Originally Posted by
CB HI
Sadly, some are forced to wear helmets due to fear mandated mandatory helmet laws. I frequently ride onto military bases to shop, eat lunch, buy groceries, go to the gym or a movie, etc. The unreasonable fear has resulted in mandatory helmet regulations on base for off duty personnel. Oddly, the Navy has judged that the price of cycling helmets for shipyard workers and other on duty cyclist is not cost effective and they are exempt from having to wear cycling helmets.
The Navy also made their mandatory decision on 'common sense', and had NO studies to base their decisions. Completely opposite of the methods other safety regulations are produced (except motorcycle regulations).
Helmets are also a good means for attaching mirrors, lights, video cameras and visors. Ball caps with visors get hot while a high end bicycle helmet can give you a visor while being relatively much cooler.
Again, as Genec notes, helmets do prevent some cuts, plus scratches and bruises. Very useful for kids and mountain bikers.
I have seen more cyclist taking risk they otherwise would not have when no one was wearing helmets. That increases concussions, just because they think they are protected. I have watched the same thing happen in youth soccer with those new head bands. More kids wear them and the number of concussions goes up.
Don't preach to the choir here. I don't wear a helmet, and am obviously opposed to any laws that would mandate them.
OTOH- There's a dichotomy here, and an unreasonable leap of logic with helmet boosters.
1- helmets do reduce acceleration in head impacts, from which it's reasonable to assume that they would reduce likelihood and/or severity of TBI in head strikes.
I have no problem with the above, and accept it as a given even though I believe that the risk of head strike (for me) is low enough to forgo wearing one.
However, the above does, not imply that if everyone wore a helmet, it would result in meaningful lower numbers of TBI among cyclists. Other factors come into play here, and the nonsense helmet laws and rules you see are either the result of faulty logic and wishful thinking, or what I'll call defensive CYA regulation, where the intent isn't to solve a problem, but to be able to say you did all you could.
Nobody want's to be put in a position of debating helmet effectiveness in front of a jury when defending a liability suit. This is why helmets are required on organized rides. I suspect it's also the logic behind the Navy's oddball policy. Civilians can sue more easily than active duty personnel, so the helmet rule makes perfect sense if it's intent is to protect the Navy.