Report a Comment

" Instead of "no helmet = no brain to protect" how about "no lights = 'dim' witted"?"

Most recreational bikers, at least, never ride at night. The range of conditions and types of bikers for whom helmet use is a net positive is undoubtedly broader than the advice to get a light, and even more so than for not using a sidewalk (as for the latter I was riding today on streets (in fairfax cty BTW) where heavy traffic was moving at over 35 MPH in narrow lanes on roads with no shoulders and where the sidewalks were free of pedestrians and of driveways)

I can think of no reason why a well fitted helmet could cause more accidents.as fort that "study" what you linked to was no study (no analysis of time series variation year by year, for example) but simply pointing out two trends over time. We might as well conclude that growing income inequality causes more bike head injuries (and given the folks I see biking without helmets, wrong way, at night without reflecting clothing, and all kinds of other bad habits, and what I think there econonomic status is,I think as good a case could be made for real causality there)

Also of course we need to look at not just the number of head injuries, but severity.

I can understand cyclist reticence about mandatory helmet laws. Getting bent out of shape, so to speak, about a poster someone puts up, is something else.

by AWalkerInTheCity on Jun 17, 2012 6:29 pm • link • report