Hard facts about helmets and safety?

Quoted message said:

My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
the event of an accident. My son believes this is a misconception that
has never been proven, and that it is being strongly advanced by
entities with a vested interest, such as helmet manufacturers. He does
not think that the mere existence of helmet laws constitutes a reason
to always wear one ("There are plenty of bad laws," he says, and he is
right).

He admits that there are many reasons that he does not want to wear a
helmet, that are unrelated to safety (e.g., comfort, convenience), but
believes that for most short-distance bike riding, there is no
objective safety-relatedreason for him to wear a helmet on every single
trip, because (a) the probability of an accident is extremely low, (b)
he "knows how to be careful" and minimize the probability of an
accident, (c) if he were to get into a SERIOUS accident, such as being
RUN OVER by a car, the helmet would not save him anyway, (d) wearing
the helmet does not change the probability of an accident happening.

In order to get more reliable information, we agreed on two approaches:
(1) we'd look for impartial scientific studies that show whether
consistently wearing a helmet can or cannot significantly reduce the
risk of severe injury in the event of a biking accident -- so much so
as to make it reasonable to have to wear a helmet on each and every
trip; (2) we'd ask in a forum of random bikers and bike enthiasts
whether or not THEY wear helmets on each and every trip, and why.

So that's what I'm doing. Please weigh in with your thoughts. Also, if
you know of any reliable studies on this matter, please post a link.

Thanks.

as you have a gmail account one can assume you are familiar with GOOGLE.
Do your research there and save the NG the endless diatribe related to
the H word. Their use is subjective and EVERYONE has an opinion. YMMV

Can of worms?
I started wearing one not because am convinced it reduces the risk of
brain injury so much as I think it might reduce the risk of abrasion.
That is also why I wear gloves, to reduce my risk of hand abrasion. It
would be harder to go to work with the major scrapes.
Ted.

Thanks for your response. I am doing the Google research, but an
important part of the research -- as both my son and I agreed -- is to
ask the bikers themselves. I did not realize that this was such a
controversial, hot-button issue until I started researching it. But I
do think that hearing from the bikers themselves is of value.

mrbubl said:

Quoted message said:

My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. [snip]

Quoted message said:

as you have a gmail account one can assume you are familiar with GOOGLE.
Do your research there and save the NG the endless diatribe related to
the H word. Their use is subjective and EVERYONE has an opinion. YMMV

Quoted message said:

My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
the event of an accident. My son believes this is a misconception that
has never been proven, and that it is being strongly advanced by
entities with a vested interest, such as helmet manufacturers. He does
not think that the mere existence of helmet laws constitutes a reason
to always wear one ("There are plenty of bad laws," he says, and he is
right).

There's a "helmet law" that applies to your teenager where you live? Where
is this?

San Francisco Bay Area, California.

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
the event of an accident. My son believes this is a misconception that
has never been proven, and that it is being strongly advanced by
entities with a vested interest, such as helmet manufacturers. He does
not think that the mere existence of helmet laws constitutes a reason
to always wear one ("There are plenty of bad laws," he says, and he is
right).

There's a "helmet law" that applies to your teenager where you live? Where
is this?

Bill Sornson said:

There's a "helmet law" that applies to your teenager where you live? Where
is this?

California Bicycle Helmet Statute
VEHICLE CODE
DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD
CHAPTER 1. OBEDIENCE TO AND EFFECT OF TRAFFIC LAWS
ARTICLE 4. OPERATION OF BICYCLES

"§ 21212. Bicycle helmets; wearing and selling helmets in conformance
with law; violations and penalties; use of penalty collections

(a) A person under 18 years of age shall not operate a bicycle, or ride
upon a bicycle as a passenger, upon a street, bikeway, as defined in
Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any other public
bicycle path or trail unless that person is wearing a properly fitted
and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards of the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI Z 90.4 bicycle helmet standard), the
Snell Memorial Foundation's Standard for Protective Headgear for Use in
Bicycling, or the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM F-1447
standard). This requirement also applies to a person who rides upon a
bicycle while in a restraining seat that is attached to the bicycle or
in a trailer towed by the bicycle."

