> PS I still see what may be the legacy of pro riders riding helmetless.
> Pro riders I encountered in Palos Verdes readying for the Tour of
> California - were riding this way - I wonder if there is an element of
> "I'm experienced, and less apt to fall than the average less
> experienced rider", or a machismo factor "my life is not as important
> as my team".?
Might be they do that because they have first hand experience of the difference of a mass sprint in a huge adrenaline filled pack after a 280km hunt vs. the relative non-danger of a solo training ride? Lets face it, if you draw a scale from 1 to 100 where 1 means "unprotected" and 100 means "nothing can harm me", wearing a hairnet might push you from 1 to 2, a modern hardshell raises you to a 3 or 4, it isn't a foolproof thing at all nor a life insurance. Riding carefully is the best protection you have, on the other hand :) Calling cycling a dangerous sport that only responsibly can be performed when using protectors all over is not exactly historically correct (the number of casualties in racing before invention of helmets about equals those of other hi-risk sports like dart or pool), neither does it to the sport any good. Bike riding when done responsibly, enhances your health, your joy and your life expectation, with or without helmet :)
Martin Appel, now keeping his trap shut as this goes dangerously near OT in Munich, Germany
--- *looking for "Automoto" fork crown medals! please send mail!
*visit the search engine for classic racing bike related stuff:
http://www.google.com/