[...] > So one should always be vigilant. > > How does a helmet hinder such vigilance? > > It's nice to have the helmet as a final layer of protection > if more "pro-active" prevention isn't enough. Not that > helmets are a guarantee of anything, however they do lessen > one's chances of more serious head injury. >
That has not been shown to be the case. In fact, wearing a helmet increases your chances of certain types of injury, if you're unlucky enough to crash. For everyone who thinks their life was saved or injuries lessened by a helmet there is probably someone who could have been killed or seriously injured by wearing one - but we don't have the stats to make any kind of judgement based on this. When I fell off and broke my wrist a few years ago I bumped my unhelmeted head on the pavement. It was no big deal, but by increasing the volume of my head area a helmet could have led to some sort of hideous rotational injury. There's no point in speculating on these hypothetical lines or comparing the seriousness of what might have been. <http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1019.html> To me the matter should remain one of choice for adults, even if it could be proved incontrovertibly that helmets offered substantial benefits to the cyclist. There are really 3 camps in this argument. A 'pro-choice' (for want of a better phrase) lobby consisting of some pro- and all 'anti-' helmet people, and a 'pro-life' (as they might call themselves) lobby which wants helmet use to be mandatory. I notice that the set of people who want to make helmet wearing illegal is empty. From this I conclude that if one wants to make helmet wearing compulsory one is either a helmet manufacturer or a Nazi or both. Thread over. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
