At 11:51 AM 03/04/2009 -0600, ed wrote:
>Likewise there should be no excuse for a pedestrian to preambulate about
>unprotected by a helmet. The pedestrian is exposed to the danger of being
>struck by a missdirected car or truck, or even an errant cyclist, or exposed
>to injury from falls, caused by tripping or slipping. Should not everyone
>in the nanny state have equal responsibility to ensure that he or she does
>not overburden the nanny state with medical costs?
That reminds me of a TV commercial we see in Canada. I can't remember what the product being sold is, but the commercial shows this young couple on roller blades, all decked out in colourful lycra, knee pads, elbow pads and bike helmets, pushing their toddler in a stroller. One would think they're wearing the protective gear because of the likelyhood they'll trip and fall, but what happens to the unprotected baby in the runaway stroller? Clearly, while our nanny culture today demands all this protective gear, the reason people actually wear it is to make a fashion statement.
So, to bring this back on-topic, I suppose if you ride a classic/vintage bike, you might want to wear just a cycling cap or go bare-headed, or wear a leather hairnet if you're pretending to be racing, but today's modern helmets are extremely light, not geeky-looking, and actually channel cooling air to your scalp, which is more than can be said for the traditional cycling cap. I even use a modern cadence computer on my CV bike, but I never did succumb to clipless pedals.
John Betmanis
Woodstock, Ontario
Canada