wrote:
b_baka wrote:


I would side with the helmet people a little more if bicycle helmets
were more comfortable to wear, and if they were more effective. A

little

design research might go a long way here.


At least in this thread, there are no people that have come out in
favor of the coercive mandatory helmet law. So you don't have to side
with anyone.

It's basically an argument over whether or not helmets have any effect
in the reduction of injuries or deaths in bicycle crashes.

The answer would have to be that they reduced head injury but the
overall effect might be to make cyclists braver than they should be
whilst wearing a minimal helmet.

Mose people recognize that it is possible to oppose mandatory helmet
laws, while at the same time recognizing the fact that helmets do have
a positive effect when crashes occur. The statistical data to support
the latter point is overwhelming and incontravertible (though each
study shows different percentages, every study supports the basic
premise).

There are really only 3-4 people that consistently claim that helmets
are worthless, apparently believing that unless they can convince
someone of this, that helmet laws will be passed. Most of us believe
that helmet laws are a bad idea despite the relatively small benefit in
terms of injury and fatality reduction. No one believes the "if it
saves one life then it's worth it," line of thinking.

Along those lines I would add that if the crash is bad enough to damage
other parts of the body beyond repair, survival might not be desirable.
Life in a wheel chair would not suit me, and in such a case I would
rather not survive the crash. As an adult the choice of whether or not
to use a helmet should be mine.
(My opinion, and not a recommendation).
Bill Baka