Originally Posted by
joejack951
>>
They claim that ONE study that shows no difference in the rates of helmet use in cyclists admitted to a hospital means helmets are not effective in preventing injury, while baldly ignoring the fact that the helmeted cyclists had a much lower rate of hospital admission.
<<
Of course, in the mind of someone as "reasonable" as you, there is no other explanation for that lower rate of hospital admission than the almighty helmet.
..And Sneezy ignores that in his 88% study, helmet wearers were SEVEN TIMES as likely to go to hospital.
Which makes him a hypocrite. Of course it's also an example of un-smartness on his part - because the populations studied weren't alike. Volunteer helmet wearers are cautious people normally riding on the road and either serious commuters or hobbyists, while injuries are disproportionately concentrated among a very few risk takers, and side walk riders. It's like comparing two groups of people, one wearing a shoe fashionable in gang ridden inner cities, and the other a shoe exclusively worn by preppies. An *idiot* would might conclude that wearing one shoe or another made death by shooting more or less likely. But everyone else would know he was an idiot.