Originally Posted by
trustnoone
...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...
and this is where the helmet compulsionist are being willfully ignorant. This example is already available in New Zealand, an entire country that has enforced helmet use to over 90%. The results from the NZ experience should serve as an example, but no, it's not the example they like, so they look the other way.
The supporters of our law place more faith in a few specially selected small case controlled studies (the Cochraine Review) than the results of what has happened to the people of their own province.