Originally Posted by
Six jours
I don't think there is really any question about whether people are falling off their bikes and hitting their heads/helmets, although why this seems to be happening much more often than it did in the pre-helmet days is an interesting aside...
I don't know. I think it has a lot more to do with a vocal minority than what happens to most people.
Just as with the ED issue, I think if there was a significant problem, people wouldn't ride bikes because of it.
I'm glad I rode in the days before there was a helmet issue because it sure is an interesting perception thing since it developed. Particularily when there were helmets out there, pre-issue. Something's changed, attitude wise, while the "problem" (if a problem could be described as a risk equal to another risk that isn't considered a "problem") hasn't changed much.
Proponents for helmet use started to promote dubious numbers out of context to convince people there was a problem that they were offering a solution to.
When the Bell Biker was sold, few wore them because the perception of need of this particular type was low. By the time other models came out, they convinced others of the need for the product, by using special interest lobbyists. The risks may have been the same, but the perception changed.
I think bumps, cuts and scrapes come with the territory of falling off a bicycle but when we get to "serious" injury there has yet to made significant protective equipment. About the only difference I've seen in my home province since we went from almost nobody wearing helmets to, in places, about 90% compliance, is that people are now dying wearing helmets. Still, it's a relatively rare occurance when this happens and our death rate for cyclists is equal to that of motorists and better than that of pedestrians.
I think there has been much damage done to cycling by "dangerizing" it and not the least of which is chasing ineffective solutions to some of the problems that could be improved on.
I guess that's the way I would put it. If a problem is equal to another common risk that would be deemed "acceptable", I would say a helmet is an ineffective way to deal with a non-existant problem.
Doesn't mean that anyone should not wear them or some could use theire protective qualities more than others, but to look down on another for not wearing a helmet shows a terrible lack of respect for anothers choices and a serious lack of understanding just how much good riding a bicycle can do not only for the rider, but for everyone else too.