Peltzman effect

[Chalo]

I have heard this argument about motorcycle helmets and it makes even less sense for bicycle helmets, which simply do not impair hearing or vision in any meaningful way.

Hogwash. I can hear a car probably 400 yards back, unless I'm wearing straps right by my ears that make wind noise when I'm moving. Then I don't hear it until it's right up on me.

You might be short enough that overhead objects aren't a problem, but for me, trees and trail underpasses are hazards. Hazards that I can't easily track if I have a helmet or a brimmed hat on. So I don't wear either one.

The situation was different when I rode a motorcycle. Between the engine and the higher airspeed, I couldn't hear diddly. A helmet actually helped with that.

 

[raylo32]

Never heard of anything like that before or experienced it in my ~150,000 miles. Try snugging your straps up! LOL!

Hogwash. I can hear a car probably 400 yards back, unless I'm wearing straps right by my ears that make wind noise when I'm moving. Then I don't hear it until it's right up on me.

You might be short enough that overhead objects aren't a problem, but for me, trees and trail underpasses are hazards. Hazards that I can't easily track if I have a helmet or a brimmed hat on. So I don't wear either one.

The situation was different when I rode a motorcycle. Between the engine and the higher airspeed, I couldn't hear diddly. A helmet actually helped with that.

 

[ccihon]

These are actually pretty good at reducing wind noise:

Amazon.com

 

[99t4]

I can hear a car probably 400 yards back, unless I'm wearing straps right by my ears that make wind noise when I'm moving.

The "dead cats" furry airflow disruptors I added to my helmet front straps have reduced wind noise well below non-helmet levels. Makes for a serene cycling experience, especially at high speeds, strong headwinds or strong sidewinds.

Hearing protection while riding

I need to buy some clear shades that blocks out the wind, my eyes get watery while riding. I've been using Uvex Flex-seal safety goggles all winter, available at most industrial safety supplies, dirt cheap and very comfy, easy to get on and off, I have some MX goggles too but the Uvex's are...

endless-sphere.com

Of course, everyone is different, and some may find them too claustrophobic, or vision/situation awareness impairing, or too unfashionable.

 

[marvin78]

A while back, one of the Scandinavian countries passed a bike helmet regulation, Holland if I'm not mistaken.

Pretty sure Norway, Denmark and Sweden are welcoming the Dutch with open arms into Scandinavia

Holland is a country I think, just not as big as Netherlands?

There are two provinces, North and South Holland, which make up the 'core' of the old Republic. But we stopped promoting Holland as interchangable with The Netherlands due to the farmers in the 'less developed regions' feeling left out

Jokes aside, and I saw you already been 'educated' on European geography ( don't ask me to name 20 states in the US, I wouldn't make it I think ).

They have much better and safer cycling infrastructure and awareness, so it is not a great comparison to most of the rest of the world. But I still wonder about how many preventable head injuries they have.

I believe that there is certainly some statistical evidence to support the negative effects on behavior that helmets might present... but to say that is equal to the benefits is absurd. And I really would like to be against helmet laws because I favor individual accountability... except for the costs that irresponsible fools end up imposing on the rest of us due to preventable "accidents".

Individual accountability does not work when your hospital bills are paid by a shared insurance fee and public money, so I get the political desire to enforce safety regulations.

The infrastructure here does not negate traffic deaths among cyclist btw, we had a an almost 1/3rd increase in fatalities in 2022 compared to the year before. Most of the increase was limited to the age group of 75+ for some reason, so I'm not 100% sure what correlations can be made other then elderly people dying more frequently after being involved in a collision.

Almost all elderly people I see on the road on their bike wear head protection ( even when it's not mandatory ).

I get what you're saying about helmets a bit, I don't like my road helmets I do feel they limit my auditory awareness ( not vision though ). I do like my mtb helmet, no not a full face I don't do downhill, but our xc courses do require a helmet for people to ride them ( and not get into trouble with insurance if something happens ). I have a cheap half dome mtb helmet, and when I have it on I don't have any awareness issues. It does lack ventilation, and on hot days...

