Timo wrote:
> I'm relatively new to this whole helmet debate.
>
> Up to now I've used one because I simply assumed it offers more
> protection than no helmet.
>
> A few articles I've read on the subject contradict that assumption.
>
> I commute in a city, but mainly on quiet back streets. Should I wear a
> helmet or not?
The helmet debate amongst serious cyclists is similar to the speed
camera debate amongst serious motorists.
In either case the government seem to spin and misrepresent the findings
of a couple of reports or studies to support the "common sense",
"obvious" (cheap/profitable/pc fix) conclusion that they *must* be
beneficial.
Then the established "road safety" organisations see it as their duty to
support such "sensible" advice. Then the populist press find a few
grieving relatives to "prove" that the devices would save lives and must
be adopted forthwith.
Then the bandwagon is joined by those who, for reasons of prejudice, or
revenge, or preconceptions, or whatever, find the "solution" nicely fits
in with their perverted sense of justice, and "Bob's your uncle" they
become the established, definitive solution.
Then the bluff is called by a few "academics" who like to show how
clever they are by reading the fine details of the "evidence", and
drawing alternative conclusions, and hilighting shortcomings in the
rationale, and then search out further studies which offer "proof" that
the original concept was wrong.
Then heels dig in, and you are left to your own devices, to draw your
own conclusions, or fall in with the prejudices of those you look up to
Take a look at the "Head protection - the case against" thread in this
ng, started on 2nd November.
Good luck!
--
Matt B
