Re: Helmet Poll: First Hand ExperienceBill Sornson wrote:
> Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>>> Peter Clinch wrote:
>>>> You summarised an incorrect perception (whether deliberately
>>>> falsified or accidentally I don't know, but false one way or the
>>>> other), as opposed to showing the *actual* rationale used.
>>> I believe it's an accurate perception, after reading many of the
>>> posts in this and other helmet threads. In a large number of the
>>> posts, there are claims that the lack of drastically reduced injury
>>> rates when a helmet law is introduces is direct proof that helmets
>>> are ineffective.
>> Even if helmets *are* effective at preventing brain injuries
> BRAIN injuries? Who said that?
I did. Just now. That's what I'm interested in. For prevention of minor
injuries, equipment such as elbow pads would be *much* more effective.
>> in particular types of accidents, as I suspect they are, these studies
>> indicate to me that such types of accidents must happen infrequently
>> enough that they should be considered insignificant. From that point
>> of view, I certainly consider the above statement to be correct, i.e.
>> helmets are ineffective for preventing a significant number of brain
> What "above statement"? (The things you quoted don't say "brain
> injuries" at all.)
> Perhaps you're confusing /head injury/ (gash, bash, rash, bump, bonk,
> concussion, etc.) with /brain/ injury?
Okay, I agree with the statement if you append "ineffective at preventing
brain injuries" (including concussions, which I consider to be brain
injuries). As I said above, if minor injuries are your concern then there
are more effective prevention strategies.