As to taking more risk with a helmet, maybe. But that's like saying people take more risk wearing a seat belt. Both might be true, but still irrelevant when looking at the broader picture ( individual accountability be damned ).

 

[Chalo]

The medical and other costs of road accidents need to be carried by the ones who make the roads dangerous, not by their victims. Car drivers love to quibble about all other road user's faults and responsibilities and misbehaviors, but motorists are the only ones who made the roads needlessly hazardous and deadly. Ethics dictate that they should bear the burden when things (predictably) go wrong.

Even single bicycle accidents are fundamentally the fault of car drivers when they result from hostile infrastructure made to favor heavy motor vehicles exclusively, or from deterioration of public rights of way due to unnecessarily heavy and powerful vehicles.

 

[raylo32]

Yeah, that is a problem, especially since in most places here in the US injured or killed cyclists are just written off like roadkill and the perpetrators are usually let off scott free.

The medical and other costs of road accidents need to be carried by the ones who make the roads dangerous, not by their victims. Car drivers love to quibble about all other road user's faults and responsibilities and misbehaviors, but motorists are the only ones who made the roads needlessly hazardous and deadly. Ethics dictate that they should bear the burden when things (predictably) go wrong.

Even single bicycle accidents are fundamentally the fault of car drivers when they result from hostile infrastructure made to favor heavy motor vehicles exclusively, or from deterioration of public rights of way due to unnecessarily heavy and powerful vehicles.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

Deflecting from "Helmets are actually bad" to "damn cars" again?

 

[Chalo]

Deflecting from "Helmets are actually bad" to "damn cars" again?

Well, they are, and they are. But most low information folks don't acknowledge either one.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

Well, they are, and they are. But most low information folks don't acknowledge either one.

"Low information folks" jesus lad, talking down to someone never looks good.

Look, you can refuse to wear a helmet for whatever reason you can justify (I frequently don't when I should, because my georgious fabio hair demands freedom in the wind) but the fact is they prevent bad injuries from getting worse. Nobody out here speeding just because they put their seatbelts on.

 

[raylo32]

Chalo just doesn't understand that not everyone was born with a head as hard and dense as his.

"Low information folks" jesus lad, talking down to someone never looks good.

Look, you can refuse to wear a helmet for whatever reason you can justify (I frequently don't when I should, because my georgious fabio hair demands freedom in the wind) but the fact is they prevent bad injuries from getting worse. Nobody out here speeding just because they put their seatbelts on.

 

[Chalo]

"Low information folks" jesus lad, talking down to someone never looks good.

Then what term do you think I should use for someone who accepts feelings and preconceptions as gospel while disregarding collected data?

If someone doesn't want to be a low information thinker on the topic, here's a good place to start checking citations:

Cycle helmets: an international resource

Cycle helmets: an international resource

www.cyclehelmets.org

Look, you can refuse to wear a helmet for whatever reason you can justify (I frequently don't when I should, because my georgious fabio hair demands freedom in the wind) but the fact is they prevent bad injuries from getting worse. Nobody out here speeding just because they put their seatbelts on.

But there are plenty of people doing things with a helmet on that they wouldn't indulge in without a helmet, and car drivers doing things in proximity to helmeted cyclists that they wouldn't to bare headed ones.

The fact that seatbelts don't change driver behavior is more of an "all jackass, all the time" phenomenon.

 

[marvin78]

Nobody out here speeding just because they put their seatbelts on.

This.

but the fact is they prevent bad injuries from getting worse

And most certainly this. Just as with seatbelts, anecdotal 'evidence' of seatbelts causing injuries are a> mostly due to not wearing them properly b> otherwise unverifiable and the same goes for helmets.

Helmet technology trickles down from motorcycles, and has advanced tremendously in recent years. My potty mtb helmet is a cheap gimmick which will save me from cracking the back of my head on a rock but it will still leave me concussed and it will not save my face from any impacts with all consequences there of. So, instead of taking more risks 'since I'm wearing a helmet', the fact that I am obliged to wear this helmet even while I am fully aware of it limitations makes me more cautious about taking excessive risks where the benefit of my helmet would be negated.

