On 9/30/2016 12:39 PM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-09-30 09:09, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/30/2016 11:51 AM, Joerg wrote:
On 2016-09-30 02:23, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2016 02:59:30 -0500, Gregory Sutter
wrote:

On 2016-09-30, John B wrote:

Or, perhaps to put in more graphic terms, the older folks are brave
and stalwart individuals while the youngsters are timid and
fainthearted. Which, of course, explains the modern helmet fetish.

Trolling much?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9yL5usLFgY

I am amazed. Are you implying that your bicycle riding is similar to
your you tube example.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV9_i9MEnMg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebd1z8m-AiA

There are hundreds of those "car crash" compilations on YouTube.


Cars have cumple zones, belts, airbags and so on. Bikes don't. You land
on your noggin much easier than in the car.

If an injury can be avoided or reduced to a less consequential one with
reasonable means such as a helmet it is smart to do so.

And yet, America's serious and fatal TBI counts for motoring totally
eclipse those for riding bikes. Obviously, the crumple zones, belts and
airbags are not sufficient.

Car helmets have been seriously proposed.
http://www.copenhagenize.com/search/...or%20motorists

(Race car drivers use them, but ordinary drivers don't; yet some
helmeteers say all bicyclists should wear them because bike racers are
forced to. Go figure!)

Similarly, serious or fatal pedestrian TBI numbers are far, far higher
than those for cyclists, whether in absolute count or on a per-mile
basis. If a pedestrian brain injury can be avoided or reduced to a less
consequential one with a helmet, why isn't it smart to do so? Do _you_
wear a helmet while walking?


--
- Frank Krygowski