Nuxx:4e2fd097$0$2939$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk

Path: num2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!num1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!number.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!feeder.news-service.com!tudelft.nl!txtfeed1.tudelft.nl!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!reader02.news.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <4e2fd097$0$2939$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk> From: Nuxx Bar  Newsgroups: uk.rec.cycling Subject: Re: Saved by her helmet Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:47:19 +0100 References:  <993l3uFe90U1@mid.individual.net>  <998c6oFj5bU1@mid.individual.net>   Lines: 34 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To:  Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: Zen Internet NNTP-Posting-Host: 4b3db284.news.zen.co.uk X-Trace: DXC=2Pbdi5G[;aiMPDkm[1E13dYjZGX^207Pk`XSaIFYk2D^>]Qb X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk Bytes: 2800 Xref: perfectly-safe.chapmancentral.co.uk uk.rec.cycling:848107

On 26/07/2011 23:27, Phil W Lee wrote: > "Just zis Guy, you know?"  considered Tue, > 26 Jul 2011 19:00:01 +0100 the perfect time to write: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 26/07/2011 18:35, Zapp Brannigan wrote: >>> But that's a quite different point. I agree that cycling is not an >>> especially dangerous activity, but it does have foreseeable risks >>> associated with collisions and accidents. A helmet offers *some* >>> mitigation of harm if the worst should happen. >> >> It's quite plausible that helmets might mitigate minor injuries. Society >> tends not to record such things in any detail so we don't really know a >> lot about it, it being accounted a matter of no real concern. >> >> The same could be said for pedestrian helmets, of course, since the head >> injury proportion for pedestrians is about the same. >> >> However, evidence that wearing a lid results in a net reduction in >> average risk of serious harm is rather hard to come by. Lots of theories >> are floated for this, the most common being risk compensation. > > It's also the case that there has never, anywhere, been a case where > it is possible to say without any doubt at all that a helmet has been > proven to have saved a life, or that the absence of one has cost a > life. > There are, however, at least 14 cases of a cycle helmet provably > causing a death.

Well, you may be wrong, but at least you follow through and refuse to wear a helmet yourself (AFAIK). You may like to ask yourself why Chapman doesn't.