On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:52:37 -0600, "Bestest Handsander"
<
[email protected]> wrote:
>My wife and I have an agreement that I may cycle as much as I wish provided
>that I recover fully from any injuries. In other words, no brain damage or
>permanent disablity. In the event that such injuries are sustained, I am
>instructed that I should die.
>
>So, my questions is... in order to live up (har har) to my end of the
>agreement, would I do better to wear a helmet or go hatless?
Dear BH,
Judging by often-cited statistics from several nations on
cycling head injuries versus helmet use, a helmet won't make
any significant difference.
Your best bet would be to move to a country where cycling is
popular. The fatal accident rate (and the helmet-use rate)
in such countries are typically much lower than in the
United States:
See the graph on the right of this page:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
It shows that in 1998, the U.S. twice as many fatal
accidents per mile ridden as the Netherlands, even though
38% of U.S. riders wore helmet, as opposed to 0.1% of the
reckless riders in the Netherlands.
In any case, more husbands are probably murdered every year
by their wives in the U.S. [1] than are killed on bicycles
(about 700-800 husbands, wives, and singles). Consider
wearing a helmet if you criticize her.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
[1] See
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mf.pdf for an
example of how tricky statistics are. This often-cited study
of family murders was culled from only 8,000 killings in the
75 most murderous counties 1988--would that there had been
only 8,000 killings.
And would that the government had made the details plainer!
You'd think that it would be easier for bachelors to find
out before the wedding how bloodthirsty the brides are
likely to be, but this obvious question is obscured by
cultural prejudice and bureaucratese.