And I never heard from someone with a full face and back protector -> hey I'm all protected so I'm gonna go in blind and triple flip that 30 feet drop everyone has been talking about on social media..

But what I am not sure about is the effect on public health of a mandatory statute. Especially since the the largest group of fatal accidents involved elderly people most of which actually wear helmets here. I think this might point to that the cause of fatal accidents aren't correlated to the wearing of helmets, but rather to the ability of the specific group to adapt to traffic situations. Wearing a bike helmet will not save your life when you're being hit by a steel enclosure on wheels and you have multiple internal injuries ( especially when older ).

Again, there isn't enough data, but there is a lot of merit in the opinion that awareness trumps any and all protective gear. And even while being forced to wear a helmet won't stop elderly people who already wear them from having fatal accidents, there are also enough studies which have shown that helmets cause reduction in injuries if not in fatalities.

But there are plenty of people doing things with a helmet on that they wouldn't indulge in without a helmet, and car drivers doing things in proximity to helmeted cyclists that they wouldn't to bare headed ones.

Citation? The first part is most definitely not true, not around here at least. And the second part doesn't have much merit in a discussion about helmets really, since it's about the drivers behavior.

The fact that seatbelts don't change driver behavior is more of an "all jackass, all the time" phenomenon.

I would extend that way beyond seatbelts though

 

[PaPaSteve]

Helmets are a good thing.
Quality brands that have undergone extensive testing is worth the extra expense.
Personally enjoy light weight models with a continuous shell, i.e. as few holes or vents as possible.
For the pedal bike the Bontrager Commuter Wavecell is a fav.
Riding the Segway 260, the Specialized Dissident 2 downhill helmet feels like a good choice.
For the KTM 990 Adventure bike, a Bell Moto 9S works out nicely.

The most valuable tool in the shop is ... your brain.
Be wise and protect it.

 

[Chalo]

The most valuable tool in the shop is ... your brain.
Be wise and protect it.

I use mine for accident avoidance, rather than trusting an inanimate hat/beer cooler hybrid for mitigating a crash I could avert instead.

I can see the sincerity of your conviction, but it's the same reasoning as "thick spokes make stronger wheels". It's superficially obvious, but incorrect, and evaluating whole population data dispels it.

 

[CONSIDERABLE SHOUTING]

I can see the sincerity of your conviction, but it's the same reasoning as "thick spokes make stronger wheels". It's superficially obvious, but incorrect, and evaluating whole population data dispels it.

Data you haven't proven. Meanwhile LeMone and Burke's Medical-Surgical Nursing has specific things to say about head injuries, and I dig out my paramdedicine texts I can get deep in the weeds about it.

 

[Chalo]

Data you haven't proven. Meanwhile LeMone and Burke's Medical-Surgical Nursing has specific things to say about head injuries, and I dig out my paramdedicine texts I can get deep in the weeds about it.

I don't argue that having a helmet on is best when you hit your head, tested and proven. But because increasing use of helmets doesn't reduce rates of cyclist injury or fatality, there's more going on than that physical protection. When I wear one, it harms my situational awareness, and I think that's one part of the problem. But I think risk compensation by cyclists and motorists is probably a more statistically significant influence.

I've been riding bikes for transportation since the 1980s when approximately zero percent of cyclists wore helmets. That number rose to at least half, without reducing cyclist fatality rates. What is your explanation for this?

I don't need to reiterate stuff that you can read at cyclehelmets.org and follow to original sources. But "studies" like Thompson Rivara & Thompson's oft-cited "85% reduction" result (where the sample group was only a couple dozen children who were brought into the ER at a single Seattle hospital) are not helpful like looking at before and after demographic data in places that instituted mandatory helmet laws. When you look at whole populations before and after major changes in helmet use rates, you won't find statistically significant improvements.

