"DDEckerslyke" wrote in message ...

AFAICS this seems to be an ongoing debate in this ng. Is there any one place
where I can see both sides of the argument?

I don't know of one place that is "neutral," if that's what you mean.
Think about it: most "neutral" people will lack the motivation to
publish on the issue. But this is normal for almost all contentious
issues. It simply means you must weigh the evidence provided by both
sides and decide which is more sensible.

I can attempt to summarize some of the major points of the helmet fans
and the non-fans, at risk of being called biased.

Helmet fans say "Any fall off a bike can kill you." Non-fans say
"Same for any fall off _anything_. But bike head injuries are less
than 1% of the US totals. Falls around the home are 40%, injuries
inside cars are 50%. Don't single out cyclists."

Helmet fans say "It's not just fatalities. Helmets prevent smaller
injuries too, and you certainly don't want even a minor injury."
Non-fans say "Minor injuries, like fatalities, occur in all sorts of
activities. Again, don't single out cycling."

Helmet fans say "But over 500,000 Americans visit emergency rooms each
year due to bike crashes." Non-fans say "Over 400,000 visit ERs due
to accidents involving their beds! Big numbers prove only that
America is a big place."

Helmet fans say "But helmets prevent up to 85% of head injuries."
Non-fans say "That 85% claim came from only one tiny,
poorly-constructed study. It's never stood up in any examination of
the effects of widespread helmet use. For example, no jurisdiction
has seen anything close to that benefit after imposing a mandatory
helmet law."

Helmet fans say "But many other studies predict some benefit, even if
not as great." Non-fans say "Case-control studies of small,
self-selected populations generally predict benefit. Large studies of
general populations (after imposition of helmet laws) find little or
no benefit, and they are more 'real world'."

Helmet fans say "Think of the public health cost of the injuries."
Non-fans say "Overpromoting or mandating helmets reduces cycling,
which causes more, not less, public health cost. Cycling has been
shown to have benefits far greater than its tiny risks."

Helmet fans say "I was saved from serious injury or death by my
helmet." Non-fans say "That's absolutely unprovable. People have
survived bike crashes of every type for a hundred years. Dented
styrofoam proves only that styrofoam can be dented."

Helmet fans say "If everyone wore a helmet every time they rode,
fatalities or head injuries would drop tremendously." Non-fans say
"Helmet use has greatly increased, yet there is no good evidence of
any corresponding reduction in head injuries - instead, head injuries
per rider seem to have actually increased."

Helmet fans say "It's such an easy thing to do." Non-fans say "It's
ineffective. It would be much better to put the energy into teaching
proper riding, and into enforcing existing traffic laws."

Helmet fans say "Promoting helmets can only help." Non-fans say "It's
more likely to scare people away from cycling, and that hurts."


Obviously, you can tell which side I'm on! But if you want a site
that disagrees with me, the most popular one is the Bicycle Helmet
Safety Institute (actually, a mostly one-man operation) at
http://www.bhsi.org

One site that disagrees with the BHSI is http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/
.... and be sure to click on the "Helmet FAQ" link at the left.

Another site, a new one (somewhat under construction) concentrates on
British data. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

That said, certified helmets are all essentially the same. ...

This was part of the problem in the survey I mentioned. The magazine dropped
helmets on to three different shaped anvils and analysed the results. Many
of the helmets did next to nothing to absorb the impact despite the fact
that all conformed to one or other of the two main standards. I wondered if
there were helmets that are known to be effective.

Present bike helmets offer only low levels of protection, and future
ones will doubless be little better. This is simple physics. To
increase protection from a straight-on impact, you'll need thicker
material, since it takes more distance to stop something (e.g. your
head) more gently.

But thicker material means more weight, less ventilation, and (most
seriously) more chance that the helmet will actually receive an
impact. (If a bare head misses collision by 1/2 inch, a helmet will
hit. Larger helmets will be hit harder and more frequently.
Furthermore, larger helmets offer more "lever arm" for tangential
impacts, and would thus be expected to increase the particularly
damaging rotational accelerations of the brain.

Incidentally, the pro-helmet American magazine Consumer Reports has
tested bike helmets several times. Although they do not give
numerical values for impact protection (nobody seems to tell the
American public how low the protection levels really are!) they've
given comparative, non-numerical bar graphs. In each test, the most
expensive helmets have been the _least_ protective!

When you think about it, that's logical. To get minimum weight and
maximum ventilation, you need to skim as close to the minimum impact
standard as possible. And this razor's edge design time costs money!

- Frank Krygowski