It’s social science, and a ‘proper’ experiment can’t really be done, but the scientists expect the gain from making helmets mandatory would be more than offset by the loss in health from making cycling less popular.

Many people also don’t realize that many Dutch cyclists typically don’t cycle very fast. The average speed of people on bicycles is 12.4km/hour (https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2018/01/02/dutch-cycling-...). That’s a speed that young runners also can reach fairly easily. Should they wear helmets, too on the road?

And those who go faster often _do_ wear helmets.

Recommended reading: https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2019/08/05/bicycle-helmet...

I think the helmets would just be too much of a hassle, making them mainstream would take people off bikes again? It messes with your hair, it's hot in summer, difficult to combine with a hat in winter, you have to put it somewhere when going places, like bars. And make no mistake, here we jump on an off bikes all day, I would really hate to have to wear one on a bike. (I do wear one when mtb-ing btw!)

I'm 40, lived for all of my life in the Netherlands, I hardly saw any accidents, and I never ever saw any accident where a helmet would be of any use. Yeah it's anecdotal, but I feel it's just safe enough. I feel the same about biking as I do about walking. Helmets wouldn't make it safer. But, show me the data to convince me otherwise. Still, lets say it makes things safer, I wonder if the net effect would still be negative because it would drive people into cars, where you don't need a (stupid!) helmet.

I think it's difficult for people from other places to imagine just how little cars you encounter with good bike paths, and how people drive around you when everybody is a "cyclist" (hate the word, it's just normal here) and a driver. For example in a collision, it's always the car's responsibility [0], because pedestrians and people on bikes are considered vulnerable, they always get 50-100% off their damages paid. It creates a certain culture.

[0] https://www.anwb.nl/juridisch-advies/aanrijding-en-dan/aansp...

I left my motorcycle helmet attached to a motorcycle for YEARS in high-crime areas and never had it stolen (arguably worth more than a bicycle helmet -- but who really wants to buy a used helmet). Realize it's an anecdote but honestly I don't see the big risk in leaving the helmet on the bike when you go in the bar.

> I think the helmets would just be too much of a hassle

While probably true, I think the emphasis is misplaced. The primary reason helmets aren’t as encouraged as elsewhere is the immense bike infrastructure that keeps cyclists safe. The risk is much much much smaller than in car focussed places.

There is integrated chain and wheel lock on dutch bikes already, it is trivial to add basket for helmet storage as "standard" feature.

In the last 20 years large shift happened in skiing, for example. 20 years ago almost no-one would wear ski helmet is US, now almost anyone does, although it's not required.

You mean the basket where my bag is in? Or the groceries? Or do you want put it where my kids' seats are? In any case, it's annoying and unnecessary, I hope this never changes, wearing a helmet will fundamentally downgrade the relaxed, casual biking experience that is so normal here.

Yeah I saw it in skying, one year nobody wore a helmet then suddenly I felt very self-conscious about it. Same thing for MTBing. Skying, Snowboarding and MTBing are much more dangerous though and I happily wear a helmet going down slope over 25 km/hour. Biking 10 km/hour, essentially running speed... No. Bikes look like this here [0] and they are everywhere, don't forget, it's very different from this: [1]

[0]: https://denhaagfietst.nl/wp-content//uploads/2020/02/DHKruge...

[1]: https://www.triathlon365.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Vrouw...

They don't wear helmets because they aren't zooming around like Lance Armstrong. The risk of accidents with head injuries a helmet would help against is limited. Same thing why you don't wear a helmet when you go by car although an occupants risk of head injuries in a typical accident is comparable.

You can't really equate safety gear across different modes of transportation, otherwise if you wear a seat belt when riding in a car then why not wear a seat belt when riding a bicycle?

I find it quite jarring to see all the Swedish people walking without helmets on those icy streets!

The number of bicycle accidents is quite small and the number of serious head injuries even smaller, helmets would save less than 5 children yearly [1]. This is mostly due to education, both primary school cyclists and driver's license and road design separating cars and bicycles.

[1] https://swov.nl/nl/fact/fietshelmen-hoeveel-slachtoffers-zou...

I've actually thought about wearing a bike helmet while walking outside during the winter season. The alternative is putting on crampons which seems like more of a hassle but has the added benefit of preventing slipping on ice so would also protect my wrists and shoulders.

I cycle all the time in the Netherlands. When I ride my city bike, I never wear a helmet. When I ride my race bike, I always do, as do most others.

