Years ago, I was accelerating down a long hill on a state highway when a beat-up old car passed me. Someone in the car stood up through the sunroof, shouted something indistinct, and threw a full can of beer at my head. The impact against the side of my helmet and my own startled reaction almost made me crash.

The can dented my helmet a quarter-inch deep, right through the outer shell and into the styrofoam underneath. That beer can would have split my head open for sure.

This happened more than 15 years ago. I always cycle with a helmet now. I figure, if my helmet prevents a head injury, saves my life, or preserves my dignity, even once during a lifetime of cycling, it’s worth it.

You were just repeating MY mistake Khal; I had TMI everywhere!

I’ve corrected it.

Too Much Information!

One should never base public policy on single study, especially one with potential major flaws. Sure, if there is a magic bullet and it actually serves the public interest (TMI costs up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, often public dollars, per incident), we should implement it. Assuming, of course, there are not competing losses exceeding the benefits (dangerization).

Further, the implication that the authors have such a vested interest in the truth of their study and in implementing helmet wearing casts some doubt on their objectivity. The point of science is to be skeptical, not to be a true believer.

I wear one because I figure it may protect me against a lot of potential low speed crashes without significant downside costs. But if I crash heavily on a fast descent in the mountains above Los Alamos a la Fabio Casartelli, a helmet will probably be irrelevant. That’s life. And death, I suppose.

If government is going to get fully into the risk management business, then the first thing to do, traffic safety-wise, is probably to ban motorcycles, since that form of travel is so much riskier that all the others. No, what we and our elected officials prefer to ask is, “How do we make _____ safer?”

Like the Seattle helmet researchers, our legislators have started with the assumption that helmets are one of the best strategies for safer cycling, then asked whether or not the state has a legitimate interest in mandating their use.

I think it would be interesting to discuss further what the role of the State should be in matters like this (not just this particular issue). What is their desire goal? Should it be accomplised via laws, education, or other means? Should the State not get involved in matters that almost exclusively effect the individual and not others or society at large?

Good questions to ponder …….

That better, second question leads you to ask, “which cycling behaviors and situations are most likely to contribute to brain injuries?” And then, “how do you mitigate for those behaviors and situations?”

I don’t think the state’s purpose (in respect to helmets) should be to “make bicycling safer,” it should be to reduce traumatic brain injuries, since they have such a large impact on individuals, their families, and the state as a whole. If your goal is to reduce transportation-based TMI, you go after the largest cause, which is automobile use.

Just as I wrote for the vest question at CommuteOrlando, I don’t believe wearing safety equipment per se is “dangerization.” Dangerization comes when we insist that others do as we do (or as we want them to do).

But there are some instances when a mandate of some sort makes sense. I think, for example, that bike clubs are wise to insist that members wear helmets while on club rides. Why? Because club riders quite often get tangled up with one another and sometimes go down hard. (I’ve seen more cracked helmets during club rides than any other situation.) Making your fellow club members deal with a TMI along the side of the road is really unfair.

As for children, I have seen the focus shift over the years to helmets instead of good cycling skills and practices. Instead of “here’s how to ride and here’s where you’re permitted to ride” (limiting the child to streets appropriate to his/her skills and judgment), all today’s parents (and teachers) know to do is say “wear your helmet and stay in the cul de sac.” And we wonder why kids don’t bike anymore.

There has been an 85% drop in child cycling injuries involving motor vehicles since 1990 in metro Orlando. While one might say that’s a good thing, it’s not due to better cycling behavior, better motorist behavior, or helmets (head injuries are about 5% of cycling injuries); it’s because kids are not riding any more. The steepest section of the decline in those injuries was when the Florida legislature was debating and passing the helmet law and the first couple years after passage. Correlation does not prove cause, of course. Perhaps there were other factors as well.

Also — you didn’t mention children and helmets. Are your feelings about anti-helmet laws applicable to children as well?

AndrewP (being the devil’s advocate) …..