EDIT: Don’t bother reporting people criticizing others for not wearing a helmet. It’s not victim blaming, just like criticizing someone for not wearing a seatbelt isn’t victim blaming.
Wear your helmets people: Of course nobody deserves to get hit by a car but the reality is people are getting hit by cars.
Study limitations include lack of detailed clinical information with each report.
The reporting of ebike news articles should always be treated with a healthy grain of salt, for there is a lot of implicit bias that slips in. Even this fairly tame headline by NPR is falling into the trap, teetering on the suggestion that helmets are the sole preventative measure for avoiding head injuries.
The study – not very long to read; mostly has tables of data – details the rate of injuries observed in emergency rooms between 2017 and 2022, showing some monumental increases in that time period, split out by age, sex, hospital type, injury type, and helmet use.
What’s not here – as the study admits – is the nature of the collision, which is rather important because grievous head injuries involve an impact with someone or something else. There is a substantial difference in how public policy would address head injuries involving: 1) solo bicyclist rider error, 2) stationary motor vehicles, 3) moving motor vehicles, 4) pedestrians, 5) collision with other bicyclists, or 6) stationary object collisions.
At best, this study tells us that bicycle collisions are up, but not the flip side: are pedestrian collisions up? Motor vehicle collisions up? More collisions with stationary objects? We simply don’t know.
And in the absence of data collection to even attempt to answer that question, the wrong conclusion is often drawn: that ebikes are inherently more dangerous, which draws further legislative action by confused towns and cities, which eventually prove futile because they’re not following any data.
There is reason to believe that these increasing rates of collisions are due in part to popularity of ebikes – as the NPR as article mentions – but in larger part by motor vehicles.
A Google Search for “ebike collision causes” sadly turns up mostly ads for lawyers, but I did find this 2017 study of Corvallis, OR data on all bicyclist collisions. Table 2 shows that the top cause is “motorist fails to yield while turning” at 42%. This study notes that their data did not identify ebike vs acoustic bike, but it’s hard to see how that would make a difference if it’s an error by the motor vehicle driver. The next three causes are faults of the driver as well.
Going down that table, the non-zero collisions attributable to bicyclist behavior are: running red lights, going the wrong way, not yielding while turning, no lights, darting into the road, lane changes, and intoxication. None of those, except maybe that an ebike can dart into the road quicker, are substantially amplified by an ebike compared to an acoustic bike.
IMO, the trend of increasing ebike head injuries is from: 1) motor vehicle collisions where the auto driver is at fault, and 2) insufficient infrastructure to separate bicyclists from pedestrians. Proper infra means bikes and pedestrians are protected from cars, and pedestrian and bike flows are separated.
Additionally with ebikes being so popular, more time on bikes with more people on bikes equals an increase in opportunities for accidents. Not to mention increase range for many people therefore more likely to find people bicycling where they were less likely to be before.
While I love the use of acoustic to describe non-powered bicycles, does no-one but me just call them pushbikes?
Not in the US wr don’t. Pushbike is weird to me anyway, it sounds like it should be used for a bike without pedals. And also we already have a word for a non-powered bicycle. It’s bicycle.
Except people will bend over backwards to put a word in front of bicycle to denote that it is not electric
I never heard the term pushbike until I moved to the UK.
Crikey, you’ve discovered my Aussie identity
Here in California, if you said pushbike, this is what many people might envision: a two-wheel craft with a floorboard like a scooter, and the handlebars and wheels of a bicycle, but with no gears or chains. To be ridden by pushing off the ground and gliding for a distance.
But pedalbike here would indeed refer to a bicycle, albeit maybe with a connotation of a child’s bicycle.
that is incorrect analisys. Ebikes are typically faster and that is a factor in head injuries. Bike helmets do little in car crashes, but they are very good when you fall.
Speed does not – in and of itself – somehow create more collisions. What makes a collision is a difference of relative speed.
There is a substantial difference in how public policy would address head injuries involving: 1) solo bicyclist rider error, 2) stationary motor vehicles, 3) moving motor vehicles, 4) pedestrians, 5) collision with other bicyclists, or 6) stationary object collisions.
