Originally Posted by
Six jours
Both those posts are the result of fallacious thinking.
Err. No.
Originally Posted by
Six jours
1) The fact that helmets can contribute to injury does not mean they cannot prevent injury.
This is true but useless. Yet people (like meanwhile) keep saying it. Everybody knows that nothing is perfect. Why do you and others keep suggest people are arguing that they are perfect?
The issue is whether they help more than they hurt.
Originally Posted by
Six jours
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.
This is meaningless too. There are certainly types of collisions that a helmet can't do anything to mitigate. So what? Nothing is perfect. The fact that some people make the argument that helmets work better than they do in reality doesn't mean that helmets aren't useful (see your point 1).
Who is claiming that helmets are "adequate protect" against extreme collisions?
Of course, there not all collisions are from "car traveling at high speed". Talk about a strawman! While somebody might have said it somewhere, no one
here has.
The existance of helmets heavier than bicycle helmets suggest (one or more and not limited to):
* That collisions they are expecting to be useful for are different.
* That they are practical where they are being used and impractical where they are not.
The existance of heavier helmets
doesn't suggest that bicycle helmets don't have value.
All basic, basic stuff that you completely don't get.