Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through



S

Steven M. Scharf

Guest
Riley Geary wrote:
>
> I doubt that even most helmet skeptics would deny that bike helmets confer
> at least some benefit for those cyclists who do find themselves involved in
> a crash, but the real question of course is:


Unfortunately, there are a few people that do deny this. Not many, but a
few.

> a) just how significant a benefit is confered? (obviously not nearly as much
> as the 30-35% benefit demonstrated for motorcycle helmets, let alone the
> absurdly inflated 85% figure still quoted by most helmet promoters); and
> more importantly


It can't be reduced to a single percentage. For fatalities, the data
shows around a 40% benefit, when crashes occur. 40% is not magnitudes of
difference, but unfortunately it is high enough for some people to use
as a justification for repressive laws.

> b) does increased helmet use, particularly that produced by a mandatory
> helmet law, actually result in a net increase or decrease in the overall
> safety record of the cyclists involved?


I doubt if you'll ever find data that specific. You can't do a
double-blind test, for obvious reasons.

> A simplistic focus on just the first part of this question while ignoring
> all the implications inherent in the second part is of no benefit at all to
> either cyclists or society in general.


Well I don't want to ignore the implications, but they are immaterial.
The fact that helmets reduce injuries and fatalities in the unlikely
event of a crash does not warrant the passage of intrusive laws.

We need to focus on the fact that serious crashes occur infrequently
enough that education, rather than mandates, are sufficient to
encourage helmet use.

I can assure you that if anyone shows up at hearings in Ontario, and
argues that a helmet law isn't needed because more people hurt
themselves gardening (or couch-sitting) than cycling, that this will
only serve to strengthen the resolve of the misguided ministers pushing
the MHL. We need to argue from defensible positions, and not descend to
that sort of lunacy.
 
R

Riley Geary

Guest
"Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Sigh - more propaganda and debating tricks.
> >
> > Posting "the greatest number of such references" and then
> > (purposely?) misinterpreting them, while ignoring anything that
> > disagrees with their world view, does not constitute a respectable
> > argument, and that is what Krygowski et al. do.

>
> I think that most everyone recognizes this by now.
>
> The data I posted was uniquely relevant, because it compared injury and
> fatality rates among helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists, as well as
> pedestrians, and motorists. It also provided the actual numbers of
> helmeted versus non-helmetd cyclists, so the data could be normalized,
> and even when normalized there was a significant difference in fatality
> rates.


I'm afraid you're still attempting to read far more into the Florida data
than is actually warranted, despite all the reasons I laid out in a previous
post as to why they should be treated with considerable caution. Above all
else, assuming Florida's bicycle helmet use rate really is down around the
10-12% level, we're obviously dealing with a potentially severe case of
selective recruitment--where the behavioural differences between the
helmet-using minority and non-helmet-using majority can swamp any other
effect on safety that could theoretically be attributed to the helmets
themselves.

>
> Gardening and sofa-sitting injury rates are not going to impress the
> Ontario ministers when they decide whether or not to enact the MHL.
> Fortunately, they wont ever see such nonsense.
>


Well, how about the fact that in every US case for which we have reasonably
reliable data, the imposition of a mandatory helmet law for motorcyclists
has resulted in a significant *decrease* in the apparent safety
effectiveness of those motorcycle helmets?

Riley Geary
 
Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
>
> The data I posted was uniquely relevant, because it compared injury

and
> fatality rates among helmeted and non-helmeted cyclists, as well as
> pedestrians, and motorists.


I'm sorry, I must have missed where you posted injury and fatality
rates for pedestrians and motorists.

If you have such data, please do post it! Because I'm sure the
(supposed) benefit of helmets would be at least as large for those
pedestrians and motorists. And those groups do, after all, suffer FAR
more serious and fatal head injuries than cyclists!

With such data, perhaps we can move helmet promotion to those
activities where it's actually more needed!

>
> Gardening and sofa-sitting injury rates are not going to impress the
> Ontario ministers when they decide whether or not to enact the MHL.


