On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 at 2:40:20 PM UTC-4, 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?

First, understand this disagreement has been debated here and in dozens of
other forums for decades. Over those years, people who promote or demand
helmet use have put out reams of lies and distortions.

Example: Stephen M. Scharf, who posts as "sms" claims there is still no
evidence that mandating helmets reduces cycling. He sometimes claims that
observed decreases (as in Australia and New Zealand) are coincidences, caused
by people playing more video games, or by increases in car traffic, or
whatever. He ignores the fact that the drops in cycling were quite sudden,
and happened exactly when helmets became mandatory; and that telephone surveys
confirmed that the helmet law was a major deterrent to cycling. Newer surveys
continue to corroborate that fact. Recently, when surveys were done to diagnose
the reasons for the failure of Melbourne's bike share scheme, the biggest
reason given was the helmet requirement.

And this matters to me. I don't think that we should be dissuading people from
riding bikes, either by imposing useless restrictions on riders, or by spouting
propaganda that makes cycling seem terribly risky. We don't push for helmets
for walkers, even though they suffer many more serious or fatal brain injuries
than bicyclists. We don't push for helmets for motorists, even though in the
U.S., well over 35,000 of them die despite seat belts and air bags. Why on
earth should we scare people about dying while bicycling, when in the U.S.
there are only about 800 bike fatalities per year, with fewer than half by
T.B.I.? (There are about 4500 annual pedestrian deaths in America, with
about 40% due to TBI. More pedestrians than bicyclists die per mile traveled.)

All this fear mongering is done to sell a plastic product that, despite some
cooked research, has brought no detectable improvement in fatalities or
concussions. People have wasted millions and millions of dollars on fragile
foam hats, and people now believe that every time the styrofoam is dented, it's
proof that they made a wise purchase, even a life-saving one. But despite
thousands of "It saved my life" stories, there simply has been no corresponding
drop in deaths. There has been an _increase_ in bike concussions. That should
tell us that most of the "saved my life" or "prevented a concussion" stories
must be mistaken.

So in summary: When there's nonsense spread about how terribly dangerous it is
to ride a bike, and how common brain injury is; about how wonderfully protective
a low-standard, expensive and fragile hat is; about how "Danger! Danger!"
warnings do no harm; about how mandating weird hats can't possibly discourage
riding... Well, sorry, but I respond.

- Frank Krygowski