Why Don't They Protect Us?

 Helmets are for sissies.

I actually said that once.  Of course, that meant I would soon don the best head protection available at the time:  the Bell "turtleshell."  At that time, I told myself that a real man can indeed wear something more substantial than a Team Peugeot cap on his head.  But, of course, that wasn't the real reason why I--a manque transgender woman--wore a cranial shield.

In time, most cyclists I'd ride with in clubs, training or races would wear them, too.  Women, it seemed, were more willing, even if they were worried about messing up their hair.

Well, I just learned something I never expected:  Women may have less reason to wear helmets.  Now, I'd like to think because we're tougher and more resilient, or because we have so much more brain matter that we can afford to lose a little.  

From Femmecyclist

The real reason, though, is that helmets may do less for us than they do for men.  According to a recent study, although we're more likely than men to wear helmets, we have higher rates of serious head injury (in spite of less head injury overall).

What accounts for this difference? The study posits that it can be one of two things:  sex disparity in helmet-testing standards or "intrinsic incompatiblity between available helmets and female anatomy."  

This reminds me of the "female problem" in medicine:  Most of what doctors and other medical professionals learn is based on studies done on males.  So the data is biased; so is the perspective of doctors. Most standards for everything from blood pressure readings to medication dosages are thus based on data gleaned from studies done on men.

I know that many women have difficulty finding helmets (and other apparel and equipment) that fit them.  I wonder whether the helmet issue has to do, not only with the differences in size and shape between women's and men's craniums, but also in the ways our heads move and balance on our bodies.

To Promote Cycling For Health

Various healthcare and health insurance plans are realizing that encouraging healthy practices and lifestyles are cheaper, in the long run, than paying for expensive medicines and procedures. They offer things like smoking cessation programs and discounts on gym memberships.

I've heard that a few plans, offered by employers, also give discounts for bike commuting-related expenses. So, for example, they won't pay for a $12,000 S-Works racing bike, but they offer vouchers or discounts at participating bike shops.

Now, as a cyclist who writes a bicycle blog, I may just a wee bit biased in saying that if insurance programs will subsidize gym memberships or exercise equipment, they also should do whatever will encourage bicycle commuting and recreational riding.  After all, more than a few people have lost weight and seen their blood pressure and anxiety levels drop after they rode their bikes to work or school for a few months, or even weeks.  

I also believe that encouraging kids to ride bikes to school is a good idea.  I'm thinking, specifically, of kids who live just far enough away from school to make walking a non-viable option, but not so far that they need to take a bus or be driven.  

Matt Milam, the Executive Director of United Healthcare of Nebraska seems to understand as much. He has announced that his organization is giving away bicycle helmets and cash prizes to kids in two of the state's school districts.  One reason for doing this, he says, is "encouraging healthy activity." He observes, "active kids grow up to be healthy kids."

I think it's a good start.  Of course, other measures are needed to encourage, not just the kids, but the parents.  And I think that the biggest hurdle to developing lifelong transportation and recreation cyclists is to keep kids on bikes when they start driving.     

If You Want To Buy It...

 This bike is for sale.

It's a 1970s ladies' English three-speed.  You've probably seen hundreds, if not thousands, of bikes like it--whether in actual use, a yard sale or a Craigslist or eBay listing.

Not so long ago, you could get something like that for a few dollars--unless, of course, someone gave it to you when he or she was moving or cleaning out a garage or basement.

It looks like something your neighbor's mother or aunt rode on her college campus or to her first job.

And, indeed, someone's mother did ride it to work.  Of course, she's not the mother of your neighbor--unless you happen to live next to Prince Harry or Prince William.

The bike in the photo--and up for sale--is the one Diana rode to the nursery school where she worked before her wedding to one of the world's three un-sexiest men. (Donald Trump and Rudy Giuliani are the others, not only because of their politics.)

What that means, of course, is that you won't get it for an already-inflated on Craigslist, where shysters get away with calling all manner of junk "vintage."  No, Diana's bike is expected to fetch 20,000 GBP at Sussex-based auction house Burstow & Hewett.  

In the days leading up to the royal wedding, palace staff advised her to stop riding it because it was unbecoming of a royal-to-be.  So, she sold it for 211GBP to the father of a friend who kept it in his garage for 27 years.

If you buy the blue 1970s Raleigh Traveler, you'll also get a copy of a 1981 newspaper article and a framed letter from Gerald Stonehill, who bought the bike from Diana.

In case you're interested, the auction will be streamed on 28 April by Burstow & Hewett. Good luck!