Have to agree with the speaker. The bike helmets only protect the top of the head, and I’m betting that most head injuries on a bike are to the face and jaw, like motorcycle riders (See the Hurt Report for the breakdown).
I guess it’s about perceived safety versus any real safety benefits. If I rode a bicycle I would either wear a full face helmet or none at all. Then again, I don’t ride a bicycle in the first place due to my experiences with traffic on a motorcycle and I like my life more than to risk it on a pedal bike….
What was not mentioned was that the push for bicycle helmets coincided with the push on the part of motorcycle helmet manufacturers for alternative markets in the face of liability suits. Bell, Arai, Biffe and others deliberately limited the number of motorcycle helmets they sold in the American marketplace so as to minimize their tort problems. (Indeed, at one point I believe Bell actually left the market, or at least considered doing so.) That left them scratching their heads – no pun – wondering if a medical device intended for spastic children could be repositioned as a ‘safety device.’
False starts and redesigns followed with mixed market results. (The first helmets were really quite ugly and carried with them the clear legacy of being for spastics and the severely retarded.) Only intense lobbying efforts and campaign contributions in the more left wing states saw the advent of these absurd laws.
In short, the reasons helmet laws even exist has everything with rent seeking behaviour and only coincidentally with safety. Many parents and others know this, I believe, on a deeper level, and in several localities I can name – I’m sure there are many others as well – the laws are never enforced. Having somehow survived the carnage in their own childhood, all but the most hysteric and hovering parent sees the pairing of a helmet and a toddler’s tricycle as more than a little absurd, to cite one example.
The Peltzman Effect aside, there might is a place for these things somewhere, but like a lot of mandated safety equipment it should be up to the individual consumer – and not rent seeking and market distorting legislation – whether they should be used.
Helmets do offer some protection to the side of the head and face because most the circumference of the helmet is an inch or so greater than the head. But yes, the helmet won’t give you complete protection in the face-plant scenario.
I’m an avid cyclist who suffered a significant head injury when hit by a car and not wearing a helmet. It is not certain a helmet would have prevented the particular injury I suffered, but try convincing anyone of that. (I’ve tried.) Most people have an almost religious belief in bike helmets, and I’ve found that they vastly overestimate the protection afforded by a bike helmet. Not to mention that most riders’ hemlets are so poorly fitted that the protection is almost zero.
Personally, I wear a helmet on serious rides when I am going to be exceeding 20 mph on a regular basis. If I ride a fw miles with my kids around the neighborhood, a helmet is pointless. The looks of astonishment I get when people drive by and see that my kids aren’t wearing helmets are interesting.
How is the theory of contributory negligence holding out these days? Because as a driver I’m scared to death of hitting somebody, maybe under age, who thinks he/she is “expressing his freedom” by not wearing a helmet, and having to pay for damage which is all or mostly the result.
Maybe we should have a law that says it’s OK to ride that way if you’re an adult and have a suicide note on your person, absolving the driver and any insurance companies of all responsibility when you get squished.
@John David Galt Helmet does not protect against crash with a car. It is more or less irrelevant in that scenario. As far as I know, even helmet sellers say so.
It should protect you only against an usual fall down to a road. For some reason, it is common to assume a protection against car. I do not know why.
If cycling were the same everywhere and every cyclist doing it for transportation the speaker might be right. If we all lived in a flat land where bicycle speeds were 10 mph or less we might all be able to ditch the helmet. Where I live I have a nice 1.5 mile downhill run to downtown. Even my 7 year old whips it up to 15-20 mph down that hill. Not all roads are designed for cycling like they are in europe either.
Bike helmets also became popular around the same time that mountain biking became popular too. Maybe not some ulterior motive of scare marketing.
The speakers snootiness and snark make for a compelling argument though.
As a long time cyclist and ex-racer I do wear a helmet. I can hold 25 mph and hit 40 mph on some down hill runs. But as an engineer, I understand that there are many situations when a helmet may not work. If bike and rider are 200 lbs. (or close enough) under a pound of foam cannot reasonably absorb the impact of a crash. What the helmet can do is to permit and minimize the sliding damage. The shiny stuff on helmets lets the helmet slide, which is a good thing. One obsolete design had a thin cloth covering on foam that would on some occasions stick to the pavement on impact, locking the head in place, while the rest of the body rotated (which is not a good outcome). That said, I have personal experience with helmets preventing fatalities.
@ JD Galt, in Georgia at least, there is a statute providing that failure to wear a helmet can not be introduced as evidence of contributory negligence. Not sure how many other states have the same law. Also keep in mind that if you hit a cyclist while talking on your cell, some states will permit an award of punitive damages, making a collision with a cyclist a very expensive proposition. Personally, this is one reason that I carry a large umbrella policy.
12 Comments
Great talk. Thank you, Mr. Olson, for the link. The speaker ignored the risk from the brass in the air values of bicycle tires.
Have to agree with the speaker. The bike helmets only protect the top of the head, and I’m betting that most head injuries on a bike are to the face and jaw, like motorcycle riders (See the Hurt Report for the breakdown).
