Well said rub. b-o-m always goes back to the same thing that "The fact remains that the evidence shows that wearing a helmet has no discernable effect on fatality rates." while ignoring this from an article he posted:Ahhhh perspective!
Glad you brought that up burt-oh-my!
A "single example" usually has a name. That means the "single example" whose life was saved by wearing a helmet is someone's son, daughter, mother, brother, sister, friend or loved one. A person.
The "evidence" proved It was "likely" enough for that "single example" that the helmet had a "discernable effect" on HIS "fatality rate".
His "death from head injury" was "obviously prevented in a meaningful way."
See what light perspective can have when you look at it from the guy whose life was saved rather than the armchair of someone who I suspect doesn't participate much in sporting activities in which a helmet is a good idea.
Same academic arguments have been made by those opposing hockey helmets, face shields, mandatory life jackets in boats etc. Talk about statistics to a "single example" who has lived as a result.
New York City released a report on bicycle deaths and injuries: 225 cyclists died between 1996 and 2005 on New York streets; 97 percent of them were not wearing helmets. Of these deaths, 58 percent are known to involve head injury, but the actual number could be as high as 80 percent. Comparing the helmet to a seat belt in a car, Swart of the BHSI says, "When you do have that crash, you better have it on."
There's no hope for him. I say let him cycle without a helmet, drive without a seatbelt and boat without a life jacket!
Last edited: