Originally Posted by
Reynolds
rruff, grolby, JeffS - you can't go against common sense! No matter what studies or facts show, people will always trust their impressions more.
Except that the "facts" don't show that no-helmets are safer unless you cherry-pick the few ones that happen to support your position.
Originally Posted by
JeffS
I'm simply trying to point out that people's impressions, as you put it, are a moving target - influenced by a variety of things. In 1974 parents the world over, who loved their kids just as much as todays parents do, felt safe sending their kids out into the street without helmets. Today, you would be threatened with legal action, and looked upon as an unfit parent for doing the EXACT SAME THING.
People impressions of the correct thing
do change over time.
It's called progress. For example, not that long ago, it was the "status quo" for whites to think that blacks were subhuman.
Originally Posted by
JeffS
IGiven the historical change in our perception of risk I have to wonder if kids twenty years from now will be allowed outside of the house without hermetically-sealed safety suits.
I don't think that will happen. It's not like wearing a helmet changes the nature of cycling.
=====================================
Originally Posted by
grolby
First, you assume that the bold claim is with those disputing the claims of helmet advocates. Why? Because it's just obvious that helmets are safer.
Let's see: take the case of a head impacting pavement from a height of 3 feet. Which one is likely to sustain less injury: one in a helmet or one without? It very clear the "bolder" statement is the notion that the helmet will provide zero statistical benefit. Yes, it's
obvious.