> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of David Mann > > On Nov 2, 2006, at 10:49 AM, Bob W wrote: > > > The best protection for cyclists is to learn how to cycle properly
> > in traffic. > [...] > > The dynamics of any crash are far too variable to be able to make > predictions of the outcome, and personally I'd rather have > the helmet > than not have it because I'm slightly on the paranoid side. If > someone wants to take their chances without a helmet that's fine by > me, but I'll still mutter a few opinionated words to myself :) > You make your own choices (or do you? isn't it compulsory in NZ?), and you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but your opinion isn't obviously supported by facts. A lot of people think it's intuitively obvious that a helmet offers more protection than no helmet, but they don't appear to offer any protection against the most serious types of head injuries, and there is plenty of evidence that they increase the likelihood of those injuries. The case for helmets is massively overstated, and certainly does not offer any justification whatsoever for making it a legal requirement to wear one. Until earlier this year I was of the general opinion that helmets were probably safer than no helmets, but I didn't wear one because I simply don't like them. Some people I spoke to about it were horrified to learn that I don't use one, and I couldn't understand the strength of their reaction - cycling has never seemed like an unsafe activity to me. So I started looking into the facts and the arguments for and against, and I am simply not convinced that cycle helmets have any worthwhile value. I suspect that most people just accept the propaganda at face value without looking into it. Regards, Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