I must ask again, since you've ignored my earlier request: Please guve
an account of your experience in testimony before legislators! My
experience in providing such testimony leads me to conclusions that are
opposite yours. Why not tell us how effective your ideas have been in
the past?

If you fail to do so, I (for one) will conclude that you're talking
through your hat*, that you have no practical experience on which to
base such advice.


*Or through your helmet, I suppose. :)
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
"Riley Geary" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> ...
> > It is true that cycling is not a dangerous activity, and that no
> > mandatory helmet laws are necessary, but there is no debate that
> > helmeted cyclists fare better than non-helmeted cyclists, when crashes
> > do occur.

>
> I doubt that even most helmet skeptics would deny that bike helmets confer
> at least some benefit for those cyclists who do find themselves involved in
> a crash, but the real question of course is:


When I once suggested that Krygowski et al. post a citation to at
least *one* study measuring a benefit for helmet use, no matter how
small, that he thought was valid. He declined, and others on his
"side" of the discussion became abusive at the mere suggestion.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 04:15:15 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>> I doubt that even most helmet skeptics would deny that bike helmets confer
>> at least some benefit for those cyclists who do find themselves involved in
>> a crash, but the real question of course is:


>Unfortunately, there are a few people that do deny this. Not many, but a
>few.


And others who choose to pretend that people are saying this when they
are not, in an example of the "straw man" logical fallacy.

>> a) just how significant a benefit is confered? (obviously not nearly as much
>> as the 30-35% benefit demonstrated for motorcycle helmets, let alone the
>> absurdly inflated 85% figure still quoted by most helmet promoters); and
>> more importantly


>It can't be reduced to a single percentage. For fatalities, the data
>shows around a 40% benefit, when crashes occur. 40% is not magnitudes of
>difference, but unfortunately it is high enough for some people to use
>as a justification for repressive laws.


And where, precisely, do you get that 40% figure? Citation? Because
as far as I can see "the data" shows no such thing - it shows that
helmeted cyclists may or may not be more likely to crash, and it
almost invariably points up such differences in the behaviour of the
helmeted and unhelmeted communities that no other inference can be
drawn. Unless you introduce compulsion, and helmet use goes up to
80%+, in which case you find, as the Aussies have, that the proportion
of helmeted head injured cyclists is the same as the proportion of
helmeted cyclists overall - in other words the difference between the
communities appears to evaporate once the self-selection bias is
removed.

>Well I don't want to ignore the implications, but they are immaterial.
>The fact that helmets reduce injuries and fatalities in the unlikely
>event of a crash does not warrant the passage of intrusive laws.


You have evaded the point: the key question is not whether helmets
affect the probability of injury given crash, but whether they affect
the probability of injury given ride. I have seen no evidence that
they make any significant difference to this overall figure, and
neither did my Government when they looked. So do cite the data.

>I can assure you that if anyone shows up at hearings in Ontario, and
>argues that a helmet law isn't needed because more people hurt
>themselves gardening (or couch-sitting) than cycling, that this will
>only serve to strengthen the resolve of the misguided ministers pushing
>the MHL. We need to argue from defensible positions, and not descend to
>that sort of lunacy.


So you say. And yet the experience of those who have successfully
opposed helmet laws is that tactics which work are:

- show the flaws in the pro-helmet studies
- show that helmet laws have never yielded measurable improvements in
cyclist safety
- introduce them to the concept of risk compensation
- show that cycling is neither especially dangerous nor especially
productive of head injuries
- show that far greater benefit would accrue from controlling the
source of danger, which also affects (more numerous) non-cyclist
casualties
- show that the major effect of enforced helmet laws is to deter
cycling, which has a net public health cost

I know that Scharf, as an undeclared compulsionist, would prefer we
stick to "they work perfectly but please don't make us wear them". I
have no evidence that Scharf's approach works. The tactics above
recently worked in the UK and Ireland.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 06:59:40 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>When I once suggested that Krygowski et al. post a citation to at
>least *one* study measuring a benefit for helmet use, no matter how
>small, that he thought was valid. He declined, and others on his
>"side" of the discussion became abusive at the mere suggestion.


