Originally Posted by
Six jours
Both those posts are the result of fallacious thinking.
1) The fact that helmets can contribute to injury does not mean they cannot prevent injury.
2) If a bicycle helmet is adequate protection against thing like getting hit by a car traveling at high speed (which is the argument being addressed in the post you quoted) then there doesn't seem to be any need for larger, heavier helmets. Practicality never entered the discussion so is essentially a strawman.
1; That's true, in a small % of head injuries, but some people use that info to promote not wearing a helmet overall... That is why I'm still here.
2; Yes it is a strawman, but that's also used to say, well a helmet doesn't protect you if a car hits you so there's no reason to wear a helmet... That's why I'm still here.
Both of those scenarios (probably a few more) where the helmet can fail to protect, are used to promote not needing a helmet, and while there is some truth in there, the overwhelming numbers where crashes result in head hitting the ground and the helmet actually helps is dismissed because of a small % of failures where the helmet failed... That's fallacious thinking to me, and I hope many others...
