Boyd wrote:Mick F wrote:No options.
How many head injuries present nationally per year for cyclists and for car occupants.
What are car occupant head injuries got to do with cycling head injuries? Its injuries with helmets on and without. An attempt at winning an argument with irrelevant comparison. I beginning to believe that a lot of the anti helmet brigade are quite hysterical.
Many advocates of helmet use appear to be pro-compulsion; if not explicitly, then implicitly by criticising non-wearers, or implying that they must be mad not to be learning from other's "helmet saved my life" stories.
When discussing helmet wear in the context of individual choice, I think that the interesting question is "what is the risk to me in this activity, and how does that change if I wear a helmet". And that is a question that is so individual that it can't be answered.
However, when the discussion veers toward compulsion, then (in my opinion) the focus moves towards questioning whether the policy would reduce injury in the population. In this context, it seems entirely reasonable to question whether a policy of requiring car occupants to wear helmets wouldn't actually have a far greater benefit than requiring cyclists to do the same - and evidence that head injuries to car ocupants are dramatically higher than for cyclists might indicate that this is indeed the case.