QUOTE=jwc
>But, look how many people feel the need for a helmet to protect them from cars...and the helmets are
>not designed to do so.

That's contrary to my experience. Out of the time i've been riding in boston, i've had two car-bike runins. Both were relatively low speed, the kind of thing helmets were tested for, and both involved me hitting my head. 2 helmets destroyed, no head injuries. Both were basically unavoidable on my part.

I would not commute in boston without a helmet.
This isn't the end of safety equipment, since I would rather not interact with cars at all. For example, those who've ridden with me will attest that even my lightweight summer lightset will cause epileptic fits in small children & i'm a huge advocate of all riders having at least basic front and rear lights at night.

> But, if the feds or states believe that helmets are that important in saving lives, then they need to
> make them free (or include them in the cost of a bike) before they make them mandatory for all ages.
What we're trying to do here is convince people on the individual level to wear a helmet, particularly those who engage in riskier riding. Leave the feds out of it.

>As to invincibility..that is something that doctors and groups investigating why head injuries increased >with helmet use are theorizing. It isn't an original idea on my part.
Hypothesizing. There's no theory until there's data to support the hypothesis, and the data part seems to be lacking here.