On 6/20/2018 11:40 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
sms wrote:

OMG, there have been endless studies, all
that show a benefit to helmet usage to some
degree. The problem is not a lack of studies,
it's that those that are opposed to helmet
usage will ALWAYS nitpick some aspect of even
the most rigorous study, and proclaim that
the results are invalid.

What is the hangup with claiming helmets do not
help? Why isn't it enough just to not use
a helmet oneself and ignore whatever anyone
else is doing?

It's because if others choose to use a helmet it implies that there is a
benefit, and part of choosing to not wear a helmet is to promote the
narrative that there is no benefit. Yet even some individuals that have
spoken out passionately against the uselessness of helmets actually wear
them!

I also think that part of the narrative is to promote the unsupported
claim that helmet use, either mandated or encouraged, leads to reduced
cycle use. Even that is rather amusing because there is no data to
support that claim.

The fallback retort to data showing the benefits of helmet use is to
claim that the rate of increase in cycling has been lower than the
population increase in countries with all-ages mandatory helmet use.
This claim is true, at least in some countries, though it's a stretch to
claim that the reason that the population increased at a greater rate
than the cycling rate is because of a mandatory helmet law. With or
without helmet laws or helmet promotion, cycling rates vary for multiple
reasons.