axel_knutt wrote: ↑31 Oct 2024, 4:14pm
bjlabuk wrote: ↑26 Oct 2024, 4:45pmI don't know what sort of evidence you call that, but I reckon I would have cut my head at the very least had i not worn a cycle helmet. I have since replaced my helmet with a MIPS one and wouldn't cycle anywhere without wearing one.
Dodds found that people wearing helmets were 30% more likely to have limb & torso injuries than non-wearers, are their helmets jumping off their heads and battering them all over, or are helmet wearers just 30% more accident prone?
I fink.... its more complicated than that...
Going back to any Sunday morning in 1997 and I'm wearing a helmet.. I'm going to be cycling some 45 miles, between 12 and 15 mph in a group of cyclists and we're going to be riding really close together. I'm using a bike with dropped handlebars, 2 inches below my saddle which means with my limited neck mobility I can just about see the horizon. I'm going to be cycling on roads I don't know, but it will include urban roads with high density traffic and country lanes which may also be covered in slurry...
Me last Sunday, I'm not wearing a helmet. I'm going to be cycling half a mile to the shop. I know the roads very well and they are clean, an all in a 30 mph limit. My handlebars are about 3 inches above my saddle and I've got great visibility. I doubt if I'll even reach 12 mph and i'm riding by myself
Looking at the risks for each scenario it's immediately obvious that the younger me is facing a far higher risk of falling from my bike, colliding with a third party or having a third party collide with me.
Sticking my neck out here, I suspect helmets (mostly) are worn by people who view cycling as a sport or hobby and will ride in a manner that reflects this.
I suspect those who cycle because its just a bit too far too walk, or are saving for a car, or can't afford the bus don't, and will ride in a manner that reflects this.
Unlimited economic growth in a world of finite resources doesn't fit nor does it guarantee happiness.