Originally Posted by
trombone
Note that it's not that isn't poor quality 'anti-helmet-law' research out there. There is - it's a sad fact that most original research is poor quality. However, on balance I find the research that concludes that helmets are extremely effective in reducing injury, or recommend MHLs are more likely to be flawed than the research that shows that where helmet wearing has risen, there has been no corresponding improvement in injury statistics.
I'm not saying there are no problems on the "pro-helmet" side. All I am saying is that, if there are problems on one side, there are likely problems (more or less) on the other side too.
Personally, I haven't been convinced that many of the studies on the "anti-helmet" are very good. Some of the studies are also misused in arguments (that is, some studies are used to support claims they do not address).
What doesn't make any sense is to suggest that the alleged flaws in the "pro-helmet" studies are completely absent on the "pro-helmet" side. A true skeptic would not give their side this kind of "a pass".
Originally Posted by
closetbiker
Is it my problem? I don't think so. You might not know (although I've posted it many times) but I've come from the opposite side of the argument. I know the studies and arguments helmet proponents use because I was once a helmet proponent. I learned more and could see shortcomings with being a proponent, the better arguments of the skeptics and the real world results of wearing helmets. Understand, I'm not anti-helmet, I'm pro-choice. There's nothing wrong with wearing a helmet, they do have some value, but it's just that they're not what they're often cracked up to be.
It doesn't seem to me that the "anti-helmet" arguments are "better". You just assume they are better because they support the side you currently subscribe to.