Tripleshot Cycling

Thought provoking video for those who are interested in public health, cycling benefits and complex systems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... WhMEkMtLy0

I hope that nobody watches the video, doesn't wear a helmet, then gets in a collision involving head trauma.
And if that does happen, I assume that the people in the video will step up and provide all the support to that person and their family, as they are indirectly responsible for telling the public that helmets are not required...

I agree that helmets are not God's gift to cyclists, but they do a job, removing them isn't necessarily the answer, improving them could be good, but I don't see any of that here.

I've been taken in the ambulance to the hospital twice and both times I have been very happy to have had my helmet... never once thought that it was a waste.

This is my personal opinion on the matter, but I do have experience where my helmet made a huge difference, I'm not sure the presenters of the video have that same experience.

CB

I think the point is that enforcing a helmet law maybe has negative consequences with respect to getting people on bikes.
I think anyone riding without a helmet is nuts for all the reasons you point out Chris.

But, having spent some time in Amsterdam where EVERYONE rides a bike and NO ONE wears a helmet, it is interesting to think about whether laws around helmet use are actually beneficial or not in public health terms.

I think that the Amsterdam observation is a moot point. Most people who ride in Amsterdam don't ride around at 30kph plus, and not only that, the laws around hitting cyclists is pretty strict in continental Europe, as the driver is always considered at fault.
Here where the traffic laws are very car centric (you always hear about how the driver was not at fault for killing somebody whilst making illegal manoeuvres), plus having a pretty sizable deer population and myopic pedestrians, it makes sense for us to be wearing helmets. My 2 cents.

Helmets work.

When I was in Austria last summer I noticed that the lycra crowd wore helmets and the commuters didn't. Almost universally...though on a hot day some lycra riders would remove their helmet to climb. And there weren't protected lanes in the area I spent most of my time. Helmets don't make the difference in whether lycra riders show up. They probably do make a difference for a share of the more casual riders/potential riders (those still in their cars). To me, there’s no doubt helmets save lives *when cyclists crash* especially when they ride fast. However, as a public health question we need to consider whether helmet laws save more lives by reducing blunt force trauma in crashes, or whether they take more lives by keeping people who would otherwise ride off bikes and therefore increase car accidents, heart disease, asthma (due to particulate pollution), carbon emissions, etc. Or whether helmet laws cause more crashes by reducing safe driving around cyclists or by lowering public support for other ways of protecting cyclists like a passing-distance rule or protected lanes. I don’t know the answer, and I don’t agree with some of the logic in the video, and I'd like to see some of the claims quantified (the actual effects are probably smaller than the animations suggest), but I think it’s worth considering the unintended consequences of helmet laws and trying to quantify the tradeoffs.

Martin

There's actually been a Cochrane Review on the subject, and while this is somewhat dated, I don't believe the guy in the video who asserted that there is definitive proof that helmet laws reduce cycling. It's never been properly studied.
https://www.cochrane.org/CD005401/INJ_b ... d-injuries

My personal viewpoint is heavily influenced not by the perceived danger of cars, but the danger of random wildlife and my "animal magnetism" that, for some reason, makes me a target for squirrels, rabbits, ducks, etc, who seem intent on taking me down. My most vivid crash was a Tuesday morning laps-in-the-box ride, where a kamikaze raccoon ran in front of me and brought me crashing to the ground, and my head was the first thing to hit the ground. Other than the separated shoulder, I was absolutely fine.

It became a fatherly-advice motto: "Wear your helmet kids, because you are only one raccoon away from brain damage."
I just came back from Copenhagen and Amsterdam two weeks ago, where I brought my own helmet there to ride around on rental bikes.
They have furry animals everywhere, and hitting the cobblestones with your unprotected head is not worth the hassle of wearing a helmet.

Great video craig.

Its bound to ruffle the feathers of a bunch of dedicated roadies like all of us. Helmets are awesome and I love wearing mine. Whats even more amazing is professional women (and men) riding their bikes to work and doing so without the concern of 'helmet head'. This was a defined concern amongst a survey group of people in Vancouver when addressing the question of 'what is the barrier to getting more people on their bikes'. The meta issue really is how do we ensure municipalities are motivated to fund and develop extensive bike networks to increase ridership and improve rider safety. The more people there are on their bikes the more infrastructure will be funded and the safer riders will be. I take my kids out for rides far more frequently now that I can get my 3 year old to ride downtown on a protected bike lane the whole way.

And then there's this: https://hovding.com/, assuming of course that (i) you have $550 to throw around, and (ii) you don't mind wearing a 650 g horse collar.

A timely article

https://www.outsideonline.com/2392219/h ... NZYf6qU20g

An interesting article, I think my main issue is being held to statistics and research and articles-which-have-been-written, when I have an experience.
One of my helmets has some pretty bade scraping all across the side where it skidded on the road, and the other took some truck hood impact for me, so, how do I reconcile my experience using a helmet with someone sitting at a desk telling me that statistics say x, y, and z about not wearing a helmet.
The "don't wear a helmet because cars drive closer to you when you wear a helmet" point is interesting, but I might point out that there seem to be 2 possible scenarios: 1-a car doesn't see you and hits you; 2-a car does see you and still hits you. So how many accidents happen where the car driver says that they saw the cyclist and then hit them? It seems like it isn't the drivers who can see you who you should be worried about, but the ones who can't see you, and they are blind to whether you are wearing a helmet or not.

The other thing that bugs me on this topic is that one day someone was telling my kids that they shouldn't wear a helmet because it makes riding a bike less safe.
So, it's one thing to make a grown up, conscious decision not to wear a helmet yourself, but to tell a kid not to wear a helmet... that seems a bit much.

Anyways, it's also 100% likely that the world pro/con helmet debate will not get ended by a General Banter thread on the Tripleshot Cycling Forum

CB