In a message of 10-08-1900, VERN FAULKNER wrote re: MCDONALDS KILLS MORE THAN
JT> statistic from a neurosurgeon group that over 40
JT> *BILLION*  dollars was spent treating and/or
JT> rehabilitating head injuries in  the USA!  To me, that
VF> Point is, of that 40 bill, how much is
VF> *directly* related to persons not wearing helmets while
VF> cycling. This means: no neck injuries, since helmets don't
VF> protect the base of the skull or the C1 vertabra; no dental
VF> injuries, no nose injuries, no eye injuries, no jaw injuries -
VF> no facial injuries AT ALL, despite this range being the most
VF> common in cycling accidents, because helmets don't protect 'em
VF> either.
Point is, even if only 1% of those injuries could have been prevented by 
bicycle helmet use, that still represents a savings of $400,000,000.  Not 
including, of course, non-quantifiable emotional costs and other factors.  
This is still a sum of money that even Bill Gates would notice.  I guess 
we're supposed to shut up and smile while you pilfer that $400,000,000 to 
protect your inalienable right to act irresponsibly on the publicly-funded  
roadways.
I think part of the problem is that you seem to think bicycle helmets are 
intended as a panacea to end all head injuries.  They are not.  Bicycle 
helmets are simply one of the few relatively inexpensive yet effective means 
available to reduce the severity of head injury.  Nothing more.  Not all 
activities or all situations have an inexpensive and effective safety measure 
like this available.  Bicycling does.  Let's use it.
* KWQ/2 1.2i * Internet: John.Thompson@ibm.net
--- Silver Xpress Mail System 5.4P1a
---------------