From my list earlier, absolute speed would tend to exacerbate scenarios 1, 2, 4, and 6. But would make little difference to scenario 3, and scenario 5 would depend on the speeds of other bicyclists. My analysis points out that if scenario 3 is what has been drastically increasing in the past decade – which is corroborated by the Oregon study linked earlier – then no, speed is pretty much irrelevant. Being struck by a motor vehicle driver making a turn is going to be bad, no matter what speed the bicycle, ebike, or motorcycle was going.
What I cannot show – nor can anyone show otherwise – is the prevalence of those scenarios in proportion to overall collisions. We simply have insufficient data, which should be a call to action for better information from collision investigations.
But again, just because helmets are not useful in one situation does not mean that they are worthless in all. They are very helpful in a subset of situations and should be worn for those situations.
does not mean that they are worthless
Who was arguing that helmets are worthless? I don’t see that thread.
Just wear the damn helmet. Done up properly too. Don’t just place it on our head so the cops leave you alone.
It’s nothing to do with your skill. It’s to keep you head intact when some idiot knocks you off your bike. Right of way and who is to blame don’t mean shit when you’re airborne heading for the pavement. Doesn’t matter who fucked up when your brains are mush. You won’t care because you’ll be dead if you’re lucky or brain damaged if you’re not.
I’d rather look like a retard than become one…
Wow, imagine not being able to make such a simple and obvious point without being a fucking ableist…
You’re right, last sentence wasn’t required. No need to insult those who have been inconvenienced by the cards life has dealt them. But, I’m going to own my mistake and leave it up. No sneaky shameful edit from me. That was a cunty thing to say and I apologise that (not if) I offended you and all others I offended.
I appreciate you taking the criticism on the chin, and your apology.
I will just point out though that it isn’t about offence, it’s about inclusion. I think giving this a read could be quite helpful. Also - framing disability as “inconvenienced by the cards life has dealt” isn’t great (sure, being disabled can be inconvenient, but in many if not most cases it isn’t our disabilities that are the reason why, but societies unwillingness to consider and include us, which ties back in with the previous point), here is a good link for that (I’m not trying to be an ass on a rant, just taking the opportunity to educate when I see the willingness to hear it).
Certainly not seeing you as an ass on a rant. I do aim to do better. I said it because I didn’t consider you. The concept of you. A person of disability in this world. This instance. This conversation. The problem with the online world is that you don’t see the other person. You take impressions. “These people have similar opinions, they must be just like me…” And in my case, “just like me” is a mid 40s able bodied white man. I see words on a screen with similar views to mine, the mind doesn’t default to “dark skinned woman with paraplegia” (I have no idea who you are, just an example of who isn’t me). It doesn’t see that. Instead similar views is similar person.
Was that a throwaway line of "dark humour " for the lowest common denominator? Probably. But it doesn’t matter because it was still hurtful.
I know I would never have thrown it out in front of my coworker Jake. The man has cerebral palsy, but we’re both employed to unload that truck. He is my equal.
Why does what I think or say even have to be thought about? Probably because I was raised in a home of “different is wrong” and stereotyping. Who I became as a young man and who I want to become as I get older are 2 different things that take effort.
Thankyou for helping me with my path.
No one knows everything, and we should all hope and aim to learn new things every day, and unlearn the harmful socialisation we’ve had enforced on us, both are constant works in progress.
Having said that… 😂
The problem with the online world is that you don’t see the other person.
The issue isn’t that we’re online, not all disability is visible, and you really have no way of knowing if someone standing right in front of you is disabled. Your assumption that everyone is like you is because the world generally cater to and centres people like you, so those that aren’t kind of fall off at the periphery of your view (this is why representation is important), but the fact that you are able to recognise that puts you ahead of the curve.
I know I would never have thrown it out in front of my co-worker Jake. The man has cerebral palsy, but we’re both employed to unload that truck. He is my equal.
Jake shouldn’t have to be there, not only for the reason I mentioned above (you may very well have other disabled co workers, whose disability you can’t see), but also because not having someone directly impacted hear it doesn’t mean the ableism doesn’t still have an impact, in normalising it.
Also - Jake is your equal not because he does the same job, but because he is Jake, and would be your equal even if he wasn’t able to work.
