Just a few quick points:

1) There's really no need to respond to the recently posted studies, because on this thread dozens if not hundreds of studies have already been posted, generally "proving" whatever point the poster wanted them to. So despite whatever our favorite studies claim, none of us really know how much safer, if any, bicycle helmets make us.

2) Ignoring a debating point because it is not directly relate to cycling is a dodge and everyone here knows it.

3) Despite all the safety features already placed in modern cars, some 30,000 Americans are killed in them every year, many from head injuries. So the claim that car drivers don't need helmets because cars already have safety features is kind of dumb.

Better than handrails on a bicycle; mandatory permanent non-removable training wheels for all two wheeled bicycles should be just the solution to end your "exploration."

Why not safety classes first? Seeing as how they'd be more effective.

Why not helmet use for all road users instead of just a minority group which is underrepresented in total TBI figures for road users?

That's obvous: it's much cheaper to implement and easier to monitor helmet use. Safety classes would be much, much harder to implement, much more expensive, and harder to monitor.

There isn't any evidence that they would be cost effective. Nor is there any evidence that lessons would be more cost effective than helmets.

A lot of stuff is being done to make driving safer. Nothing (beyond helmets) is being done to make bicycling safer. Also, waiting to do one "easy" (debatable) thing until a nearly impossible (not really debatable) thing (helmets on drivers) is done first is silly.

Anyway, why restrict it to "road users"? Football players are another "minority" group which is "underrepresented in total TBI figures". By your "logic", they shouldn't wear helmets until all drivers do.

(Just to be clear: I don't think manditory helmet laws make sense.)

What Bicycle Safety Classes are "effective", and "effective" at doing what? Any credible evidence that Bicycle Safety Classes are "effective"?

You and I are often on the same page. I'm not sure that any mandatory bicycle safety class will change much. But decades back when I was closely involved in bicycle safety as part of an organization that took teens out on bicycle tours, we found there was solid evidence of a link between experience and safety. This shouldn't be a surprise, and might simply be natural selection (unsafe riders crashed out of the pool or gave up), but I'll venture that these days the accident rate is different for new and experienced riders.

So a real question is what knowledge and skill gives experienced riders their advantage, and how to pass that to newer riders without depending on the sink or swim method. I don't favor licensing or any mandatory classes, because, while I believe in leading horses to water, I leave the drinking to them.

So, speaking for myself, education in this context should mean making information available, both for cyclists and motorists. Some years back I was in France while they were running PSAs to improve driving (auto) safety. Unlike typical PSAs here these weren't "parental lectures" but focused on specific scenarios such as passing on narrow roads, proper use of high and low beams, entering and merging on highways, and so on. Making similar specific information available here might help.

Have you ever compared the brakes of today's bikes against those from thirty or forty years ago? How about comparing the tires? Even the pedals have come a long way. Heck, modern shifting mechanisms are much less likely to either jam or have the chain drop or find its way between gears, although such mishaps were rare to begin with. Oh, I almost forgot the best safety feature available to cyclists today that was MIA in the recent past: lights that are bright enough to be seen during daylight hours.

And those are just the on-bike things that have been done to make bicycling safer. How many bike lanes and bike paths did you see forty years ago? How many buffered, particularly with respect to door zones, bike lanes did you see even five years ago? How often do you see storm grates with bars that run parallel to the direction of travel today? Those were pretty common twenty years ago.

Nothing, indeed.

Are y'all claiming helmet usage provides more safety for cyclists than completing a cycling safety and road use class like LAB's Traffic Skills 101?

You are claiming the opposite. In fact, no one has any idea of which would be more cost effective.

I didn't mention cost effectiveness, I'm talking about effective cycling safety measures.

If a new cyclist took $70 they were going to spend on a helmet and spent it on a safety course instead, they'd be a safer rider than if they just plunked a styrofoam hat on top of their head. Generally speaking.

For all the stuff being done to make driving safer, it is still the leading cause of TBI. And we're talking road users here, so dragging football (or showering, or ladder climbing...) in to the discussion isn't pertinent. If you think nothing is being done to make cycling safer, you just aren't paying attention. From cycling safety legislation at the state level, to cycling awareness PR, to infrastructure construction, there's plenty being done to make cycling safer.

----------------------

Really, I'm just using bike safety classes as a realistic foil. I'd not advocate for mandatory safety classes any more than I'd advocate for mandatory helmet laws.

There have been improvements but it's not clear what impact they have had on safety (there's no data). (None of these are required by the way. Unlike lots of safety features for cars.)

