Originally Posted by
mconlonx
Serious injuries which get reported via emergency room visits, or all injuries, including non-serious ones not reported, which might have been mitigated by helmets, as designed?
Personally I am uninterested in superficial injuries. Most people buying helmets - and certainly most of those who engage in these debates - seem to do so on the basis of a belief they are protecting themselves from concussive injury to the brain. That's what I am talking about.
Perception now is that helmets make biking safer. Right or wrong, that's the general public perception out there. If we discourage helmet use, would we be discouraging bike riding?
The Australian experience says the opposite. Introducing mandatory helmet use has discouraged cycling. And I'm not surprised. Exaggerating the dangers - wear a helmet or you risk death - isn't a message calculated to encourage parents to let their kids ride bikes. And, btw, you are talking from a North American perspective. There are many European countries in which the idea that everyone who rides a bike, needs a helmet, is regarded as ridiculous.
I ride with a helmet, but also have long hair, thus pretty much cancelling each other out. Well, that and our state passed a 3' passing law. Which is more effective: 3' passing law or not wearing a helmet?
Meaningless question. Have you any statistics on the exent to which the 3' passing law is complied with or enforced?
...No, I thought not.