Comment by SturgeonsLaw | Hacker News Reader

Comment by SturgeonsLaw | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I can.

> Wearing a helmet reduced the risk of head injury by 63% (95% confidence interval 34% to 80%) and of loss of consciousness by 86% (62% to 95%).

http://www.bmj.com/content/308/6922/173?linkType=FULL&ck=nck...

> Bike helmet use increased significantly during the first 4 years of the campaign and again after the helmet law was implemented. The total number of bike-related head injury admissions declined by more than 50%.

http://www.jpedsurg.org/article/S0022-3468(00)15165-6/abstra...

And a paper that speaks directly on your topic, the effects of legislation mandating helmet use:

> The rate of helmet use rose dramatically after legislation was enacted, from 36% in 1995 and 38% in 1996, to 75% in 1997, 86% in 1998 and 84% in 1999. The proportion of injured cyclists with head injuries in 1998/99 was half that in 1995/96 (7/443 [1.6%] v. 15/416 [3.6%]) (p = 0.06).

http://www.cmaj.ca/content/166/5/592.short

Those numbers are great and all, if you ignore human behaviour. Nobody's saying that wearing a helmet doesn't make you safer if you are in an accident, that's just a strawman.

The real issue is such things as driver behaviour changing around people with helmets making accidents more likely, or mandated helmet usage leading to fewer people choosing the bicycle as their mode of transportation, making things more dangerous in two ways: people choosing other options that are more dangerous than bicycling, and the fact that more bicycles on the road means less danger because 1. people get used to interacting with bicycles in traffic, and 2. there are fewer cars on the road.

You need to look at the broader picture. You can't just look at a fire escape where people gets injured because they trip down the stairs and conclude that the solution should be to remove the fire exit. Sure, it will definitely decrease the number of injuries in that fire exit but that's not really helpful, is it?

I'd bet you could find similar improvements to occupant safety if car drivers and passengers wore helmets, and racing style harnesses. Would it be reasonable to mandate them?

Bikes don't have airbags, crumple zones, and seatbelts already in place. Helmets are likely to move the needle a lot more there than in a car.

If this is a new topic to you (I don't mean, you, SturgeonsLaw, as you are clearly familiar with it :) -- I mean the reader), you would do well to consider both sides. I personally find the arguments that bike helmets cause more harm than good persuasive, and a good and thorough introduction may be found here:

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html

If you would rather watch than read, there's this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY

Reply on news.ycombinator.com