[beat]

Minneapolis is arguably the best city in the US for bicycling (in competition with Portland). That said, biking here can be incredibly dangerous, and cyclists are killed every year. The streets and intersections around town have numerous "ghost bikes", white bicycles locked in places where a cyclist was killed by a car.

The author's point doesn't stand to reason. First, not all injuries are created equal. Head injuries are more likely to kill or permanently impair a cyclist than any other injury. Second, regardless of the results of studies and confirmation bias, it's obvious that helmets do absorb a great deal of impact - impact that can kill or permanently injure you.

Beyond that, though, helmets aren't the #1 thing that can be done to protect cyclists. Improving car drivers is the #1 thing. Malicious drivers who openly hate cyclists aren't the worst - neglectful ones are. You know, the ones who turn right in front of a bicycle, or lane change into a bicycle. They don't know the cyclist is there. Often, they don't know how close they came to killing someone, as they text away obliviously.

The next thing that can be done is better urban planning, with bicycle-friendly streets. That doesn't mean sidewalk "bike lanes" that are 10mph and shared with moms pushing strollers. That means relatively safe road design where bicyclists can either integrate into the traffic flow or be around it with less danger. These designs are often flawed, though, built mostly to keep bicycles from inconveniencing cars rather than keeping cyclists safe (the "bike lanes" of downtown Minneapolis, which completely hide cyclists from cars turning in front of them, are the ultimate example).

At any rate, the article is quite wrong.

[panglott]

I think the point is that most people think that the best way to improve cyclist safety is to get cyclists to wear helmets. This is quite wrong, helmets are way down the list behind driver education, bike lanes, bike lights, &c. &c.

However, cyclists get regularly shamed for not wearing a helmet. Where's the shame for the lack of complete streets traffic planning? The shame for drivers speeding and running red lights all the time?

[mattmanser]

regardless of the results of studies and confirmation bias, it's obvious...

You might as well have just said "I'm not listening to that gosh darn evolution nonsense".

[beat]

Just because you're inclined to believe something doesn't make it not true. That's the flip side of confirmation bias.

The author points to a single study that's been discredited. Good enough. But simple logic, as well as anecdotal evidence (with all its confirmation bias), suggests that you're more likely to have a good outcome from a head impact if you're wearing a helmet than if you're not. That, or the entire helmet industry is snake oil, and you might as well just wear a baseball cap.

The comparison to evolution is bogus. Those who reject evolution are generally rejecting both evidence and reason. But evidence and reason strongly suggest that helmets work better than no helmets.

[auntienomen]

Reason suggest that helmets work better than no helmets. _Evidence_ suggests that the benefits of wearing a helmet are actually surprisingly marginal for casual cyclists. Other factors, like biking infrastructure quality and vehicle operator education, have a much greater impact on safety. Which makes it a bit weird that people concerned with the safety of bicyclists talk so much about helmets.

[beat]

I don't disagree with that, but that's not really the author's claim. He appears to be claiming that helmets aren't actually effective or cause other problems.

An accident avoided is better than an accident survived, yes. But an accident survived is better than an accident not survived.