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
the event of an accident. My son believes this is a misconception that
has never been proven,

In which case it is a conception. Common sense suggests that some injuries
will be prevented, and some will be minimised. It doesn't need any research
beyond gazing at the thing to realise it must provide some protection.

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

There's a "helmet law" that applies to your teenager where you live?
Where is this?

California Bicycle Helmet Statute
VEHICLE CODE
DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD
CHAPTER 1. OBEDIENCE TO AND EFFECT OF TRAFFIC LAWS
ARTICLE 4. OPERATION OF BICYCLES

"§ 21212. Bicycle helmets; wearing and selling helmets in conformance
with law; violations and penalties; use of penalty collections

(a) A person under 18 years of age shall not operate a bicycle, or
ride upon a bicycle as a passenger, upon a street, bikeway, as
defined in Section 890.4 of the Streets and Highways Code, or any
other public bicycle path or trail unless that person is wearing a
properly fitted and fastened bicycle helmet that meets the standards
of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI Z 90.4 bicycle
helmet standard), the Snell Memorial Foundation's Standard for
Protective Headgear for Use in Bicycling, or the American Society for
Testing Materials (ASTM F-1447 standard). This requirement also
applies to a person who rides upon a bicycle while in a restraining
seat that is attached to the bicycle or in a trailer towed by the
bicycle."

It's never enforced. You and the kid will have to decide whether he should
wear a lid based on your own criteria.

Bill "trollsniff alert" S.

"mrbubl" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

as you have a gmail account one can assume you are familiar with GOOGLE.
Do your research there and save the NG the endless diatribe related to the
H word.

Further, we've all read the arguments about 50 trillion times, that is, if
we haven't killfiled all those stupid helmet threads after reading them the
first 7 million times we started reading the bicycle newsgroups. They often
disintegrate into insults and ad hominem attacks. They also unfortunately
take over other threads -- see the "better than bells" thread just recently
started by Pat Lamb that has a helmet debate already sucking out its
lifeblood.

Please say NO to helmet threads. Don't start them, and god help us, don't
participate in them once underway.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
http://www.bicyclemeditations.org/
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky

Quoted message said:

My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
the event of an accident. My son believes this is a misconception that
has never been proven, and that it is being strongly advanced by
entities with a vested interest, such as helmet manufacturers. He does
not think that the mere existence of helmet laws constitutes a reason
to always wear one ("There are plenty of bad laws," he says, and he is
right).

He admits that there are many reasons that he does not want to wear a
helmet, that are unrelated to safety (e.g., comfort, convenience), but
believes that for most short-distance bike riding, there is no
objective safety-relatedreason for him to wear a helmet on every single
trip, because (a) the probability of an accident is extremely low, (b)
he "knows how to be careful" and minimize the probability of an
accident, (c) if he were to get into a SERIOUS accident, such as being
RUN OVER by a car, the helmet would not save him anyway, (d) wearing
the helmet does not change the probability of an accident happening.

In order to get more reliable information, we agreed on two approaches:
(1) we'd look for impartial scientific studies that show whether
consistently wearing a helmet can or cannot significantly reduce the
risk of severe injury in the event of a biking accident -- so much so
as to make it reasonable to have to wear a helmet on each and every
trip; (2) we'd ask in a forum of random bikers and bike enthiasts
whether or not THEY wear helmets on each and every trip, and why.

So that's what I'm doing. Please weigh in with your thoughts. Also, if
you know of any reliable studies on this matter, please post a link.

Thanks.

Dear J.,

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/maxi-faq-helmets?OpenDocument

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
the event of an accident.

It's hard to get a real life study but they are out there. The most
convincing are those engineering test. It's just simple logic that some
well designed padding is better than no padding in a collision.