I’m going to do a little info dump here, I don’t expect that you’ll read this all at once (or even at all), but I think it’s good information that is worth sharing to help further understanding, so it’s there for anyone who wants to learn more:
https://everydayfeminism.com/2014/11/ableist-language-matters/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis - I think this idea frames a lot of peoples’ thinking about disability
https://www.yorku.ca/edu/unleading/ableism (their entire series on Systems of Oppression is worth a look)
https://disabledfeminists.com/category/ableist-word-profile/ - worth reading the entire series, the entries are a little lengthy, but the whole archive is only 2 pages
https://thestrand.ca/capitalism-ableism-and-the-glamorization-of-productivity/
https://dailyfreepress.com/2020/11/19/mind-your-business-ableism-is-rooted-in-capitalism/
https://leavingevidence.wordpress.com/2011/02/12/changing-the-framework-disability-justice/
If I have to hit my head onto concrete I rather do it wearing a helmet than without.
I can’t believe the amount of hatred I used to get on reddit for suggesting that cyclists should wear a helmet so I no longer do. I don’t care. Not my head.
It’s a tricky subject on account of the levels of victim blaming stemming from car drivers.
I wear a helmet while bicycling as well, and I recommend that others do while cycling.
Simultaneously, I understand that mandatory helmet laws are a net negative, and that helmets have lower priority in the harm reduction pyramid when it comes to protecting the lives of cyclists. We must also push back against car drivers who blame cyclists who get injured or killed by car drivers if they happen to not be wearing a helmet or hi-viz.
I’ve read that twist a few times on Reddit about ‘victim blaming’, but suggesting mandatory helmets for bicycles it nothing about blaming anyone for anything. There is a problem on hand and there are are various solutions to improve it. Some solutions are more complex, some are simpler, some are projects with decades runtime to maybe achieve something.
Suggesting mandatory helmets is simply looking for the simplest and cheapest solution of them all, which has also the potential to achieve good success.
It’s just numbers, nothing to do with blame.
Pushing for higher diver education, better infrastructure, better technology on vehicles to avoid missing cyclists in the dead corner etc. is all good and important as well. But it’s all a lot more effort, way more costly, way longer time frame and the success is hard to judge for some ideas.
One of the weightiest arguments against mandatory bicycle helmets is that it’s a distraction from anything and everything else that can be done to improve the situation. That is, the discourse on “personal responsibility” or comparisons to seat belts is taking up a lot of air in the room, for relatively little gain. And for the indifferent or malicious, it serves their purposes well, since it avoids having to defend against the most effective measures to improve bicycle safety: slower road design speeds, allocating dedicated space for bicyclists, and prioritizing intersections for people throughput, not vehicle throughput.
In economic terms, mandatory helmets would mean a cost borne by every probable bicyclist in the country, plus enforcement costs. Compare this to redesigning a road which was already due to be repaved anyway, where the US federal government is already chipping in 50%, and where other roads already exist for motorists to go around but allow bicyclists to take the direct route, I’m not totally convinced that the helmets are the best value here, even if money was available to grant every American citizen a helmet.
Re: vehicle technology, I also think that’s also a distraction, like how self driving cars will supposedly stave off traffic; induced demand would like to have a word, and I foresee more driver automation simply discouraging drivers from practicing safe driving habits.
I’m not totally convinced that the helmets are the best value here, even if money was available to grant every American citizen a helmet.
What?? Beyond cars, riding something moving ~20km/hr is still super dangerous without a helmet. Slightly off the trail and hit a tree or post? Icy conditions and you wipe out?
Even something as simple as a road speed design change (ie just changing signs without changing ANYTHING else on the road) are ~500$ a sign. As soon as you get into more complex changes, but still on the easy side (ie Advisory Bike Lanes, where the only change is painting lines to allocate specific space for bikes) run ~$15/m for each line painted. On a typical advisory lane, thats 4 lines ($60/m) plus 500$ per sharrow symbol which are spaced every 75m in each lane.
Even at an expensive helmet ($100), Helmets are by far the cheapest method of personal safety you can do. ( For example, Toronto has~5397km of roads and a population of 2.93 million. To even do a simple repainting on those roads is ~$400mil. New expensive helmets for every single person in Toronto is $293mil.
I work in civil engineering. It’s not too hard to include bike design on new roads **when they come up ** (which is only every 20yrs on average) but arguing that its more cost effective? Definitely not true.
riding something moving ~20km/hr is still super dangerous without a helmet.
