And this is a great example. It is far from settled how effective bike helmets are.
Yes, they are helpful if/when you crash.
A couple of confounding factors are:
-Risk compensation. Helmeted riders as a group tend to ride faster, and with less care, and are thus more likely to crash.
-Motorists tend to be less respectful toward helmeted cyclists, and thus are more likely to kill them.
-Helmet use sends a message “cycling is dangerous” and thus reduces the numbers of cyclists, leading to a few more cars on the road, and lower awareness of cyclists. It also fosters an attitude among motorists and law enforcement that cyclists are “asking for it” because they are participating in something so dangerous you need to wear a helmet.
Then there are huge cultural issues. The Netherlands has among the lowest per rider/mile fatality and head injury rate and virtually zero use of helmets. They have a huge cycling culture and infrastructure that is very difficult to control for.
So I can totally see someone thinking that spending money on a study to determine if bike helmets improve safety getting the “Duh!” treatment, when in fact it is very far from settled.
FWIW I wear a bike helmet. I have damaged three in crashes. I am certain one would have been a skull fracture. Less sure that another might have been a concussion. The third only reduced the severity of contusions to my face.
The helmeted riders I know who ride in groups do ride fast, because they are experienced regular cyclists (selection bias) - and are extremely safety conscious. Are you referring to this study? That shows that people who wear helmets routinely feel less safe when they have them off and compensate by slowing down. But the converse was not true, despite the authors’ conclusion: those who do not routinely wear helmets did not take more risk because they put one on:
So taking off a helmet usually worn leads to speed reduction due to feeling unsafe; putting one on not usually worn leads to no change, no risk compensation.
In fact the data is clear that wearing a helmet is associated with less traffic violations. In fact the shock in that article was that helmeted riders were less often “speeding” given that stronger riders usually wear helmets.
Motorists are less respectful due to seeing a helmet on a rider??? Nah, if anything there is more respect, which potentially places the bicyclist at greater risk. A helmeted rider is assumed to be a predictable rider and drivers therefore give them less space when passing feeling comfortable that they won’t swerve or do anything unpredictable, whereas an unhelmeted rider is disrespected a wild card who could swerve at any moment and therefore is given extra space. Same if as a driver I see a cyclist riding on the wrong side of the road or another driver swerving about: I give extra space because I don’t trust what they will do.
Using a helmet has reduced ridership by advertising that it is a dangerous activity? Like helmets on the ski slope has made fewer people ski and wearing seatbelts has made people drive less I guess.
Okay I can buy an argument that it creates a barrier. Some will not ride rather than deal with a helmet. And that other infrastructure cultural issues could have a bigger impact (like bike lanes physically separated from vehicular traffic in cities). But advertising that it is dangerous? Nah.
Cochrane Reviews are reknown for their critical evaluation of the evidence, often dismissing many things as unproven due to the lack of hitting their extremely rigid standards. Their take:
Klaatu, it was common sense and obvious to everyone that Obama was going to lose to Romney in a landslide in 2012, remember? Remember how trivially obvious it was? It was so obvious that you were willing to predict a 300+ electoral victory for Romney.
All the science in the world that predicted an Obama win was totally unnecessary, and just flat out wrong. Because we all just knew in our guts that he was going to lose.
Klaatu, you perfectly encapsulate everything that Colbert makes fun of when he talks about truthiness and thinking with your gut, and that reality has a liberal bias. You are the perfect encapsulation of the conservative mind. The Straight Dope should submit your threads to political departments in universities across the country so they can study your mind.
The people who promote the idea and are in a position to do something about it never cite the Laffer curve. Reagan famously (I guess) cut taxes when we were not in the appropriate segment of the Laffer Curve, and revenue went… down. A study of the relevant examples might give an honest person some confidence in their predictions about whether a proposed tax policy would raise or lower revenue, but the people with the most to gain (in (apparent) knowledge anyway) are the last people on earth who would investigate it.
Put another way, the people who cut taxes to increase revenue seem to rest their case on the bare assertion that it will work, not a citation of the Laffer Curve or anything else.
All I was saying was that you can’t make a blanket statement that lowering taxes will always lower revenue. I wasn’t saying it always will, or that you can know when it will or not. I agree that it’s very hard to pin down, and it’s overestimated by it’s proponents.
You win the thread. And you did it in post #7: could be a record.
Incidentally, the New York Times and the Economist magazine offer fairly solid science reporting. TV and AP wires, not so much. Another great source is, yes, the peer-reviewed journal Science. The early articles in the mag are layman-friendly; the peer reviewed stuff makes up the 2nd half. And most of the peer reviewed articles have graphs that I can puzzle over, if not always understand. Unfortunately it’s not typically available at newstands and membership in the AAAS will cost you a Franklin (half price for students and post-Docs). It’s a highly respected but still under-rated US treasure, methinks.