In an impact, if your son doesn't get a skull fracture, then he might
lose some scalp. Hairless can be trendy to some kids! 😄

Don't know about where you are, but at many places, it's the law to wear
helmet.
--

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Thanks for your response. I am doing the Google research, but an
important part of the research -- as both my son and I agreed -- is to
ask the bikers themselves. I did not realize that this was such a
controversial, hot-button issue until I started researching it. But I
do think that hearing from the bikers themselves is of value.

That's simple. If you know it'll protect you, then you'll get used to it
quickly. And with the latest range of cycling helmets, they are light,
comfortable and trendy. There's no reason not to wear it even for
appearance conscious teens.
--

Quoted message said:

My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
the event of an accident. My son believes this is a misconception that
has never been proven, and that it is being strongly advanced by
entities with a vested interest, such as helmet manufacturers. He does
not think that the mere existence of helmet laws constitutes a reason
to always wear one ("There are plenty of bad laws," he says, and he is
right).

He admits that there are many reasons that he does not want to wear a
helmet, that are unrelated to safety (e.g., comfort, convenience), but
believes that for most short-distance bike riding, there is no
objective safety-relatedreason for him to wear a helmet on every single
trip, because (a) the probability of an accident is extremely low, (b)
he "knows how to be careful" and minimize the probability of an
accident, (c) if he were to get into a SERIOUS accident, such as being
RUN OVER by a car, the helmet would not save him anyway, (d) wearing
the helmet does not change the probability of an accident happening.

Sounds like you've raised a very intelligent son.

There is little question that helmet use - or, perhaps more accurately,
forced helmet sales - have been strongly advanced by their
manufacturers. Bell Sports freely admits to having budget for
legislative action, to make their product mandatory. (Can you imagine
the outcry if pharmaceutical companies did that?) Also, they are one
of the major sponsors of Safe Kids Inc, which is one of the major
lobbying organizations for mandatory helmet laws (MHLs).

Point b: The probability of an accident is, indeed, extremely low,
especially if your son does something radical like actually obeying the
laws and minding the condition of the road surface. The fearmongering
regarding bicycling is false. See
http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm and check the
references.
In fact, cycling's numbers are better than those for walking, at least
near traffic. (That includes using sidewalks, BTW.)

He's correct on point c, as well. One study of about 20 cycling deaths
in Aukland, NZ (i.e. all the fatalities in the time period under study)
found that all of the non-helmeted cyclists died of multiple injuries,
not simple head injuries, so helmets would not have saved them. Only
one cyclist died of simple head injury, and he was helmeted. (Sage M,
Cairns F, Koelmeyer T, Smeeton W. Fatal injuries to bicycle riders in
Auckland. N Z Med J. 1985;98:1073-4.)

He's apparently wrong on item d, however. Data from several studies
indicates helmeted cyclists are _more_ likely to crash and hit their
heads. Explanations are still being worked out, but it looks like a
combination of risk compensation (google it) and the helmeted head
simply being a bigger target, so to speak.

Overall, despite the intense promotion, radical fearmongering, and
existence of laws, helmets have not been shown to increase bicycling
safety in any significant way. The New York Times had a major article
on this a few years ago. See
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b63eec01188.htm

The helmet skeptic viewpoint gets little publicity - probably because
there's little money to be made by _not_ selling helmets. But studies
and data showing negligible benefit keep popping up. Also common are
papers that blatantly miscalculate or misinterpret their results,
trying to find benefit. Visit www.cyclehelmets.org for lots of data
and sources.

Another excellent source is
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Cycle_Helmets?OpenDocument
(or http://tinyurl.com/oqala) and its sub-pages, esp. the "maxi-FAQ".

There's no shortage of numbers-out-of-context, helmet promotion sites.
I'll let you find those on your own. You can decide which point of
view is stronger.

Incidentally, there was a time I was convinced that bike helmets were
such a good idea that I actually helped promote them. But once I
started reading the research and discussions on the research, I became
skeptical. The more I learned, the less I believed in the utility of
bike helmets, until I turned completely around. I now believe they're
mostly a scam. And that's been the general trend among people who have
actually studied this issue in depth.

