On Oct 28, 9:21 am, Dan O wrote:
On Oct 28, 8:58 am, Frank Krygowski wrote:



On Oct 28, 2:40 am, Dan O wrote:

On Oct 27, 10:29 pm, wrote:

On Sunday, October 28, 2012 12:24:37 AM UTC-4, Dan O wrote:
On Oct 27, 8:08 pm, datakoll wrote:

but fo you, wearing a helmet will not reduce accidents infacto may increase accidents.
?

Hmm... it's possible, but I don't think so. I'm aware of it up there

(use the brim to shield my eyes from headlights and the sun, hear the

rain on it and see it dripping off the brim, other reasons), but never

think of it as protective - just there. I certainly never think of it

as magically or super protective. I absolutely do *not* count it to

prevent head injury; I just know that's its purpose, and believe it

has the potential to do so. I've crashed enough to know that I can't

control the parameters to keep them within the capabilities of the

helmet.

Yet in your post just previous, you said:

"So you know, then, that if you're wearing a (good) helmet you can let
it take some relatively harmless knocks and scrapes that you'd
naturally and instinctively rather not take to the head in the process
of going with the flow as inertia dissipates, without resorting to
unharmonious contortionist tactics.

"(That's one of my favorite responses to "helmets prevent broken legs"
ridicule. It's not so absurd.) "

To me, those two ideas seem completely incompatible. Either you know it's there, or you don't. Either it affects your behavior, or it doesn't.