Why are there no safety rules regarding children on bikes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

+1

Definitely important, but — as someone who rides a bike regularly, and always with a helmet, and also requires that my kids wear helmets — I was a little disappointed to see that a full 25 percent of brain injury deaths and 17 percent of head injuries that happened would NOT have been prevented by helmets. Don't know if that's because those people were already wearing helmets or because the accidents were so bad that a helmet didn't help, but still.

Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

I'm not eager to gainsay it, I'm alarmed by the figures, which I hadn't seen before. I had assumed they reduced injuries and deaths by more than that.

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

You would think this is the first thing the city would do. The problem is that the bike lobby is adamantly against helmets, and there's no organized group pushing to require cyclists to wear them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

+1

Definitely important, but — as someone who rides a bike regularly, and always with a helmet, and also requires that my kids wear helmets — I was a little disappointed to see that a full 25 percent of brain injury deaths and 17 percent of head injuries that happened would NOT have been prevented by helmets. Don't know if that's because those people were already wearing helmets or because the accidents were so bad that a helmet didn't help, but still.

Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

I'm not eager to gainsay it, I'm alarmed by the figures, which I hadn't seen before. I had assumed they reduced injuries and deaths by more than that.

If you don’t think the data demonstrating the efficacy of helmets is strong enough, you should see the r-squared for drug trials.

Adopting the same language and posture as anti-vaxers is a strong indicator that you are an extremist.

I wear a helmet every time I ride. I just thought they protected me more than that study is indicating. I also take every recommended vaccine, for what it’s worth. I honestly had never seen any statistics about how effective helmets are or aren’t, I simply wear one because it seems like a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

+1

Definitely important, but — as someone who rides a bike regularly, and always with a helmet, and also requires that my kids wear helmets — I was a little disappointed to see that a full 25 percent of brain injury deaths and 17 percent of head injuries that happened would NOT have been prevented by helmets. Don't know if that's because those people were already wearing helmets or because the accidents were so bad that a helmet didn't help, but still.

Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

I'm not eager to gainsay it, I'm alarmed by the figures, which I hadn't seen before. I had assumed they reduced injuries and deaths by more than that.

If you don’t think the data demonstrating the efficacy of helmets is strong enough, you should see the r-squared for drug trials.

Adopting the same language and posture as anti-vaxers is a strong indicator that you are an extremist.

I wear a helmet every time I ride. I just thought they protected me more than that study is indicating. I also take every recommended vaccine, for what it’s worth. I honestly had never seen any statistics about how effective helmets are or aren’t, I simply wear one because it seems like a good idea.

Oh, and also, contra many other people who like bike infrastructure, I also would fully support mandatory helmet laws for all ages.

(I don’t think the LACK of mandatory helmet laws is a good reason not to make any changes to road design or to enforce laws around driver behavior, though.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:funny how bikers skeptical of the overwhelming evidence in favor of wearing helmets are quick to embrace new rules on drivers that have little connection to safety. banning drivers from turning right on red at any intersection anywhere in the district, after they've already stopped? talk about a solution in search of a problem.

Drivers were allowed to make right on red legally in response to the 1970's energy crisis. We are just returning to the mean because we have learned that the sfety benefits outweigh the miniscule gas savings.

the safety benefits will be even smaller than the miniscule gas savings. these kind of silly, press release laws just teach the public that laws in dc don't matter. no one is going to follow this, and there will be no consequences for that.

Oh sure, we can agree that drivers in DC don't follow the laws of the road and also drivers don't face consequences when they disobey the law.

Something I'd like to see changed.

bicyclists make drivers look like pikers when it comes to ignoring traffic laws. i hate driving near them because you never know what they're going to do.

A bicyclist ignoring the law poses the greatest threat to themself. A driver ignoring the law poses the greatest threat to others.

pp here. im not worried about a bicyclist hurting me or my car. i'm worried about hitting a cyclist because they do such dumb things. they're so unpredictable. you just never know what they're going to do.

