Originally Posted by
chasm54
OK. It's clear there is little chance of progress here, because it just seems obvious to people that helmets work. But the more one looks at it, the less obvious it becomes. The central question that must be answered is, if helmets are so effective at preventing injuries, how is it that there seems to be no real-world correlation between increased use of helmets and reductions in serious injury? In Australia, for example, making helmets compulsory has not resulted in a lower rate of injury to cyclists.
We can debate that here if anyone wants, but there's a perfectly good thread on the subject in A&S. It's about ninety pages long, which might deter the casual reader. But for the benefit of those who think the issue is cut-and-dried,
here's a link to a post in that thread made by a BF member who is a doctor treating patients with neurological injuries. As you'll see, he doesn't recommend helmets on the grounds that while they prevent abrasions etc, they may actually increase the chances of the type of injury that causes brain damage.
I'm not qualified to judge, but I have read widely enough on the subject to know that he is far from alone in that opinion.
Still from the onset of this thread it didn't have to become political. It was simply a comment made by the OP on how the helmet did prevent an injury to their head. It was the very topic of helmets that brought out the anti helmet people not the content. It wasn't the op or anyone that wears helmets, and gave him a thumbs up for surviving or avoiding head damage to whatever degree, that turned this into a debate. Something about cycling helmets brings out far more anti helmet energy than any other sport. Not rehashing and studies just pointing out that no one will make this debate about Batting helmets, Skating helmets, football helmets nor will they say they are afraid people will think it is dangerous because people wear helmets to participate in those sports or activities. Yet non of them have as many head injuries a year as cycling. I don't think cycling is all that dangerous either and went more than 30,000 miles before being launched through a back window head first. So I guess anti helmet people would say since that was a 40 mile trip that I didn't need a helmet for 29,960 miles because I didn't hit my head in those miles.
The real point is whenever people on a bike forum talk about helmets it draws the anti helmet people out like bees to pollen. even if that helmet discussion doesn't address promoting helmet laws or discussing others that don't wear helmets. The other issue is people that believe in helmets aren't going to feel more secure without a helmet no matter what the head only people say or point to. And the reverse is true as I said earlier. It is only one thing that devides us as cyclists. Even here we will support helmet laws for children. We will agree to rules for organized rides and races and not question the wisdom of the organization that mandates such use. we will agree that MTBers should wear a helmet. But when we are in a group like this some will voice their doubts that in their own particular case they would provide any protection. And in this case some seem to be doubting that the OPs contention that the helmet did its job is a true statement.
As far as my contention that no study would convince a anti helmet devotee that they are necessary comes from some of the same studies they so often quote, it talks about the health benefits of cycling out weighing the chances of a head injury fall. The indication is they would give up cycling before wearing a helmet. And it seems as if the stats they use prove that many do quite cycling when helmets become manditory. So then only those that believe in them will still be on the road I guess?
