>>2079720>is there actual scienceYes! As long as any work done in accordance with the scientific method (TM) then there is. Research also exists for the effects of paint as bicycling infrastructure.
>HelmetsThe data is a mess but even when analyzed with good practice resukts are ambivalent. Many limitations apply to sample sizes too.
Firstly: When an incident is reported (only reported accidents make it into the dataset) helmets drastically reduce head injury and consequentially fatalities.
This is expected and aligns with simple geometrical reasoning.
It would be interested to compare distance cycled with helmets versus distance cycled without helmets in equal environments. Last time I checked I could not find such data.
But: It seems that helmets increase the likelyhood of crashes. This can have several speculative reasons:
- On average noobs and occassional / recreational cyclists are more likely to wear helmets. I need not to explain to anyone here how unaware those types are, how bad their handling and riding is and how they are totally clueless about how to move and position themselves.
- It has been speculated that helmets instill confidence or a perception of immunity and subsequentially motivates risky maneuvers. I don't buy that. Anecdotaly I was literally suicidal and highly confident for several years of intense daily cycling and still didn't KMS. Also on the flioside other research indicates aggressive riding reduces chances of accidents, perhaps through elevated alertness or something.
- Helmets might dehumanize cyclists and provoke cager attacks more frequently than without.
- Helmets might simply deprive riders of important sensory information.
Lastly, there is the cripple generator issue, the binary distinction between dead and not dead in research.
(cont.)
