An experiment to prove the helmet law proponants RIGHT (or wrong)

dkahn400 wrote:
dgk wrote:


I realize, just from osmosis while reading the newsgroups, that the
statistics pushing mandatory helmet laws are less than definitive.
Perhaps it is even just another case of government acting as a shill
for corporate sales. That is pretty much how I view the US
government anyway. But are you making the point that I am LESS SAFE
by wearing a helmet?


Don't panic! Cycling is a safe form of transport with or without a
helmet. To suggest that you are less safe with a helmet than without
one is contentious, but there are plausible mechanisms by which it may
be so. I happen to think you are slightly less safe (but still
acceptably safe) with a helmet than without one for normal riding in
traffic. But that's a personal view based on the balance of the
evidence I'm aware of, and I could be wrong.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ is a good place to get the
helmet-skeptic viewpoint.


Helmets do work against magpie strikes. Of course a magpie strike to
the back of the head aint that likely to be lethal Its the only
area tho where the effectiveness of a helmet seems clear to me.. (Waits
for howls of rebuttal)

Regards

Dave