Originally Posted by
wphamilton
One thing that surprised me, the claim in the opening paragraph that the head was the most vulnerable part of the body. I assume in the context of bike crashes. I wonder where that comes from, how it's justified that the head is the most vulnerable. I'd say skin is the most vulnerable, and if you had to pick a location perhaps the hands, or collarbone.
Most "valuable" I could see, given the brain and sense organs, or a pretty face perhaps. Most "vulnerable" though, I think needs to be justified, don't you?
It's not a neutral piece of writing in any way. "In most countries it's still optional". No, not still, it's not heading in the direction of mandatory helmets, the suggestion that it would naturally progress like that is false. The helmet doesn't conflict with the feeling of freedom given by the bicycle, it conflicts with the freedom itself, the suggestion that it's a matter of perception is false. The suggestion it's just unnecessary for short distances is false too, distance has nothing to do with it. The statement that it offers good head protection needs justification to as it only protects a part of the head and only within limits.
I don't believe studies have indicated that bicycle helmets are very effective in decreasing the risk of head and brain injuries. The Netherlands is not stimulating cycling as a general health measure, the suggestion it's about the health risk and the health benefits is false. They falsely suggest there is scientific evidence that in case of a fall a helmet reduces head injury, that's only the case when the cyclists lands on his head. The anti helmet group they speak of is probably a anti mandatory bike helmet group, allthough there is case to be made to outlaw bicycle helmets.
Obviously, it's written by compulsive regulators, bureaucratic control freaks who desperately want to make cycling regulations and will take anything that looks like a justification.