Obviously it's hard to say without reading the report, rather than the journalism, and even then I suspect it's unlikely to become any clearer, but I would not be at all surprised if the proper conclusion from the data was actually "Cyclists self-identifying as at higher risk of falls choose to wear helmets at a much higher rate than others"
I've done a bit of number-crunching of my own, and while not as exhaustive as what the CTC guys seem to have done, I've increasingly tended towards the view that helmet-wearing (in all scenarios, whether there's legal compulsion or not) increases crashes not only among all helmet-wearers, but also among non-wearers affected by other people's riding. This is not a scientific conclusion, by the way, just my personal impression from a lot of reading.
I, like many others, used to peddle the old 'it should be personal choice' line that all cycling organisations have been running since forever and a day, but I increasingly think that's not a good line to take. on its own without very much more robust work about the problems and countering the pro-helmet propaganda.
I'd be curious to see the rates of professional crashes pre/post compulsory helmet, and whether things like descending speeds increased correspondingly.
It feels like there has been more incidents recently, but it could just be more widespread reporting.
@Oliver Schick started
© LFGSS, powered by microcosm.
Report a problem
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.