Both interesting articles and food for thought. I'm not sure what to conclude. I can certainly sympathize (and would probably do the same thing as) the woman in the GGW article.
Also, I don't see why the GGW article need be an alternative to the WaPo article, though I do see its point. As to the WaPo article, it still leaves me asking: how much do helmets reduce the risk of serious injury or death from cycling? If helmets reduce serious injury or death from head and neck injuries by 22 % or by 99%, what does this mean to the overall risk of death or serious injury while cycling? And in what environments and conditions? I haven't used a helmet for 20 years, but I am (I hope) open to evidence that would convince me to change my mind (and I have one hanging in the garage, just in case (and for organized group rides). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CALuTfgvORHXF76EOK2t1mT%3DR4fSCn3okJHum4jvJRX2hJiee3Q%40mail.gmail.com.
