On Sat, 7 May 2011 15:21:37 -0700 (PDT), in rec.bicycles.tech Frank
Krygowski wrote:

There's some truth to that. If you'll notice, I generally talk about
the low danger level of ordinary cycling.

My riding tends to be reasonably cautious. That is, I've never been
one for trying to see how fast I could take a curve. I've exceeded 50
mph only once on a bike. I long ago gave up really scary mountain
biking. I seldom ride when roads are icy or really snowy. I watch
pavement conditions like a hawk.

I think the best chance of justifying bike helmet use, based on their
specifications and on the likelihood of head impact, would be
enthusiastic mountain biking (as opposed to just cruising in the
woods). Second best would be track racing. The hills on Portland's
west side when slicked down with winter rain could possibly be
another; I won't pass judgment. I've ridden those only in dry
weather.

But I think it's obvious that the advice given by helmet promoters,
that cyclists should wear a helmet "... every time they ride their
bike..." is silly. The level of risk certainly doesn't justify that.
And the measured results from decades of such promotion show that such
advice, to the considerable degree it's been followed, hasn't worked
to a detectable degree.
It might be worth asking yourself whether you did ride, or would have
ridden as you do, in 1973, before helmets were widely used. What
would you have done differently?

I don't know that it's any more *obvious* that advice given with which
you disagree is "silly" than it's *obvious* that you're wrong...
having looked at the research, I do not see any obvious consensus.

It looks like mandating helmets will, most likely, be as effective as
prohibition; this does not surprise me.

I once wrote a grant wherein we promoted helmets. That position
simply sounded good in the abstract... grants make almost as
interesting reading as research does; this is why nobody reads them.
What surprised me was that our local cyclists weren't willing to say:
"Yeah, helmets are good," in exchange for nearly 200K to upgrade
traffic signals and bike lanes. As in most grant writing, you don't
want to get bogged down in facts... get your "buzz words" onto the
first page; the rest is 50 pages of boiler plate. The last thing you
want is controversy because the political money bags bail out at the
first hint. I thought it was a done deal until a room full of
cyclists flooded city council to oppose it. The DOT people didn't
even listen to them; they simply walked out and reallocated the money.

Heck, Frank... you hand me 200K and I'll say damn near *anything*!
Trust me on this one, sir... you'll never get a grant to *prevent*
children from wearing bicycle helmets even if it is silly!

Now, they're complaining about the antique traffic signals that can't
"see" bicycles... no ****, Sherlock! A general obligation bond lacks
a prayer in this economy.