Originally Posted by
meanwhile
The only problem with this chart is that it was prepared either by or for an idiot...
Wow, posting the results of peer-reviewed, published scientific research makes ME an idiot?
You are a desperate fool.
1. It is meaningless as "head injury" defined.
What? Complete your thoughts, please.
2. There is no guarantee that the studies used the same definition. This allows the results to be anything the author likes according to the studies that he selects.
Straw man. If you want to refute the results, THEN REFUTE THEM.
Don't throw up hypotheticals then simply walk away.
One might get the impression you can't hold your own when you're trying to support your position that bike helmets do not help prevent head injury.
We wouldn't want you to advertise any inability along those lines, would we?
3. A broad definition of injury treats all injuries as the same. If a helmet offers you a 50% chance of reducing minor injury at the cost of a 50% chance of making a severe injury worse, would you wear it? Such a helmet would look great in these charts - because trivial injuries are much common. But do 10 prevented minor concussions really outweigh 1 death? And this isn't just an academic point: there is a lot of evidence that helmets make rotational damage, the bigger killer of cyclists, worse.
Once again, you're throwing up hypothetical arguments and then for some reason think you've made a point.
You HAVEN'T.
I have posted links to close to twenty scientific peer-reviewed studies from sites as varied as the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, Washington University, and who knows where else.
You do nothing but keep throwing up hypotheticals and calling me names.
Is that ALL you have?
You're like a Thalidomide baby with a hand grenade.