Originally Posted by
closetbiker
Yes. So it is only logical then that it should be pedestrians who should be the focus of helmet usage campaigns, no?
But in that case, this conclusion would also be logical: helmets are tested against "simple" falls, which are agreed to be the leading cause of traumatic brain injury, ergo cyclists should be the focus of helmet usage campaigns
But why these repeated attempts to steer away from the topic at hand and bring pedestrians and so forth into it? The focus is cyclists and bike helmets.
Of which, going back to the article you quoted a few posts back: the author does write that "the tests that cycle helmets currently go through mean that they should offer similar protection to a pedestrian who trips and falls to the ground."
But all that means is that helmets could be of use either to a cyclist or a pedestrian. It does not say helmets can't provide protection in situations a pedestrian wouldn't encounter. The author also neglects to specify which testing standard he is referring to, though his statement comes shortly after quoting a standard that, as noted above, has since been rescinded and replaced*--and is of course is not universal, anyway.
Either way, he goes on to say,
Among adult cyclists, helmets
likewise have a greater potential
benefit in incidents that take
place at lower speeds [meaning what, precisely?] and without
any third party involvement. So
in circumstances in which the
cyclist is more likely simply [the loaded word of choice in this thread of late
] to fall
off, there is a stronger argument
for helmet wearing.
So there is an argument for helmet wearing, and he does not say they don't confer
any benefit at higher speeds or with third-party involvement. But, alas, he doesn't back his statements with data or sources. Even if you grant he's an expert, he needs to make his logic and data clear for others to evaluate his claims.
Link:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf
* Apparently by BS EN 1078:1997, which he alludes to later.