Originally Posted by
kevingamble34
meanwhile, you seem to be addicted to this argument comparing bathroom accidents with cycling accidents. I just don't think it holds water. (groan...)
Just a few factors that you'd have to take into account for those statistics to have any kind of relevance would be: ages of the 2 groups of victims, physical fitness of the two groups, total showers vs. total bike trips. Other useful data might include sexual mishaps in shower vs. on bike -- recumbent and tandem data would be especially useful for this comparison. Also, bathtub use vs. shower use, private vs. group shower numbers, % of cyclists riding on wet and soapy tarmac, % of folks using rubber bath mats, % of electrical mishaps in shower, etc etc. I'm probably missing a few.
Unfortunately, Kevin, you still haven't learned to read. Rydabent's argument was that, even if a helmet would have an insignificant effect on my chances of survival, I should still wear one and encourage other people to do so because a (he admitted) small number of lives a year would be saved if everyone wore Foam Hats. As I proved, this logic is at least 100 times more true for Bathroom Helmets.
However, I'm sure we all appreciate your attempt at humour with the sex/tandem thing.
(Also: if we were going to evaluate bicycle helmets based on their demonstrated chances of reducing mortality expectations for each rider, then NO ONE WOULD WEAR THEM. The effect that they have, if any, is below the power of valid statistical studies to resolve. You really have to stop trying to have your care and eat it.)