Originally Posted by
chasm54
So were it to be clear that the benefit of wearing helmets was insignificant, they'd still be worth it? And of course if you've sustained a head injury, the probability of you having sustained a head injury is 1. But statistics are highly relevant to assessing the probability that such an event might transpire in the future.
You miss my point. You are talking about large groups of individuals around which the statistics are based. To the individual for which the helmet served its intended/stated purpose well, those statistics don't mean anything. It would be foolish to think that helmets never help or make a difference between moderate to major head injury. And it likely happens just enough that there are folks who will always want to wear a helmet.
I don't think you really read what I said. I suggested there were scenarios - young children, downhilling MTBs - where helmets make sense to me. But for the most part adult cyclists don't fall into these categories, and they don't fall into them at all when just riding along. And of course the range of possibilities from which your decision can be made includes absolutely every possible contingency, including your being struck by a meteorite. I'm guessing you think that statistics are relevant when assessing the chances of that one, no?
I did read what you said and disagree. I would suggest that there are scenarios where adults are at much more risk than they might imagine. I'm suggesting the statistics are irrelevant when it comes to a personal choice. You can't force people into a position because statistics paint a particular picture. As I originally said, I'm interested in a range of possibilities when making decisions. I don't want my choices limited by statistics. I'll give you and example. My cousin was a world class musician. He was always trying to protect his hands. He would wear gloves at times that put him in the position of a social outcast. He would avoid many activities because of the possible damage that could be done to his hands. One day, he wasn't wearing gloves, picked up some poison ivy from a neighbor's dog on his hands. He got an infection from scratching the poison ivy and couldn't play for well over six months. You will never convince him that it wasn't a mistake to not be wearing his gloves. The odds of what happened were probably very small. Yet, to him those odds are meaningless.
No, the odds are not another matter entirely. Odds are what determine where something lies on the spectrum from dangerous to safe. And the statement is no more accurate than "being a pedestrian is dangerous and if you don't wear a helmet you might die." Both are only true if you define dangerous so widely as to be misleading. And of course one can equally say, for example, "cycling is quite safe and if you don't wear a helmet you're unlikely to come to any harm", which is fairer reflection of the odds.
Life is dangerous. I had a next door neighbor crushed by a bus because she slipped standing on a curb. I suspect there are probably statistics showing that it is much safer to wait on the curb than on the roadway when attempting to cross a street. Yet in this case even standing on the curb was not safe enough for a woman using a cane with balance problems. I don't especially need an odds maker telling me how dangerous something is. Each individual is unique. I rode a motorcycle for several decades. I sold one of them to my older brother. He had it just one afternoon before he dumped it. Of course it was some time later that we discovered he suffered from petit mal seizures and it would never be safe for him to drive a motorcycle. My point is that each person's situation is unique and often unknown to others. If folks want to wear a helmet when walking down the street, I OK with that. I have no reason not to be.
Should it? I don't think so. The experience of being in a car and on a bike is completely different, and so is most people's attitude to driving as opposed to cycling. My point was about the constant reinforcement in the public mind of the "cycling is dangerous" message. I don't know about where you live, but I frequently talk to people here who are intimidated out of cycling on the roads. They are usually incredulous when the actual statistics are presented and say things like "ah, but a thousand-to-one chance could still happen". They're right, it could. But they then proceed to behave in ways that are much more dangerous, unhelmeted and without a second thought.
I would not presume to know what most people's attitudes are related to driving and cycling. Both activities are very dangerous. That is, the consequences of poor judgment or performance can be life ending. I have friends who live in cities that refuse to drive, because they believe it is too dangerous. I have others who refuse to take public transportation and drive instead. To them public transportation is too dangerous. I think it dysfunctional to suggest that one is more correct or incorrect than another. It goes back to the uniqueness of each individual, what skills, attitudes, physical makeup, illnesses, etc. each has can be a very large determining factor in their decisions.