I agree -- comparing helmets to seatbelts is ridiculous and couldn't believe it when I read comments from folks on Statesman.com. In seeing how many people disagree with the purposed change to the law, including ACA (which actively encourages folks to wear helmets), I doubt that the change in the law will occur. I wear my helmet, and will continue to wear my helmet, but I don't want someone trying to legislate something that should be common sense.
BTW, most people will agree that the Tour de France has most of the best cyclists in the world. If you notice, there are certain stages where they wear helmets (time trials are one) and certain stages where they don't (mountain climbs).
I ride bikes a lot. Sometimes I wear a helmet and sometimes I don't. Because of the thought processes I go through deciding if a ride is "helmet" or "no helment" though, I'm not going to trust any "helmets don't matter" statistics.
Basically I use the helmet to reduce the combined risk of which bike I'm riding, how fast, and where. If *anyone* else does that, there go your stats.
"Helmets don't work" is necessarily short, to counteract the emotional stuff. I used a helmet for mountain biking, so obviously it's more complicated than "they never work for anything".
But for the value of "work" most people are interested in (getting people to wear helmets on the road because they think it'll keep head injury patients out of the hospital), it's essentially true.
No, there are plenty of crashes when if you go down, you're no better off with a helmet than you would have been with a wooly cap, as some folks like to say. There are a few people who assert that some kinds of crashes are worse with a helmet than without. I don't consider myself one of them, but it's clear that if helmets provided a non-trivial benefit, at least one of the dozen or so countries which have tracked head injuries over time would have seen a discernible improvement as helmet usage increased.
As far as I know, no post of yours has been rejected or even held for moderation. I just checked the movable type comment database and saw nothing there. Please try again and I'll look for it carefully in my spam catcher (it could have been rejected due to some link or phrase which MT considers suspect).
I agree -- comparing helmets to seatbelts is ridiculous and couldn't believe it when I read comments from folks on Statesman.com. In seeing how many people disagree with the purposed change to the law, including ACA (which actively encourages folks to wear helmets), I doubt that the change in the law will occur. I wear my helmet, and will continue to wear my helmet, but I don't want someone trying to legislate something that should be common sense.
BTW, most people will agree that the Tour de France has most of the best cyclists in the world. If you notice, there are certain stages where they wear helmets (time trials are one) and certain stages where they don't (mountain climbs).
Posted by: dquack | June 19, 2006 12:34 PM
Many also only wear helmets on the time trials for aerodynamic reasons.
Anyways, it's not "common sense" to wear helmets. If they don't really help, then it may be "common" but it's not "sense".
Posted by: M1EK | June 19, 2006 12:58 PM
I ride bikes a lot. Sometimes I wear a helmet and sometimes I don't. Because of the thought processes I go through deciding if a ride is "helmet" or "no helment" though, I'm not going to trust any "helmets don't matter" statistics.
Basically I use the helmet to reduce the combined risk of which bike I'm riding, how fast, and where. If *anyone* else does that, there go your stats.
Posted by: odograph | June 19, 2006 05:36 PM
"Helmets don't work" is necessarily short, to counteract the emotional stuff. I used a helmet for mountain biking, so obviously it's more complicated than "they never work for anything".
But for the value of "work" most people are interested in (getting people to wear helmets on the road because they think it'll keep head injury patients out of the hospital), it's essentially true.
Posted by: M1EK | June 19, 2006 05:44 PM
I think the truth a rider is going to know is that whenever you go down (same crash with/without helmet) you're better off with a helmet.
... maybe if they had good stats on what *wasn't* a mountain or bmx crash.
FWIW, I'm sure you're aware that the latest trend is brake-less fixed-gear track bikes for urban riding ... oh yeah, that's gonna help the stats:
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,67149-0.html
Posted by: odograph | June 19, 2006 08:16 PM
odograph,
No, there are plenty of crashes when if you go down, you're no better off with a helmet than you would have been with a wooly cap, as some folks like to say. There are a few people who assert that some kinds of crashes are worse with a helmet than without. I don't consider myself one of them, but it's clear that if helmets provided a non-trivial benefit, at least one of the dozen or so countries which have tracked head injuries over time would have seen a discernible improvement as helmet usage increased.
Posted by: M1EK | June 23, 2006 11:12 AM
Why didn't you approve my comment on this post?
Should I stop reading and posting here?
A short note telling me either would be polite.
Thanks.
Posted by: Tommy Jefferson | June 24, 2006 07:55 AM
Tommy,
As far as I know, no post of yours has been rejected or even held for moderation. I just checked the movable type comment database and saw nothing there. Please try again and I'll look for it carefully in my spam catcher (it could have been rejected due to some link or phrase which MT considers suspect).
Posted by: M1EK | June 24, 2006 08:50 AM