I loathe to use the almost-cliche urbanist refrain as a starting point in bicycle discourse, but in this case, I really do have to point to the Netherlands. Somehow they seem to be a mostly helmet-less society and aren’t dying en masse.
It’s not too hard to include bike design on new roads
GoTransit’s Burloak Drive grade separation project would disagree, as it features a painted bike lane at level with auto traffic, despite having built an elevated sidewalk. You’ll excuse me if I don’t agree that such paltry consideration for bicyclists are “designing for bikes”.
Not everyone there agrees with helmet less riding, though they do discuss the disagreement over the effectiveness of helmets for those, the stats say 1/3 of serious bike accidents involve brain injuries. That’s some huge numbers!!!
We wear helmets to do dozens of other activities for sport or leisure - ski/snowboard, skating, mountain climbing, spelunking, white water sports. Additionally, the article says those engaged in cycling for exercise or sport almost all wear helmets. Why is there such an aversion to wearing helmets while biking?
In my lifetime skiing I’ve seen an enormous change in people. When I was younger almost no one wore helmets. Now, it’s rare to see someone not wearing a helmet.
GoTransit’s Burloak Drive grade separation project would disagree, as it features a painted bike lane at level with auto traffic, despite having built an elevated sidewalk.
I said it was easy, doesnt mean its always implemented. Ive designed a handful of roads to have designated bike lanes or fully separated bike lanes. Every time we do any Active Transport, I’ve advocated for fully separated systems or physical barriers between. 90% of the time, the decision to cut them has come after resident input/discussion. Often the Townships I work with don’t have the resident/political backing to justify narrowing vehicle lanes to improve bike traffic - because that is what is required. Unfortunately we still don’t have enough public backing to push through these.
Hell, one job I’m working on is on a “designated bike route” and residents fought a separated path so much that the city scrapped it and went with the Advisory Bike Lanes.
I don’t think it should be mandatory. I’d probably apply that to seatbelts too though I’m pretty sure that such mandate does increase safety. I just don’t think it’s the government’s job to decide such things. It’s not illegal to hit oneself in the head with a hammer either.
Here in Finland it recently became mandatory to have lights on your bike when riding in poor visibility and I think that’s actually a good thing. Not because it increases the safety of cyclists, though it does, but because I as a driver don’t want to deal with the burden of killing/injuring an irresponsible cyclist/pedestrian that I didn’t see untill it was too late. It’s unreasonable to put the full responsibility on drivers. Especially outside of cities.
Not wearing a seatbelt makes you more likely to harm others in the event of a collision. And there’s a little bit of necessary nanny-state of making parents do the smart thing and protect their children.
Not wearing a seatbelt makes you more likely to harm others in the event of a collision.
How? The way I see it is that not wearing a seatbelt only makes it more likely to harm yourself with the exception of rear-seat passengers possibly injuring front-seat passengers but I think that’s on the driver’s responsibility to make sure they’re all buckled up. My car doesn’t move if the passengers doesn’t have their seatbelts on.
I’m a light fender-bender, there’s not much danger. In a full-speed collision, an unsecured person becomes a blunt force projectile. An unsecured person can move with enough force to be thrown out of the car. Imagine that same force thrown at a passenger instead.
with the exception of rear-seat passengers possibly injuring front-seat passengers
As I mentioned. Other than that I don’t see what the danger is. You got to be insanely unlucky to be hit by an unsecured passenger that was thrown out of a vehicle.
Not an unsecured passenger that’s thrown out of the car, an unsecured passenger being thrown into another passenger who is in the car.
If the driver becomes dislodged in what would have been a minor collision had they been strapped in. Much more likely to lose control of the vehicle and crash into others.
Do you think seatbelt laws have a negative effect on mode share for cars?
Then ask yourself the same question about helmet laws.
I’m not advocating for neither
They’re stupid. Wear a helmet
Not my head, sure.
But when they rack up a few million in hospital bills that they can’t pay because they’re in a permanent vegetative state, the hospital will pass that cost on to everyone else.
If they want to go without a helmet, I say that they should not be allowed to access EMS without first being able to demonstrate ability to pay.
