A couple of observations, not directly addressing the controversy at
hand, but maybe giving some perspective:
First, as an Assistant Scoutmaster for a US Boy Scout troop, I
participated in some organized bike rides by Scouts. Scout rules require
helmet use, which is a good thing, since on these rides two Scouts
suffered serious falls.
In the first instance the boy ran off a trail at high speed and head-
on into a large boulder. He was thrown over the handlebars and landed
head-first on the boulder. In the second instance a mechanical failure on
the bike (front wheel was inadequately secured) caused the boy to again be
thrown over the handlebars, onto a railroad track.
In both cases the helmets were severely damaged, but the boys got
away with only scrapes and bruises. While I did not personally witness
either accident, from the condition of the helmets it's hard to believe
that significant head injury would not have occurred if the helmets had
not been worn.
It should be noted that these accidents are fairly typical of cycling
accidents in the US. Statistics show that most accidents involve running
into a stationary object or another cyclist or pedestrian, while only a
small minority involve a motor vehicle.
On the other (and my second point), several major cycling
organizations in the US have considered whether or not to support
manditory helmet legislation. Upon running through the available
statistics, however, they've concluded that that the health benefits of
cycling outweight (in an actuarial sense) the risks of riding without a
helmet (though they all believe that it is better still to wear a helmet).
For this reason they have generally not supported manditory helmet
legislation.
Rapid Response:
Some observations from the US
A couple of observations, not directly addressing the controversy at
hand, but maybe giving some perspective:
First, as an Assistant Scoutmaster for a US Boy Scout troop, I
participated in some organized bike rides by Scouts. Scout rules require
helmet use, which is a good thing, since on these rides two Scouts
suffered serious falls.
In the first instance the boy ran off a trail at high speed and head-
on into a large boulder. He was thrown over the handlebars and landed
head-first on the boulder. In the second instance a mechanical failure on
the bike (front wheel was inadequately secured) caused the boy to again be
thrown over the handlebars, onto a railroad track.
In both cases the helmets were severely damaged, but the boys got
away with only scrapes and bruises. While I did not personally witness
either accident, from the condition of the helmets it's hard to believe
that significant head injury would not have occurred if the helmets had
not been worn.
It should be noted that these accidents are fairly typical of cycling
accidents in the US. Statistics show that most accidents involve running
into a stationary object or another cyclist or pedestrian, while only a
small minority involve a motor vehicle.
On the other (and my second point), several major cycling
organizations in the US have considered whether or not to support
manditory helmet legislation. Upon running through the available
statistics, however, they've concluded that that the health benefits of
cycling outweight (in an actuarial sense) the risks of riding without a
helmet (though they all believe that it is better still to wear a helmet).
For this reason they have generally not supported manditory helmet
legislation.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests