View Single Post
Old 08-14-14, 12:35 PM
  #8485  
meanwhile
Senior Member
 
meanwhile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,033
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 350htrr View Post

Quote Originally Posted by meanwhile View Post
Yes, but is that an intelligent suspicion? Well, no. Because helmet companies have a vested interest in making gullible people buy helmets, but there's no comparable interest going the other way; there's no one who makes $50 every time you have more sense than to pay $150 for a foam hat that costs $10 to make and does nothing for safety.

Plus the main anti-helmet studies are simply to robust to fake; they're the MHL whole population studies. Oh, and that DTI study - and the DTI's prior stance had been strongly PRO helmet.
Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander too...
Suspecting both sides in debate of bias because one side has been caught lying and has a motive is not, frankly, either intelligent or sane. It's eactly as idiotic as convicting the victim in an criminal case because the defendant is found guilty. Which is to say extremely.

The people on the helmets are not needed side need "proof" so
I hope English is a foreign language for you.

... those studies saying helmets are not usefull, I suspect, and put in the same category that you put the studies that "prove" that helmets do good and are usefull, it is just a suspicion but... There's vested interest everywhere.
Helmet makers have a vested interest in selling helmet; no one makes a profit by stopping them from being sold. Least of all helmet test engineers (more sales = more models = more tests) and the DTI (a govt body.) If you want people to believe that anti helmet studies are biased then you have to show the bias in the study and/or motive. Rather than ranting incoherently and using nursery rhyme cliches.

Last edited by meanwhile; 08-14-14 at 12:45 PM.
meanwhile is offline