Is it Time to Stop Encouraging Cyclists to Wear Helmets?
I don't wear a helmet in San Francisco. It's part laziness (carrying it around is annoying and locking it up will most certainly get it stolen) and part vanity (helmets make me sweaty and gross, and helmet hair is awful and my sex life is such that I cannot afford anymore handicaps), but it's in no part stupidity.
I wear helmets when it counts: mountain biking, when I'm plenty apt to crash into a tree or eat dirt due to general imbalance and ineptitude, or while heading out for a long road ride in Marin, when loose gravel, high speeds, and crazed BMW motorists have a knack for creating unsafe situations (also, I don't care how my beautifully-sculpted hair looks after any of these activities). But in SF while getting back and forth from work? Nope. Between lower speeds on both mine and the drivers part, coupled with straighter roads, bike lanes, and the sheer number of bikes on the street increasing our visibility, the risk factor just isn't there.
That's not to say I don't hear about my choice. The city's metermaids that are required to wear exceptionally dorky bike helmets while riding around in their fun lil' Cushmans are particularly vocal, smugly telling this non-revenue generating rider that "I should be wearing a helmet." The San Francisco Bike Coalition is similarly in rider's faces, demanding that members bring helmets to the organization's events. I even once dated a girl who told me she wasn't sure she could date someone who "didn't value his life" because I don't strap on a lid before riding 5 blocks to Dolores Park.
But, it turns out, that San Francisco's bike advocates might be doing themselves a genuine disservice in promoting helmet usage, as helmets actually discourage people from getting on a bike. And for a city that aims to have 20% of all commuters on a bike by 2020, despite only 3.5% do so today, we could use all the help we get.
In the United States the notion that bike helmets promote health and safety by preventing head injuries is taken as pretty near God’s truth. Un-helmeted cyclists are regarded as irresponsible, like people who smoke. Cities are aggressive in helmet promotion.
But many European health experts have taken a very different view: Yes, there are studies that show that if you fall off a bicycle at a certain speed and hit your head, a helmet can reduce your risk of serious head injury. But such falls off bikes are rare — exceedingly so in mature urban cycling systems.
On the other hand, many researchers say, if you force or pressure people to wear helmets, you discourage them from riding bicycles. That means more obesity, heart disease and diabetes. And — Catch-22 — a result is fewer ordinary cyclists on the road, which makes it harder to develop a safe bicycling network. The safest biking cities are places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, where middle-aged commuters are mainstay riders and the fraction of adults in helmets is minuscule.“Pushing helmets really kills cycling and bike-sharing in particular because it promotes a sense of danger that just isn’t justified — in fact, cycling has many health benefits,” says Piet de Jong, a professor in the department of applied finance and actuarial studies at Macquarie University in Sydney. He studied the issue with mathematical modeling, and concludes that the benefits may outweigh the risks by 20 to 1.
As San Francisco moves to install its 50 station/500 bikes bike-sharing program, the issue of helmets could be the difference between its success or failure. In cities where helmets are mandatory, participation in the program is low (just 150 rides a day in Melbourne, Australia), whereas it soars in cities were it is optional (5,000 rides a day in Dublin). As a biking coordinator in Minniapolis said, "I just want it to be seen as something that a normal person can do. You don’t need special gear. You just get on a bike and you just go."
Comments
ATGATT dawg. ATGATT. Not really. I'd love to see helmet laws go away for motorcycles too. I rode around like a crazed banshee in Texas with no helmet. Maybe I want to go out in flames of gory glory? maybe that? leave me alone. My brains. My body. My choice. Pro-Helmet-Choice.
that's a pretty big leap there, "I don't want to wear a helmet, so I just wont bike"
Increasing the perception that cycling is dangerous + making it more difficult for people to participate in bike sharing programs (since people presumably aren't walking around with a helmet in the event they want to borrow a bike)? Makes sense to me.
Fuck bike-sharing programs. A bunch of amateurs riding on the sidewalk.
Localish,I have heard this very thing from over 10 people. Seems silly,but we live a culture of fear. its not that they dont want to wear a helmet,its the fact that others are so pro helmet that they scare others off the bike. Its the fact that the very act of wearing a helmet when it really is not needed makes biking LOOK alot more dangerous then it really is.
Similarly, seat belts have crippled the car industry.
One of the better pieces that I've seen here on UA. If you wear a helmet while riding your bike in the city,we really hope that you wear one while showering or walking up and down stairs as well. Also you should mention the testing(or lack there of) that these helmets must go thru. The majority of bike crashes are single bike events,usually drunk biking. The SFBC seems to encourage drunk biking by hosting events that alcohol is served(Tour de fat,ect.) and no one has ever asked me or other if we were to drunk to bike home after. So maybe the SFBC is just trying to cover there own butts. Who knows. What amazes me is the helmet wearing hi vis cyclist that seems so worried about safety then blows thru stop signs/lights or they wear a helmet then ride with no hands. I have found (and a few studies) that wearing a helmet ENCOURAGES cars to drive closer to the cyclist.
