Originally Posted by
njkayaker
That's pretty-much the bizarre conclusion of the article. The article comes darn close to calling road bicyclists "names".
Why is it "bizarre"?
There are two probabilities to consider:
1. The probability that a helmet will perform some sort of protective function in a particular type of crash
2. The probability of experiencing that particular type of crash.
The article suggests that slower-moving, facilities-riding commuters have lower values for 2 and hence have less need for 1.
Originally Posted by
njkayaker
Maybe. But given the clear bias against "roadies" in the article, it's not clear that it can be trusted as being an accurate portrayal of the data. Since it supports your side, you accept it non-critically.
I don't see where you get the bias against roadies thing from it. It's just pointing out that it's a mistake to lump together riskier activities on a bike with less-risky ones. It's the same problem that bedevils emergency-room admission statistics: you don't know if the person presenting was a food-delivery guy riding on the sidewalk in a rush with a basket loaded with orders, or someone riding a recumbent with a magic hat on their head and a homeopathic car-repelling forcefield.
You should think a bit before you reject information that doesn't automatically confirm your predjudices.