Originally Posted by
closetbiker
If the helmet wearing group has a much higher rate of fatality than the non-helmet wearing group, doesn't that mean those wearing helmets were running the greater risk?
Not necessarily, because it is more the conditions of the incident that caused the death that is the more reliable indicator, but people who want to believe in the helmet credit survival to the helmet, even if the helmet had nothing to do with the survival.
Proponents of helmets also like to point to simple things like, more people die without helmets, to convince others. A key element in conveying this belief is to restrict information like wearing rates that show the information to be not as it is. In other words, they use poor arguments, wrapped in deception, just like some BF members do on this thread to justify their mocking of those who choose to go without a lid.
I agree that helmets are not really relevant when fatal incidents occur. And if you are investigating the behavioural effects helmets may or may not have, you have to look at all injuries and not restrict to fatalities.
If the general helmet wearing rate was say 99% or 1%, then you could draw some conclusions. But in this case it's likely too close to be significant. For instance most fatalities were male, and the wearing rate is lower for males too.