Recumbent Accident Rates?

On May 7, 3:25*pm, Jay Beattie wrote:
On May 7, 11:05*am, Frank Krygowski wrote:

Ah, Stephen, still posting absolute lies!

To review (not that it should be necessary): *I did not begin by
deciding I was against bike helmets. *In fact, I was once in favor of
bike helmets. *I wore one for almost every ride, and advised others to
do the same. *I bought the line that bicycling was a significant
source of serious head injury, and that helmets greatly reduced that
risk.

It was only after I began reading the research papers on the subject
(both pro and con), and digging for data on comparative risk, that I
changed my mind, based entirely on factual evidence. *I found that the
risk had been grossly exaggerated, the claims of efficacy wildly
overstated, and the specifications and certification tests of bike
helmets laughably inadequate.

Populaiton studies say nothing about whether a helmet is a smart
choice for an individual rider whose risk pattern may be different
from the norm, e.g., someone who rides fast or rides off road or who
rides in inclement weather including ice and snow or who rides in
close proximity to large numbers of other riders. *A person may
perceive a risk that actually exists for him or her, and you cannot
assume that a person is being hysterical or helmet whore or whatever
without seeing that person's riding environment.

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.

This is why population studies are meaningless to me in my personal
decision making -- except in terms of my injury reduction
expectations. *I do not expect a helmet to save my life. *However,
helmets have proven benefit in reducing scalp injury, certain upper
facial injuries and skull fractures, which are all costly to treat and
worth avoiding -- particularly for me.

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?

- Frank Krygowski