The two manners of riding are so different. They both feel equally safe.

I do have a scar on my nose from falling head first onto the road. That was riding my city bike. While carrying a TV. In a rainstorm. With no hands on the handlebars. So 100% my fault :)

Did the TV survive the crash?

It did. I somehow threw the TV onto the footpath as I fell. Its box and polystyrene packing did their job.

> I know that selling bike safety ideas to the Dutch is like selling ice to the Innuit

Lol! That's the best saying I've heard in a looong time :D

It's interesting that you love the Netherlands as a Swede. From my point of view, it's always the nordics (iceland, norway, sweden, finland) that have the insane happiness, social mobility, etc. ratings, and I love (at least the mental picture of) warm homes in a cold, snowy, foresty climate/environment. If y'all spoke English (or Dutch, I guess) over there as a primary language, I'm actually quite sure I'd have moved there, at least for a couple years. (Currently living in and learning German(y) and I find it very hard, so for me the language is kind of prohibitive unless I'd be sure I wanted to move away from my current life and fully commit to fitting in somewhere new.) Living for two months in Finland didn't destroy that mental picture at all, and though I was impressed with the English being absolutely impeccable from anyone under 60 years old, the colloquially used language is clearly a local language. A local hacker space was very welcoming, but many things are in Swedish/Finnish because that's simply what everyone there speaks.

I'd be interested in this 'long story' if you are willing to share it!

I'm not going to go into the various forms of grass-is-greenering that could apply here, but of course (?) I'm aware that a lot of Dutch like coming up here too for vacationing and such.

About English, that's kind of a point of pride up here (English was taught from age 11 when I was that age ~35 years ago, but these days it's from age 7 and my oldest kid is starting to have classes and understand more and more).

I would say that you can get very far using English in Sweden, both in business and in private. Probably quite a few Swedish people's English will start to fail if you e.g. open a random kitchen drawer and ask them to name all the things, but still. You can get by.

See also references like [1], I'm pretty sure I'm not making this up just to rose-tint all the blue and yellow. Or something.

[1]: https://studyinsweden.se/blogs/2018/03/26/people-in-sweden-s...

As a Dutch person I learned some Swedish and some German (both not very well, but enough to go around) and I found Swedish significantly easier. It feels more similar to Dutch/English in terms of grammar and flow. Just one data point, but maybe useful for you to know!

as a dutchman, i once stumbled across some swedes in a bar.

With enough beer, im convinced we would be able to speak the same language at a certain point.

Yes, I know this effect everywhere. Currently at work in Germany (to be fair: also because it was previously just not practical; I should ask for speaking more german now), or when my girlfriend studied in the Netherlands she said the same. When I was in Finland, people spoke English really really well, but when I looked for an internship, there was not much available in the first place, and that which there was, all required speaking either Swedish or Finnish. (Probably this is better in the capital area, I wasn't near there.) But even if people speak it very well as a secondary language, you're still limited in making friends or finding jobs, even if casual interactions (e.g. stores, school/work friends) try to be helpful and speak english unless you absolutely insist on using your broken version of their language.

They bike very slowly tho. Almost painfully slowly to me.

I cycle every day to work in Germany and my 3 year old daughter already cycles in the city (not alone obviously). However, I would always wear a a helmet and I think it saved me at least once from worse. I really wonder how Dutch infrastructure could have saved me from getting hit by a 90 year old lady on the way to get doctor on city neighborhood road (was fascinating to see how the helmet absorbed the energy). It might be rather that Dutch drivers learned to share roads with bikes (although I am always scared of Dutch bus drivers when the overtake you on a bicycle)

I remember an article about that — bike ridership is so widespread that most drivers have someone in their family that bikes, if not a biker themself.

Would you wear a helmet to drive a car? Or walk down the steet? Why not?

A car is basically a huge powered helmet.

Helmets in cars can be very effective. This is why racing drivers wear them.

They also travel significantly faster than normal road users.

Yes, if I was travelling 300kmph in my car, I would wear a helmet.

One part is to not share roads, but to have separate bike paths. Physical separation (e.g. trees between cars and bikes) is another method. There's lots of clever things infrastructure folks have come up with; Not Just Bikes is the classic YouTube channel that details many of them.

This is something true for major roads. However, also in the Netherlands you cannot have a separate road door to door for everyone. But I guess if cars are below 30 kmh statistical risks are less. However, I flew mid air a bit hit by a car at approximately 15 kmh .