Note that the same bunk, tiny so-called study that people refer to because it gives them that 85% number they already believe without evidence, also shows that helmets reduce leg injuries by something like two thirds. Does that makes sense to you?

 

[marvin78]

I don't argue that having a helmet on is best when you hit your head, tested and proven. But because increasing use of helmets doesn't reduce rates of cyclist injury or fatality, there's more going on than that physical protection. When I wear one, it harms my situational awareness, and I think that's one part of the problem. But I think risk compensation by cyclists and motorists is probably a more statistically significant influence.

I've been riding bikes for transportation since the 1980s when approximately zero percent of cyclists wore helmets. That number rose to at least half, without reducing cyclist fatality rates. What is your explanation for this?

A severe increase in vehicle - cyclist interactions seems to the most probable.

You're mixing up two things I feel, in which both cases you're inherently right. A helmet works, but it won't work when a cyclist is interacting with a moving tin can. A motorcycle helmet might, a decent one.. but imagine cycling in a motorcycle helmet worth it's price.

Tin can's are a danger to the public.

Both cases are right.

But both cases don't lead to the conclusion that wearing helmets give a false sense of security, that's a deduction you're making based on your own perception not data.

We had less as 300 fatal accidents last year, even with our 84 increase over the year before. And as you mentioned this is mainly due to our infrastructure ( not awareness, that's a wrong assumption as we Dutch people are just custom to their surrounding not specially aware of traffic ). If you want to reduce fatalities, you need to separate tin cans and cyclists.

So you're right for getting upset if politicians think that 'ow they have to wear a helmet so we don't have to pay for protected bike infrastructure'. Helmets will not lower your fatality rate as significantly if at all when you don't combine it with other measures like preferably traffic separation and heck if you do that one correctly you might not even feel a need to make helmets a mandatory thing.

But that doesn't make helmets useless in preventing injuries and even some fatalities.

 

[JackFlorey]

Reduced situational awareness due to helmet noise, diminished peripheral vision, and/or discomfort.

My helmet increases my situational awareness by giving me a rear view mirror. Nice to see what traffic is doing behind me. And I've worn one for so long that they don't make me any more uncomfortable than wearing a shirt does.

 

[PaPaSteve]

I use mine for accident avoidance, rather than trusting an inanimate hat/beer cooler hybrid for mitigating a crash I could avert instead.

I can see the sincerity of your conviction, but it's the same reasoning as "thick spokes make stronger wheels". It's superficially obvious, but incorrect, and evaluating whole population data dispels it.

Silly logic.
Accident avoidance is only valid when seeing and having the reaction time to guide yourself away from danger.
Many head injuries happen before the person sees it coming.

And ... material science ...
A thinner spoke can only make a stronger wheel it's made from stronger material or there's more of them.

 

[Chalo]

Risk compensation - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Shallow, brief address of the issues, but you don't have to trust me because I didn't write it.

 

[Chalo]

And ... material science ...
A thinner spoke can only make a stronger wheel it's made from stronger material or there's more of them.

It appears you understand wire wheels as much as you understand risk compensation.

 

[nicobie]

It appears you understand wire wheels as much as you understand risk compensation.

I have a feeling that PaPa made a typo and actually agrees with you.

It's nice to see different opinions here treated with respect. Not like that echo chamber shithole reddit and their asshole mods.

 

[PaPaSteve]

An old saying in the machine shop :
man + machine + motion = mayhem
Definition ... anything that moves could cause harm.

An old saying in motorsports :
If you have a 10 dollar head wear a 10 dollar helmet.
Definition ... ?

Safety first, wear your protective equipment.

To make a blanket statement that a thinner spoke is stronger is not providing complete information.
A double butted or triple butted spoke could be an advantage with correct usage. (butted = thin in the middle, thick on the ends)
A straight gauge thin spoke is stronger ?

 

[Chalo]

A straight gauge thin spoke is stronger ?

The spoke? No. The wheel? Yes.

Just like with a helmet, your head is safer for a single given impact, but not safer overall. At least if real world data are to be believed.