I promise you that most bicyclists are also more worried about you hitting us with your car than we are about hurting your car. Although in my experience riding a bike or driving a car in traffic in D.C., I don't know that I'd say the cyclists are the only unpredictable people.

pp here. reading comprehension is not your strong suit. i said the only thing that worries me, as a driver, is hitting a bicyclist because it's impossible to predict which traffic laws they will choose to obey.

Yes, and I often feel the same way about drivers, as a driver and a cyclist and a pedestrian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The vast majority of bicycling injuries and deaths under the age of 20 could be prevented by wearing a helmet. Yet I routinely see children on bikes or, even worse, ebikes with no helmets.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

I wear a helmet and my kids wear helmets (so far). I also wonder how many of those injuries would be prevented if someone didn't drive into them.

100 percent of them would be avoided if parents didn't put their kids in harm's way.

Do you also not let your kids swim or bathe? Think of the drowning risk!

I'm confused.

I thought you said the roads of D.C. are incredibly dangerous because everyone is going 70 mph and no one obeys any traffic rules and drivers are complete sociopaths with no regard for human life and police don't enforce anything and it's all just a complete free for all.

Now, you're telling me that allowing children to venture into all of that is no more dangerous than taking a bath?

The answer is that when bicyclists want the city to radically increase congestion and spend a bajillion dollars on bike lanes, then the streets are extremely dangerous.

But when bicyclists want to take their three year old on their bike for whatever reason, then the streets are not dangerous at all.

Addendum: The streets are also not dangerous when cyclists are asked why they aren't required to wear helmets.

So basically the fact that some bicyclists don't want to wear helmets or don't want to be required to wear helmets means there can be no road safety improvements for any bicyclists, even those of us who always wear helmets and always make sure our kids are wearing helmets. Got it.

+1

I’m a cyclist who ALSO judges people who don’t make their kids wear helmets (if an adult doesn’t want to wear one, that is their bad choice to make fir themselves).

I worry about kids who aren’t being protected while biking but since my own child wears a helmet and is very closely supervised while biking, the danger of cars doing illegal things is a much bigger deal to me. I see cars doing things that would kill a child on a bike who is wearing a helmet, every day. Driving 10-20 mph over the speed limit through residential neighborhoods. Making illegal turns without signaling. Blowing through lights and stop signs. Veering into other lanes or even into oncoming traffic suddenly and aggressively. These are behaviors I see from drivers DAILY in my residential neighborhood in NE DC that is full of families with kids on foot, scooters, bikes, and in cars.

I think all kids should wear helmets but when it comes to keeping kids safe, it’s clear to me that poorly enforced traffic laws and roads that support or encourage dangerous driving pose a much bigger threat, so that’s my focus. People on this board who concern troll about kids wearing helmets but then throw a giant fit when we suggest reducing traffic lanes or or installing traffic calming measures, or cutting into available parking or traffic lanes to widen sidewalks for pedestrians or installing protected bike lanes are playing a little game and I’m not interested.

If you actually care about child safety, you’d support measures to protect kids from being hit by cars, full stop. Not selectively get upset about the things parents could do to protect their kids while blowing down Florida Avenue doing 55mph and changing lanes and getting mad about the suggestion that we widen the currently narrow sidewalk and improve the bike lanes that are *terrifying* to ride down because you want to treat an urban street like a highway and have an allergy to using public transportation for your commute.

If the streets are that dangerous, why on earth are you allowing a child on a bike to venture into that?

"If we can't solve the whole problem all at once, why on earth are you trying to make it even slightly better?"

Person 1 (hyperventilating): The streets are death traps! They're soaked in blood!

Person 2: Ok, then why do you let your kids ride bikes there?

Person 1 (still hyperventilating): We're trying to make them eventually less death trap-y! We're pushing for changes that over time we hope will reduce the blood soakedness!

Person 2: Ok, well, in the meantime, why do you let your kids ride bikes there?

Schrodinger's bike. Riding a bike in D.C. is simultaneously extremely dangerous and not dangerous at all.

