Re: Helmet efficacy test

On 4/4/2025 5:46 PM, AMuzi wrote:

 Here are a few points on which nearly everyone can agree:
 For minor spills, a helmet is likely to prevent scalp road rash or minor scalp lacerations.  Since scalp wounds bleed impressively, this would also present less drama to bystanders.
 For very high force impacts, such as a direct hit at speed by something of significant mass (train, truck, auto, Harley), a helmet, or anything really, is unlikely to be effective in preventing a fatality.  Sadly, we see these deaths regularly (just not daily).
 For intermediate impacts, which are most bicycle crashes, both solo and with vehicles mating in traffic, helmets may and likely would at least mitigate or possibly prevent injury.
 end of kumbaya segment.
 Despite general agreement, each individual rider makes his own assessment of crash incidence and intensity probabilities, frequently taking into consideration prior riding experience(s), his own real or perceived awareness and handling skills, reports of other riders' experiences, reported overall data, urban myths, gossip, opinions of fellow riders, USCF/UCI policy, on and on.

I agree with a lot of that. (Kumbaya!) But not all. And I agree with only a little of the final paragraph.
Among the many, many riders I know, I don't see much rational assessment. Almost all of them have a crash experience of zero, meaning their awareness and handling skills have always been adequate for their chosen riding conditions. They have roughly zero knowledge of overall data. They may have heard of a crash or two in which a helmet was claimed to have helped, but we can't really know that's true about any given crash.
Instead of rational assessment, their judgment is based entirely on "Of course, you should wear a helmet every time you ride. You _could_ crash! And almost everyone else wears a helmet, so why be different?"
--
- Frank Krygowski