Originally Posted by
rruff
et.
The issue here is that the *percieved* effectiveness of helmets is much greater than their actual effectiveness at keeping us from getting killed. The reason that I focus on fatalities is because lesser injuries are not tracked, so there aren't any statistics for them. Based on population studies that compare fatality rates both before and after MHLs, there doesn't seem to be any benefit at all... just as many deaths as before. Even though I'm sure helmets help prevent deaths from certain types of impacts, either these instances are rare, or helmets have some negative effect that counterbalances their positive ones... most likely it is a combination of the two.
I'm not disagreeing with you but I'd like to point out this line of argument fails to mention one assumption: MHL's cause a net increase in helmet wearing.
I'm really not convinced they do. I'm sure some people wear a helmet because it's the law, but I bet there are also people who don't because it's the law. But mostly I think the issue is that the accidents helmets are good for are impossible to get good statistics on because they rarely get reported (helmet or no helmet).
I think the "it scares people and makes them think riding is dangerous" is a much better argument.
But the OP was just ********: Let's do things that make other vehicles nervous to increase our own safety. Remind me to just leave the turn signal on my car on at all times, it should help people to remember I just drifted into their blind spot. I'm not trying to make a slippery slope argument here, I'm just trying to point out that the solution isn't scalable: As more people do things to make others nervous in an effort to be more visible those people lose their visibility because they become normal.