Logical fallacy: burden of proof. We are not proposing an
intervention, the burden of proof lies solely with those who are.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
M

Mitch Haley

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>
> Including the CTC, Britain's largest cycling organisation, with 80,000
> members. The entire board is sceptical and they played a leading role
> in defeating the helmet bill last year.


As opposed to the League of American Hand-Wringers, which has had in
place a mandatory helmet law for over a decade. Their magazine will not
publish a picture of a caucasian touching a bicycle if he/she isn't wearing
a foam hat, and they strongly encourage affiliate clubs to discriminate
against unhelmeted riders.

Mitch.
 
S

Steven M. Scharf

Guest
Mitch Haley wrote:

> As opposed to the League of American Hand-Wringers, which has had in
> place a mandatory helmet law for over a decade. Their magazine will not
> publish a picture of a caucasian touching a bicycle if he/she isn't wearing
> a foam hat, and they strongly encourage affiliate clubs to discriminate
> against unhelmeted riders.


Well part of the discrimination is due to their insurance program. They
offer good rates to clubs, but the company than underwrites the
insurance has the condition that clubs insured through them must require
helmets on all rides. If enough clubs went elsewhere for insurance, or
were willing to pay more for the helmet requirement to be dropped, then
LAB might change their policy.
 
S

Steven M. Scharf

Guest
Riley Geary wrote:

> I'm afraid you're still attempting to read far more into the Florida data
> than is actually warranted, despite all the reasons I laid out in a previous
> post as to why they should be treated with considerable caution.


Every study suffers from the possibility of self-selection. I don't read
too much into any study, but the Florida data at least finally is a
direct comparison in injury and fatality rates between helmeted and
non-helmeted cyclists, when accidents occur. It's far more useful than
statistical data from New Zealand, where you're comparing whole
population data without taking into account all the external factors.

In any study you're going to have the problem that, on average, the
people that wear helmets are going to be the higher-educated, more
careful, more experienced, riders. I don't know how you could ever
account for this self-selection factor in a study.
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 06:59:40 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
> >When I once suggested that Krygowski et al. post a citation to at
> >least *one* study measuring a benefit for helmet use, no matter how
> >small, that he thought was valid. He declined, and others on his
> >"side" of the discussion became abusive at the mere suggestion.

>
> Logical fallacy: burden of proof. We are not proposing an
> intervention, the burden of proof lies solely with those who are.


Wrong - your "side" is making statements that helmets are ineffective.
It is up to you to back up that claim. Neither Steven nor I have
proposed any "intervention" (so suggesting that on your part is a red
herring.)

I'll snip the rest of what you say today as well - I'm busy and really
don't have time to deal with your trolling and continual bogus
arguments.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> Mitch Haley wrote:
>
> > As opposed to the League of American Hand-Wringers, which has had

in
> > place a mandatory helmet law for over a decade. Their magazine will

not
> > publish a picture of a caucasian touching a bicycle if he/she isn't

wearing
> > a foam hat, and they strongly encourage affiliate clubs to

discriminate
> > against unhelmeted riders.



Mitch Haley's comment is generally correct. The League does specify
that helmets must be worn by all cyclists shown in their magazine's
photos. I believe they will allow rare exceptions, especially if the
cyclists are obviously indigenous to some other country - but they are
determined to promote the fantasy that "real cyclists" never ride
without foam hats.


However, regarding Steven Scharf's comment:

> Well part of the discrimination is due to their insurance program.

They
> offer good rates to clubs, but the company than underwrites the
> insurance has the condition that clubs insured through them must

require
> helmets on all rides.


Scharf, you are amazing! There seems to be no end to the mistaken
information you give as fact!

No, the League's insurance company does NOT require helmets. And
although the League does strongly recommend helmets, they do not
require them.

Here's a link to the "Safety Checklist" they want clubs to use when
organizing a ride:
http://www.bikeleague.org/members/safeychecklist.pdf
Note they "strongly recommend" but do not require helmet use.

