I wanted to get a bicycle helmet. I was looking for one that is safe and has a flashlight in the front and those red blinkers in the back. Like many other things, there is just too many choices for my own good. I went into research mode.

Unavoidably, I got to the “Helmets – FAQ.” The following quote belong to the type that grab my attention and I usually tend to believe the assertions they make:

We oppose bicycle helmet laws of any kind because of the damage done in jurisdictions which have them. We do not advocate the use of helmets, but neither do we counsel against their use. It is clear from the evidence we present that cycling is not so dangerous an activity that their use is particularly justified. We wear no special protective headgear for other every day activities such as walking and driving a car, even though our heads are exposed to similar risks for far greater lengths of time.

We have reason to believe the helmet debate has little to do with safety, and much more to do with commercial interest and a specific lifestyle advocacy similar to that which would control what we eat, drink and take into our lungs. If the debate was about reducing the already low frequency of cyclist head injuries, then the principal issue would be about whether manufacturing standards should be modified in order to ensure production of helmets which actually provided a reasonable amount of protection. Really effective helmets would be of such a design (i.e. ugly) and construction that few would buy them. Also, there are downsides to helmet use and scientific reasons to believe they exacerbate injuries in certain types of impacts. At the moment, a discussion on helmet problems is not in the interests of helmet manufacturers.

If the discussion were about bicycle safety then we would be discussing how we can get the cycling public to adopt the most effective and proven method of preventing injuries i.e. responsible behaviour and application of skills when cycling. Cyclist education addresses over 90% of all cycling accidents. To put this in perspective, severe head injuries represent less than 2% of all cycling injuries.

_{(emphasis mine)}

I’m in a dilemma. On the one hand, I’d like to protect my most valuable asset and on the other I want to avoid feeling like a puppet of a sleazy industry; additionally, the helmet might not even protect as well as they want us to believe. There’s also the issue of convenience; no helmet means less hassle and as a bonus, I will still be able to wear my Indiana Jones hat that I love fashioning in the rain.

Regular readers will not be surprised of my next point: unintended consequences of mandatory helmet laws. As the authors rightfully point out in the FAQ:

Studies of the effect on behaviour of other safety equipment {1},{13} show strong correlations between use of safety equipment and increased risk taking. This is the “risk compensation” effect. It has been associated with the use of anti-lock braking systems, car seat belts, automobile air bags, ice hockey helmets, and football helmets. Many mountain bikers admit that they would never subject themselves to the hazards of some trails if they weren’t wearing helmets. Other cyclists have said they enjoy cycling bareheaded but won’t expose themselves to [what they perceive as] higher levels of risk on busy arterial roads unless they are wearing helmets.

(This essay is also worth a read. You may also like to read “Bicycle helmets: review of effectivenesss” by UK’s “Department for Transport.” )

Making people feel safer lead them to take more risk; this is bad when that feeling is based on a false premise.

No tags

3 comments

<< Cambridge: odd names and invisible castles

mapping zombies from comment spam >>