Comment 67536

By misterque (registered) - website
Posted August 06, 2011 at 02:25:13

A survey of less than 2000 doctors in a country that has more than 100000 is hardly a study, a consensus or a reason to take off one's helmet.

Every case controlled study shows that helmet use reduces mortality and morbidity in cyclists that get in accidents. This means that helmets reduce injury when accidents happen. The Cochrane Collaboration has done a reasonable, but not perfect, meta analysis showing helmets help and don't harm. The conflicting studies are soft. Dr. Piet de Jong's study about mandatory helmet laws decrease ridership misses out on competition for recreational exercise (blading, yoga, dance, hiking, swimming) that has grown over the same time period. The study of increased driver aggressiveness with helmeted cyclists is completely ridiculous

Helmets have been shown to reduce injury in hockey, lacrosse, football, construction sites (this helmet needs to be improved drastically), military conflict, motorcycling, race car driving, rock climbing, etc etc.

So why on earth are elements of the cycling community continuing to cling to such poor evidence? Especially when it can lead to increased harm.

Even if the jury were out on this one, a helmet should be worn in the interim, based on the copious case controlled studies that show the helmet's effectiveness. But the jury is not even out on helmet use.

Mandatory helmet laws along with proper education (drivers and cyclists) with excellent cycling lanes is the way to go.

Tonnes of yummy links here: http://www.bhsi.org/

Comment edited by misterque on 2011-08-06 02:27:43

Reply | Permalink | Context

:)hUe

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Site Tools

Feeds