Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

What statistical study ever recorded, measured or provides a clue on the type of equipment worn/not worn when cyclists were NOT injured "seriously" enough in bicycle accidents/falls/crashes to require a hospital visit? [emphasis mine]

Originally Posted by mr_bill

Is there *any* study that I-L-T-B would ever be satisfied with? (Rhetorical question.)

-mr. bill

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Yes a competent one, but not any slapdash patch job of partial snippets of cherry picked factoids that is accepted as relevant only by biased zealots/ideologues, and as credible only by statistically challenged morons.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Are YOU satisfied with any statistical study that ever recorded, measured or provides a clue on the type of equipment worn/not worn when cyclists were NOT injured "seriously" enough in bicycle accidents/falls/crashes to require a hospital visit? [emphasis mine] If so, which study or survey was that? Or are you like one of those old wise men who doesn't need no stinkin' facts to be thoroughly satisfied that his biased opinion is all the stinkin' facts anybody needs to know.

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

Are YOU aware of any statistical study that ever recorded, measured or provides a clue on the type of equipment worn/not worn when cyclists were NOT injured "seriously" enough in bicycle accidents/falls/crashes to require a hospital visit? [emphasis mine]

I do not need to provide reference to "studies" or "specifics" that demonstrate the non-existence of surveys or studies on a subject; try Logic 101. If statistics, data, or credible studies exist about the type of equipment worn by people uninjured in bicycling accidents I am sure lots of the posters here would like to look and see what an intelligent analysis of the data might indicate.

Originally Posted by mr_bill

....

"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

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

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.

Originally Posted by mr_bill

And unsurprisingly we are back to this. The only studies that some will accept are studies that can not exist.

-mr. bill

Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike

The best that could be said about this so-called report is that maybe it was a joke or a demonstration of how dopey a "study" of bicycling risk could be constructed. Then again, PT Barnum had a theory about the kind of people who might believe the integrity of any study that reaches the "correct" conclusion.