Mobile 155

I think the real point is that Old School was simply pointing out his experience while wearing a helmet. The conclusion was based on observed information, IE: the damage to the helmet. It was easy to translate, by the observer that whatever damage was sustained by the helmet would have been transferred to the head were the helmet not worn. If wearing one while riding MTB is considered a "safety measure" then the observer would easily say, the helmet saved me from road rash, skin removal, loss of hair, ear or whatever. No one said everyone should wear a helmet only that they believe in them. And I still say no proof will be enough for anyone that doesn't want to wear a helmet as seen by the resistnce to motorcycle helmets. Some have said they are proven protection but still there are enough non helmet wearing motorcyclists to get the laws removed in many states. This whole debate has not been about who should or shouldn't wear a helmet it is about what a particular person wearing a helmet experienced and observed. No one not there has a position worthy of consideration because they can't speak to the effectiveness of to protective value in that particular case. To many it is a political issue and for them no study, no testing will be enough. To others it is a safety issue and no more testing and no more studies need to be preformed. I used to be an avid Motorcyclist to the point of riding a motorcycle everywhere for 8 years running and off and on for another 8 years. This helmet issue has been going on since my first BSA in 1966. Any study and any testing presented will have to be run past the infamous animal the "yabut" maybe if they hadn't done this or if they tested it a different way. Happened with ABS brakes, seat Belts, Motorcycle helmets and in now in full debate with manditory cornering control in new cars. That is just how we as a society are.