Originally Posted by
John C. Ratliff
It is interesting to me that all you nay-sayers on helmets can offer is a personal attack. No, I won't re-analyze the risk assessment, as that is how a risk for a situation is done by safety professionals. We look at worst case potential injuries, not the scenario whereby someone comes unscathed by a situation where injury should occur; these are called "near miss" situations, and safety professionals treat these as if they had produced an injury, so as to prevent it the next during the next occurrence.
I may or may not even read the rest of the post since you begin with more double helpings of prime baloney.
No reputable safety professional builds a risk analysis on the worst case potential injuries, if they did, the hazard of paper cut injuries would be evaluated based on an infection-gangrene-amputation scenario and clerks would be required to wear steel mesh gloves as a "control" to handle every piece of paper. Your immediate dodge of crying personal insult leaves me to believe there is little to be gained in reading your stuff.
I did read the rest before posting and there is nothing but more smoke and mirror flimflam dressed up in Safety Professional Speak, none of which supports your so-called Safety professional-like risk analysis of bicycling injuries and the value of bicycle helmets to mitigate risk.
Your wacky bit about other posters having less credence than you because they do not choose to use their given name as a moniker on BF like you just demonstrates how desperate for attention you must be to grab at such a rhetorical straw.
I consider you and rydabent as two sides of the same coin, committed to a belief in the power of helmets to protect cyclists from worst case scenarios and every lesser collision as well, come hell or high water, regardless of any facts or evidence.