Originally Posted by
grolby
Based upon what? Your personal conviction that it is somehow inherently reasonable to assume that helmets improve safety? It doesn't work that way.
Based on this: There is a lot of exposure to wearing helmets in other contexts and it typical that people will treat using bicycle helmets as a similar case. That's why it's "obvious". Clearly, that conclusion
could be wrong.
Originally Posted by
grolby
By the way, your "no helmets are safer" position has no place in this debate.
Not true. Some people say that helmets increase neck injuries and others say that they keep you from rolling "safely".
Originally Posted by
grolby
See again statements about anecdotes and the extent to which they constitute data. People who work with head injuries are not somehow more objective than anyone else. Subjective judgments are not sufficient for this analysis, period, full stop.
And the "no helmets" advocates have what "perfect" objective data exactly?
Originally Posted by
grolby
What I'm trying to get into your silly head is that your conviction that your position is the obviously correct
Man, you are stupid. I've never stated my position!
Originally Posted by
grolby
one does not absolve helmet advocates from providing clear, unambiguous data to back up their claims!
They are not "required" to do so. People advocate things all the time with out any data. They may be so required if they are trying to legislate helmet use (but no one is talking about legislation).
Originally Posted by
grolby
Frankly, if you want to continue to believe that conflicting data from second and third-rate studies present a compelling, unambiguous case for helmets, I can't help you.
I have never made that claim! Pay attention!
Originally Posted by
grolby
I wear my damn helmet anyway.
There's your "cognitive dissonance". Why?
Originally Posted by
grolby
I'm just trying to jar you out of your cognitive dissonance.
You are imagining my position. I haven't said what my position is.
Originally Posted by
grolby
I have little interest in which 'side' is correct.
You don't care and you appear to think they have no value and that the value they provide isn't obvious but you wear one anyway. Strange.
Irrational.
Originally Posted by
grolby
Exactly how many bicycle falls transpire in such a way as to render this little thought experiment even remotely relevant to the real world? Think carefully.
Failling while clipped-in is common. The "need" for a helmet appears to statistically very small. That is, they "function" only for rare events.