Originally Posted by
CarinusMalmari
The most obvious flaw is the fact that the data is based on 207 fatalities, of which 4 used a helmet, 118 didn't use a helmet and the helmet use of 85 is unknown. The 97% statistic is the result of omitting the 85 unknowns from the data. It's on page 16 of the PDF and it's exacerbated by people like Tiglath, who pretend the 85 unknowns didn''t exist at all.
Correct. Another is insufficient context: since the number of fatalities is not compared to a measure of the activities, it tells us nothing of the actual risk and therefore nothing of a reduction of risk (that is the base rate fallacy spoken of earlier). Thirdly there is nothing that demonstrates that the helmet reduced the risk, or if some other aspect of New Yorkers who don't wear helmets puts them at greater risk. We could go on from there.