Yeah that's why I said it's only part of it. I'd really recommend that YouTube channel, there's so many little things you can do to make traffic safer for everyone.

I don’t know about Sweden but my wife is Danish and we live in NL. The Danes have the same absolutist attitude to helmets. And, well, seeing the average Danish bicycle infrastructure I get where they’re coming from. Outside some nicer areas in the large cities it gets pretty laughable pretty fast. And Denmark likes to brag about their bicycle infra!

I’d wear a helmet in most of Denmark too.

Fwiw I recently bought helmets for my family. There is a bit of an uplifting trend for helmets, since a popular tv show spent some time promoting them. Or better, spent some time on the ridiculousness of not wearing helmets while cycling.

I grew up and still live in the Netherlands.

That's really interesting! And, I guess I think, good for you!

Right after writing my post above I had to google "dutch bike helmets" and found stuff like [1] which really makes it very clear that you (as a nation, I mean) just really aren't much into helmets. Cool that there are exceptions, although of course there always are at this level. :)

Agreed on it being off to see that many kids without helmets. I'm curious on what the stats are. Specifically, why are they so ok without them?

The biggest hazard for bike riders is cars, and my understanding is that the risk of getting hit by a car is much lower in the Netherlands due to a combination of infrastructure/legal/cultural differences. (Some of which are no doubt intertwined.) It's possible to fall off a bike and hit your head while riding all on your own, but it's also possible to trip and hit your head while walking - at the relatively slow speeds they cycle at there, they seem to not worry about it so much.

EDIT: Also traffic calming is pervasive, so even if somehow you do get hit by a car it's at a much slower speed and therefore much more survivable.

It's important not to mystify "infrastructure/legal/cultural differences" too much. Too often in north america we hear that biking would never work over here because of "cultural differences" but the netherlands went a rather dramatic shift in infrastructure priorities starting in the 70s that's built this biking utopia - it's very possible for other parts of the world to follow suit!

Oh certainly, and I didn't mean to imply that it wouldn't work here. (In fact I'd very much like it to and have been doing whatever I can to push for that.) Infrastructure, culture, and law are not static, though influencing each can be difficult in its own way. But not impossible!

It's striking to look at comparison pictures of cities in the Netherlands between the 1970s and today. The old photos could just as well be a lot of cities in the US today: https://exploring-and-observing-cities.org/2016/01/11/amster...

I mean, yes. The biggest risk on the road is cars. So, moving off roads and dedicated biking infrastructure is already moving the needle a lot.

However, don't under estimate how much you can hurt with a low speed fall from a bike.

Also... this is just what I was asking. I was not intending my ask as a challenge that they are wrong. I'm genuinely interested in the data.

Not sure what the data is. I biked 2+ hours almost daily in a major US city for a couple years. Every accident I had was one where I was in a designated bike lane, and the car crossed it to turn or enter a parking lot in an opening. Separating cars from bicycles in my personal anecdotes was what the danger was, I never had issues when I rode on the real road not on a bike lane. Once you're in the bike lane it's like you're in another world and cars forget you're there (and you can't really ride on the regular road when there's a bike lane next to you, as it makes drivers hostile).

There is safety in numbers and there's little chance that you'll see any significant portion of the population mixing with traffic on main streets. If you can't expect children and families to ride there, it's not safe enough.

On side streets with little car traffic it often does make sense not to separate infrastructure, but traffic calming is then particularly important.

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/11/reality-vs-myth...

That said:

> Every accident I had was one where I was in a designated bike lane, and the car crossed it to turn or enter a parking lot in an opening.

A "designated bike lane" that's just a strip of paint is also not enough for exactly that reason, and if the bike lane (even a protected one) is frequently interrupted by curb cuts into parking lots that's likewise not bike-friendly design.

Do cars have right of way on turns like that? It's an interesting difference between Germany and Australia for example.

In Germany bicycles and pedestrians have right of way on roundabouts or driveways. So everyone is used to looking out for cyclists when entering or exiting a roundabout or driveways. It's perfectly natural.

In Australia cyclists and pedestrians don't have right of way. Often on foot you have you wait at a roundabout until there are no cars. I think this is a much more dangerous approach as it makes for building bad habits of not having to look out for others.

I believe the person going straight in a lane has right-of-way over someone trying to turn in front of them faster than they can reasonably stop. Bicycles are treated as cars, but pedestrians always have right of way if on a pedestrian path.

