Originally Posted by
grolby
You've misapplied the burden of truth. It is NOT on helmet skeptics. The burden of proof is upon those claiming safety benefits for helmets.
This is incorrect. The burden of proof is on the holders of the
most-unlikely position. It's not clear that "no helmets are safer because magic will help you" is less extreme than the "wear a helmet" position.
Originally Posted by
grolby
4. Cognitive dissonance is not grounds for dismissing the passing study linked by the OP. True, the results doesn't jibe with what most of us "know" about helmets. That does not make it invalid! It's not a perfect study, but that 3.5" difference has been tested, and it certainly is statistically significant.
And this
one study doesn't invalidate "what most of us know" either. It's an interesting start to other studies but I'd be a bit cautious in drawing any firm conclusions from this one.
Anyway, this study does not address whether helmets reduce the severity of accidents on a per-accident basis. If fhey increase the frequency of accidents (no data is provide), it is because there is a weird interaction between drivers and cyclists. That is, the study revealed not a primary failure of helmets but a
secondary failure of driver education/perception.
It's possible that drivers would give all cyclists the wider berth if
every cyclist used a helmet!
This might mean that cyclists would be more safe overall if all of them wore helmets than they would if none of them did.