11-05-2018, 06:46 PM
Helmets are primarily beneficial for types of cycling that are inherently more dangerous. Riding in a group, mountain biking, dirt jumping, trials etc. Riding for transportation is not inherently dangerous, and a helmet wouldn't protect a rider from the principle hazards.
Assessing risk is complicated and there are many factors to consider. A helmet will help in a situation where a cyclist hits their head on the ground after falling. Evidence also shows, however, that more drivers pass within one meter of cyclists wearing a helmet than those without. There is also the well-documented effect of moral hazard where a cyclist wearing a helmet is likely to take greater risk than the one without.
More broadly, safety campaigns and laws focused on cyclists seem to also cause society to generally also place responsibility for safety on cyclists as well and implicitly absolve drivers of blame. Consider how reports about cyclists being hit talk about them not wearing bright clothing (even when they have lights on the bike), or mention how they didn't have a helmet (even when run over by a car). In some ways these campaigns for cycling safety are good - bright clothes are better for visibility - but they also seem to have resulted in people interpreting not following these guidelines as reckless behaviour on the part of the cyclist. How much less safe are cyclists due to the lack of responsibility for cars hitting cyclists being placed squarely on the responsible party's shoulders? It's hard to quantify, but I don't have any doubt that these campaigns are at least partly responsible for the cultural landscape we are in today that seems to view running over a cyclist as an unfortunate accident that could happen to anyone instead of reckless and dangerous driving (and just remember when cycling to turn on your lights and wear bright clothing and wear a helmet and only use crosswalks on foot...!).
Assessing risk is complicated and there are many factors to consider. A helmet will help in a situation where a cyclist hits their head on the ground after falling. Evidence also shows, however, that more drivers pass within one meter of cyclists wearing a helmet than those without. There is also the well-documented effect of moral hazard where a cyclist wearing a helmet is likely to take greater risk than the one without.
More broadly, safety campaigns and laws focused on cyclists seem to also cause society to generally also place responsibility for safety on cyclists as well and implicitly absolve drivers of blame. Consider how reports about cyclists being hit talk about them not wearing bright clothing (even when they have lights on the bike), or mention how they didn't have a helmet (even when run over by a car). In some ways these campaigns for cycling safety are good - bright clothes are better for visibility - but they also seem to have resulted in people interpreting not following these guidelines as reckless behaviour on the part of the cyclist. How much less safe are cyclists due to the lack of responsibility for cars hitting cyclists being placed squarely on the responsible party's shoulders? It's hard to quantify, but I don't have any doubt that these campaigns are at least partly responsible for the cultural landscape we are in today that seems to view running over a cyclist as an unfortunate accident that could happen to anyone instead of reckless and dangerous driving (and just remember when cycling to turn on your lights and wear bright clothing and wear a helmet and only use crosswalks on foot...!).