Originally Posted by ngateguy
I don't trust anyone who testifies about anything in court anymore My statement was "From my Personal experience"
weather you believe him or not, he's trained in the science of forensics and someone who has an emotinal connection and is not trained in that field has less weight to their opinion.
Originally Posted by ngateguy
Nice stat don't see what it has to do with wearing a helmet or not, just states that someone who gets a daily workout has 39% longer life than someone who doesn't
"Even after adjustment for risk factors" means,
despite the risks of riding without helmets (as they do in the area of study) they still have a longer, healthier life than those that don't have the exercise cycling provides.
It's similar to the old post "CNN article: "Heart group: Doctors should prescribe exercise" where I posted, "This article just repeats what I've posted many times, that the medical benefits for cyclists far outweigh any risks they may encounter."
And, I've also said in previous helmet posts, I'm not going to continue to beat a dead horse unless there is some new info. The point of costs of helmets being high because of high insurance costs for liability towards negligence claims towards manafactures of helmets that exagerated claims of effectivness is a new point. My point of marginalization of cyclists is an old one (but I think, more accurate).