Originally Posted by
Zeuser
Really, you can't convince me that no protection is better than some protection. It's illogical and goes against any form of common sense.
No-one is trying to convince you of that. What they are doing is opening your eyes to the fact that MHL have some unforeseen side-effects that actually overall make cycling more dangerous (note that is NOT the same thing as saying it makes individual crashes more serious, rather it might make HAVING a serious crash more likely. This goes back to the statements I outlined at the top of this page. If you are still strugging with this one, I can explain it again and again for you.)
Originally Posted by
Zeuser
And that "test" where no contact with the ground (bare head) is being compared against contact with the ground wearing a helmet. Really, that's just completley dumb.
It is an illustration that, even in a crash situation, a wearing helmet can lead to a more adverse outcome than if one was not being worn. There is a worthwhile debate to be had about what proportion of likely impacts fall into that category, but it's certainly not 'completley dumb (sic)'.
Hint: the argument you need to make here is that the likelihood of a situation occurring in which a helmet will exacerbate injury is lower than the likelihood of a situation occurring in which it will mitigate.
Originally Posted by
Zeuser
As for stats, numbers and so on? Well, we all know stats can be manipulated to say whatever one wants them to say by dropping other factors, changing the conditions and so on.
If you can see improper use of statistics, then it would be helpful if you could point out where I am going wrong. Just saying 'they can be manipulated' isn't helpful - please tell me
where you see that happening. If there are genuine errors in the papers I have referenced, then I'd appreciate you pointing them out. It has to be said, though, that so far the most glaring use of 'statistical manipulation' has come from yourself, when you used a chart that was nothing to to with cycling to show that helmets are a good thing.
Originally Posted by
Zeuser
The very thing anti-helmet people use to criticise that "85% reduce head injury" stat, not taking certain things into account, is the same thing that destroys anti-helmet stats as well.
For what its worth, that Thompson et al paper that came up with the 85% figure has not only been widely critiqued for glaring methodological errors; the authors themselves re-analysed the data and later came up with a revised, lower, figure. Sure, their second paper still has a load of errors in it, but when the actual authors of a paper change their minds and decide they over-cooked it, well, I think it's time to stop using that paper, don't you?
Originally Posted by
Zeuser
Like I said before: I just take real world observations and cases from my own experiences and some people more qualified than you bozos. My own crash (wearing a helmet), the two kids I saw crash, and the first hand observations from my friend the paramedic.
I am not especially well qualified in this field. This is why I do not jump to my own conclusions (even based on the evidence of my one and only crash); rather I read the conclusions of others who are better qualified. And no disrespect to your friend, but he isn't the most highly qualified professional in this field either.