crhilton

https://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.co...age-bicycling/

Personally I tend to think that the author's #2 must have a big effect. In an age where mom drives the kids to school because walking seems dangerous it seems likely that she also discourages cycling because it's so dangerous that you need a helmet.

I've seen people get, what I would consider to be, far too worked up over kids wearing helmets. It was as if the fact that some kids skipped them was an atrocity...

DX-MAN

Fanatic safety nannies are like that; climbing an 8-foot ladder would require some sort of safety strap to satisfy them.

My kids ride with me; they wear helmets. They like 'em -- or at least so casually accept them that they enjoy the ride anyway. Older nephews, 15 & 17, don't wear helmets when they ride. The 15-y-o wore his when he rode with me, but not by himself. Sister & her husband don't own helmets, but they barely ride. Sis could keep up with me for a while, but that's about it.

I won't ride without a helmet; that's me. I'm also car-free.

Maybe it's just where I live (Great Lakes area), but I don't remember too many kids biking it to school when I was a kid (60's). It was a big deal the few times I did back then. The biggest difference is the level of activity between then & now. TV wasn't something you watched for hours when it was daylight out -- too much to do outside! Toss a football, a baseball, shoot hoops, ride bikes, it was all about being out & about.

My kids spend a lot of time outside, too; they get bored easily, so they need to burn off that restless energy. Otherwise, they're grumpy, uncooperative little sh**s who 'need a nap'.

It IS more dangerous now, as there has been a lot of callus applied to society; child predators have multiplied alarmingly. THAT'S the biggest reason for the curtailment of kids' activities. (More than three DOZEN live within 2-3 miles of our address -- damn!)

crhilton

Child predators are an overestimated danger, especially strangers.

They were starting that "stranger danger" crap when I was a kid. I remember having to ask my parents if I could talk to certain neighbors.

Not all sex offenders, by the way, are child predators. I hope that you're filtering better than just looking at the sex offender registry.

chipcom 

yep, children are molested more by people they know than by strangers.

They gotta watch out for them friendly safety-nannies bearing helmets too.

genec

The one thing that has significantly changed since I was a child riding my bike to school is the shear amount of motor traffic now on the roads. "Everybody has a car."

So while the roads may be the same, while the destinations may be the same, flat out there are more people driving cars trying to get there. That is the change. Couple that with the fact that there are also far more new and interesting distractions for drivers... and viola the environment you bike in has become just a bit more dangerous.

But perhaps the biggest traffic density issue is that many kids are now driven to school. The biggest traffic jams around are at local elementary and middle schools, where mothers deliver their young charges personally due to the fear that there is so much traffic that it isn't safe out there... never mind that most of that "so much traffic" in and around schools is mothers delivering kids. And why do mothers drive their kids to school... well state laws mandate helmets, kids think helmets are dorky, AND many schools no longer permit bike parking or make cycling to school a paperwork nightmare, and mothers are afraid of the traffic congestion that their brood would have to face.

So in effect the state and mothers have made it difficult for kids to bike, so kids don't bike.

no motor?

I think I resemble that remark!

genec

I really have to point out and agree with this comment:

chipcom 

Sorry, I was exaggerating, everyone knows there ain't no such thing as a friendly safety-nanny - they're all big meanies.

achoo

Apples and, umm, anvils.

With 1/4 of all trips in the Netherlands by bike, there's a much better infrastructure to handle bikes, and the ubiquitous nature of bikes makes drivers more aware of them.

How many ignorant fools from the Netherlands would post about "bikes hogging the road"?

Having been privileged enough to get to fly through the air and slam my head into some asphalt at 25 MPH, I can assure you that there is quite a bit of evidence that, in very specific situations, helmets are beneficial to safety. Are they an annoying pain to use? Yep. Are those specific situations where a helmet can provide enough protection to make a difference rare? Yep. Are helmets a panacea and an absolute necessity for safe biking? No.

But trying to make a case that helmets are completely useless is like arguing the world is flat.

Just grow a pair and admit you don't think the marginal increase in safety is worth the inconvenience.

genec

Ah but the truth is that I do wear a helmet... for any ride that is either in traffic or on my MTB... and since rides that don't fit those parameters are not likely to be at 25MPH, I feel quite vindicated.

Now in the US, cycling by less than 2% of the nation tends to be done by young athletic males, who are likely to be trying to reach 25MPH or more, so a helmet here makes sense. In the countries I cited, speed is not a huge consideration of the cyclists, so why should they bother wearing a helmet.

achoo

Your original point seemed to me to be that since the US has a higher death rate than NL despite widespread helmet use in the US, helmets don't help safety. Yet you just admitted that there are significant differences between the US and the NL that would invalidate any comparison of cycling in the two countries and make it impossible to draw any conclusions regarding the impact of helmet use on safety.

