Flinders wrote:1) I have no difficulty carrying mine about, but if I did, that would not to my mind be a good reason for not using one. My riding helmet is far heavier and bulkier, but I'd never get on a horse without it.
2) The wind noise thing can be remedied with fur baffles, but I've never found it a problem myself.
3) Manufacturers tend always to oppose improvements that cost money. That's a given. We don't let that stop us asking for them, or campaigning for them, with other products. What annoys me is some cyclists - only some- of those who don't wear one not wanting improvements for those of us who do.
4)I use the snell standard ones, as that's the best standard I have found, and tests production models. Have you evidence that the snell standard is no good? If so, I would definitely like to hear it.
1) Seriously, you're claiming it's as easy to carry a helmet as to carry nothing?
And I don't want cycling to become like horse-riding, where people don't do it partly because of the special clothes and kit.
2) So we need another expensive treatment to address a problem caused by the first no-benefit treatment
- and the other two reasons "why not" go unchallenged. I don't really want poo-poohing responses, though: I was just responding to the "why not" question by suggesting some of the other many reasons why the majority don't wear helmets and those reasons are valid even if any particular helmet-wearer has decided they're insufficient to stop them personally.
3) Where are these cyclists arguing against helmet improvements? I suggest they're insignificant compared to the manufacturers lobbying against them.
4) The Snell standards are better than the EuroNorm, CPSC and A/NZ ones and seem to be the best available, but dropping disembodied heads onto idealised stone and kerb anvils is a long way short of realistic crash test dummy trials... but the problem remains: how do you know that any one particular example of a helmet would pass the test before it's too late?