Originally Posted by Dahon.Steve
1. While city law only requires helmets for riders under the age of 14, yesterday's report found that riders without helmets accounted for 97% of the bike deaths.
First, what were those who died doing at the time of collision?
Like John E., I would also observe that bicyclists who tend to ride visibly, defensively, and vehicularly tend to avoid collisions and thus, deaths.
Second, I live in an area that has a high compliance rate of helmet wearing, due to a MHL for all ages and the death (and head injury) rate of helmeted and non-helmeted to be almost the same.
If 20% wear helmets, wouldn't a 80% death rate seem resonable? 97% is just 17% higher and if the non-helmet wearers are riding in a more dangerous fashion, doesn't that lead to a higher rate of death?
I'll bet that if 97% of bike deaths were helmetless cyclists, 97% of those deaths involved a motor vehicle.
There is not a single helmet manafacturer or advocate that will assure anyone that a wearing a helmet in a collision with a motor vehicle will save their life (unless they're lying or ignorant). They're not made to a standard that can withstand that kind of impact.
The article seemed pretty elementary with no examinations of how the deaths of cyclists occurred or could have been prevented. The last line kind of exemplified the tone of the article. Simple minded.