Originally Posted by DnvrFox
I would hit my head (with helmet on) so much on the inside roof of the car and on the frame getting in and out that I would damage myself while wearing the helmet, in addition to being totally unsafe due to limited head motion and lower visibility.
Response:
Originally Posted by cyclintom
Is it just me or aren't those same excuses treated with contempt by those who believe in helmets for bicyclists?
Response:
Well, I haven't hit my head too many times on the door or roof of my bicycle.
The limited visibility in a car would be caused by my lack of head motion as my helmet squished against the inside roof of my car.
I will agree (I think) with you on the following:
1. The tremendous emphasis in the media and elsewhere on helmet use has changed what used to be seen as a great activity for kids (and others) into one where the perception (by moms, in particular) is that bicycling must be a terribly dangerous activity/sport.
2. If the money that was spent on helmets was spent, instead, on bicycle safety education for kids, we would save far more injuries and lives than helmets do.
But the above two things will never change, so it is really hopeless.
We should really ban all helmet wars on forums. I have seen them again and again, and they never solve anything. They just create hard feelings.
One of the statistical anomalies that occurs in these analyses is that many analyses compare automobile vs. bicycle accident, injury and death rates per hour of exposure instead of comparing per miles traveled. When we compare "miles traveled" exposure, bicycling becomes equally or more dangerous than the automobile. I guess, if I consider the bicycle to be "purely recreational," then the hours of exposure rates is important, but if I use the bicycle in place of my car, then the miles traveled exposure accident rates would predominate.
Signing off of this helmet war! 