I would like to see the studies you indicate, as well the source of your data that states the majority of bike crashes are single bike events.
I wear my helmet while biking in the city. I will continue to do so as long as I have arm's length interactions with cars. My helmet saved my life when I was sideswiped by a car when the driver made an unsafe lane change. My helmet saved my life when I was forced into the curb when a taxi darted toward the curb without signaling to pick up a fare.
http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/ http://cyclehelmets.org/
what it looks like, from the info you provided, is that the passing proximity is greater than one meter in virtually every instance, helmet or not, which happens the be the required passing proximity for SB 1464. Additionally, the difference between the helmet/no helmet passing proximity is about 4-5 inches. while this number is somewhat significant, it seems an irresponsible leap to say that helmets "encourage" drivers to be closer to bikers.
no,i think that was the outcome of the study. that helmets do in fact encourage cars to drive closer to helmeted cyclist.
http://www.helmets.org/walkerstudy.htm
According to that study, if you're actually worried about an extra couple of inches clearance, you should probably wear a wig whilst riding, as that added an extra 2.2 inches of clearance.
the bikes being in single accidents come from my own experiences and from living with a ER Doc for 3 years in my 20's. Car vs bike is very rare and the majority o0f bike vs car is the bike passing on the right of the car(I am anticar and am not making an excuse for cars hitting bikes ever) So,in both cases you have put forth you we violently head impact with the curb/pavement? Glad you are ok. To each his or her own. I want EVERYONE who is able to bike for at least 50% of their trips here in the city,the more bikes the more we CALM traffic and the safer it keeps getting out there. I wore a helmet pretty much every time i rode till about 5 years ago. Then when the streets started to flood with cyclist i found the traffic being slowed and calmed to an extant that i feel extremely safe riding with no helmet. I have even rode to Big sur 12 times by bike and must say that I always felt more safe with the added distance that the cars give me when im helmet free. Just speaking from my experience. Also,have you ever tried to wear a helmet with a parrot on your shoulder munching on it? lol
I don't believe for a second that cars give helmeted riders less room than they do non-helmeted rider. That's stuff and nonsense.
How many miles a week do you ride HDPDV? Just wondering. cause last year we rode 4,260 miles in the city and down the coast and can say from experience that that is the case.
...And there, my friend, we have the reason why anecdotal evidence is not the same as real evidence.
You didn't buy any of my real evidence last time around either. Statistics from NZ both pre- and post- implementation of their mandatory helmet law. Studies showing cars do pass helmeted riders more closely. Studies showing places that implement mandatory helmet laws do not see a reduction in fatalities and serious head injuries, only in ridership. Studies showing helmets are not particularly effective in collisions involving automobiles. Studies showing helmets are effective protection vs. linear acceleration (direct collision of head and pavement) but increase risk of linear acceleration (injuries involving twisting the head/neck).
All you've got is that bunk study from '89 which you're welcome to read more about at http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html. I'll go ahead and save you the effort: "that's all a bunch of hooey! "
The majority of studies from Canada, specifically prior to Toronto, Montreal, and Edmonton, and the province of Alberta implementing helmet laws contradict this. They haven't noted a reduction in ridership
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10bike.html?_r=0
Yup. I know multiple people who have been saved from, at the very least, severe concussions and/or skull fractures by their bike helmets in this city. Any one who argues elsewise is full of hooey.
sounds like you know some shitty riders.
Yup. I know multiple people who have been saved from, at the very least, severe concussions and/or skull fractures by their bike helmets in this city" Ok, but can I ask one thing? You might not know now,but try to find out how many of those cyclist were hit by cars or how many just wrecked solo. i really would like to know.
EVERY friend I have accompanied to the hospital this year was the result of a car hitting a cyclist. 100%.
And how many was that?
Just grow your hair really long and use lots of thick hairspray. It's basically the same thing as a helmet.
The sad thing is, it's not far off. the testing done on helmets is comical at best.
this is garbage. mountain biking is lame.
Furthermore the only times I have ever been hit by a car(3 times) i was wearing a helmet all those times.. instead of blankly saying that my helmet saved my life, i have come to the conclusion that my helmet might have CAUSED me to get hit. I'l take the extra 3 inches of roadway that cars will give me if helmet free then them on my ass thinking im Lance armstrong if i do wear one.
