Originally Posted by
Six-Shooter
The debate indeed does continue in the scientific community, and it's true that there is no overall consensus on helmets' overall benefits. But leaving aside questions of, for example, whether helmet laws might reduce the number of cyclists (and that's ultimately a statement about riders, not helmets--who's making the decision there?), there is in fact rather wide consensus in the research literature that helmets do offer some protection to the head. I can provide links to many studies if you want them. I'm not saying all that research is necessarily right, but it's inaccurate to say there isn't consensus on that front.
Two point here:
- Dismissing the discussion as ultimately about riders and not helmets is useless. Helmets do not exist in a vacuum... they are tools to be used by us. So, ultimately, what practical effect they have upon implementation is important. Now, what conclusion exactly one can draw from the lower ridership levels can differ slightly. One could say that it's a case of law, where helmet laws cause people to cycle less out of a PITA factor. But one could also take away from it that the fear is more important. Perhaps the law drives home the fear of danger to people more; "If we need a law to require helmets while cycling, maybe cycling is more dangerous than I thought?". Who knows if that's the case for sure, but it's certainly a possibility and a consideration. A cursory look at least seems to support it... places with strong helmet culture seems to have less ridership. It's at least worth considering, because if that is so that it even fractionally reduces cycling, we've probably crossed the line from beneficial to detrimental. Especially in a place like America, it's unquestionable that even lidless cycling is far more beneficial to societal health than not cycling at all. And if helmets are countering that, is that really a cause we want to Crusade for?
- Again, AFAIK, nobody is saying helmets do not offer benefits. No one. The argument is that a) there is no more need to have those benefits while cycling than there is while doing other everyday activities (in most cases), and b) That it may be detrimental to cycling overall because it paints cycling as more dangerous than it really is. Helmets confer danger in nearly all cases... people doing skateboarding tricks, race car drivers, football players... they are there to protect you from something, and people realize that.
I take your point about fear-mongering, which none of us want, but I could point you to many groups who advocate helmet use or helmet laws but do not engage in such fear-mongering. Merely telling someone that "X number of people are injured or killed cycling each year" is just a statement of fact. And cycling is, in fact, to some degree dangerous, with hundreds of thousands injured yearly, and a number of deaths; pretending that it's risk free does no one any service. Any potential cyclist needs to understand that there are variety of dangers involved, dangers that can be mitigated through knowledge, behavior, and gear (including helmets).
It is fear-mongering though, plain and simple. They take facts
out of context and use that to scare people. If they noted alongside that number how many people die from other everyday activities like walking or, driving, it would take away a lot of the scare shock value and be more honest. But that isn't the goal for any helmet pushing organization I've known. The goal is to get helmets on heads, and they aren't above using fear to do it, misguided as they are. Fast-food safety.