Originally Posted by
ianjk
This is very flawed logic to say that helmets don't help prevent head injuries...
How about mandating no helmets and see what happens to those who would normally wear a lid like MTBers, BMXers, freeriders, dirtjumpers, etc. see how the statistics change...
When it comes to the riding that your average law abiding citizen who now wears a helmet because of the law does, there isn't much risk, hence the low statistical significance.
*pardon my bad grammar, I'm on strong meds at the moment.
No one is suggesting that "no person should wear a helmet." The study addresses helmet laws in various countries, which most likely only apply to recreational street riders and serious road cyclists, to see if those helmet laws have any effect on deaths caused by head injuries among those riders. According to the study, the difference is statistically insignificant. In other words, no one who understood the study is saying that helmets don't help prevent head injuries. They're saying, "there is no statistical correlation between helmet laws (which should indicate helmet use), and a reduction in deaths from head injuries."
Originally Posted by
rymep
Until someone comes out with independently verified statistics proving that wearing a properly fitting helmet makes me more likely to suffer worse head injuries I'm going to continue wearing my helmet, simple as that.
Good for you. I can almost certainly assure that will never happen.
Originally Posted by
iamthenoise
statistically, the more ice cream begins to sell, the more reported incidents of **** occur in that area.
its true, but likely doesn't make sense to most people. so should we stop eating ice cream? of course not.
im saying there are likely extraneous variables that factor into these statistics. the countries with lower helmet use AND lower death rates are likely countries with a long and established culture of bicycle/automobile co-existence.
helmets aren't a better strategy than educating motorists about cyclist awareness, but lets not demonize helmets either, they definitely aren't hurting anyone.
The study itself suggests alternative explanations for the correlation, though they're not all that convincing. Note that I didn't say causality. Anyone who's had Intro to Logic knows correlation does not imply causality, right? The study isn't suggesting that we stop wearing helmets, just that we stop mandating their use since, during the course of the study, it resulted in less people riding. Of course helmets don't hurt anyone. Who's demonizing them?