Rich wrote:
rBOB wrote:

It is perfectly
legitimate to ask: Why has society deemed it appropriate / necessary /
mandatory to wear a helmet while cycling but not while walking,
driving, running, descending staircases, etc, etc...)?

Possible answers:
We're moving much slower while walking
We have seatbelts and airbags for driving
We also moving slower runnning then biking
We have banisters to hold onto while descending staircases

The U.S. is a safety consious country when it comes to personal
activities. Right or wrong, helments are the safety item of choice for
any activity involving moving at a speed greater then running (roller
skating, skateboards, skiiing, etc..). It's an easy sell.


Which is curious seeing as cycling helmets are not designed or certified
for speeds higher than running. If your assertion was right then the
manufacturers would surely be designing for and claiming protection for
higher than running speeds but they don't.

In addition to which the risk of head injuries from trips, falls etc
while walking is just the same as the risk of head injuries while
cycling. Since many many more people walk and more often, why are they
not the primary target for helmets?

Cycling is a very safe activity compared to all the other risks people
take in their daily lives but for some reason people want to portray it
as so uniquely dangerous that it requires special protective equipment.
And guess what? The number one reason people give for not cycling is
its dangerous. I wonder where they got that idea from?

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon