Should bike helmets be compulsory? Lessons from Seattle and Amsterdam

Many times I've seen Seattle compared to Amsterdam, particularly on the topic of bikes. One simple distinction between the two most often overlooked is topography. Amsterdam is flat; it's proudly engineered out of the lowlands, and it has canals to prove its level. Seattle is quite hilly, and has a major freeway and an interstate which run through its middle, both overburdened with traffic. Consequently one is nigh perfect for the bicyclist, and the other is at best a significant challenge.

Surprisingly, there are very few studies on the actual effectiveness of bicycle helmets. Lots of times, articles will just say "X% of people that are injured aren't wearing a helmet". Which of course is next to worthless.

This argument is remarkably familiar; it's basically the same (on both sides) when the motorcycle helmet laws were being argued in the 1980s. It's easy to forget that people actually argued that motorcyclists might be safer without helmets, but they did.

People fall and hit their heads and die walking and running all the time. Why not make pedestrians wear helmets?<p>Or how about you stop using the law (violence) to protect people from themselves.<p>EDIT: Laws like this are also a great excuse for police to harass people. We don&#x27;t need more of these.

I wear a helmet, because I want my daughter to wear a helmet when she rides and so I set a good example. But I have no idea why anyone believes it&#x27;s appropriate to make a law about this. Risky behavior that puts others at risk is fair game -- you can&#x27;t speed in your car, for instance. But to have another adult forcibly stop me, scold me, and fine me if I don&#x27;t want to put a piece of plastic on my head? That&#x27;s insane. Same goes for motorcycle helmet laws, seatbelt laws, and drug laws. With that in mind, the premise of the article is flawed. I do not care which policy &quot;saves more lives.&quot; I don&#x27;t care which is safer. If I see another adult riding around without a helmet, the thought doesn&#x27;t occur to me &quot;Oh no! How unsafe! Won&#x27;t someone compel him to protect himself?&quot; So should I accept the same sentiment applied to everyone collectively? (And if someone wants to argue that my getting injured imposes a cost on society, blah blah blah ... we&#x27;re just not going to agree about the responsibilities of the individual to the collective and the role of government therein)

I think you <i>should</i> wear a helmet, but I think it is ridiculous for the government to <i>require</i> you to wear one.<p>Same with seatbelts, frankly.

As I understand it, making helmets compulsory makes people <i>use their bikes less</i>, making them get less exercise, shortening their lives <i>more</i> than they would have saved (statistically) by wearing a helmet.

While I&#x27;m not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories, I&#x27;ve always thought that bicycle helmet laws and related press were pushed by helmet manufacturers.

There&#x27;s been fairly interesting data piling up about mandatory helmet laws.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2001&#x2F;07&#x2F;29&#x2F;business&#x2F;a-bicycling-mystery-head-injuries-piling-up.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2001&#x2F;07&#x2F;29&#x2F;business&#x2F;a-bicycling-myste...</a><p>&gt; The number of head injuries has increased 10 percent since 1991, even as bicycle helmet use has risen sharply, according to figures compiled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But given that ridership has declined over the same period, the rate of head injuries per active cyclist has increased 51 percent just as bicycle helmets have become widespread.<p>...<p>&gt; Many specialists in risk analysis argue that something else is in play. They believe that the increased use of bike helmets may have had an unintended consequence: riders may feel an inflated sense of security and take more risks.<p>Cars are more reckless around bicyclists and drive closer to them when they see they are wearing a helmet:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2006&#x2F;12&#x2F;10&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;10bike.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2006&#x2F;12&#x2F;10&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;10bike.html</a><p>We also see here that bicycles are the lowest risk of head injury while traveling streets and sidewalks:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.howiechong.com&#x2F;journal&#x2F;2014&#x2F;2&#x2F;bike-helmets" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.howiechong.com&#x2F;journal&#x2F;2014&#x2F;2&#x2F;bike-helmets</a><p>Turns out you&#x27;re much more likely to suffer a head injury in a car, or walking than on a bicycle. Should helmets be mandated for driving and walking? Evidence suggests it would make more sense for those activities.<p>Wearing helmets increases the likelihood of neck injuries: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencedirect.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;article&#x2F;pii&#x2F;S0001457500000488" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.sciencedirect.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;article&#x2F;pii&#x2F;S0001457500...</a><p>Feds had to stop claiming bike helmets prevent 85% of head injuries (a commonly cited statistic) after their statistical analysis was found to be bogus:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;greatergreaterwashington.org&#x2F;post&#x2F;19036&#x2F;feds-will-stop-hyping-effectiveness-of-bike-helmets&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;greatergreaterwashington.org&#x2F;post&#x2F;19036&#x2F;feds-will-sto...</a>

The type of cycling in Amsterdam is certainly different than what I see here in DC. In Amsterdam, most bikes are the classic &quot;Dutch&quot; style utility bike - slow, stable, and easy to step down&#x2F;off the bike. Here in DC, cyclists are almost universally on some variant of the &quot;10 speed&quot; - most with drop bars, higher COG, and higher average speeds.<p>As a cyclist myself, I ride with or without helmet based on conditions. On my road bike or mountain bike? Helmet, always - I&#x27;ve had enough concussions to know I don&#x27;t want another. My cruiser - usually no helmet, but it&#x27;s use is almost exclusively below 10mph and on a bike trail, not roads.

It&#x27;s been compulsory in New Zealand since the late 80&#x27;s or early 90&#x27;s. I&#x27;m sure initially people felt like dorks but after 20+ years its normal. People will get over it.

I say no fines for not wearing a helmet. It is only an excuse for local law enforcement to make more $$.

It&#x27;s actually the same question as should marijuana be legalized

Bike helmets should be compulsory only if<p>- Having a five-point harness for every car is compulsory (alright, I&#x27;ll admit this is somewhat overkill and rhetorical)<p>- Cars are certified yearly as being road safe (not the case in all states in the US, but I think this <i>is</i> the case in the EU)<p>- Drunk driving has extremely severe penalties (10+ years in prison) beginning with the first offence.<p>The motorist is driving a much more dangerous vehicle capable of causing serious injuries to themselves and other parties. Let us all behave in a responsible manner.