Originally Posted by
chipcom
why? It has nothing to do with advocacy or safety unless we drag it into that gutter.
I think we're very much debating saftey and not C and V bikes. I also think the issue has been debated to death and no one's mind is going to be changed. I'll continue wearing a helmet because I was in a crash that I walked away from and might not have if I hadn't been wearing one. Unless that doctor was just a stooge of the helmet lobby.
I've argued with you before...I think highly of you. You're bright, funny and a good writer. I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine. I do however wish you many happy miles of safe riding.
Originally Posted by
RapidRobert
-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!
ok
Responding is counter-productive to what is in the forum's interest.