View Single Post
Old 03-01-08 | 01:33 PM
  #240  
njkayaker
Senior Member
15 Anniversary
Community Builder
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 15,293
Likes: 1,771
From: Far beyond the pale horizon.
Originally Posted by rruff
Helmets apparently cause as many fatalites as they prevent... maybe the same for injuries, but it is hard to tell.
This is so "apparent" that nothing actually indicates that this is the case.

Originally Posted by rruff
So... it is a very common misperception that they make us safe, that they are necessary, anyone who doesn't wear one is crazy, etc.
I don't think that anybody here has the perception that helmets make "us safe" (ie, "free from harm"). Nothing can actually make us "safe".
Originally Posted by rruff
I don't want to see more MHLs or other legislation that restricts the use of bicycles by the general population, for no good reason! Once these things are enacted they never seem to get repealed...
I don't think anybody in this thread has advocated MHLs. I'd hazard to guess that most avid cyclists would not advocate such laws and that the strongest support for these laws are from people who don't bicycle or bicycle infrequently. Thus, arguing against MHLs is arguing against a point no one here has made.

Originally Posted by rruff
Helmets surely mitigate *some* crash injuries, but if they didn't also have some negative effects on other injuries (or some other mysterious factor) then we should see positive effect in overall injury rates or death rates... and we don't.
Part of the problem is that the "event" that is being measured is rather rare. It looks like most of the data relates injury rates to overall percentages of helmet usage. This would dilute the effect (if any) of helmets reducing injury. What should be done is to look at injuries paired with helmet use/non-use (but it is probably very hard to do this). It's possible (speculating) that helmets provide a small benefit (like 5-10%) and that the data is not sensitive enough to detect such a small difference.

========================

Anyway, as much as some of the "anti helmet advocates" suggest that the "helmet MHL advocates" misuse faulty data and deceptive statistics, it appears that "anti helmet advocates" are no better (and may be worse).

Also, too many of the "anti helmet advocates" lump cyclists here (who think that helmets are a good idea) with people (mostly non-cyclists) who support MHLs and who (oddly) think that things can keep them "free from harm". These two populations are not the same.

Last edited by njkayaker; 03-01-08 at 02:02 PM.
njkayaker is offline  
Reply