Originally Posted by Trevor98
Again, fallacies would be funny if no one believed them.
Most pro-helmet statistics are too self-interested and are thus suspect—to actually quote Bell rationalizing their own product is absurd. Comparing motorcycle helmet research to bike helmet reality is also absurd. The helmets themselves are too different in construction and weight while the conditions and expectations are different as well. This line of reason should be avoided. Ad hominum attacks are useless as well, blathering idiots can make salient points and geniuses can be wrong. To descend into such attacks basically concedes an argument.
Real scientific research into the effects of helmet effectiveness is problematic because most cycling accidents are not reported and subjecting real humans to accident like trauma to the head is highly unethical. Bike helmets have their uses but mostly, the helmet argument circumvents real safety advocacy by focusing on the easy solution rather than real solutions for cycling/road safety..
These are certainly good arguments but I think that while you're correct that MOST people don't report MOST bicycle accidents because they're minor is missing the point.
No one is failing to report serious and fatal head injuries and those are occuring at the same rate per population as before. Significantly the statistics show bicycle head injuries slowly dropping without any jogs at periods when helmet use dramatically increased. Moreover, the same slow reduction is observed in pedestrians deaths and injuries suggesting this is a combination of road design improvements and an aging population becoming more aware of their responsibilities. (I might add that I went to a 30 miles ride through San Francisco yesterday and wasn't threatened by a single car
)
It is MY opinion that road bicycling has increased over the last decade but that might be offset by the fact that bicyclists are a great deal more experienced now than they obviously were a decade ago.
Originally Posted by Trevor98
On the other hand, pro-helmet advocacy definitely has problems. Two reports I have seen on helmet advocacy show a problem with the methods of advertising helmet use. The first, from Australia, show a decrease in cycling popularity following passage of mandatory helmet laws- attributed not to the wearing of helmets but rather to the portrayal of cycling as dangerous enough to merit a law mandating helmets. The second was a study of risk behavior with and without helmets. The study basically suggested that the mere act of wearing a helmet alleviated riders fears making them subconsciously more bold and thus more of a danger. Again, this increased risk taking could be attributed to the pro-helmet propaganda (stating that helmet mitigate all the danger of cycling) rather than the actual helmets.
You seem to be arguing that the studies of helmet use aren't as useful as they could be simply because each author suggests different reasons for failure to demostrate reductions in rates of head injuries with helmet use.
I think that the important thing is that in every case regardless of the assumed causes, that helmet use didn't change the numbers of fatalities or serious injuries. To suggest that helmets ARE working would be to suggest that for some reason there's been a significant increase in head injuries that helmets are offsetting. Occam's razor has something to say about that. :-)