Wait a minute ...I got hit by a car the night before Bay to breakers this year and was not wearing a helmet then. Forgot about that time.
Let us not forget that we are being sold a product. Some of the pro helmet debaters are in fact in the industry that has a goal of selling you their product. The anti helmet crowd is not making funds of of your decision. I know 2 bike shop owners in this town that don't wear helmets yet i have heard them and questioned why they were using "scare 'tactics to push helmets on riders,their answer? They make money off it.
Yea plus where would you even get a bird-sized helmet?
We thought about one of those little football helmets from the gumball machine. But i know she would never wear it..
ping-pong ball!!!
Profit motive does NOT negate the product's safety.
the next person that tells me to wear a helmet will be punched in the face as i laugh & take throw their lid in the street. MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS, people.
Wear a helmet, toughguy. It *IS* our business, because when you get brained on the street, it's the community at large that has to deal with the consequences in terms of tied up emergency services, medical costs (for those who are un-or-underinsured), etc.
Wear a helmet.
do you chide every person walking around doing something unsafe? probably not, BECAUSE IT'S NOT YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS! & i have insurance so fuck off & don't worry 'bout me.
The NY Times made an interesting point: why don't we mandate helmets for people on ladders or taking a shower, as those activities are more likely to result in a head injury?
Anyway, I think the point here is, if easing the pressure on helmet usage gets more riders on the road, we'll have a safer cycling infrastructure for all. In effect, helping negate the very need for helmets in the first place. Sounds like a win to me.
Yes more bikes on the road will lead to less accidents. That's what happened to cars when we put more of them on the road. Oh, but with bikes we'll have a "safer infrastructure". Does that include leveling out the hills? Designing bikes that max out at a certain speed? Adding bike lanes and lane-width to every single road? Educating every driver to always look for oncoming bikes before opening the door of a parked car? And this safe infrastructure will be magically constructed just as more helmetless bikers take to the streets? With all those surplus funds floating around?
Kevmo you have the naïveté of someone legally required to wear a helmet. That's right, the mind of a minor, it would seem. Especially if you genuinely find "interesting" the asinine and fallacious argument that because we don't require showerers to helmet up, then we shouldn't require it of cyclists. Similarly we shouldn't require seat belts or air bags? Because people fall in the shower? I'm embarrassed for you, making that spastic lunge for a Paultardian, "anti-nanny state" argument which you'd happily discard once it comes time to pay for this "safe infrastructure."
That said, helmet-tip for finally hitting on an interesting topic. I liked this blog initially but lately (as in, the past few years) have found most posts to be criminally boring.
If you actually read everything, it's not an anti-nanny-state argument, as there's no law on the books requiring adult cyclists to helmet up. What it is though is a numbers argument.
"He studied the issue with mathematical modeling, and concludes that the benefits may outweigh the risks by 20 to 1."
Pretty much says it all. If we stop barking about helmets, more people will ride as cycling will not be perceived as more dangerous than it really is. That leads to a healthier, greener society than the increasingly obese and ever-so fossil fuel-oriented America we live in today. I feel sorry for you if you don't see how that's a win.
As for more riders being on the road increasing safety, again, read the Times piece. With more riders on the road, accident rates go down. Why? Mix of visibility (more riders makes motorists more conscious), legitimacy (I never hear "get on the sidewalk!!!" while in SF, although I heard it in Boston all the time), and a political pull to improve infrastructure (separated bike lanes, green wave light timing, etc etc etc). This isn't akin to your bogus "does more cars on the road improve safety for drivers?" counter-argument, this is just fact.
Anyway, glad you think a blog that's been around for 2.5 years has been criminally boring for the last few years! Thanks for reading!
Helmet: Well said.
Bro you're so real.
Utter lunacy. Anyone who argues that not wearing a helmet is safer than wearing a helmet is a certifiable fruitcake.
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality.aspx?topicName=bicycles&year=2010
HERR DOKTOR SAFETY MONITOR!
That's crazy. Every accident I've ever been in has been in the city and I'd be dead today if I hadn't been wearing my helmet. There's a helmet law in the city, I believe, but it isn't enforced. It should be.
I thought the helmet law here was only for minors?
There is a helmet law for minors. And minors are also able to ride on the sidewalk.
I think the point of the article is that helmet laws do more harm than good by decreasing cycling rates, especially for cities with bike share programs. Overall, it seems that society (and individuals) benefits from more cycling - more then we are harmed by cycling crashes. NZ is an interesting case study if you care to read: http://www.cycle-helmets.com/nz-clarke-2012.pdf As the article pointed out Mexico City just repealed their helmet law as an attempt to increase the use of the bike share program. We can all watch how it works out.
kudos to kevmo for posting on this contentious topic (and not wearing a helmet).
