On 8/3/2019 11:54 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 11:43:56 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/2/2019 11:25 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:16:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

No. Because you stated that "no helmet equates to zero protection" which means all helmets have some protection.

O.K. I'll rephrase that. if we assume that a total lack of a helmet
equates to zero protection... :-)

Ah, but it doesn't! For years, we had a quite clever poster here (Guy
Chapman) who noted, by analogy, that his wooly cap had saved his life!

I could make the same claim. The only time I hit my head while riding
was when I was a teen. It was a fairly hard hit, and I'm sure a helmet
would have been crushed or cracked, had they existed and I had been
wearing one. So I guess it was the wooly cap that saved me.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Want to have some fun? Take a couple of melons and put a wooly cap on one and a helmet on the other and then drop them from a a respectable height so that the wooly cap hits the pavement first and also the helmet hits the pavement first. I'm willing to be that t he melon with the helmet over it will suffer less damage than the melon with the wooly cap.

It's a very popular demonstration, quite useful at scaring parents and
their little kids away from ever riding bicycles. Too bad they don't do
the same thing for those much bigger sources of brain injuries - riding
in cars and walking.

VBEG We all know you're extremely anti-helmet. LOL

I'm actually for honesty, for truthful presentation of data, and for
individual choice.

If I were anti-helmet, I'd be working to outlaw them. It would be
parallel to the helmeteers efforts to outlaw riding bikes without helmets.

Is there a mandatory helmet law where you live? (I believe so.) Which
side is imposing its will on the other side?


--
- Frank Krygowski