Originally Posted by
buzzman
Basing anything on the kinds of hyperbole and false posturing from either side of the issue done in these helmet threads is not something I'd advise. Though, I admit, I use my helmet with exactly the same kind of regularity as I do my seat belt. However, I don't think my use of a helmet or a seat belt is evidence that I over-estimate either of their capabilities.
I'm not even talking about the overplayed hyperbole a la rydabent, but the folks who step in (usually newbies) with actual good intentions (seemingly) talking about how they are convinced the helmet saved their lives when 1) they describe a situation it probably did not save their life and 2) they make this assumption based on the terrible correlation equals causation fallacy of a) I crashed b) I was wearing a helmet c) I didn't die d) therefore the helmet saved my life.
I should think it's actually fairly non-controversial that people believe helmets prevent brain damage and save lives on a regular basis, something that is patently not true (with debate surrounding whether they do so at all).
This is a really good point. If this thread serves cyclists in any way it is a reminder to let people make their own decision about whether or not to wear a helmet. Pushing it on someone just doesn't work.
I agree absolutely. My hope for this thread is to act as a source pointing to information that people can use to make their own assessment. That's what it did for me.
It's hard to convince people that a helmet won't do any good in a crash because, and I don't mean to be argumentative here, but it defies commonsense. People know that if you have a helmet on your head and you drop a brick on it from let's say 3' and then you do the same without the helmet it's going to hurt a lot more without it than with. I'm just being honest here, but that's what you're up against- simplicity. The bigger, more complex picture of how safe cycling is, the incidence of head injury, concussion data, helmet efficacy in catastrophic crashes etc. is way too much information for the general public.
This is true, to a point. If people wear a helmet thinking it will hurt less if they fall, they are probably right, and there's not much wrong with this simplicity. My fear is that people go out thinking it will save their life in a situation where it probably won't. That sort of simplicity is dangerous; relying on a device you expect to save your life that will inevitably fail at doing so can lead to bad situations. That's all I'm looking for: Not for people to necessarily stop wearing helmets (I think most don't need to, but if they choose to I don't care), but to know what they are and are not capable of.
As you can see from rydabent's comment "you either wear a helmet or not". That's what most people want to boil it down to- they don't want to over think it. And, when it comes down to it, they're probably right. The statistics and data is debatable and if people have to think that much over a simple decision of helmet or no helmet they'll make the simplest choice that makes sense. And many will decide that even if the helmet won't do any good it won't do any harm either and choose to wear it.
This is true, and there's nothing wrong with that. But there are many folks who feel pressured into wearing a helmet because everyone says they need one, or worse, forgo cycling altogether due to the inconvenience of a helmet. You wouldn't think it's that big of a deal, but the sheer drop in cycling after mandatory use laws are enacted shows otherwise. It's a big enough deal to get some people to stop if they feel helmets are necessary. Seeing as this is an advocacy forum, I'm guessing that's not what any of us want.
No, I don't.
Nor do I think they are well informed about the efficacy of life preservers or seat belts or airbags or smoke detectors or aspirin or anti-biotics or a million other things they come in contact with during their busy lives. And often they are woefully uninformed about their proper use.
I think people are actually decently informed about seat belts, life preservers, smoke detectors, etc. But you know what? Some of the things you listed people
are uninformed about, and there is a big movement to try and get people to understand them, aspirin and anti-biotics come to mind. There's a very big push to get people and doctors to understand why pushing anti-biotics can be a very dangerous thing, same with aspirin. So I think these are very fair comparisons: They are useful tools that people's lack of knowledge about have lead to dangerous situations, and now there is a push to inform people, not stop their use. I feel exactly the same way about helmets.
A question for you (and a cool video)- do you think these guys are over-estimating the capabilities of their helmets? And do you think they'd be better off with a helmet or without?
http://youtu.be/X-hp7R1tQSQ
Firstly, I don't think they are better off without a helmet because their likelihood of a fall is obviously higher, and helmets do serve some use in a crash. As to whether they overestimate, it seems some of them are not wearing standard bicycle helmets, so I don't know of their ability. The ones that are wearing standard bicycle helmets, I guess it depends if they think it will save their life if they drop head first down a 200 ft cliff, or if they think it might help mitigate relatively minor wounds such as a nasty gash on the head.