Yeah I get what you’re saying but then again; cigarettes, alchohol, fast food, sedentary lifestyle… This same argument applies to so many more aspects of life aswell. We got to draw the line somewhere. I don’t want to live in a world where hospital denies treatment because you “caused it yourself”
Then that’s your argument for mandatory helmet laws right there. Which I don’t actually object to. I ride a motorcycle, and most states have helmet laws. I don’t wear just a helmet though; I ride with full leathers every time because I’m aware that riding a motorcycle potentially fatal. I think that you can make a reasonable distinction between, “riding without leathers could cost you a limb” versus “riding without a helmet could cost you your higher brain function”, and say that a helmet law is reasonable, while requiring leathers is not. I think you could quite reasonably require that a helmet be worn by all people riding bicycles–electric or not–on public roads.
I don’t understand how that’s an argument for mandatory helmet laws. Obesity causes way more healthcare costs than head injuries. Should people be mandated to stay lean aswell then or else we wont treat their heart attack before making sure they can afford the treatment?
I’m just gonna say it. If you are a full grown adult and ride a bicycle without a helmet, you’re pretty stupid. I had a 35 year old girlfriend who didn’t wear her helmet because she thought it looked stupid. My sisters boyfriend sometimes goes on bike rides with his kids and refuses to wear a helmet. My sister and him argue a lot about it, and now she’s got him so far that he takes a helmet with him, but still doesn’t wear it. I see people with children in their child seats who wear a helmet, but the parent does not. What the fuck is the logic here? When you fall you crack your head open and while you are in a puddle of blood, your 4 year old is gonne deal with it?
Just a few days ago I watched some dude ride electric scooter on ice and had his helmet hanging on the shoulder strap of his backpack. Yeah go figure.
One of our competitors lost their boss after he hit his head really hard in an escooter accident. Permanent vegetable now. Wasn’t wearing a helmet. Shook people pretty hard at my company as many used to hang out with him.
Wear a helmet.
People who don’t wear helmets are cowards. What are they so afraid of? Really gonna risk permanent brain damage on the off chance some other loser doesn’t think safety is fashionable?
Really gonna risk permanent brain damage on the off chance some other loser doesn’t think safety is fashionable?
yup. Same reason people give for not wearing anything but black while night riding.
Yea it’s definitely that they’re afraid of how it looks rather than not liking the feeling of something that’s typically unbreathable covering the part of their body that tends to sweat and release the most heat while doing a moderate physical activity. Nope, definitely just the looks.
Sounds a like “I can’t breathe” during a certain period of time
I won’t be attending your funeral
My dude, I wear helmets because I like my brain in my head. I’m not going to pretend they’re comfortable though. Helmets are hot and feel gross when you’re sweating. Thinking people choose to not wear them as a fashion choice is like saying people avoid the doctor because they don’t like the taste of tongue depressors. It’s just a stupid take that entirely fails to factor in reality.
Just wanna point out that mountain biking, motorcycles, and ebikes are more dangerous than normal pedal cycling. Cars are also a huge factor in the safety of all 4 activities (though helmets don’t help very much when you get ran over). But commuting on a pedal bike is actually only slightly more dangerous than walking. People don’t often crash a bike without external factors when commuting.
So my point is, yeah, wear it, but don’t worship it. Safety in each situation is nuanced and complicated. Helmet blaming or victim blaming can be an excuse to ignore larger variables like separated biking infrastructure, reasonable speed limits, and protected crosswalks that don’t let cars share that time with the person crossing (in my city, right on red, and unprotected left - of parallel traffic to the crosswalk…).
I often get thanked for wearing a helmet and I always think “wish I didn’t need to, but the cars in my city terrify me”
What do people think about helmet laws for ebikes?
We should even consider if a regular bicycle helmet is sufficient for 25-30 mph. Perhaps they need to require moped helmets. But yeah if they’re required for motorcycles, e-bikes make sense.
While helmets will reduce accidents and you should wear one if you live in risky areas. Dutch’s don’t wear helmets and they have the lowest cycle accidents in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpVncWxyMJw
Morale: Safe Transport infrastructure>>>Personal Safety measures
I am aware but their proper bicycle infrastructure and enforcement of the rules is very unique: Most places in the world are not like that. In America cyclists are killed by drivers and the dead cyclists get blamed, even when drivers do get in trouble, it’s often a slap on the wrist. If you’re a cop, you can mow down cyclists at 60+mph without facing any real consequences. Pretty far cry from a nice, safe Dutch city.
