Originally Posted by
VaultGuru
Maybe it is just me, but I have been noticing an increasing number of riders that are not wearing helmets. Is this the new hot fad? I rode the Auburn Century last weekend and saw three riders with no helmets by the time I got to Colfax. (They were not participating in the ride). I'm wondering if any of them either 1. work, or have worked, in a trauma center; 2. volunteer in one, 3. just visited one lately to see the carnage, and/or 4. have health insurance to prevent you, and me, (insured) for paying for their uninsured ego. Head trauma from a severe bike accident is almost a given, yet somehow, the known outcome is either ignored or there is a "it won't happen to me" mentality. Granted, the helmets cyclists wear are not the greatest, but any kind of protection is better then looking up at your favorite Neurologist, Neurosurgeon and/or Orthopedic surgeon (if you can) when you are in the Operating Room.
Your thoughts?
My thoughts are that if you actually took the time to research the issue, you would be less sure of the points you make above. The wikipedia page is a pretty decent summary of the various arguments and research stuides.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmets
Potential pros:
will probably provide some protection against road rash
are designed to provide some impact protection when falling over, but only in very minor impacts (such as forgetting to clip out that apparently is common)
Potential cons:
added weight and size adds to rotational head injuries
overconfidence in helmet's ability to protect head leads to riders taking more risks than they otherwise would (especially around automobiles and no helmet is designed to protect in an accident with a car)
mandatory helmet laws have been shown to lower cycling population
advocating for helmet use makes cycling seem more dangerous than it really is and therefore lowers participation