"DDEckerslyke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:
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
bhsi.orgbhsi.orgOpen ↗
One site that disagrees with the BHSI is magma.ca~ocbcOpen ↗ ... 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.
cyclehelmets.orgcyclehelmets.orgOpen ↗
Quoted message said:Quoted message said: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