Originally Posted by
mr_bill
The summary is a bit inelegant - "safety practices" are lights, reflective clothing, and mirrors.
"Except for helmet use, there were no statistical differences between those commuters who experienced a serious traumatic event and those who did not."
....
"Thirteen percent (6) of commuters who did not wear a helmet experienced a serious traumatic event [in the year of the study], compared with 5% (43) of those who did (p 0.023). In an additional analysis comparing commuters who reported a traumatic event with those who reported a serious traumatic event, lack of helmet use was the only statistical difference between the two groups (p 0.013)."
-mr. bill
Of course the so-called Serious Trauma data includes every boo-boo or scratch that any accident "victim" thought worthy of medical attention.Presumably including accidents that produced no injury but the victim sought medical attention to be checked out, just in case (and normally assuming somebody's insurance would pay.)
It should also be pointed out that the so-called Serious Trauma data is not limited to portions of the body putatively "protected" by a helmet. Mr. Bill do you believe helmet wear also reduced the so called serious trauma rate to the entire body of those wearing a helmet?
IMO, only a moron about riskevaluation or a zealot with an agenda would give any credence to any conclusions from a report about accident risk that defines "serious trauma" as any injury that gets medical attention.