I don't let my child ride a bike here. I'd like safer street improvements including separate bike lanes, WAY MORE enforcement of traffic violations for bad drivers, road adjustments to slow down cars and more.

So you support that, right?

Yes, we should enforce the rules regarding mopeds and speeding. I'm tired of all this enforce the rules against those other people but not my people mentality. All ebikes are required by law to be registered and titled under the law.

No one is talking about mopeds except you! Most people who ride bikes in D.C. do not ride e-bikes. How about if we enforce the rules regarding cars and speeding, as well?

Of course you are. You keep pretending than an ebike is not a moped along with loudly proclaiming that rules and regulations should be enforced. The brazen flaunting of the most basic rules by ebike enthusiasts is the easiest and most basic thing to enforce. Rules apply to everyone. Not just the people you don't like and are trying to punish.

I don’t keep pretending anything, the only thing I have posted about e-bikes is that no one is talking about them. You want to enforce the laws around e-bikes, too, great; I don’t think the city has determined that they are legally mopeds, though, so you’ll maybe have to change the rules before enforcing them as if they were mopeds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

+1

Definitely important, but — as someone who rides a bike regularly, and always with a helmet, and also requires that my kids wear helmets — I was a little disappointed to see that a full 25 percent of brain injury deaths and 17 percent of head injuries that happened would NOT have been prevented by helmets. Don't know if that's because those people were already wearing helmets or because the accidents were so bad that a helmet didn't help, but still.

Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

+1

Definitely important, but — as someone who rides a bike regularly, and always with a helmet, and also requires that my kids wear helmets — I was a little disappointed to see that a full 25 percent of brain injury deaths and 17 percent of head injuries that happened would NOT have been prevented by helmets. Don't know if that's because those people were already wearing helmets or because the accidents were so bad that a helmet didn't help, but still.

Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

I'm not eager to gainsay it, I'm alarmed by the figures, which I hadn't seen before. I had assumed they reduced injuries and deaths by more than that.

If you don’t think the data demonstrating the efficacy of helmets is strong enough, you should see the r-squared for drug trials.

Adopting the same language and posture as anti-vaxers is a strong indicator that you are an extremist.

I wear a helmet every time I ride. I just thought they protected me more than that study is indicating. I also take every recommended vaccine, for what it’s worth. I honestly had never seen any statistics about how effective helmets are or aren’t, I simply wear one because it seems like a good idea.

Oh, and also, contra many other people who like bike infrastructure, I also would fully support mandatory helmet laws for all ages.

(I don’t think the LACK of mandatory helmet laws is a good reason not to make any changes to road design or to enforce laws around driver behavior, though.)

But see, that's the point many are making that only helmet laws need to be enforced. Nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

+1

Definitely important, but — as someone who rides a bike regularly, and always with a helmet, and also requires that my kids wear helmets — I was a little disappointed to see that a full 25 percent of brain injury deaths and 17 percent of head injuries that happened would NOT have been prevented by helmets. Don't know if that's because those people were already wearing helmets or because the accidents were so bad that a helmet didn't help, but still.

Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

I'm not eager to gainsay it, I'm alarmed by the figures, which I hadn't seen before. I had assumed they reduced injuries and deaths by more than that.

If you don’t think the data demonstrating the efficacy of helmets is strong enough, you should see the r-squared for drug trials.

Adopting the same language and posture as anti-vaxers is a strong indicator that you are an extremist.

I wear a helmet every time I ride. I just thought they protected me more than that study is indicating. I also take every recommended vaccine, for what it’s worth. I honestly had never seen any statistics about how effective helmets are or aren’t, I simply wear one because it seems like a good idea.

Oh, and also, contra many other people who like bike infrastructure, I also would fully support mandatory helmet laws for all ages.

(I don’t think the LACK of mandatory helmet laws is a good reason not to make any changes to road design or to enforce laws around driver behavior, though.)

But see, that's the point many are making that only helmet laws need to be enforced. Nothing else.

