Originally Posted by
wphamilton
@
Tiglath, the numbers you provided are not really meaningful with respect to risk without knowing the amount of participation in each sport. For example, estimated one million boys play football in high school, while about 14.5 million kids 7-17 ride bikes. (Census Bureau and National Sporting Goods Association Sports Participation Study,2010 & 2000).
So the fact that there are more head injuries in cycling than in football does not mean that cycling is more risky. It's the other way around, by a great margin. Further, that is only approximate since you really need to compare the time spent in each activity instead of just persons, and you may find an even greater discrepancy (in favor of cycling being safer).
I am not too interested in statistics. I merely provided them in reply to the assertion that cycling head injuries are rare. People can decide for themselves what those numbers mean. They had no apparent effect on me before my accident, and now I am in the figures. Their utility is for city planners, mostly. For the individual, the argument for helmets lies in the inescapable facts about the fragility of the human head, cycling speeds, and the many factors out of our control.
I believe you are correct. Cycling is far safer than football, and many other sports, as you correlate users and injuries. There is little risk in riding a bike itself, most of the risk is in the environment. Biking in Manhattan or a small quiet town involves vastly different risks. Again, those are ancillary considerations for me. I know bad luck or human error can make me fall and I don't relish tumbling on the ground thinking "I wish a had a helmet on."
Motorbike helmets are hell, truly a head cage that robs much of the fun of riding, but cycling helmets are light, unobtrusive, airy, and aerodynamic, and after a while I don't even feel I have it on. That is, the cost/benefit ratio is outstanding.