closetbiker

It has been well documented that helmet laws have not just discouraged cycling, but decreased it.

On the opinion that helmets themselves have not discouraged cycling, I'd have to suggest that without proper documentation that opinion would be just that; opinion without supporting evidence.

While we're at it, has anyone actually looked at the report/study? Not just the article or abstract, but the report/study?

The information gathered was by parental survey, not observation or measurement. There was no measure of exposure rate either. The more I looked at the report and more I thought about it, the weaker it seems to appear.

invisiblehand

Yes, I have. I actually saw the paper some time ago through the NBER archives.

It certainly isn't perfect; but one issue with a broad study is that you want (need?) consistent data across states and time. Clearly that limited the data sources and the questions that could be answered.

closetbiker

I first noticed some inconsistencies with other, better studies and then I found out why. The data is inadequate to support a proper explanation but may be enough to support a suggestion.

meanwhile

Frankly, this is stupid. If you are reminding people that a situation is complex and other factors than the ones that they believe are important maybe involved, then it is NOT necessary to say what those factors are! An example that proves that helmet use doesn't strongly correlate with injury reduction proves that are more important factors, regardless of what they are.

Don't distort other people's arguments, and if you do - hopefully by accident - don't throw a hissy fit when people point out you've been less than brilliant, hm?

Indeed. However, you are trying to defend the stupid thing that you actually said - projecting a strawman argument on the poster that he/she hadn't made - by saying that an alternative argument that he/she and I didn't deny might be true.

njkayaker

The original comment in the Freakonomics site fails miserably in "reminding people that a situation is complex". Very few readers there are going hear that dog whistle.

Helmets don't reduce acccidents. If you don't have an accident, you can't have an injury. To be honest, you'd have to report the rate of accidents and the rate of how well helmets work.

If the accident rate is significantly higher where somebody is actually riding, people might rationally want to wear helmets. To convince them otherwise, you have to provide information on how well helmets work.

The only "solution" that the original comment suggests is to move to the Netherlands.

The "Freakonomics" comment was a vague "statisical" mash-up (without any statistics). It doesn't say anything about the value of helmets in an accident. It can't. In the context of where that comment was made, since it doesn't really explain enough, it's misleading.

===========================

Whose argument are you alleging I'm "distorting"? Genec wasn't making an argument (he just agreed with something). I was discussing the comment he quoted.

No, the comment in "Freakanomics" is defective regardless of whether it said "it proved a negative effect". It says nothing about how well helmets work and it says nothing about the actual place people are riding in unless that happens to be in the Netherlands.

No, it isn't reasonable think that the comment in "Freakanomics" would be read that way by the people at that site.

MrCjolsen

I work with kids. And I often ask them why they don't ride bikes to school. "I don't want to wear a helmet" is never an answer. Most kids, at least those under the age of 14 or so, if you give them a helmet and tell them to wear it, they will. For some, especially the younger ones, a bike helmet is actually an enticement to ride.

But...

What does come up as an answer is "I don't have a helmet", "I lost my helmet", "My helmet broke," etc. Also, kids outgrow their helmets or don't want to wear their Barny/Elmo/Sponge Bob helmet because they are now 11 and starting the sixth grade.

For this you can fault parents. We all know that helmets should be replaced periodically, and that a $20 Bell helmet from Target protects the head just fine.

Bottom line - kids will usually wear helmets if they have one. But if they don't have one, many parents will not let them ride if it means their kid might get a ticket.

tadawdy

Cycling is as much a fashion statement for most people as it is anything else. While a $20 Bell helmet mentioned earlier may protect the head just fine, they might also be really ugly.

Kids won't ride bikes until their parents encourage it, which means they are probably active themselves. We know how rare this actually is. "It takes so much time to live a healthy lifestyle!" Of course it does, dummy; it's a lifestyle, not a pill or something trivial you do occasionally. Also, the idea that cycling is inherently dangerous is only fed by all this concern over helmets.

I think helmets are a good idea, and many people have been helped by them, while relatively very, very few are actually injured by them. A lot of people get by fine without, but doubtless a lot of head injuries could be lessened in severity with their use.