At minimum, you'd think there could be some enforcement that children on bikes wear helmets. If those kids were in cars, they'd be secured in government approved car seats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

+1

Definitely important, but — as someone who rides a bike regularly, and always with a helmet, and also requires that my kids wear helmets — I was a little disappointed to see that a full 25 percent of brain injury deaths and 17 percent of head injuries that happened would NOT have been prevented by helmets. Don't know if that's because those people were already wearing helmets or because the accidents were so bad that a helmet didn't help, but still.

Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

I'm not eager to gainsay it, I'm alarmed by the figures, which I hadn't seen before. I had assumed they reduced injuries and deaths by more than that.

If you don’t think the data demonstrating the efficacy of helmets is strong enough, you should see the r-squared for drug trials.

Adopting the same language and posture as anti-vaxers is a strong indicator that you are an extremist.

I wear a helmet every time I ride. I just thought they protected me more than that study is indicating. I also take every recommended vaccine, for what it’s worth. I honestly had never seen any statistics about how effective helmets are or aren’t, I simply wear one because it seems like a good idea.

Oh, and also, contra many other people who like bike infrastructure, I also would fully support mandatory helmet laws for all ages.

(I don’t think the LACK of mandatory helmet laws is a good reason not to make any changes to road design or to enforce laws around driver behavior, though.)

But see, that's the point many are making that only helmet laws need to be enforced. Nothing else.

At minimum, you'd think there could be some enforcement that children on bikes wear helmets. If those kids were in cars, they'd be secured in government approved car seats.

Existing helmet laws in DC should not be enforced. You have to discount the risk of debilitating head injuries against the number of kids who would be discouraged from biking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

+1

Definitely important, but — as someone who rides a bike regularly, and always with a helmet, and also requires that my kids wear helmets — I was a little disappointed to see that a full 25 percent of brain injury deaths and 17 percent of head injuries that happened would NOT have been prevented by helmets. Don't know if that's because those people were already wearing helmets or because the accidents were so bad that a helmet didn't help, but still.

Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

I'm not eager to gainsay it, I'm alarmed by the figures, which I hadn't seen before. I had assumed they reduced injuries and deaths by more than that.

If you don’t think the data demonstrating the efficacy of helmets is strong enough, you should see the r-squared for drug trials.

Adopting the same language and posture as anti-vaxers is a strong indicator that you are an extremist.

I wear a helmet every time I ride. I just thought they protected me more than that study is indicating. I also take every recommended vaccine, for what it’s worth. I honestly had never seen any statistics about how effective helmets are or aren’t, I simply wear one because it seems like a good idea.

Oh, and also, contra many other people who like bike infrastructure, I also would fully support mandatory helmet laws for all ages.

(I don’t think the LACK of mandatory helmet laws is a good reason not to make any changes to road design or to enforce laws around driver behavior, though.)

But see, that's the point many are making that only helmet laws need to be enforced. Nothing else.

At minimum, you'd think there could be some enforcement that children on bikes wear helmets. If those kids were in cars, they'd be secured in government approved car seats.

At a minimum, you'd think there would be enforcement of drivers driving badly, but I've never seen MPD pull over anyone for driving infractions ever and DC barely enforces camera offences given the millions of dollars in unpayed fines, drivers with years of infractions and thousands of dollars accumulated with zero penalty. No reciprocity with MD or VA to penalize their commuters driving horribly through DC neighborhoods every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

+1

Definitely important, but — as someone who rides a bike regularly, and always with a helmet, and also requires that my kids wear helmets — I was a little disappointed to see that a full 25 percent of brain injury deaths and 17 percent of head injuries that happened would NOT have been prevented by helmets. Don't know if that's because those people were already wearing helmets or because the accidents were so bad that a helmet didn't help, but still.

Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

I'm not eager to gainsay it, I'm alarmed by the figures, which I hadn't seen before. I had assumed they reduced injuries and deaths by more than that.

If you don’t think the data demonstrating the efficacy of helmets is strong enough, you should see the r-squared for drug trials.

