Originally Posted by
closetbiker
well, if you keep on riding your bike, the odds of living longer will be in your favor.
As for that bad feeling at a funeral caused by a nagging guilt that a helmet might have made a difference, speaking from an area that does have an all-ages MHL, once you see helmeted cyclists die at the same rate as non-helmeted riders, you start to realize a helmet doesn't make a difference.
All the cyclists in my city that have died in the last 4 years were wearing helmets, and in the years since our MHL was passed, the exact same numbers have died post, as pre-law. The same numbers of helmeted have died as non-helmeted.
The express purpose of our law was to reduce deaths to cyclists. Since this hasn't happened, I'd say the law is a failure.
Brad, I suppose that wasn't "the" only purpose, I would assume (and yes I am aware of the consequences) that injury prevention was probably also another expressed purpose of your MHL. Don't get me wrong, I understand your passion and I fully support your battle against the law, but I cannot imagine that helmet use has had no difference in some injury prevention. This is perhaps a metric that cannot be directly measured other than by statistical analysis. And perhaps not even then, as not every bump, scrape or cut is treated at an emergency room.
I think it is pretty clear that helmet use offers minimal, real protection in catastrophic bicycle/motor vehicle contact incidents. (Indeed, I somewhat intrigued over the idea that helmet use fosters a false sense of security and feeling of invulnerability that may indeed lead to even more careless riding.)
zac