4 ms·
You simply didn't read the article did you? Just used the post title (which isn't the article title) as an excuse for going off on your tedious rant about how i
by epo 13y ago
You simply didn't read the article did you? Just used the post title (which isn't the article title) as an excuse for going off on your tedious rant about how ineffective bike helmets are.
- johnbm 13y agoThe article doesn't provide much citations for "Bicycle helmets do an outstanding job of keeping our skulls intact in a major crash." which is the premise it starts out with and builds its case off. Obvious questions arise... like why are motorcycle or pro-sports helmets so radically different in design (full head + visor), even for scooters that barely go faster than bicycles, and how many "major crashes" result in head trauma as opposed to other kinds? And if bicycle helmets are so great, why don't we require car drivers to wear helmets too? Surely then they would also do an 'outstanding job in keeping our skulls intact in a major crash'?
- nether 13y agoI think this one is decent: > In 1989, The New England Journal of Medicine published a study that looked at hundreds of cyclists treated at Seattle-area hospitals. The research team concluded that helmets “reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent and of brain injury by 88 percent.”