I guess it’s about perceived safety versus any real safety benefits. If I rode a bicycle I would either wear a full face helmet or none at all. Then again, I don’t ride a bicycle in the first place due to my experiences with traffic on a motorcycle and I like my life more than to risk it on a pedal bike….
What was not mentioned was that the push for bicycle helmets coincided with the push on the part of motorcycle helmet manufacturers for alternative markets in the face of liability suits. Bell, Arai, Biffe and others deliberately limited the number of motorcycle helmets they sold in the American marketplace so as to minimize their tort problems. (Indeed, at one point I believe Bell actually left the market, or at least considered doing so.) That left them scratching their heads – no pun – wondering if a medical device intended for spastic children could be repositioned as a ‘safety device.’
False starts and redesigns followed with mixed market results. (The first helmets were really quite ugly and carried with them the clear legacy of being for spastics and the severely retarded.) Only intense lobbying efforts and campaign contributions in the more left wing states saw the advent of these absurd laws.
In short, the reasons helmet laws even exist has everything with rent seeking behaviour and only coincidentally with safety. Many parents and others know this, I believe, on a deeper level, and in several localities I can name – I’m sure there are many others as well – the laws are never enforced. Having somehow survived the carnage in their own childhood, all but the most hysteric and hovering parent sees the pairing of a helmet and a toddler’s tricycle as more than a little absurd, to cite one example.
The Peltzman Effect aside, there might is a place for these things somewhere, but like a lot of mandated safety equipment it should be up to the individual consumer – and not rent seeking and market distorting legislation – whether they should be used.
Just a thought.
VicB3
Helmets do offer some protection to the side of the head and face because most the circumference of the helmet is an inch or so greater than the head. But yes, the helmet won’t give you complete protection in the face-plant scenario.
I’m an avid cyclist who suffered a significant head injury when hit by a car and not wearing a helmet. It is not certain a helmet would have prevented the particular injury I suffered, but try convincing anyone of that. (I’ve tried.) Most people have an almost religious belief in bike helmets, and I’ve found that they vastly overestimate the protection afforded by a bike helmet. Not to mention that most riders’ hemlets are so poorly fitted that the protection is almost zero.
Personally, I wear a helmet on serious rides when I am going to be exceeding 20 mph on a regular basis. If I ride a fw miles with my kids around the neighborhood, a helmet is pointless. The looks of astonishment I get when people drive by and see that my kids aren’t wearing helmets are interesting.
How is the theory of contributory negligence holding out these days? Because as a driver I’m scared to death of hitting somebody, maybe under age, who thinks he/she is “expressing his freedom” by not wearing a helmet, and having to pay for damage which is all or mostly the result.
Maybe we should have a law that says it’s OK to ride that way if you’re an adult and have a suicide note on your person, absolving the driver and any insurance companies of all responsibility when you get squished.
@John David Galt Helmet does not protect against crash with a car. It is more or less irrelevant in that scenario. As far as I know, even helmet sellers say so.
It should protect you only against an usual fall down to a road. For some reason, it is common to assume a protection against car. I do not know why.
If cycling were the same everywhere and every cyclist doing it for transportation the speaker might be right. If we all lived in a flat land where bicycle speeds were 10 mph or less we might all be able to ditch the helmet. Where I live I have a nice 1.5 mile downhill run to downtown. Even my 7 year old whips it up to 15-20 mph down that hill. Not all roads are designed for cycling like they are in europe either.
Bike helmets also became popular around the same time that mountain biking became popular too. Maybe not some ulterior motive of scare marketing.
The speakers snootiness and snark make for a compelling argument though.
As a long time cyclist and ex-racer I do wear a helmet. I can hold 25 mph and hit 40 mph on some down hill runs. But as an engineer, I understand that there are many situations when a helmet may not work. If bike and rider are 200 lbs. (or close enough) under a pound of foam cannot reasonably absorb the impact of a crash. What the helmet can do is to permit and minimize the sliding damage. The shiny stuff on helmets lets the helmet slide, which is a good thing. One obsolete design had a thin cloth covering on foam that would on some occasions stick to the pavement on impact, locking the head in place, while the rest of the body rotated (which is not a good outcome). That said, I have personal experience with helmets preventing fatalities.
I wear a helmet, mainly because of the nifty little rear-view mirror I have clipped to it. Love that thing even if I look like a dorkus đŸ˜›
Many might think they are “safe” because of the helmet and then indulge in riskier behavior that they might not without a helmet.
@ JD Galt, in Georgia at least, there is a statute providing that failure to wear a helmet can not be introduced as evidence of contributory negligence. Not sure how many other states have the same law. Also keep in mind that if you hit a cyclist while talking on your cell, some states will permit an award of punitive damages, making a collision with a cyclist a very expensive proposition. Personally, this is one reason that I carry a large umbrella policy.
For what it’s worth, I was in an accident in which I landed on my temple on the edge of a curb. Were it not for my helmet, I probably would be dead.