Originally Posted by
UberGeek
I'm sure many would have died irrespective of wearing a helmet or not. In fact, I'd hazard about 9% of them would have (The number of deaths of riders even when wearing a helmet).
Or, since people were wearing a helmet, oft times a hospital visit was not even required. I'd hazard there is not a large difference in the numbers of people who wear helmets vs. those who don
I would hazard that there is a large difference between the numbers of people who wear helmets and the numbers who don't. In my town if I see a rider without a helmet in the distance I know right away that I don't know them. I know virtually all the adult cyclists who wear helmets. A 1:9 for/against ratio would be generous. Even though there is a helmet law in Alberta the ratio doesn't improve drastically for minors. If you remove the incorrectly worn and wrong sized helmets the numbers really start to drop IMO.
I am beginning to think that you are being deliberately obtuse or you have no understanding of statistics.
If you take a group of 100 cyclists. 91 without helmets and 9 with. And they all die, you really don't know what benefit the helmet served. For all you know the nine may have been wearing their helmet because they ran out of carry-on space and died when the plane crashed.
In normal road traffic if all 100 were wearing helmets would 91 have lived? Not likely. Too bad trauma isn't as neat as neat and tidy as the numbers.
If you removed the mechanism of injury which is undoubtedly a motor vehicle you'd likely surpass the 91% survival ratio.
How are you tracking hospital visits that weren't made?