Originally Posted by
KonAaron Snake
+1. I also don't think one of those C and V leather hairnets is any better than no helmet. If you don't want to wear a helmet, on your head shall it be. Personally I think there should be a waiver that states if you're in an accident, and need medical attention that a helmet would have prevented, you will receive no public funds at all for your medical care, in any circumstance. You should also be required to be an organ donor.
-10. This is the kind of post that creates the contention around this topic. By this logic, all "public funds" should also be denied to those who unnecessarily risk their health and lives by eating too much. And no mention of the nanoscopic amount of "public funds" (if any at all) being spent on head injuries of bicyclists who weren't wearing helmets.
In the '70s, essentially nobody wore helmets except racers (and by today's standard, they were unprotected as well). Where are all the news stories of all the brain damaged cyclists of that decade? Should be easy to find. Should be easy to show the cost to society of all those being kept alive in hospitals because their heads weren't protected when they fell off their bikes. Where's the data? It doesn't exist because it was as insignificant then as it would be today.
Fact is that the only authentic C&V helmet is a leather hairnet or no helmet at all. Both work just as good now as the bikes from the same period!