X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.0-r431796 Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE Return-Path: Received: from newman.eecs.umich.edu (newman.eecs.umich.edu [141.213.4.11]) by boston.eecs.umich.edu (8.12.10/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k8MIconw024568 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:38:51 -0400 Received: from workinggirl.mr.itd.umich.edu (workinggirl.mr.itd.umich.edu [141.211.93.143]) by newman.eecs.umich.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8MIck5Q006710; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:38:46 -0400 Received: FROM ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.174]) BY workinggirl.mr.itd.umich.edu ID 45142D94.88639.7978 ; 22 Sep 2006 14:38:12 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 36so305845uga for ; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:38:12 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=usLfdXfnY3RmSGvPWVKhYu7Zxn3iFErB1m4wfWfzSR9bLVuJ1WFQPh+1MRj/83qOEOsqhrFiQB64zhUWkArbDZn5hbbJn1jeH3qIeeBkPGcObsfY5RDMAPjP6gqh83ISs6nrUsTXv/DAzL1IeE3Vpgmurqai2/IHNInC4eV8bcQ= Received: by 10.67.100.17 with SMTP id c17mr835063ugm; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:38:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.66.222.5 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Sep 2006 11:38:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5ed707a10609221138r4495c3d1ydbf13de0b4a3a13b Æ mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.0-r431796 (2006-08-16) on newman.eecs.umich.edu X-Virus-Scan: : UVSCAN at UoM/EECS Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 14:38:11 -0400 To: inlinenc , improvetheworld Æ umich.edu From: "bethany soule" Subject: helmet usage Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 742 I wanted to send out a counter argument to this article claiming that cycling (and we can probably infer skating too, though I guess drivers are often so surprised to see you on the road, they're likely to give you a pretty wide berth) with a helmet is actually "more dangerous": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/5334208.stm Check out this report from the NYC DOT on bicycle accidents in the city over the past 10 years. Of 225 fatalities, 97% of the riders were not wearing helmets, and 74% involved a head injury. Drivers may be more reckless around you if you're wearing a helmet (because you look more competent or something) -- but you're still at a much higher risk of serious injury and death without the helmet. www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/episrv/episrv-bike-report.pdf (One could also conclude from the nycdot's data that nyc is actually a pretty safe place to bike comparatively. The accident rate per million is the same as 'elsewhere' in the country, while there are twice as many cyclists per million out there. (#2 under the 'key findings' section)) Bethany