Marcus Aurelius wrote: reohn2 wrote:
Marcus Aurelius wrote:I think the government should have used the original outbreak to enforce cycle helmets. It stands to reason. You have unusually high demand on the NHS resources, you don’t want added pressure from cyclists with the inevitable head injuries sustained if they have an accident without a lid, so that’s a great excuse to make compulsory lid wearing whilst cycling ( on a road at least ) law.
Potentially how many people do you think put an unbearable strain on the NHS by not wearing a cycle helmet?
Now compare that with how many people potentially put the NHS under strain by not wearing a mask in close proximity to others.
As much as a single one, is one too many. Wear a lid whilst cycling, protect the N.H.S. Save lives, should be the new ‘mantra‘.
Well your problem there is the unintended side effects. Piet de Jong has done quite a bit of work to work out the actual cost benefit of helmets, including in to the health budget, and they come out negative no matter how optimistic you are about their effectiveness at preventing injury.
Quoting the conclusion to the Annex in Tim Gill's cycling and children and young people
(note that Gill was originally writing about children hence the specific references to them, but the basics don't actually change when you look at adults),
The cycle helmet debate shows the dramatic power of real life events in shaping our understanding of causality. Tragedies happen; child cyclists are killed or left disabled for life; and we cannot let go of the belief that something could and should have been done to stop that particular event from happening – especially when that something is so simple as wearing a helmet. We find it hard to accept that the helmet may have made no difference. We find it harder to accept that encouraging or forcing children to wear helmets might also encourage them to ride in a more dangerous way and paradoxically to increase the risk that they will suffer an accident. And we find it much harder to accept that compulsory helmet use might put children off cycling altogether, leaving them less physically active, and – many years later – more likely to die of heart disease. Think of all the uncertainty behind that line of argument, compared with the seeming rock-solid conviction that a helmet could have saved that particular child’s life, at that particular time.
You've got the "rock solid conviction" bit, but what you don't seem to appreciate is the complexity of the bigger picture. Even something as copper-bottomed seeming as car seat belts aren't the clear win people assume (read "Risk" by John Adams and "Death on the Streets" by Robert Davis, both now available as free downloads).
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...