>> How it all balances out I'm not sure, but to suggest that the only factor
>> involved is "risk compensation" is not supportable. People simply aren't
>> looking at what's going on. Bad research. Fascinating, revealing even,
>> and
>> truthful as far as it goes, but it's not the total picture. Bicycle
>> helmets
>> may not be unique, but they certainly are different from the other
>> examples
>> given... different because it initiates or reinforces the idea that
>> riding a
>> bicycle is a dangerous thing to do.
Which is precisely why I have an issue with "risk compensation" as it
applies to wearing a bicycle helmet.
>
> I really have to wonder why you are stubbornly arguing the point. Risk
> compensation is just a tangent after all. We already have the most
> important statistics of all, and I mean the statistics that tell us
> helmet use has not had a significant positive effect for the health of
> cyclists. On another note, it would be refreshing if I was ever to meet
> a bike shop owner who didn't swear that helmets were an essential
> accessory. I hope you don't think less of me for saying it, but the
> conflict of interest is obvious. But that too is false economy.
> Helmets mean people bike less. Period. I have anecdotal evidence of
> that if you want to hear it and it has been mentioned in helmet studies.
> Our kids are as fat as pigs and the silly notion that every kid needs to
> wear a helmet all the time is not helping that situation one bit.
I have stated frequently, over the past five or six years, my opposition to
mandatory helmet laws, for the exact reason you state. They discourage kids
from cycling, and the dangers to being inactive physically are far greater
than whatever dangers exist on the road. And yet I still believe in helmets,
for the same reasons I believe in gloves & eyewear. They all offer some
protection in the event of a crash. They don't have to be capable of saving
lives to be useful in that regard. You've read my posts, you know the
stories. None of the accidents I've been involved in personally, or directly
witnessed, would have likely resulted in someone's death or even "serious"
injury. All of them saved a fair amount of skin, hair, and perhaps a bit of
bone from being abraded on the roadway. To me that's useful, even though no
lives were saved.
> Finally, let's ask the obvious question: why don't we wear helmets in
> cars? Of all the friends and acquaintances I have ever known, not one
> has ever been killed while cycling. I'd have to stop and think how many
> were killed in cars, but I can think of a half dozen or so immediately.
> I'd say about half of them would still be alive if they were wearing
> helmets. Yet not only do we not wear helmets in cars, I believe it is
> illegal in my state to do so.
I think I've already made my point on that... It's not about saving lives
(to me).
But my goodness, there have been a whole lot of improvements in car design
(collapsing steering columns, padded dashboards, airbags, seatbelts) that
are REQUIRED for safety, with the idea of saving lives & reducing injury.
Required design elements, not optional. But on a bicycle, such things aren't
possible. So instead they try to protect the rider via, for now, helmets.
Would you rather the road safety folk mandate bicycle redesign so they can't
tip over and have a protective cage around you?
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com