Regarding
your article on helmets, you should have a look at
a book called 'Risk' by a professor of geography at
King's College London. He takes the straightforward
view that more helmets = more deaths, and has fairly
convincing stats to back it up. The basic mechanism
is entirely logical: bareheaded cyclist cycles carefuly
because he's worried about hitting something and banging
his head; helmeted cyclist cycles recklessly because
he feels a (false) sense of security (not to mention
decreased awareness) because of the helmet. And because
helmets won't actually do much to reduce serious injury
more helmeted cyclists are actually killed. Basically
deaths are prevented by sensible cycling, not technological
fixes. Helmet legislation just gives careless drivers
a get out clause if they kill a cyclist who's not
wearing a helmet.
charlie
blair
edinburgh
For
what it's worth I always wear a helmet. With no hard
proof that they actually save lives, and with a strong
belief that in a high speed accident with a vehicle
helmets won't provide too much protection this might
seem a bit odd. But the simple fact remains that in
slow moving accidents the helmets is going
to stop me splitting my head open on a kerb or the
path. For this simple fact I will continue to wear
a helmet, but for those who are not worried about
this possibility and accordingly don't wear a helmet,
I wouldn't force it on them.
davie
stewart
liverpool
