Originally Posted by
DArthurBrown
You're absolutely right. Most patients in the neuro unit never touched a bike to get into a neuro unit. I really hope you're not so stupid to think that says anything about the protection a helmet provides. Otherwise you would believe this is logical: 'Cocaine is bad for you. But most people in the ER never touched Cocaine, so it can't be that bad." Stick to the argument--oh wait--you can't, because you have no argument. You're just making excuses for not wearing a helmet because you don't want to be bothered to wear a helmet.
Yeah, I do have an argument, it's just that you can't see it or you don't want to face it.
In more plain terms, the argument is, cyclists receive no more head injury than the general public. Sure, they do receive their fair share of head injuries as does everyone else, so why would a priority be place on having people on bikes wear helmets when they can suffer the same injury when they are off the bike? If head injury is a concern, why aren't people wearing helmets 24/7?
If you stand against this argument, fair enough, but it would help this position to provide some type of reasonable evidence that cyclists receive head injuries at a greater rate than the general population. It's not enough to say something has happened, you have to show the likelyhood of something happening.