"Just zis Guy, you know?" <
[email protected]> wrote:
| Patrick Herring wrote:
|
| >> Now give us your reasons why two groups of people
| >> engaged in human-powered transportation, whose injury
| >> severity ratios and head injury proportions are
| >> comparable, and who are both most likely to die or be
| >> seriously injured when encountering a motor vehicle,
| >> should be treated completely differently?
|
| > There is an easy (devils-advocate) answer to that: "we
| > have to start somewhere and there already is a purpose-
| > designed helmet familiar to cycling culture". What would
| > you reply to that?
|
| 1. Compulsory helmet use has been tried in several places
| and failed in every one.
<devil's-advocate> They haven't made it worse and have
arguably raised awareness of safety issues in cyclists, else
why would so many no longer cycle? There are many people
alive now who wouldn't have been had they not been made
aware of the dangers of cycling. </devil's-advocate>
| 2. Helmets also do not prevent a substantial proportion of
| serious and fatal cyclist injuries, and may (on the
| evidence form around the world) increase the risk of
| crashing. The jury is still out on whether helmets
| worsen the most serious brain injuries (which would
| also help explain the failure of helmet laws).
<d-a> Preventing just one is sufficient reason to compel
helmets. I'll wait until the jury's in on the other aspect,
which doesn't make sense anyway. </d-a>
| 3. There is no evidence to suggest that cycling is
| uniquely dangerous or uniquery productive of head
| injuries.
<d-a> But bikes are inherently unstable, compared to feet
and cars. You'll be telling me next that unicycles are as
easy to ride as bicycles. Cyclists have no protection around
them and travel amongst fast vehicles, unlike pedestrians
who have their own space, so the risk is more present. Gotta
be more dangerous than all other modes of road-use. </d-a>
| Ultimately, if there was a universally obeyed helemt law
| which delivered the Government's predictions for serious
| injury savings without causing risk compensatory behaviour
| or reducing the levels of cycling (and that is two very
| big ifs), it could reduce the child road fatality toll by
| around 1%. Home zones, traffic calming and other measures
| aimed at reducing danger at source have far greater
| potential to reduce risk, and as a side benefit they
| encourage active travel.
<d-a> Sounds like we should do both. Anyway the more people
see helmets as normal the more it won't put people off.
People ought to be made more aware of obesity generally so a
little thing like helmets won't stop them. </d-a>
I'm trying to point out that in Reason v Fear the latter has
much the best track record of winning, particularly when
Reason is mostly talking about something not existing. It's
one thing to win the argument in a committee meeting,
another to win it around the water-cooler.
I suppose I'm suggesting that as well as your sterling
efforts in getting the facts under the noses of those that
need them, there is another way of arguing the case: I think
we need banner headline sound-bites here.
For example, my own view, that helmets are on balance more
dangerous than not in urban traffic, due to driver risk
compensation, would be expressed by "Because you might think
you can get away with it", or "So you /know/ you'd kill me",
or similar.
I see a range of t-shirts in the offing: "No helmet?" on the
front, slogan du jour on the back.
--
Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK
http://www.anweald.co.uk