FWIW, I tend to think that we're raising a nation of wussies. My nine-year-old daughter got a good look at my 80's Peugeot, noted the downtube shifters, and admonished me for riding a bike where I had to take my hands off the bars to shift.

And yes, I wear a helmet. With my kid around, I don't have much choice: "Daddy, PUT ON YOUR HELMET!" Sheesh. Of course, with the kid around I wouldn't want to go helmetless anyway.

genec

And most of those wussies drive cars...!

DX-MAN

With the number of extended family members that have been **** victims, I'll stay cautious when it comes to my daughter -- especially when she's the target of so many eyes already, from 'men' my age and older.

Statistically, you're safer riding a bike in traffic than you are getting the flu; while neither of those really bothers me, you could ask the Miami cyclist on the causeway what he thinks -- 'cept he's dead now. Stats are good, until you're on the wrong side of them.

Funny thing, too; there was a girl in the neighborhood that I thought would be an ideal playmate for my daughter -- but her ditz mother was apparently terrified of me, cuz I'm not the most social person in the world. (Could even say I'm a little 'gruff')

njkayaker

The "comment" is an example of two defective arguments: 1) the "correlation does not mean causality" error and 2) a non-sequator (the last sentence, like "donuts taste good", isn't really related to the first paragraph).

genec

Yes, we must fight reality with logic.

meanwhile

Half smart thinking. At best

You'd have been right if the poster had said that this ***proved*** helmets have a negative effect on safety. But he or she didn't. It is reasonable to read the above as a reminder that helmets don't have as strong an effect on safety as other factors.

no motor?

I know, you're more intimidating than me from the pictures of you I've seen. Especially the photoshopped ones! They ran a story in the local paper about the group that pays for the helmets, and had a picture of me fitting a helmet on kid - I looked oh so wholesome.

RazrSkutr

Pity helmets aren't designed to help with anything above a 14mph fall. Still, I guess your personal experience trumps reality.

Heh, maybe by the time yours drop a penny will also drop and you'll realize that it's possibly a marginal decrease in some circumstances and a marginal increase in others.

In other words, not worth wasting time about wearing or not wearing.

The original paper[1] cited by the freakonomics guys is based upon a widely discredited statistic, namely that "[...] there is ample medical evidence that the likelihood of serious head trauma and brain injury in bicycle accidents by as much as 85%, particularly among children (see for example Thompson and Rivara 1989) [.]" That's on p2 where they're laying out their basic premises and suggests that Dubner hasn't done his research on the topic, preferring instead to found his speculations on a rickety pile of assumptions. Take a look at how awful the Thompson,Rivara, Thompson paper is if you don't believe me. Anyone citing the 85% figure is a credulous charlatan.

1. https://www.gse.uci.edu/docs/Carpenter_Stehr Bicycle_Manuscript_50409.pdf

MrCjolsen

Two weeks ago, I smashed the rear window of a car with my head. The next day, I walked out of the hospital. Had I not been wearing a helmet, I'm pretty sure I would have left in a body bag.

mikeybikes

How can you be so sure? What evidence do you have that the helmet did indeed save your life?

These types of statements are anecdotal at best. You cannot be sure you would have been dead without the helmet. There were no force readings, no measurement of helmet compression, no comparison with the same forces to head with and without helmet. Unfortunately, all's it takes is statements like these to keep the safety nannies going.

MrCjolsen

I also have a majorly cracked helmet. With blood on it. And considering that I walked out of the hospital the next day with a grand total of four stitches on my face says, at a minimum, that I would have been seriously injured at best. As it was, I didn't even suffer a concussion.

RobertHurst

I hope that's not the Big Lesson you took away from that incident.

closetbiker

It probably was. He's bound to repeat his mistakes of the past.

njkayaker

Dumb thinking on your part.

Since it doesn't say anything about what those factors might be, it's propaganda. Those "factors" might be "moving to the Netherlands", which isn't very practical.

Keep in mind, too, that the audience of "Freaknomics" isn't going to interpret the comment they way you did.

There are reasonable criticism of helmets but that "comment" isn't one of them.

The reality is that the US isn't the Netherlands and isn't likely to become anything like the Netherlands anytime soon.

If you agree with the comment, the following is a contradiction.

Laserman

Based on this photo I can make some unwarranted conjectures.
1. The cycle pilot was travelling at a high rate of speed while not paying attention to road conditions.
2. The car did not suddenly appear out of thin air, therefore part of the cause of the collision was either faulty brakes or faulty riding technique.
3. People who ride like this really should wear a helmet and have cycling insurance.