Thread: Chris Boardman
View Single Post
Old 05-30-07, 10:18 AM
  #49  
closetbiker
Senior Member
 
closetbiker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Originally Posted by eandmwilson
2 points:

1. Not all crashes will kill, but how many of the fatalities were helmet dependent? In other words, if I start tossing people off the top of the Empire State, and some have helmets, some don't, I could make a pretty strong argument helmets are useless. So, for those crashes that were survivable in the first place, what is the incidence of serious head trauma? The country comparison is a total red herring, BTW. There are no apples to apples in that bunch. Besides, aren't they all on the reefer in Holland?
Isn't it in the article that helmets are not designed to protect in impact with cars and aren't almost all cycling deaths the result of impacts with cars? Not every impact with a car is going to result in death, this happens on a regular basis, and a large amount of these happens to helmetless cyclists.

I don't doubt that helmets are of some value, and I am very much pro-choice on the issue, but if what Chris says is true and if we can agree that death is the best way compare helmeted and non-helmeted riders, I would never look down on someone if he/she were willing to have a little road rash on his/her scalp.

Anyway, I certainly have a different impression of Chris' take on the issue than what I originally read when he was quoted as saying,

"I have become more convinced of the need of Headway within the community, and particularly the importance of its work in preventing the number and severity of head injuries."

What he says is still true, but it is in context now. He compares the risks as that of walking, that exercise trumps the risk and he not only rides without a helmet at times, he doesn't mind if his daughter goes lidless
closetbiker is offline