- Frank Krygowski

Claire Petersky said:

Further, we've all read the arguments about 50 trillion times, that is, if
we haven't killfiled all those stupid helmet threads after reading them the
first 7 million times we started reading the bicycle newsgroups. They often
disintegrate into insults and ad hominem attacks. They also unfortunately
take over other threads -- see the "better than bells" thread just recently
started by Pat Lamb that has a helmet debate already sucking out its
lifeblood.

Please say NO to helmet threads. Don't start them, and god help us, don't
participate in them once underway.

Did you really mean " PLEASE don't try to learn anything! " ?

I agree that certain helmet thread participants frequently descend into
abuse. But it's wrong to think that there is nothing new contributed.
Studies are still being done and published in reputable journals, new
evidence is being uncovered, serious discussion takes place around the
mindless abuse posts, and people's minds are changing.

Styrofoam hats are an odd choice of topic to anoint with the oil of
dogma.

Besides, won't that oil degrade the styrofoam? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets.
I believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet)
that helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of
injury in the event of an accident. My son believes this is a
misconception that has never been proven, and that it is being
strongly advanced by entities with a vested interest, such as helmet
manufacturers. He does not think that the mere existence of helmet
laws constitutes a reason to always wear one ("There are plenty of
bad laws," he says, and he is right).

He admits that there are many reasons that he does not want to wear a
helmet, that are unrelated to safety (e.g., comfort, convenience),
but believes that for most short-distance bike riding, there is no
objective safety-relatedreason for him to wear a helmet on every
single trip, because (a) the probability of an accident is extremely
low, (b) he "knows how to be careful" and minimize the probability
of an accident, (c) if he were to get into a SERIOUS accident, such
as being RUN OVER by a car, the helmet would not save him anyway,
(d) wearing the helmet does not change the probability of an
accident happening.

In order to get more reliable information, we agreed on two
approaches: (1) we'd look for impartial scientific studies that show
whether consistently wearing a helmet can or cannot significantly
reduce the risk of severe injury in the event of a biking accident
-- so much so as to make it reasonable to have to wear a helmet on
each and every trip; (2) we'd ask in a forum of random bikers and
bike enthiasts whether or not THEY wear helmets on each and every
trip, and why.

So that's what I'm doing. Please weigh in with your thoughts. Also,
if you know of any reliable studies on this matter, please post a
link.

Thanks.

Dear J.,

Here's a good place to start:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/maxi-faq-helmets?OpenDocument

LOL

Q. I'd like to read some objective material about current political issues.

A. Try MoveOn.Org or HowardDeanScreams.com. LOTS of material!

I can only offer my own experience, having never done any research or
even tried to survey other riders. I've ridden bicycles since 1993
(and before that was a runner for 13 years), and twice in that period
have experienced "accidents" that necessitated replacement of the
helmet. About the only times I haven't worn a helmet have been the few
short test rides I take about a quarter mile around my house, but never
on public streets (I live in a closed seniors mobile home community
with private streets).

One accident was going head over the handlebars when my rear wheel
locked up on a piece of the gear bag in back. I broke my collar bone,
and had it not been on a grassy downslope my face and head would have
been red meat. As it was, the helmet took most of the beating to my
head. I was only 3.5 miles from home at the local high school where
I'd planned to run at the track, so no other vehicles or people were
involved in the episode. I bought a new helmet as soon as I was able
to ride again.

The second accident was slipping and going down hard on a San Francisco
street as a result of crossing a railroad track in the street at the
wrong angle. I was only about 1/2 mile from my starting point (near
Candlestick Park) where I'd "camped" with my motorhome. The helmet was
badly damaged and had a very large, 1" crack in the side where it had
struck the street. Imagine if that had been my head!!! I kept that
damaged helmet just to show people what kind of protection it had
offerred. There was no traffic at all (this was an industrial area on
Saturday morning), and fortunately a passing off-duty police officer
helped me get back on my feet so I could at least ride back to where I
was staying. I recall feeling tired when I got back so decided to lay
down for a time, and woke up two hours later. Undoubtedly, I had
sustained at least a mild concussion, but no lasting injuries as far as
I know. That afternoon I bought a new helmet.

