You are reading a single comment by @scoober and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@scoober
Guys, the point is not whether helmets are or are not effective. The point is whether cycling is a risky enough activity to justify whinging at people to wear one. To show this, you need to show that the risk of a serious head injury is greater when cycling than when e.g. walking or driving.
Saying that riding with one is going to be safer than without is pointless, because even if we grant that (and I really don't think we should), the same argument is going to apply to walking, driving and pretty every other activity which people do every day without helmets. The fact that walking with a helmet on is arguably safer than without does not mean we should all wear walking helmets. What would show a need for walking helmets is data showing that the risk of head injury when walking is abnormally high.
This is what you need to show if you want to bleat on about helmets. Saying 'oooh, but the cars are so big and fast' does not count as showing this. What would show this is some data about the relative rates of head injury per hour of activity or per mile of mode of transport.
(the standards of logical argument on this forum are really slipping).