Here's a link to the sample waiver that their insurance company wants
clubs to use: http://www.bikeleague.org/members/sample_waiver.pdf
Note that the word "helmet" does not even appear in that document.

I ran a League-affiliated century ride for seven years. We had many
hundreds of riders each year. I did NOT require helmets, and was never
told to require helmets. And lack of a helmet never caused a problem
for any rider.

It really is time for you to double check your facts before putting
your "World's Greatest Authority" stamp of approval on them!
 
Bill Z. wrote:
>
>
> Wrong - your "side" is making statements that helmets are

ineffective.
> It is up to you to back up that claim.


Personally, my view on the effectiveness of helmets is this:

The certification standard for helmets involves a test for only linear
deceleration in a roughly 14 mile per hour impact of a headform, less
body, onto a flat surface. I believe that helmets are somewhat
effective in mitigating injuries in crashes that duplicate that test.

However, I believe most crashes that cause significant injury differ
quite a bit from that test. That is, most significant bike crashes
involve impact speeds that are higher than 14 mph. And _most_ cyclists
have their head still attached to their body!

So, not surprisingly, I think that the actual protection of helmets is
largely limited to the tests they are designed and certified to pass.

I don't know why this would seem surprising.



Neither Steven nor I have
> proposed any "intervention" (so suggesting that on your part is a red
> herring.)


Oh please. Here we are in a thread discussing a mandatory helmet law,
and you and Steven are arguing as hard as you can against anything
anyone says against that law!
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 16:48:54 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>Well part of the discrimination is due to their insurance program.


False. Frank has already shown that this is not true.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
 
B

b_baka

Guest
Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> Bill Z. wrote:
>
>> On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not
>> effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based on
>> inadequate evidence.

>
>
> Oh please. There are no "sides" here. There are two people, Guy and
> Frank, that ignore the volumes of evidence, and there is the ROW (rest
> of world), that looks at things objectively.
>
> It is true that cycling is not a dangerous activity, and that no
> mandatory helmet laws are necessary, but there is no debate that
> helmeted cyclists fare better than non-helmeted cyclists, when crashes
> do occur.
>

There really is no argument over the logic that helmets do reduce head
injuries, but I would like the option of making the decision to wear a
helmet for myself. I have seen pedestrians who needed helmets, and this
is a true statement, having seen people slip on ice and hit their heads.
I was born in Chicago and went through some nasty winters where the
streets and sidewalks were covered in sheet ice. The streets got salted
but the sidewalks didn't, and there were plenty of downed pedestrians.
My sister broke her hip in one such incident, bad for her, but better
than breaking her head.
Just throwing in a different point of view here.
Bill Baka
 
B

b_baka

Guest
Riley Geary wrote:
<snip>
>
> Well, how about the fact that in every US case for which we have reasonably
> reliable data, the imposition of a mandatory helmet law for motorcyclists
> has resulted in a significant *decrease* in the apparent safety
> effectiveness of those motorcycle helmets?
>
> Riley Geary
>
>

As a bicyclist who also likes to ride motorcycles I can say that a
helmet has a very negative effect on perception of ones surroundings.
This is mainly due to the effect of messing up the ability to hear
things that a full head motorcycle helmet causes. Bare headed I am much
more able to sense my environment and correct for things as opposed to
being encased in a head only protecting helmet.

At any rate, motorcycle and bicycle helmet issues should be separate due
to the type of helmet involved and the speeds.
Bill Baka
 
Bill Baka wrote:

> As a bicyclist who also likes to ride motorcycles I can say that a
> helmet has a very negative effect on perception of ones surroundings.
> This is mainly due to the effect of messing up the ability to hear
> things that a full head motorcycle helmet causes. Bare headed I am

much
> more able to sense my environment and correct for things as opposed

to
> being encased in a head only protecting helmet.


This is true. However look at the statistics on fatalities of
motorcyclists in states that dropped their motorcycle MHLs. Not
surprising that the rates went way up, i.e. in Lousiana they went from
26 to 55, in Kentucky from 24 to 38 (this was for the year after the
repeal). Not magnitudes difference, but around 50-100% increase.