I'm sold on helmets and was in the beginning anyway as soon as I
started riding seriously. Intuitively, they help in any case when your
head strikes some solid object, be it the ground, a curb, or whatever.
My former lawfirm defended football helmet "injury" cases, and the
solid evidence was that helmets did in fact offer protection against
head injuries. Ask yourself, Why do football players wear them? The
answer is self-evident. Air Force and other military types wear
helmets when flying and they aren't doing it just because some
manufacturer sold them a bill of goods. Construction workers wear
helmets to protect them from falling and flying objects, and I'll bet a
survey of those types will disclose any number who've been struck by
such things.

Good luck in bicycling, and do wear a helmet!!!

Dave

Quoted message said:

My teenage son and I have a difference of opinion regarding helmets. I
believe, intuitively (I have not actually done the research yet) that
helmets can make a significant difference to the severity of injury in
the event of an accident. My son believes this is a misconception that
has never been proven, and that it is being strongly advanced by
entities with a vested interest, such as helmet manufacturers. He does
not think that the mere existence of helmet laws constitutes a reason
to always wear one ("There are plenty of bad laws," he says, and he is
right).

He admits that there are many reasons that he does not want to wear a
helmet, that are unrelated to safety (e.g., comfort, convenience), but
believes that for most short-distance bike riding, there is no
objective safety-relatedreason for him to wear a helmet on every single
trip, because (a) the probability of an accident is extremely low, (b)
he "knows how to be careful" and minimize the probability of an
accident, (c) if he were to get into a SERIOUS accident, such as being
RUN OVER by a car, the helmet would not save him anyway, (d) wearing
the helmet does not change the probability of an accident happening.

In order to get more reliable information, we agreed on two approaches:
(1) we'd look for impartial scientific studies that show whether
consistently wearing a helmet can or cannot significantly reduce the
risk of severe injury in the event of a biking accident -- so much so
as to make it reasonable to have to wear a helmet on each and every
trip; (2) we'd ask in a forum of random bikers and bike enthiasts
whether or not THEY wear helmets on each and every trip, and why.

So that's what I'm doing. Please weigh in with your thoughts. Also, if
you know of any reliable studies on this matter, please post a link.

Thanks.

DC1999 said:

I can only offer my own experience, having never done any research or
even tried to survey other riders. I've ridden bicycles since 1993
(and before that was a runner for 13 years), and twice in that period
have experienced "accidents" that necessitated replacement of the
helmet. About the only times I haven't worn a helmet have been the
few short test rides I take about a quarter mile around my house, but
never on public streets (I live in a closed seniors mobile home
community with private streets).

One accident was going head over the handlebars when my rear wheel
locked up on a piece of the gear bag in back. I broke my collar bone,
and had it not been on a grassy downslope my face and head would have
been red meat. As it was, the helmet took most of the beating to my
head. I was only 3.5 miles from home at the local high school where
I'd planned to run at the track, so no other vehicles or people were
involved in the episode. I bought a new helmet as soon as I was able
to ride again.

The second accident was slipping and going down hard on a San
Francisco street as a result of crossing a railroad track in the
street at the wrong angle. I was only about 1/2 mile from my
starting point (near Candlestick Park) where I'd "camped" with my
motorhome. The helmet was badly damaged and had a very large, 1"
crack in the side where it had struck the street. Imagine if that
had been my head!!! I kept that damaged helmet just to show people
what kind of protection it had offerred. There was no traffic at all
(this was an industrial area on Saturday morning), and fortunately a
passing off-duty police officer helped me get back on my feet so I
could at least ride back to where I was staying. I recall feeling
tired when I got back so decided to lay down for a time, and woke up
two hours later. Undoubtedly, I had sustained at least a mild
concussion, but no lasting injuries as far as I know. That
afternoon I bought a new helmet.

