Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
Bike sharing is a growing phenomenon, and lots of cities are launching programs that allow people to borrow a set of wheels. But do these fly-by-night cyclists play it safe as they tool around town? A new study shows that in Washington DC most of them don’t—at least when it comes to wearing a helmet. The results appear in the American Journal of Public Health. [John D. Kraemer, Jason S. Roffenbender and Laura Anderko, "Helmet Wearing Among Users of a Public Bicycle-Sharing Program in the District of Columbia and Comparable Riders on Personal Bicycles"]
Researchers at Georgetown University spent a month watching people ride bikes around the nation’s capital. D.C. is home to Capital Bikeshares, one of the largest programs in the U.S. The researchers noted whether cyclists were on Capital bikes or wheels of their own. They also classified riders as either casual users or likely commuters, depending on when and where the cyclists were spotted.
What they found is: bike-share riders tend to shun headgear. While 70 percent of the commuters who rode their own bikes wore helmets, fewer than a third of the bike-share commuters did the same. And the casual riders were even more lax.
To encourage helmet use, New York City, whose bike-share system is set to launch in July, is giving them away. Just show up for a fitting. It’s one way to stay a head.
—Karen Hopkin
[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
4 Comments
Add CommentWhy is this surprising? If you use your own bike habitually you are more likely to bring your own helmet. Share bikes are more of an impulse thing, and who keeps a bulky helmet handy just in case? Helmets aren't the sort of thing that fold neatly for pocket or purse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Collapsible helmet" sounds like an oxymoron; this is something enterprising inventors need to think about.
The fact is that there is no danger to riding without a helmet. That is a fraud perpetrated by crooked "scientists" working with criminal legislators paid by corrupt corporations to enact a forced consumption law! If there was any danger to not wearing the helmets, the article would have that prinbted in big red letters! it's all a lie! They used a single incident, a freak accident that never occurred before, suspiciously, of someone getting hurt falling off a bicycle to push for helmet laws. And don't expect "scientists" to examine the effect that helmet wearing does on the developing brains of children! The swindle is too important, as is turning children into walking zombies!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne has to assume that that was intended as humor. If so, it fizzled; if not, it is very sad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismany studies have new confirmed the observable reality is that any individual cyclist's risk of head injury is the INVERSE of the street's bicycle mode share, not helmet compliance. and nothing has increased bicycle mode share better than automated bike share. helmet promotion programs have show to actually increase one's risk of injury regardless of compliance, due to the result of decreased bike mode share. That a million and a half trips, nearly all unhelmeted, spur of the moment, and care-free have in fact not resulted more than a couple of accidents supports this view. Conversely, helmet-compliant bicycle owners, typically vigilant and well-planning, are actually getting injured at much higher rates. The idea that promoting helmets for bike share is going to reduce the number of (almost non-existent) head injuries by scaring them into wearing helmets is completely disconnected from reality, and and from the basic logic of bike-share promotion world-wide. If you want to prevent head trauma you should require them among the travelers who are actually them getting at obscene rates - motorists! A decrease in motorist mode-share that would result is also associated with significantly lower motor-vehicle injury rates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this