In uk.rec.cycling Sorni wrote:
Tony Raven wrote:

I'll just say this: I consider /perceived/ risk of failure, and equip
myself accordingly. For example, I wear a seatbelt every time I drive, even
though the chance that I'll "need" it is miniscule. I've had homeowner's
insurance for 15 years; never submitted a claim. Ridden my road bike over
10K miles; haven't fallen once (yet).

But IF I'm going 45 mph down a steep hill and IF I flat or hit a hole or
sandy patch, I want to have a helmet on my head when it hits the pavement
(hard, glancing, sliding, whatever).

You're quite right, it's a question of perceived risk. The reason I
wouldn't wear a cycle helmet going downhill at 45mph is because my
perception is that if I fell off at that speed and hit my head on the
road I'd be more at risk of the helmet giving me a rotational injury
than it saving me from some other injury. I might wear some other kind
of helmet, but IMHO cycle helmets in those circs are worse than
nothing. Unlike some other kinds of helmet, that problem has not been
considered seriously in their design. I'm not against helmets per se,
I just think the current crop of cycle helmets are a con, a marketing
scam.

--
Chris Malcolm +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]