2 HN users recommended this talk2 months2012–2024score 2
Years with an HN recommendation, 2007–2026
Pointed to in helmet-law debates as a watchable argument that helmet mandates may cost lives by discouraging cycling.
Copenhagen's bicycle ambassador Mikael Colville-Andersen argues in a TEDx talk that bicycle helmets threaten bicycle culture. He says they distract from road design and make cycling look dangerous.
“If you would rather watch than read, there's this” (HN, 2016)
[this video] Anyone just blindly downvoting snovv_crash should check out the video above and any number of other resources, such as this one: [link] There are strong feelings on both sides, but many cyclists feel helmets are a distraction from the real issues which make cyclists unsafe: poor road design and unsafe driving. Cycling itself is (counter-intuitively) a very safe activity which looks dangerous; everyone assumes driving and walking are safe but often they are not. Yet nobody seriously proposes helmets for pedestrians or drivers, just cyclists.
Argues helmets distract from poor road design and unsafe driving.
If this is a new topic to you (I don't mean, you , SturgeonsLaw, as you are clearly familiar with it :) -- I mean the reader), you would do well to consider both sides. I personally find the arguments that bike helmets cause more harm than good persuasive, and a good and thorough introduction may be found here: [link] If you would rather watch than read, there's this: [this video]
Watchable introduction to why helmets may do more harm than good.
When I was a kid, my best friend's brother died because he was not wearing a bike helmet. I do, in fact, always wear a bike helmet. The argument is not whether, if hit in the head, you are more likely to get a head injury. It is clear that bike helmets reduce those injuries. The question is, if we required everyone to wear helmets, or required everyone to not wear helmets, which would result in less injuries/fatalities. And secondarily, if it turns out that bike helmets reduce injuries and fatalities, has it been worth the cost, vs other things we could spend money on, say legally required non-slip surfaces for bathtubs. There are multiple factors that could affect this, here are two such things: * [link] * [this video]
Cited as a factor in whether helmet requirements reduce injuries.
There are studies and talks that would suggest the opposite is true. For example:- For example: [link] TED talk discussing the issues: [this video] Common sense would dictate that the helmet is safer, but we could argue the science leaves a lot to be desired.
reminds me of the ted talk where the speaker said that helmet laws might be costing lives. The idea was that more people would be saved by the opportunity to exercise than were saved by the helmets. I think this one? [this video]
Talk arguing helmet laws may cost lives through reduced exercise.
reminds me of the bicycle helmet stuff. There was a ted talk that said bicycle helmet laws would kill more people than save. The reasoning was preventing people from riding would also prevent increased fitness, and more lives were lost from that than saved from accidents. EDIT: I think this one: [this video]
Talk arguing helmet laws kill more through lost fitness.
Video list and Hacker News comment labels from HackerTube (prompted by @karpathy), released under ODC-By 1.0, built on the open-index/hacker-news archive. Hacker News data is provided by Y Combinator; comments remain the work of their authors. Video titles, channel names and thumbnails belong to their creators and are shown via YouTube. HackerTube Watch is an unofficial edition. Data export of 2026-10-31.
Plays via YouTube's privacy-enhanced embed
7 Hacker News comments
From the HN archive; up to 20 kept per video, favoring different commenters. Recommendations first.
Citations, criticism and jokes
Read more