I am going to anticipate the standard don't-tread-on-me BF rebuttal drivel, usually taking the form of "Prove it! Prove it!" regarding that last sentence: shove it. You're an idiot. The reasonable ones would like you to leave now.

prathmann

I haven't conducted any surveys, but I have made some observations of the kids who actually do still ride their bikes to school. My commute route was on a popular rails-to-trails conversion and went past a middle school, elementary school, and a high school, so I saw lots of kids riding to school. They almost all had helmets, but only about 5 - 10% of those helmets were on their heads - the rest were strapped around their handlebars or dangling from backpacks. And the few who were wearing the helmet generally had the straps undone or so loose that it would fly off immediately in the event of a crash.

The schools here enforce the helmet rules and probably many parents do as well. So I presume these kids left home wearing the helmets, took them off once out of sight, and put them back on when arriving at the school (and I sometimes observed the latter). That's a lot of trouble to go through, so my conclusion is that many kids *really don't like to wear a helmet*. And that's in the subset of kids that still ride - those who dislike helmets even more have probably stopped riding to school.

I-Like-To-Bike

"Reasonable ones" meaning in this case, all those who share my opinion, no matter how illogical or dingy it may be. Everybody else is an idiot.

OK, got it.

closetbiker

and the information from this report came from parents filling out a survey.

I wonder how many of those parents thought the kids were wearing their helmets, or saw them leave the house wearing them and didn't realize they took them off when they were out of site.

I'd imagine that skewed results a bit.

closetbiker

Before kids hit the rebellious phase (when they want to show they are independent and different than their parents), it's not that hard to get them to do something. Parents shape their kids; kids trust in the parents. If the parent believes wearing a helmet is important, it's not surprising kids put them on.

The trouble is, the issue isn't clear cut and many parents (and kids) don't think wearing a helmet is as important as others may think it is. Kids do have minds of their own and may not like to wear a helmet so it may not be until later that a parent, or someone else, may find this out.

Bioflamingo

Wow... That is an incredibly stupid statement.

The only way to see if helmets are safer or not is to slam your head into a wall twice at the same speed, once wearing a helmet and once not wearing a helmet.

Seriously, the argument that there is no way of knowing if a helmet saved his life or not is ridiculous. Say you're a cop wearing a bullet proof vest and someone shoots you. The bullet falls to the ground and you say, "I'm glad I was wearing a vest, it saved my life!" Then some ******* walks up and says, "What proof do you have that the vest actually saved your life?" True the helmet may have not saved his life, but the only way to be certain is for him to recreate the situation only without a helmet. If he lives, then you are right. If he dies, then you are wrong. Obviously that would be an extremely stupid experiment.

That being said I don't wear a helmet. Never have, probably never will. I take the risk into my own hands. If I wreck and tear a chunk of my scalp off I'll probably wish I was wearing a helmet. There is no proof that a helmet would have saved my scalp, but it's a matter of common sense.

closetbiker

not as stupid as your reply, and not as stupid as derailing the thread from the discussion at hand based on the report that showed unintended consequences of helmet laws.

mikeybikes

Whew, I think the whole argument went right over your head.

We know bullet proof vests stop bullets. We do scientific experiments. We show in a lab, that when I shoot at the vest with a bullet, the vest stops the bullet.

Helmets on the other hand are more often than not way overstated on how much of an impact they actually absorb. Read some of the other anti/pro-helmet threads. People assume these things always save their lives.

The largest problem is we have people saying, "I would have been dead without the helmet," without realizing how little the helmet actually did to save their lives. He most likely would have still been alive without the helmet. However, these types of anecdotal statements with no scientific statements to back it up are often times the only "evidence" people have that helmets save lives. "Well, I saw someone get hit while wearing a helmet and they survived."

These types of statements further make it seem as if helmets are a panacea for safe cycling, when in fact they're not. Furthermore, MHLs may discourage from cycling. So, we don't need anecdotal evidence like MrCjolsen's when it has no scientific merit at all.

tadawdy

Illogical? Would you rather hit your head directly on the asphalt, or with something between your head and the ground?

