Bloodletting seems a distant deformity to us and yet, only a few hundred years ago, we lost George Washington because he relied on its rhetoric over common sense when he agreed to it as treatment for a nasty cold. With only a few calm voices protesting the many deaths caused by bloodletting, the practice continued well in to the 20th century. This bicycle helmet promotions and laws hold an scary resemblance to the pronouncements employed by the bloodletters. Once an illogical practice is presented as the only means of safety and dismissal of the practice is equated to certain death, even the most brilliant leader can yield to its absurdity. sort cykelhjelm
Misguided beliefs about helmets charm countries most where bicycling is not commonplace. In these countries, helmet rhetoric has escalated to the point where those not familiar with bicycling assume that if you so much as swing your leg over a bicycle without putting on a helmet you will smash your head wide open. In such places, those who ride a bicycle with out a helmet are chided by onlookers at every turn because of their reckless, irresponsible behavior.
Where did these chiders get their information? Most helmet propaganda is formerly published by insurance companies, health practitioners and government agencies who have avoided a great number of law suits by blaming bicyclists in crashes because of not wearing a helmet, sometimes even when their traumas or death did not involve injuries with their brain.
While many studies have demostrated that bicycle helmets do little to prevent major head injuries beyond slight skull fractures and cuts (Curnow 2001), a few poorly executed, misleading studies will be the only ones to have reached mainstream division. The most common little bit of jargon of them all is that “cycle headgear prevent 85% of mind injuries and 88% of brain injuries” when in fact, where helmet 2 high, there has recently been no detectable reduction in head injuries. For the amazing comparison of these quite misleading studies, see the link below.
Helmet unsupported claims that sets bicycling away as far more dangerous than it is, is the greatest hindrance to programs for increasing riding a bicycle. A great deal of truthful yet catchy offers will be essential to reverse this noise. Remember, bloodletting was “common sense” for 2, 000 years! One particular of the best good examples for illustrating the real truth is this fun questions on the dangers of bicycling: bicyclinglife. com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz. htm
Mandatory helmet laws often the actual spread of bi-cycle helmet rhetoric, adding the weight of the regulation to the concept riding a bicycle is more dangerous than any other form of transportation. In fact, as you will have present in the above quiz, if these laws took a realistic method to their make an effort to prevent head accidents, all pedestrians and car drivers would have to wear helmets as well. And, it seems, a rules requiring the wearing of helmets inside the house would become a good idea.
Helmet laws also present another barrier to potential cyclists who already see many barriers to starting cycling. Mandatory headgear laws add to this list and therefore prevent many new riders from starting. These laws are also proven to decrease figures of current cyclists thus increasing the opportunity of crashes by hindering basic safety in numbers. This theory has been proven to show that the motorist is less likely to conflict with a person walking or bicycling when there are more people walking or bicycling (Jacobsen 2003).
Bicycle helmets may provide some protection against minimal skull fractures and cuts, nevertheless they do not prevent major brain trauma that happens within the brain. In fact, because bi-cycle helmets are soft which increases friction in certain crashes, unlike motorcycle headgear, some studies have shown that they can cause neck and brain accidental injuries from rotational motion (V J M St Évident, B P Chinn. 2007).
So, in minor failures, bicycle helmets can assist in stopping minor traumas, although potential of their doing harm in a major crash must be considered. Like bloodletting, which, in retrospect was found to have unintentionally gained a few lucky remainders because they were later found out to acquire high bloodstream pressure, helmets have surely prevented nasty gashes and painful skull fractures.
Bi-cycle helmets can be a wise decision for someone concerned about minor head injuries as long as they understand their helmet’s limitations for avoiding major head accidental injuries, not unlike choosing to decorate knee pads and hand protection. However, some studies have demostrated that helmeted bicyclists take more risks than those not wearing a headgear (Pless IB, Magdalinos L, Hagel B. 2006). Therefore, whenever a potential headgear benefit is mentioned, the potential of a motorcycle helmet leading to neck and brain injury, as well as this risk compensation, must always be included for bicycle helmets to be presented in a honest light.
Another point to understand is that head gear do not prevent accidents. Improved road and path conditions, driver and bicyclist education, better protections for cyclists and increased portions of bicyclists through basic safety in numbers, prevent accidents. Many times government officials, health practitioners and insurance companies grasp at helmet regulations as a quick and cheap solution that eliminates them from liability and the responsibility of providing quality provisions for cyclists.
Helmet laws and overblown promotions also set in place a ready-made blame-the-victim reaction. Each time a helmetless cyclist is in a crash, their bare head becomes major even if the driver purposely hit them and their injuries are not head related. Remember that whenever one of these laws is presented, it is from a knee jerk effect, either to a recent crash or fabricated unsupported claims, usually by officials seeking to avoid liability, mounting the argument as making crashing safer.