There's definitely a risk when cycling, but I think here in SF we've been doing a better job limiting that risk. There's green bike lanes on market and other streets, cyclists are required to have a flashing red tail light, and the number of bikes lanes is steadily increasing. All great things :)
As for cycling without a helmet... I'd say it depends on the area you're riding. At GGP on a sunday I'd say it's probably fine to not wear a helmet and ride at a slowish pace. 9:30am on a Tuesday riding down Market towards the Ferry building... probably want to wear one at that time. It's one of those things I'd like to have and not need than need and not have. I'm hoping that every time I go on a ride nothing happens and I make it to my destination. I don't wear a helmet when I'm walking down the street since it's a fairly regulated area (sidewalks, stoplights/stop signs, crosswalks, traffic is moderately slow). However, when I go out cycling since you're traveling a bit faster and you don't have nearly the same type of safety nets as pedestrians. If you've ever seen someone's head hit the ground after an accident, I'd venture to guess that you'd want to start wearing a helmet.
I've noticed going helmetless is on the rise in just the last 6 months. Terrible trend. Mostly a Mission thing.
You anti-helmet people sound like my dad in the 80's complaining about seat belts confining him and wrinkling his shirts. I agree no helmet law should be enforced, but I'm gonna protect my brain. There is nothing safe about riding in the City. Accidents are accidents, not just a result of reckless behavior.
Does feel nice when I do forget to wear a helmet. Kinda like barebacking and just as ill advised.
SF is not a "mature urban cycling system."
Well it is kind of, if by "mature"you mean "having pavement that is aged and misrepaired."
Anti-helmet guys sounds like a bunch of republicans.. Go join a tea party or some shit.
This is a brilliant article and great discussion of a thought-provoking topic. One of my favorites of yours, KevMo
In Berlin I was the only cyclist to wear a helmet. There are tons of cyclists in that city, but it's not necessarily a good thing: most of them ride on the sidewalk! (Grrr!). Makes me think: people who don't tend to wear helmets are more likely to suck at other forms of bike etiquette (i.e. bike SAFETY).
We should increase RESPONSIBLE cycling, even if no more than 3.5% of humans seem to be physically capable of it.
Correction: not "increase" responsible biking, encourage it. No matter the cost in ridership numbers. If no more than a select number of cyclists can be fucked to strap on a helmet and obey some basic road rules (granting the Idaho roll, of course!), then so be it.
Government can boost safe ridership and improve air quality if it mandates helmets and road-rule compliance, and jacks up taxes and/or regulations on cars. Fat chance but that's the only way to actually do it.
Paris' Velib rental/bike share program has 50000 to 70000 rentals per day. Very few Velib riders are wearing helmets, but I think it's irresponsible.
You don't "Need" your helmet 99.999% of the time until you do, just like a seat belt. You can do low speed but a car at 30MPH can broadside you and splat your brains on his windshield in a split second. With a helmet, you have a fighting chance.
If you're worried about messing up your hair, just know that bad hair is the new cool.
If you get broadsided by a car at 30 then you are pretty much F%$#ed.
if you feel unsafe on a bike, wear a helmet. if you're a kid on a bike, wear a helmet. if your texting & walking, wear a helmet. if your talking on your iphone in the 'loin, wear a helmet. if you're wearing fancy shoes & are walking on the tiles down mission street, wear a helmet. if you're poor, wear a helmet (so you don't tie up the emergency services that belong to HERR DOKTOR SAFETY MONITOR). or you can get off the nuts of grown fucking people that know how to ride a bike.
I thought there was gonna be free ice cream here???
to each his own, but a helmet saved my life after I was hit in the bikelane by a car making a sudden right turn into an alley...I went over the hood and landed headfirst on the street. The entire forehead area of my helmet had caved in and I was told by the EMTs that I would likely have been dead had I not been wearing it. I only started wearing it after taking a nasty smack on my helmet-less head after being doored a few months earlier.
if you want to be safer on a bike: turn your fucking head every once in a while to see what's beside you or behind you, shout out your intentions (left side! right side! behind you!), ring a bell (but i fuckin' hate 'em & shouting is more efficient), don't be in a hurry, don't be an asshole, plan a mellow route, ride predictably, create distance between you and everything else on the road that can kill you. and if you still smack your head after doing all of these things, maybe you were meant to die.
I've seen statistics which indicate that riders who crash while wearing helmets are at increased risk for neck injuries. If it were a choice of dying of brain trauma or being in a wheelchair for the rest of my life, I wold prefer the first option.
FWIW, the two times i've biffed it while riding, my head hit the pavement and got saved by the helmet.
Post new comment