On Wednesday, January 15, 2020 at 9:30:11 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/15/2020 9:27 AM, sms wrote:
On 1/14/2020 11:19 PM, Chalo wrote:
If injury and fatality rates among cyclists are a reflection of risk--
and I think they are-- them helmets don't help overall.Â* In my cycling
lifetime, helmet use has risen from approximately zero percent to
something like half of all riders.Â* There has been no statistically
significant change in cyclist injury or fatality rates during that
transition.Â* Surely helmets provide some measurable physical
protection, so I'm forced to conclude that they carry along with them
other effects that more or less fully offset this benefit.

I don't wear a helmet when I ride, mostly because I can hear and see
things around me better without one.Â* I think that's a tangible safety
benefit that functions to avoid, rather than only mitigate, a crash.
I'd much rather avoid a crash than survive one.

You may not like wearing a helmet, but the statistical evidence on the
benefit of helmets is overwhelming and irrefutable.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/sep/22/bicycle-helmets-reduce-risk-of-serious-head-injury-by-nearly-70-study-finds

Which, if accepted, leads to the question: Why are these marvelously
magical devices not promoted for the people who suffer the most brain
injuries?

I say that because it's a myth that bicycling confers unusual risk of
brain injury. The clearest indication comes from fatality data.
Bicyclists comprise approximately 0.6% of the U.S. total brain injury
fatalities. When, oh when, will we give this protection to the other 99.4%?

Of course, there are other aspects to this fear mongering. From the
linked article: "Chris Rissel, a professor of public health at the
University of Sydney, told a 2015 Australian Senate inquiry into the
subject that cycling numbers dropped after the helmet laws were
introduced in the 1990s, which made remaining cyclists more vulnerable.

“In safety terms there is a phenomenon called safety in numbers,� he
said. “As more people cycle, our roads become safer for these cyclists.

“Drivers become used to seeing cyclists and adjust their behaviour, and
infrastructure tends to be improved to better cater for cycling. Even if
cyclists wear helmets they are less safe with fewer cyclists on the road
than they would be with more cyclists about.

“Helmets are a barrier to new riders, particularly for occasional and
non-regular riders. The need to wear a helmet reinforces the message
that cycling is dangerous – with perceptions of danger a major reason
people give for not cycling.�

So can't we quit the industry-fostered propaganda implying that riding a
bike is a big risk for brain injury? It's less of a risk per mile than
walking, for goodness sake. If pedestrians don't need to wear helmets,
neither do ordinary non-racing, non-gonzo cyclists.

Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. It does us no good to pretend it is.

Bicycling is exactly as dangerous as it is for any particular individual. https://www.governing.com/gov-data/t...tate-data.html

It's particularly dangerous for TK since head injury is cumulative, and he spends a lot of time on a bike, increasing the odds of another injury. He should stick to Zwift.

-- Jay Beattie.