Still, motorcyclists should be free to make the decision to wear a
helmet or not, just as cyclists should. But it does no good for people
to try and claim that helmets are ineffective, when all the studies
prove otherwise.

The bike club I was in was very pro-choice in terms of helmets, until
they were forced to require helmets due to the terms of insurance from
L.A.B.. Most people had been wearing helmets even prior to the
requirement, but it wasn't a big deal if someone showed up without one
(unless the ride leader required them).
 
R

Riley Geary

Guest
"Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Riley Geary wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid you're still attempting to read far more into the Florida

data
> > than is actually warranted, despite all the reasons I laid out in a

previous
> > post as to why they should be treated with considerable caution.

>
> Every study suffers from the possibility of self-selection.


The term more commonly used in the literature to describe the phenomenom
we're talking about is "selective recruitment."

> I don't read
> too much into any study, but the Florida data at least finally is a
> direct comparison in injury and fatality rates between helmeted and
> non-helmeted cyclists, when accidents occur.


So what do you make of the Florida motorcycle data indicating helmeted
motorcyclists there were twice as likely to find themselves in a fatal crash
relative to their bare-headed counterparts, at least until the MHL was
repealed in 2000? Or do you think that bicyclists are somehow exempt from
the same sort of risk compensation processes evidently at work among
motorcyclists?

> It's far more useful than
> statistical data from New Zealand, where you're comparing whole
> population data without taking into account all the external factors.
>
> In any study you're going to have the problem that, on average, the
> people that wear helmets are going to be the higher-educated, more
> careful, more experienced, riders.


In the absence of a MHL, this will probably be the case--at least in places
like North America, Australia, and New Zealand where helmets have long since
become a familiar part of the local cycling culture. I doubt the same
generalizations would necessarily apply in those parts of Europe, Asia, and
elsewhere that have seen relatively little use of bike helmets thus far. It
certainly wouldn't be the most experienced cyclists in such cultures who
would be among the earliest adopters of helmets. Rather, it would probably
be among the most fearful and/or cautious subgroup of cyclists.

> I don't know how you could ever
> account for this self-selection factor in a study.
>


Very simple really--just observe the differences in apparent helmet
effectiveness between states with a MHL and states without such a behaviour
modifying statute; or even better, the before-and-after changes observed
within the same state as it either adopts or repeals a MHL. Not only do we
have the examples of Florida and Louisiana that I've already discussed, we
also have SDS data from Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, and Pennsylvania as
well that indicates helmet users in most states with a MHL for motorcyclists
have a worse safety record overall relative to their unhelmeted
counterparts.

Riley Geary
 
R

Riley Geary

Guest
"Steven M. Scharf" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Riley Geary wrote:
> >
> > I doubt that even most helmet skeptics would deny that bike helmets

confer
> > at least some benefit for those cyclists who do find themselves involved

in
> > a crash, but the real question of course is:

>
> Unfortunately, there are a few people that do deny this. Not many, but a
> few.
>
> > a) just how significant a benefit is confered? (obviously not nearly as

much
> > as the 30-35% benefit demonstrated for motorcycle helmets, let alone the
> > absurdly inflated 85% figure still quoted by most helmet promoters); and
> > more importantly

>
> It can't be reduced to a single percentage. For fatalities, the data
> shows around a 40% benefit, when crashes occur.


Once again, you seem to be confusing an apparent safety benefit, resulting
most likely from selective recruitment of helmet users among Florida's
bicyclists, with the real thing--which remains to be determined, but is
almost certainly much less than 40%. Or do you really believe that bike
helmets are even more effective at preventing death among bicyclists than
motorcycle helmets have been demonstrated to be among motorcyclists? This
might actually be the case for the relatively small minority of
non-traffic-related cycling fatalities, but is almost certainly not the case
for the overwhelming majority of traffic-related cycling fatalities.

> 40% is not magnitudes of
> difference, but unfortunately it is high enough for some people to use
> as a justification for repressive laws.
>
> > b) does increased helmet use, particularly that produced by a mandatory
> > helmet law, actually result in a net increase or decrease in the overall
> > safety record of the cyclists involved?

