On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 3:51:29 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

And as usual, the unspoken assumption behind the article
is that cycling produces so many brain injuries that
cyclists _need_ protection.

Yet any dispassionate examination of the relevant data
shows that cycling is not abnormally risky. Cyclists
comprise only a tiny percentage of serious brain injury
victims, and cycling's benefits far outweigh its tiny
risks.

Depending on individual experience and assuming: (1) people will not ride if they wear a helmet, viz., that one excludes the other, and (2) that those who will not ride with a helmet will do no other activity, like walk, go to the gym, etc.

Regarding #1: The point is not whether someone can get
the same health benefits from other exercise. Of course
that's possible - if they do, indeed, choose some other
exercise. But swimming, playing tennis, etc. do not
replace bicycling's transportation possibilities. You,
Jay, won't swim to work if bicycling were taken away
from you. You would drive.

And in some of the studies (those with the highest
benefit-to-risk findings for bicycling) the benefits
estimated included benefits to others, from reducing
pollution and crash risks from drivers.

Besides, why should we discourage an activity that has
net individual and societal benefit by falsely claiming
it's so dangerous as to need protective equipment?

(Occasionally, some helmeteers claim that helmet mandates
or promotion doesn't discourage bicycling. It's a fringe
viewpoint akin to claims that the moon landing was
faked, that 9/11 was a planned demolition of the twin
towers, etc. It ignores logic and data.)

For those who ride with a helmet, a better design is all upside except for cost and weight.

In my experience, a cloth cycling cap is a far better
design.

I wear a ski helmet with soft padding and EPS, and I got a massive concussion wearing that -- but I did avoid fracturing my skull or mangling my scalp, which was likely based on my facial injuries.

As I've said, our society is schizophrenic about risk.
Lots of people glorify objectively risky things like
downhill skiing, free climbing, BMX parks or radical
ATB riding, skydiving and more. And those participants
brag about their wisdom in choosing protective gear.

ISTM it's wiser to avoid activities that are thrilling
because you might get badly injured, and to not push
protective gear for activities that are objectively
safer than walking. After all, the biggest risk of
death for most Americans is from diseases that are
reduced by bicycling.

- Frank Krygowski