"j-p.s" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Those who scorn anecdotal evidence do so at their peril, because none of us is Everycyclist, and
> it is not clear from the more apparently scientific studies how helmet use affects each particular
> demographic of cyclist.
I disagree. Every crash is so different form every other crash that anecdotal evidence is
necessarily not to be trusted. I know of two seventy-year-olds both of whom crashed in superficially
similar circumstances, header over the bars following a pothole strike. The one wearing a helmet
died (some days later, apparently of SDH), the one not wearing a helmet survived with some cuts and
a nasty headache. But.... they were only superficially similar. Nobody measured the exact speed, for
example. The weakness of anecdotal evidence - apart from the fact that most of it is "helmet saved
my life" stories which attribute survival solely to the plastic hat, and ignore the rather tough
skull underneath - is that there is never quite enough information to decide wheher any two
anecdotes are comparable. And nobody ever goes back and tries the crash again.
For the rest, we agree that it is rightly a matter of personal choice. My view is that one should
first take care of the really important things like maintenance, roadcraft, conspicuity, and then
put helmets in their right context as somethign which may prevent an uncomfortable and inconvenient
injury. If you want to prevent road rash on your head if you should happen to come off, I for one
would call that a smart move.
--
Guy
===
WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk