out on their bikes, helmeted or not.

I really have no problem with people making their own decisions: I merely ask that they afford me the same privilege.

Hawk13

Agree with you comments - be responsible for your own actions so you can't just go around suing people for your decisions - good luck ever thinking it will happen in Canada.

An example from a few years ago. Kids going to Whistler on a school ski trip, release goes home for parents to sign and asked about the kids ski level, kids go to Whistler, one kid (a novice skier) decides he is capable of doing a black diamond with the encouragement of his friends, he crashes and breaks his back, in a wheelchair for life, tragic - family sues Whislter, the school, basically everyone the family can think of - the American way, carpet bomb everyone even though it was 100% the kids own fault.

Whistler and school district settle out of court - unbelievable.

Be responsible for your own actions - A lot of European countries, New Zealand, etc. have it this way, why not us.

jericho

Feel free to do as you choose. My point was originally directed to the parents who allowed their kids not to wear helmets. Unless of course said children are capable of making such informed/rational decisions by themselves ... because as we all know, "it will never happen to me".

ultrarunner

Who said anything about scaring? Agree people should have the right to make choices, but when things go awry, who do those people call or turn to?

Let me guess...the same people that preached safety first

agr

My question in response to your point was whether you would find it incomprehensible that a parent would not enforce helmet-wearing by their children as car passengers or pedestrians, being activities that carry similar levels of head injury risk. But that was a few posts back, so maybe you missed it?

agr

I did. If the reason why I did is not clear, let me summarise. All this nonsense about helmets being so vital that you should waive healthcare rights without one, leads people to suspect (wrongly) that cycling is extremely hazardous. So people stop cycling, which undermines the safety in numbers effect and contributes to a pandemic of health conditions related to sedentary behaviour. I'm just trying to oppose the scare tactics. Cycling is not especially dangerous.

jericho

I dont really understand the comparison. Pedestrians dont share the road with vehicles that can weigh several tons and/or travel 100+ km/h. Passengers of cars are protected by seatbelts, airbags, and of course, the car itself.

The closest comparison I can think of is asking if you would force you child to wear a seat belt. Of course you would. Would you allow a young child to sit in the front seat of a car? No, you wouldnt. Why? Because in the event of a collision, it can kill them. Does it ensure they'll survive if they sit in the back? No, but why take your chances?

I've never said helmets are the be all and end all of safety. But if we're talking about something that could potentially mean the difference between your children being dead or alive, why is it even a debate? In the event of an accident, I would prefer my kids to have the best chance possible to make it out safely. Even if that chance is enhanced by 0.0001%.

I say this as a father to two children (5&6) who are both learning to ride a bike. They dont go anywhere near main roads but whether or not they wear a helmet isnt even up for debate. They either wear a helmet or they dont go on their bikes.

Greenhill

You have some excellent, idealistic, points of view but, typically, do the people riding on the wake of Walmart culture purchase bikes and get fit using them?

Alternatively, are they really tempted by a bike (for fitness sake),but then be put off the purchase by the additional cost of a helmet?

If you're really preaching to the masses here, you might just be humouring Darwin

agr

I suspect many people don't understand the comparison. It's stark: even with all the safety features of cars, the head injury rates for car occupants per hour of exposure are similar to those for cyclists. If the risks are similar then the responses should be similar, so why single out cycling for special protective equipment?

Regarding pedestrians, they share the road with cars at every intersection, which is where most of the deaths and injuries happen.

Hawk13

As a kid, I never wore a helmet, no one did. Hell, I rode in the front seat of the car without a seatbelt too.

Today, I wear my seltbelt and a helmet, a full face helmet as I downhill mountain bike in the woods. If I have to ride on the roads, I stay well away from high traffic areas if I can as there are way to many idiot drivers out there.

But I digress. My question is this - do your kids have scooters? skate boards? or roller blades? do they (or would you make them) wear helmets on these?

Hawk13

Actually most pedestrian accidents (not deaths) happen from falls tripping over uneven concrete sidewalk panels.

jericho

Special protective equipment? It's a helmet. We're hardly talking a coat of armour here.
Passengers in vehicles, as already mentioned, have several safety features that are enforced by law. They are however exposed to different risks- driving at higher speeds, for instance, and high traffic volumes.

Pedestrians also have several benefits on their side- dedicated crossings, speed limits, strict liability, etc etc.

What you seem to be in favour of is cyclists requiring no protection whatsoever simply because you feel they are not as safe as people believe.

Besides, as mentioned previously, grown adults can do as they please as far as I'm concerned. Just dont agree with the stance taken towards children.

jericho

I've already answered this question, and yes they wear helmets or they dont go on their bikes/skates.

Hawk13

It's usually an interesting questions to ask as most people are OK with no helmets on a scooter, skate board or skates but are adamant about wrist guards and knee pads. For me, the kids always had a helmet on when riding the bike. But I wasn't too worried about the other equipment.

Hawk13

Maybe it's like a false sense of security - just like ABS brakes.

Agreed.