(Sorry I'm getting sucked into furterh debate, but... ) honestly I don't believe there's a legitimate argument for or against, regardless of statistics. This comes down to a person's perception and sensitivity to risk. Do you have tornado insurance? Flood insurance? These choices (and they're your choices) would likely be based on your perception of the risk that these events could occur, versus sensitivity towards protecting your assets. Same goes for helmets or anything that can potentially offer protection.
I "choose" to wear a helmet when I perceive there's a risk of harm to my noggin. I don't care if helmets are declared by the leading minds in this world as unnecessary (based on statistics)... I'd still wear mine when I perceive potential risk of hitting my head on a low branch, concrete sidewalk or curb. And this is based on the best evidence I have; past experience; actually hitting my head or having close calls. Conversely, even if wearing helmets were regarded as the most practical thing a cyclist can possibly do (by the so-called leading minds, based on statistics), unless required by law I would still cherish (and exercise) my right to ride without a helmet when I perceive the risk to be low (and therefore I'd also willingly accept the consequences of hitting my head). That's MY choice. Bottom line, I don't care what statistics show, either in favor or against, nor will I EVER. I will ignore them over my own gut intuition between when it's right to wear or not to wear a helmet. My head, my choice... period. And I recognize the right of every person to make the same choice one way or the other. Peace, Bobby (semi-but-mostly helmeted) Birmingham On Mar 16, 6:11 pm, Anne Paulson <anne.paul...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 2:51 PM, Travis <travisbreitenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Ann, to indulge your semantic reply I will change #2: > > > 2) Does cycling dramatically increase your risk of suffering brain > > damage, death, or paralysis due to impact to the head versus > > showering? > > Here's what I want to know, and what I haven't seen compelling data > on: Will a helmet materially change my risk of damage, death or > paralysis while cycling? > > Sadly, we've had some recent cyclist deaths in my area. The cyclist > fatalities I hear about are seemingly cyclists like me, cycling on > roads that I ride on. They were wearing helmets, like I do, and their > helmets failed to protect them from death. > > And then I hear about other local cyclists crashing and recovering > from broken wrists, broken collar bones, broken legs-- these people > seemingly didn't hit their heads at all. > > And then, I suppose, there are cyclists who crash and hit their heads, > but their helmets prevented or mitigated their injuries. > > But what I want to know is, in what proportion of accidents would a > helmet make a difference? In some accidents, helmet or no helmet the > cyclist would die. In some accidents, helmet or no helmet, the cyclist > wouldn't have a head injury, or wouldn't have a head injury that made > any difference, or would have struck something with, say, their chin, > so a helmet wouldn't have helped. In some accidents, the helmet saves > the victim-- but how many accidents are like that? Don't say, one is > enough-- the danger has to be significant enough so wearing a helmet > is worth it; I don't wear a helmet when taking a shower. > > -- > -- Anne Paulson > > My hovercraft is full of eels -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
