tim-b wrote: ↑14 Feb 2023, 4:07amanecdotes about climbing out of the swimming pool, walking home, etc are frankly bizarre and have no connection to riding a bicycle.
Your chance of dying from a head injury depends on the probability of
any head injury, not just those caused by cycling, in fact your chance of dying at all depends on the chance of any fatal injury, and not just head injuries. If the objective is to reduce the risk of death, then the rational way to go about it is to apply the Pareto Principle: you look to see which risks are the biggest cause of death, and which risks can be reduced at the least cost (I'm using this term in its general sense, not just money). The most effective way to achieve the objective is by gauging cost against benefit: you don't expend 80% of the effort for 20% of the benefit if you can get 80% of the benefit for 20% of the effort, and you don't hire a cherry picker to reach two apples at the top of the tree whilst there are still hundreds you can reach standing on the ground. If you're into wearing helmets, you can get far more benefit from wearing one in the car, and many other activities.
Cugel wrote: ↑21 Feb 2023, 9:42pmAdverts followed by peer pressure and the disapproval of self-appointed helmet fascists. Some folk can't stand up to such pressures.
The more interesting question is why those who wear helmets on a bike don't wear them in a car. Whatever reason people might like to devise, the fact is that everyone knows intuitively that driving a car or walking down the street wearing a helmet will be seen as weird, eccentric, and a figure of fun. This is why people learn to conform to society's norms from a very early age: the price for non-conformity is very high indeed, far higher than most other risks. If you doubt this, watch how
this woman's willing to risk dying in a fire rather than be the one who's different from all the others.
al_yrpal wrote: ↑22 Feb 2023, 9:53am
Like many helmet advocates I had a crash long ago in which I came off fairly fast sideways. My shoulder hit the ground and my head whiplashed sideways with the helmet striking the ground hard and skidding along. I felt the helmet spread the load and save my head from a painful impact with the tarmac.
Did it save my life...no, I expect not. Did it save me from a lot of pain and possibly concussion....yes it definately did.
For that reason, trusting my own judgement I always wear a helmet and always will.
One of the head injuries I referred to upthread was in this:
I broke my nose when my head snapped forwards and butted the steering wheel as I came to the end of my tether on the seatbelt. As you can see, I would certainly have been far worse off, and possibly dead if I hadn't been wearing the belt.
That anecdote, factual as it is, doesn't constitute evidence that compulsory seatbelt legislation reduced the number of deaths on the roads.
It didn't.
No country in the world has shown that compulsory seatbelt legislation reduced deaths, but it's been shown that the legislation increased pedestrian and cyclist deaths, and that seatbelt wearers drive faster. The point I'm making here is that whilst I've benefitted personally from wearing a seatbelt,
the population as a whole hasn't, and I would never use my own anecdote in an attempt to deny it. It's Parlialment's job to legislate for the collective benefit of
all citizens, not for the personal benefit of Axel.
irc wrote: ↑23 Feb 2023, 3:13pmFree country etc.
But not a country free from peer pressure.