My near misses and accidents generally are because either someone tries to quickly get in front of me so they can turn in front of me, or because they didn't notice the bike lane at all when turning.

I think the Australian rule would be nearly impossible to follow in a major city, as it's difficult to predict when a car quickly overtaking you may want to "get one over you" and gun it and turn into a driveway in front of you, which is a major cause for my hits / near misses.

Now that you say it I'm not actually sure what the rule is in Australia. But in practice as a pedestrian or cyclist you have to be aware of cars and can't expect to be given way.

In Germany being given way feels pretty much ingrained. It is a very different experience.

And yes, crossing across sidewalks or bike lanes with poor visibility is a common bad one. Both when being the one driving and on foot or bike.

The difference is that right-of-way laws for pedestrians and cyclists are actually enforced in Germany. The laws are generally similar elsewhere in the world, but as they are unenforced the larger, heavier vehicle de facto has right-of-way because the driver can easily kill a cyclist or pedestrian without meaningful consequence.

AFAIK in the US a bicycle is considered a car for right-of-way purposes and thus has no privilege over the car. The only upside in the traffic laws is ability to use the bike lane, SOMETIMES (but usually not) legal right to be on the sidewalk, and no need for a driver's license / registration / insurance.

> AFAIK in the US a bicycle is considered a car for right-of-way purposes and thus has no privilege over the car.

The US is not a single jurisdiction for traffic laws, and whether bicycles are considered vehicles and whether and how they are treated differently than cars at intersections or for other purposes varies widely by state.

I suppose that's true. Nevertheless it's generally accurate and simply telling a foreigner to read the code of every single jurisdiction you pass through is not practical. Any jurisdiction where a bicycle has privileged right of way over a car on a regular public road is by far the exception in America, and a one hour bike ride can easily go through several novel jurisdictions. If a frenchman were to tell me the rules for right of way in bicycles in France I would not consider him wrong if there were some town in French Guiana where the rules are different (despite it being part of France).

> Any jurisdiction where a bicycle has privileged right of way over a car on a regular public road is by far the exception in America

Its actually quite common for them to have special treatment in the rules of the road, either being classed as vehicles with special privileges (beyond just use of bike lanes and sonetimes sidewalks) or not as vehicles at all; in fact, it is so common that I would argue it is by far the norm, the difficulty is that it is not at all consistent what the special treatment is.

> a one hour bike ride can easily go through several novel jurisdictions

The relevant jurisdictions here are thr 50 states, the District of Columbia, and (pedantically, but good luck including them with others ona bike ride) other territories. Its possible to get several on a one-hour bike ride, but only if it is carefully planned for that purpose.

> If a frenchman were to tell me the rules for right of way in bicycles in France I would not consider him wrong if there were some town in French Guiana where the rules are different (despite it being part of France).

Sure, but just on Idaho stop rules alone, there are differences from the majority “just like a car” rule in 9 states covering about 10% of the US population. The exceptions aren't equivalent to “some town in French Guiana”.

When a turning vehicle is attempting to turn across any lane (including a bicycle lane), it must yield to the vehicle traveling straight in that lane, whether or not it is a bicycle (and whether or not that bicycle is classified as a 'vehicle' or as having 'all rights and all responsibilities of a vehicle'). This does not vary between jurisdictions in the US.

Truth. Although I have been knocked unconscious once and have one 10 year old elbow injury that still occasionally causes me trouble that begs otherwise, in practice. In big cities the practical rule is USUALLY the car will turn if it thinks you can reasonably stop in time, and occasionally they'll turn whether or not they think you'll stop in time. A couple times a year the car will just smash you to turn, because fuck cyclists they shouldn't have been on the road.

I would never advise cyclists to consider what you've stated as the actual rules. In practice the rule you should follow is the person turning will turn if they reasonably believe you have time to stop, and prey they do not alter the deal further. De facto vs De jure.

Helmets are designed to protect riders from bike crashes, not from cars.

Dutch commuter bikes are slow and upright, and many have a low top tube and are thus very easy to hop off of— a 9-12 mph bike crash is not unlike slipping while jogging, whereas a 18-35 mph crash on a road bike is a lot more risky. Lower-speed cycling is enabled by Dutch land use which does not require many long-distance trips: https://www.peopleforbikes.org/news/best-kept-secret-dutch-b...

Almost as if helmets are not the magic death prevention tool people who argue for the status quo want to sell you on, and it's instead the 3 ton machines with powertrains sized to satisfy a neighborhood street that cause the overwhelming amount of deaths and injuries.