And, if helmets improve safety (debatable), then they should be added to your list too.

Storm grates, yes.

You keep dwelling on cost effectiveness. I'm not talking about that at all.

Speaking strictly for myself, I'm not claiming anything except that experience pays. I don't see life as a zero sum game, so I don't link helmets to other things that might reduce the injury rate. However, head injuries aren't the only injuries cyclists suffer, so efforts at reducing All accidents might be more effective than only mitigating head injuries.

To me, helmets vs. other approaches is an apples and oranges argument.

It's "cost effectiveness" (cost/benefit ratio) that is the argument. If something is "effective" but too expensive, then it really doesn't matter that it's "effective".

Helmets don't have to cost "$70". No one knows whether they would have fewer injuries (there's no data to support that conclusion). And, again, you don't have to do just one thing.

You really don't know whether there would be fewer injuries. And helmets are not necessarily without value for "safe" riders either. And, again, you can do both. And, you can read Allen's "Street Smarts" for nothing and get most of what you'd get from a LAB class (I paid $35) for free.

You should be. And you are talking about it (your "$70" helmet).

I'm not trying to make this some kind of zero sum thing. There's all kinds of things that factor into cycling safety, including helmets. No one thing is a magic bullet and perhaps the most effective cycling safety contributor is, as you say, experience.

I'm not the person claiming either method is "effective" at all. You are. What is "effected" by completing a cycling safety and road use class like LAB's Traffic Skills 101? Again, "effective" at what? Measured how?

Yeah, OK...

I'm just going to keep teaching safety and maintenance courses, riding my bike, advocating for cycling, standing up against MHLs whenever they are mentioned in my municipality or state, and for the most part, wearing a helmet while riding.

Let me wrap this up by reiterating my overarching intent regarding suggesting helmet use in cars: Sure, seriously suggesting such is silly, but it is a very effective tactic to use politically. In practical politics, things don't get picked apart like they do here, and what sounds like a silly argument can actually form part of a whole which leads to MHLs failing at the committee/public hearing level.

What "effectiveness" are you talking about?

Most riders who sign up for a class like that are either new riders or shaky/scared to be on the road. From basics like "Ride with traffic" to more complicated stuff like how to negotiate a traffic circle and "taking the lane," teaching how to negotiate roads on a bike correctly is demonstrably to me (personal anecdote time...) more effective at making a cyclist safer on the roads than merely wearing a helmet.

From above:

OK got it. "Effectiveness" for you is a vague term without meaning and is substantiated by anecdotal good feelings about undefined results.

Speaking as an opponent of mandatory helmet rules, not helmets per se, I think there's an over emphasis on head injuries which is in disproportion to the actual problem. I believe that bicycling is generally safe, though of course not absolutely safe. Individuals are (or should be) free to do whatever they feel is necessary to ensure their own safety, but governments should be focused on lowering the overall rate of accidents through things like eliminating things like poorly designed sewer grates, and better road design.

What is this statement based on? I suspect that the an overwhelmingly proportion of "new cyclists" have no idea that such classes exist.

An inexperienced cyclist (especially one who is "shaky/scared") is going to be rather bad at doing these things. That is, by itself, a class teaching these things isn't sufficient for a rider to be "safe". It's possible that a "shaky/scared" rider is going to be more prone to having accidents after learning such things until they get experience.

If you look at the real world, there's no evidence that this tactic that works at all.

Which means that, if helmets are effective (debatable), then wearing a helmet would make sense until people aquired the degree of experience that makes them unnecessary.

It's too common (for people against helmets) that arguments against mandatory helmet laws (MHL's) are used as arguments against helmets "per se".

Very, very few people here (even the "pro helmet" ones) are for MHL's.

More like feedback from safety class participants and marketing claims of LAB for their own courses, so yes, as you say.

I do not disagree with any of this.

Personal experience. And we offer a free safety course with the purchase of a new bike, but 99% of buyers don't follow through. They will spend money on a helmet, though.

Ideally, a safety class gives a new rider the confidence to go out on the roads and get that experience. It's no replacement for experience, but it does help new riders' confidence. Just as plunking a brand new helmet on your head does not confer safe riding practice, neither does a single 2, 4, or 8hr safety class. Never said it did.

Again, personal experience in the real world tells me different. Have you ever attended a transportation committee public hearing at your state capital? Or got involved with committee or board meetings at the municipal level?

Helmets make sense no matter what your level of riding experience is... but helmet use is best left as an individual choice, not gov't mandate.