I'm sold on helmets and was in the beginning anyway as soon as I
started riding seriously. Intuitively, they help in any case when
your head strikes some solid object, be it the ground, a curb, or
whatever. My former lawfirm defended football helmet "injury" cases,
and the solid evidence was that helmets did in fact offer protection
against head injuries. Ask yourself, Why do football players wear
them? The answer is self-evident. Air Force and other military
types wear helmets when flying and they aren't doing it just because
some manufacturer sold them a bill of goods. Construction workers
wear helmets to protect them from falling and flying objects, and
I'll bet a survey of those types will disclose any number who've been
struck by such things.

Good luck in bicycling, and do wear a helmet!!!

Dave

Sorry, Dave. Personal experience and common sense have no standing with
regard to this subject. Persist with your well-reasoned opinion and you
will be flamed and shamed.

(Thankfully, this is RBMisc. Treatment will be /slightly/ gentler than in
RBT.)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

He's correct on point c, as well. One study of about 20 cycling deaths
in Aukland, NZ (i.e. all the fatalities in the time period under study)
found that all of the non-helmeted cyclists died of multiple injuries,
not simple head injuries, so helmets would not have saved them. Only
one cyclist died of simple head injury, and he was helmeted. (Sage M,
Cairns F, Koelmeyer T, Smeeton W. Fatal injuries to bicycle riders in
Auckland. N Z Med J. 1985;98:1073-4.)

Small sample, and sub-selected group. Those who wore helmet and had an
impact may have been protected and therefore won't need to attend the
hospital. You have to look at the study design. One study does not a
bible make.
--

Huh???

Bill Sornson said:

DC1999 said:

I can only offer my own experience, having never done any research or
even tried to survey other riders. I've ridden bicycles since 1993
(and before that was a runner for 13 years), and twice in that period
have experienced "accidents" that necessitated replacement of the
helmet. About the only times I haven't worn a helmet have been the
few short test rides I take about a quarter mile around my house, but
never on public streets (I live in a closed seniors mobile home
community with private streets).

One accident was going head over the handlebars when my rear wheel
locked up on a piece of the gear bag in back. I broke my collar bone,
and had it not been on a grassy downslope my face and head would have
been red meat. As it was, the helmet took most of the beating to my
head. I was only 3.5 miles from home at the local high school where
I'd planned to run at the track, so no other vehicles or people were
involved in the episode. I bought a new helmet as soon as I was able
to ride again.

The second accident was slipping and going down hard on a San
Francisco street as a result of crossing a railroad track in the
street at the wrong angle. I was only about 1/2 mile from my
starting point (near Candlestick Park) where I'd "camped" with my
motorhome. The helmet was badly damaged and had a very large, 1"
crack in the side where it had struck the street. Imagine if that
had been my head!!! I kept that damaged helmet just to show people
what kind of protection it had offerred. There was no traffic at all
(this was an industrial area on Saturday morning), and fortunately a
passing off-duty police officer helped me get back on my feet so I
could at least ride back to where I was staying. I recall feeling
tired when I got back so decided to lay down for a time, and woke up
two hours later. Undoubtedly, I had sustained at least a mild
concussion, but no lasting injuries as far as I know. That
afternoon I bought a new helmet.

I'm sold on helmets and was in the beginning anyway as soon as I
started riding seriously. Intuitively, they help in any case when
your head strikes some solid object, be it the ground, a curb, or
whatever. My former lawfirm defended football helmet "injury" cases,
and the solid evidence was that helmets did in fact offer protection
against head injuries. Ask yourself, Why do football players wear
them? The answer is self-evident. Air Force and other military
types wear helmets when flying and they aren't doing it just because
some manufacturer sold them a bill of goods. Construction workers
wear helmets to protect them from falling and flying objects, and
I'll bet a survey of those types will disclose any number who've been
struck by such things.

Good luck in bicycling, and do wear a helmet!!!

Dave

Sorry, Dave. Personal experience and common sense have no standing with
regard to this subject. Persist with your well-reasoned opinion and you
will be flamed and shamed.

(Thankfully, this is RBMisc. Treatment will be /slightly/ gentler than in
RBT.)