>
> I doubt if you'll ever find data that specific. You can't do a
> double-blind test, for obvious reasons.


We hardly need any "double-blind" tests, just accurately recorded helmet use
data for both fatally and non-fatally injured bicyclists--the same as what
we have for a significant number of states where motorcyclists are
concerned. Unfortunately, such data has been exceedingly hard to come by
thus far where bicyclists are concerned.

>
> > A simplistic focus on just the first part of this question while

ignoring
> > all the implications inherent in the second part is of no benefit at all

to
> > either cyclists or society in general.

>
> Well I don't want to ignore the implications, but they are immaterial.


They are hardly "immaterial." Let's assume for the moment that the real
safety benefit of bike helmets really was a 40% reduction in the likelihood
of a fatal injury. Would it really be to anyone's benefit if the imposition
of a MHL on otherwise unwilling bicyclists thereby caused those now helmeted
cyclists to get into potentially fatal crashes 3 times as often on average
as they had when they didn't use helmets?

> The fact that helmets reduce injuries and fatalities in the unlikely
> event of a crash does not warrant the passage of intrusive laws.
>


The argument that risk compensation and the over-hyped safety benefits of
helmets conspire to prevent the reduction in injuries and fatalities
promised by the helmet promoters is what should really be effective in
defeating these needlessly intrusive and counterproductive laws.

> We need to focus on the fact that serious crashes occur infrequently
> enough that education, rather than mandates, are sufficient to
> encourage helmet use.


But do we really want to mindlessly encourage helmet use even in the absence
of a MHL? The case of Utah seems rather cautionary with respect to
motorcycle helmets. Utah is the only non-MHL state I'm aware of where the
substantial majority of motorcyclists (>70%) still use motorcycle helmets,
with the result being that motorcycle helmet use has no apparent overall
safety benefit at all.

Riley Geary
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
[email protected] writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
> >
> >
> > Wrong - your "side" is making statements that helmets are

> ineffective.
> > It is up to you to back up that claim.

>
> Personally, my view on the effectiveness of helmets is this:
>
> The certification standard for helmets involves a test for only linear
> deceleration in a roughly 14 mile per hour impact of a headform, less
> body, onto a flat surface. I believe that helmets are somewhat
> effective in mitigating injuries in crashes that duplicate that test.
>
> However, I believe most crashes that cause significant injury differ
> quite a bit from that test. That is, most significant bike crashes
> involve impact speeds that are higher than 14 mph. And _most_ cyclists
> have their head still attached to their body!


I'll point out the propaganda trick - the term "significant bike
crashes" and "significant injury" can mean almost anything. Krygowksi
is basically defining it implicitly to be any crash too severe
for a helmet to have any change of helping. It has zero to do
with the sort of crash you might experience on the average should
you be unfortunate enough to be in one.

<rest of post ignored - he's just playing is usual games.>

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
B

Bill Z.

Guest
b_baka <[email protected]> writes:

> Steven M. Scharf wrote:
> > Bill Z. wrote:
> >
> >> On the contrary, your side has been claiming that helmets are not
> >> effective and "our" side is suggesting that your claims are based on
> >> inadequate evidence.

> > Oh please. There are no "sides" here. There are two people, Guy and
> > Frank, that ignore the volumes of evidence, and there is the ROW
> > (rest of world), that looks at things objectively.
> > It is true that cycling is not a dangerous activity, and that no
> > mandatory helmet laws are necessary, but there is no debate that
> > helmeted cyclists fare better than non-helmeted cyclists, when
> > crashes do occur.
> >

> There really is no argument over the logic that helmets do reduce head
> injuries, but I would like the option of making the decision to wear a
> helmet for myself.


Unfortunately, these guys have been arguing that helmets do not reduce
head injuries for years. Some of them even claimed that helmets cause
injuries. I don't think you are familiar with the history of this
discussion (undertandable since some of it occurred years ago.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 

Similar threads