Wearing bicycle helmets more dangerous than not
I always suspected this was true...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/5334208.stm
Despite what I tell five year olds, I hate wearing bicycle helmets. Does it make me a sucker that despite that I still do wear a helmet?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/somerset/5334208.stm
"...this study suggests wearing a helmet might make a collision more likely in the first place"The article does not say wearing helmets makes you safer. It says that drivers tend to give you more space if you are riding a bicycle without a helmet. Like I said, I always suspected that part was true. However, if you do get into an accident, having a helmet can be a lifesaver.
Despite what I tell five year olds, I hate wearing bicycle helmets. Does it make me a sucker that despite that I still do wear a helmet?
posted by Stanza @ 6:17 PM
1 Comments:
At 25 September, 2006 19:37,
Yen said…
The 'study' is pretty bad.
First, the implication is that wearing a helmet is more dangerous than not. Even assuming what he says is true, that a cyclist is more likely to be hit by a car when wearing a helmet, you still have to determine how often that is the cause of an injury to the bicycling population at large. If 5% of injuries are car related then even a doubling the amount of those accidents by wearing a helmet is worth the risk because 90% of accidents don't involve cars.
Not that I know any of those numbers mind you, but apparently neither does the researcher because he certainly don't mention them.
Second, this is a classic case where a double blind test group is needed. The only ‘test group’ is the researcher himself. Talk about potential for biased research. Perhaps the researcher, when wearing a helmet, and suspecting it is more dangerous, tends to ride further into traffic then he would normally. And when wearing a wig he keeps further out of traffic. Miraculously he proves his own assumptions correct.
Post a Comment
<< Home