A brand new study shows that bicycle helmets reduce the risk of serious head injury by 70%. How about a worthwhile study into the actual cause of death of every cycling casualty. Were they wearing a helmet, and if not, would a helmet have prevented that death anyway?
Because if a cyclist is hit by a motorized vehicle doing 60 mph, he will most likely die from blunt force trauma to both the body and head whatever he is wearing. The same goes if he is crushed under the wheels of a vehicle. Does a study like this conclude that someone so crushed and dead, but avoided head injury because they wore a helmet. Does that count as a win for the helmet?
Wear a dozen woolen hats, each stretched over the next, and that too would probably reduce the risk of head injury, but that is not the issue. Studies like this just make it easier for legislators to make helmet use mandatory, and harder for those opposed to argue against.
I am not against helmet use, I wear one myself, but I am definitely against being compelled to wear one. Why not helmets for pedestrians, as more of them are hit by cars and die than cyclists. How about the elderly, they are always tripping and falling?
How about mandatory bullet proof vests for everyone, as about 10 times more people are shot to death in the US than are killed on a bicycle. We could start with bullet proof vests for school kids, and people shopping in malls. That would cut down the number of fatalities in the event of a mass shooting.
I am being facetious of course, but is it just me or can anyone else see how ludicrous it is to single out the cyclist to wear protective gear. To make him wear it under the threat of a fine, or by peer pressure from other cyclists.
It is a distraction that diverts attention from the real problem of people driving carelessly.