Precisely, CB, but motorcyclists aren't wearing a HANS device either are they? So the very thing that snapped Dale Earnhardt's neck (the weight of a helmet which is something a neck is not deisgned to support) also acts upon a rider when he or she wrecks. So all the instances where a helmet made contact with the pavement are NOT examples of where a helmet saved a person from head injuries. I would say a significant portion of them are from occasions where head contact would have taken place, but the frequency and severity is poorly represented by helmet damage statistics.cb360 wrote: Bull - Dale earnhardt was killed becasue he wasn't wearing the HANS system.
Let's not misunderstand what I'm saying here. I'm not trying to talk anyone out of wearing a helmet, nor am I trying to argue which choice is safer. But I am trying to make it known that riding sans helmet is not as "crazy" or wreckless as it's made out to be, especially around here. Dozens of 4-wheeler accidents, many of them head-first, have demonstrated to me that through reflex alone a person will protect their head at all cost, and will be more likely to sustain abdominal injuries or broken appendages.
Is wearing a helmet safer than not wearing one? Of course! I'll concede that point without hesitiation. However, the question of how much safer is debatable. Riding without one is not a death wish, it's just a little bit more risk added to an already very risky activity (riding bikes in the first place).