Originally Posted by
mconlonx
This sequence is as predictable as Helmet Threads are long...
Originally Posted by
rydabent
Let me restate the fact that many people including me have first hand knowledge how a helmet prevented injury. OTOH the anti helmet types are operating on flawed studies, reports, hope, and random probabilitys. They operate on the idea that the probability of having a crash is remote. But OTOH due to probability they may crash on their next ride.
...as is the regular logic-challenged posts of rydabent.
I guess all the anecdotes of those who have ridden for years and not crashed, those who have crashed and not hit their heads, and those who have crashed and still sustained head injury even while wearing a helmet don't count? Because you are as quick to dismiss such claims as reasons for not wearing a helmet as you claim those who don't wear helmets dismiss your anecdotes as reason for wearing a helmet.