I'm just asking for common sense, not trying to get you to proclaim helmets as the 2nd Coming of Bicycle Jesus.

Ajenkins

I usually have something on my head, though it is rarely a helmet, thank goodness. I would much rather hit the asphalt with my cap or my bandanna than wearing a helmet. Much less danger of rotational injury. That said, I ride as if I don't want to hit the asphalt, rather than riding like an idiot and pretending my Magic Foam Hat will protect me.

That's the same thing I taught my kids. They can ride without a helmet, I don't care. Run a red and I see you, you're grounded with prejudice.

I-Like-To-Bike

If rode a bike in a manner that made a head injury more than a remote possibility, I would prefer to surround my head and body with air bags and other shock absorbing material designed to offer significant protection, since the significant risk reduction potential of a bicycle helmet while riding is close to nil. I don't ride like a careless Jackass, so wearing a helmet is unnecessary to fool myself into thinking that I am improving my safety.

tadawdy

I agree that something on your head is better than nothing. But who said it's a Magic Foam Hat? It's just something that can help.

The problem with the "just ride more safely" argument is that it assumes that you can't crash due to factors outside of your control. If you are a year-round commuter, traffic and road conditions are bound to be an issue at some point. Children aren't in this boat, but anti-helmet adults, who can set examples for kids, are.

Of course, recklessness and carelessness will cause most of a cyclist's problems and teaching your kids is the right way to go, but you can't control everything. My only recent crash was because the city road crew left a very sharp turn littered with gravel. Although I saw some debris on the road (it was night, and I was at work) and took the curve as gently as I could, it was like riding on marbles, and my helmet came into use. Even if I would not have been seriously injured, which I have no way of knowing, it at least saved me from some pain and allowed me to continue making my deliveries. To me, that's worth wearing it.

Another problem with anti helmet-use arguments is that they typically cast injuries as all-or-nothing. If you still get hurt, the helmet couldn't have possibly done it's job, right? Wrong; injuries fall on a continuum of severity. You may still have a concussion, but it may be less severe, and I'll take only a concussion over concussion + skull fracture any day.

crhilton

So you suggest that it may discourage youth cycling because:
1. The parents require the helmet as a prerequisite to riding.
2. The parents fail to keep up with the kids growth and fashion and thereby leave them with no helmet to use.

crhilton

tadawdy,

Welcome to A&S Religion 101. There are two completely unsupported sides:
* The book of "helmets do nothing."
* The book of "helmets save lives."

Choose your side wisely. The "helmets do nothing" side is much better at making you feel like a jackass, I recommend that you take that into consideration.

I-Like-To-Bike

For good reason.

wobblyoldgeezer

This is certainly not Ad Hominem, Mr ILTB - and I have the warmest thanks to you for turning me on to Pinetop Perkins in a way different thread way back

But, about helmets.

I have 4 halves of my son's 2 helmets from 2 accidents (neither involving any other vehicle, one from ice, one from foot slipping off a pedal) while he was commuting to college.

I also still have a son. Helmet minus, might not have.

I'm delighted that my son and daughter use bikes as a matter of fact to get around. Boy uses helmets. Girl does not. She has a Dutch bike and looks like the more stylish of those on the Copenhagen site that we all love. But personally, I'd like her to wear one

closetbiker

And despite my stance that helmets can protect up to the designed specifications they were made to, I seem to get categorized into the "helmets do nothing" book

(perhaps because the book of "helmets save lives" can't conceive of a middle ground, where helmets can mitigate minor injuries, but cannot, because they are not, designed to protect against the impacts that lead to serious injury)

I-Like-To-Bike

If you would like to consider insignificant risk mitigation of serious/catastrophic severity injuries as a "middle ground" between "doing nothing" and "saving lives", I'm with you.

I-Like-To-Bike

We can agree on Pinetop Perkins and I certainly cannot argue with the emotional issue of "what if" in regards to your children. As a matter of fact my grown son used to wear a helmet while my two daughters never did. They still ride, he does not.