Source: am Dutch.

Sure, helmets would make cycling safer. Helmets would also make walking on the sidewalk safer. But I bet you don’t wear a helmet there. This implies there is some level of risk you’re willing to take before you wear a helmet.

My theory is that cycling in the Netherlands is safer than it is in most countries. Just some factors:

- People mainly cycle for transport, not for sport: you sit upright, you go relatively slowly

- Every car driver in the Netherlands is also a cyclist sometimes, so people know how cyclists behave and respect them

- Cycling is everywhere: you don’t encounter cyclists only in the center of big cities, basically every road except (often, not always!) highways will have cycle paths in parallel so as a car driver you encounter cyclists everywhere and anywhere

- The bicycle infrastructure is fantastic: if possible bike lanes are separated from car lanes by greenery or trees or something, bike lanes don’t cross right next to intersections (so you’re not in the blind spot of a car making a turn - the car already turned and then crosses the bike path) etc.

Not comparing, but is it really safe? https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/09/cycling-injuries-three...

50,000 serious injuries in one year seems considerable.

I have a theory that requiring helmets would reduce bicycle usage, making people in general less healthy. It would also increase the ratio of cars to bikes, making roads more dangerous. I think the net effect would be worse outcomes.

I'd love to see evidence of this (either proving or disproving) but it seems like a hard thing to measure.

That said, I always wear a helmet when biking, but I never wear a helmet when driving, and I am aware of the irony.

I believe when Australia introduced mandatory helmets, bicycle use indeed dropped dramatically. That's definitely a big part of why many Dutch are opposed to mandatory helmet laws.

Helmets should probably be mandatory for e-bikes, though. They go a lot faster, and more importantly: faster than people realise.

A Dutch satire program had an item on this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WflYjsaC19g). A lot of these injuries is with the elderly and the teenagers. It is suggested that this due to the rise of e bikes, which go faster.

A helmet should be required for ebikes.

I think this is a recent development and it is mostly older people who would previously not cycle as much anymore, but now drive e-bikes and so are going a lot faster while being physically more fragile. I think they were mostly one sided incidents (them driving into stuff or slipping).

For those people, I’d indeed recommend or mandate a helmet.

Do consider that in the Netherlands, people cycle 15,000,000,000 kilometers per year (that’s over 800 km per year per citizen, including babies etc.) to put the 50,000 injuries into perspective.

(Dutch source: https://www.fietsersbond.nl/ons-werk/mobiliteit/fietsen-cijf...)

If you practice a bit of judo you learn to keep your head off the ground.

That may be the best way to learn this skill, but really any physical activity will contribute. If, as a child, you've wrestled with your sibling, or played tag, or played soccer, or skateboarded, or indeed, ridden a bike, you've practiced keeping your head off the ground when falling.

As an adult, I have catastrophically wrecked, at high speed, on asphalt, both while cycling (destroyed the front fork) and while rollerblading, without a helmet, and in both cases flipped and skidded on a shoulder without touching my head. As a child, I had done that when falling from horses.

A common misconception is that helmets protect you from cars, according to the helmet manufacturers they are not:

> “There are many misconceptions about helmets,” Richter told British trade magazine Cycling Industry News on July 6.

> “We do not design helmets specifically to reduce chances or severity of injury when impacts involve a car,” said Richter.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2020/07/10/bicycle-...

Whoa, there is a huge difference between "not specifically designed to protect against" and "does not protect against".

A bike helmet is not specifically designed to protect against a brick falling from a building and hitting your head. But would you rather experience such an event with a bike helmet, or without?

Also you should take any article singing the praise of MIPS for regular bike helmets with a huuuge grain of salt. MIPS as it's been designed and tested for motorbike/downhill racing/etc. is a definite advantage. But those are all systems where the helmet is so tight it's almost glued to your head. And if you look up the research papers on MIPS, they use test stands with a crash test head and literally glue the helmets to the head before testing. A bike helmet is so far from firmly attached that the 10-15mm rotational slip offered by MIPS is obviously pointless.

It is weird, but any discussion on safety is in vain: we will NOT wear helmets. Period.

Increasingly, it has become mandatory to wear helmets on the several varieties of slow motorized vehicles like scooters. I think we're now down to the slowest category of 30km/h.

As a result, that industry collapses. Once a helmet is mandatory, we dump it.