Adopting the same language and posture as anti-vaxers is a strong indicator that you are an extremist.

I wear a helmet every time I ride. I just thought they protected me more than that study is indicating. I also take every recommended vaccine, for what it’s worth. I honestly had never seen any statistics about how effective helmets are or aren’t, I simply wear one because it seems like a good idea.

Oh, and also, contra many other people who like bike infrastructure, I also would fully support mandatory helmet laws for all ages.

(I don’t think the LACK of mandatory helmet laws is a good reason not to make any changes to road design or to enforce laws around driver behavior, though.)

But see, that's the point many are making that only helmet laws need to be enforced. Nothing else.

At minimum, you'd think there could be some enforcement that children on bikes wear helmets. If those kids were in cars, they'd be secured in government approved car seats.

Existing helmet laws in DC should not be enforced. You have to discount the risk of debilitating head injuries against the number of kids who would be discouraged from biking.

Completely disagree with this (as a multiple times per week bike commuter with kids who bike often). There is an argument to be made around enforcement being most likely to be carried out against Black or Latino kids, and not white ones, which I’m more sympathetic to, but the hypothetical discouragement of bike riding for lack of a helmet seems like less of a concern than the risk that a kid without a helmet would be more badly injured in an accident than a kid wearing one. (And I’m also the poster who was surprised above to learn that helmets weren’t as effective as I had thought before I saw stats from CDC.) There’s just no question that helmets keep kids, in particular, safer, and I don’t think getting more people into biking is as important a goal as protecting the ones already riding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These people from some outfit called the CDC seem to think helmets are pretty important.

"An average of 247 traumatic brain injury deaths and 140,000 head injuries among children and adolescents younger than 20 years were related to bicycle crashes each year in the United States. As many as 184 deaths and 116,000 head injuries might have been prevented annually if these riders had worn helmets. An additional 19,000 mouth and chin injuries were treated each year."

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8909479/

+1

Definitely important, but — as someone who rides a bike regularly, and always with a helmet, and also requires that my kids wear helmets — I was a little disappointed to see that a full 25 percent of brain injury deaths and 17 percent of head injuries that happened would NOT have been prevented by helmets. Don't know if that's because those people were already wearing helmets or because the accidents were so bad that a helmet didn't help, but still.

Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

I'm not eager to gainsay it, I'm alarmed by the figures, which I hadn't seen before. I had assumed they reduced injuries and deaths by more than that.

If you don’t think the data demonstrating the efficacy of helmets is strong enough, you should see the r-squared for drug trials.

Adopting the same language and posture as anti-vaxers is a strong indicator that you are an extremist.

I wear a helmet every time I ride. I just thought they protected me more than that study is indicating. I also take every recommended vaccine, for what it’s worth. I honestly had never seen any statistics about how effective helmets are or aren’t, I simply wear one because it seems like a good idea.

Oh, and also, contra many other people who like bike infrastructure, I also would fully support mandatory helmet laws for all ages.

(I don’t think the LACK of mandatory helmet laws is a good reason not to make any changes to road design or to enforce laws around driver behavior, though.)

But see, that's the point many are making that only helmet laws need to be enforced. Nothing else.

At minimum, you'd think there could be some enforcement that children on bikes wear helmets. If those kids were in cars, they'd be secured in government approved car seats.

Existing helmet laws in DC should not be enforced. You have to discount the risk of debilitating head injuries against the number of kids who would be discouraged from biking.

I have a solution. Cover the ground with bubble wrap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Not really understanding why people are so eager to gainsay something that reduces head injuries by 83 percent.

If bike helmets actually reduced head injuries by 83 percent no one would be against them. It would be an open and shut case.

If you look at the contemporary, peer-reviewed literature there is question whether they are effective at all, and wide agreement that the effectiveness is nowhere near that.

The 83-percent effectiveness number comes from extrapolating a study from 1989 that has never been reproduced.

[Anonymous]

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets.

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet."

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

What do you think this “proves” exactly?