Originally Posted by
closetbiker
but you're not arguing riding a bike isn't good for health are you?
For most people in the US/CA, it likely has zero impact on their health.
Originally Posted by
closetbiker
but don't people in China go along at a poky speed for short distances?
Yes, but they do a
lot of it
because they don't have cars!
Originally Posted by
closetbiker
(and what about the Danish study? Don't they ride in much the same way?)
Again, they do a
lot of it. Arguments about helmets or not, the people in the US/CA are not going to start riding like the Danes anytime soon.
The problem with the weak "health benefit" argument against helmets is that the helmet issue in the US and CA is a tiny (and likely irrelevant) component of a much more complicated thing.
Originally Posted by
closetbiker
and herein lies one of the reasons I don't worry so much about linking studies as I have in the past. it doesn't seem to matter what the qualty of the study is, if someone doesn't like what's said in it, the study is discounted.
That's a common problem, isn't it? People like studies that support their position regardless of the quality of the study. You keep pointing that out to the "pro helmet" people.
Yet, that problem is universal! (And, there's also the problem of people drawing unreasonable conclusions from studies!)
The "health benefit" studies are very suspect. They aren't any better than the "junk" pro-helmet research you keep complaining about.
Originally Posted by
closetbiker
I think I'm sticking with the basic idea that to ride a bike is to improve ones health. I don't think that's too outrageous an assumption.
Well, that you admit that it's an assumption is some sort of progress! Of course, that means you can't really complain about other people making assumptions.
Originally Posted by
closetbiker
(and I know some people who spend more on their shoes than they do on their bikes)
So what? They are weird and meaningless exceptions.