Indeedy, but more % of riders wearing helmets -> more implication that cycling is dangerous -> less cyclists -> more danger for those that remain. 8-)
It's a tricky business.
You're not wrong there!
But my instinct (not, of course, an objectively quantifiable thing...) is that if people want something to mitigate against minor but potentially painful injuries then they shouldn't be discriminated against unless it can be clearly shown to be a problem for other road users. Showing something clearly before ruling it in or out should work both ways, or we'll just end up in the realms of reasoning Because It's Common Sense ourselves, which won't do anyone any favours.
Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
For the population of cyclists as a whole, perhaps not.
Err - if padding gets riders out on bikes and increases cycle useage, is that not a good thing? AIUI more cyclists lead to safer conditions. I could even be persuaded that helmets are a good thing if they increased cycle use but they do teh opposite so I'm pretty much anti them.
