Originally Posted by
sudo bike
Two point here:[LIST=1][*]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?
My point is that you need to differentiate clearly between two types of issues. One: do helmets help protect the head or not? Two: do helmet laws or promotional efforts discourage ridership? The latter issue is fundamentally different in kind; it's a psychological/sociological/political issue since it centers on personal choice, not whether a physical device can mitigate impacts. You need to differentiate, too, between whether helmet compulsion or promotion might merely decrease ridership or whether it impacts overall population health: obviously, someone can enjoy other forms of exercise if they choose not to cycle.
[*]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.
The problem inherent in that line of reasoning is that you say or imply that some groups are portraying cycling as more dangerous than it really is, but they could turn around and say you are portraying it as less dangerous than it really is. Whose perception is right? At the end of the day, it is a simple fact that X number of people are killed or injured cycling every year. Merely stating that, whether you compare it to other activities or not, is not fear-mongering in any sense. The reality is that cyclists can get hurt or killed; they need to know that so they can make an informed decision, just as if they were preparing to undertake any athletic activity or use another type or transport.
You may not want to compare cycling's risk to other activities, anyway:
Bicycle crashes rank second only to riding animals as a sports- or recreation-associated cause of serious injury; one study estimated the rate of severe injuries to be 37.4 per 100,000 population in urban areas. Although injuries to mountain bikers of all ages account for only 3.7 percent of bicycle injuries overall, up to 51 percent of recreational and 85 percent of competitive mountain bikers sustain injuries each year.
http://www.aafp.org/afp/2001/0515/p2007.html
Bicycling and basketball were associated with the largest number of 1998 baby boomer sports injuries treated in hospital emergency rooms.
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/boomer.pdf
Bicycles continue to be the number one cause of sports-related head injuries.
http://aans.org/en/Media/General%20P...c_database=web
As a result, bicycle riders who are involved in a crash are exposed to a much higher risk of injury compared to motor vehicle users (with the exception of motorcycle riders).
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/47
Our analysis [in New Zealand] showed that cyclists had the second highest rate of traffic injuries resulting in death or hospital inpatient treatment compared to other major road user categories when analysed in relation to time spent travelling.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/655 See Table 1: Annual number of injuries per million hours spent travelling: cycling injury rate far outstrips those of pedestrians and automobile drivers/passengers
etc.