Ok, the bolded part is just plain silly. It's like implying, because there's a strong correlation between injuries and wearing a parachute, that parachutes themselves are dangerous, and not the jumping out of airplanes. The people most likely to wear bike helmets are those doing the most dangerous stuff. Of course they're going to have more injuries. The question is whether they'd have more or less injuries with or without a helmet.
It is plain silly, even though I pointed out immediately that I was not saying what you are whinging about.
FYI, the statistics show that the more people wear helmets, the more likely it is they will get hurt. Head injuries actually increase with helmet use, even when cycling rates remain constant. Again, I am not blaming the helmets, just pointing out that the hype about them being effective is overblown.
This is about the hype and science, hence me posting it in science and technology. The consistent outrage and misunderstanding of the point demonstrates that being anti science is completely bipartisan, and even extends to otherwise intelligent people.
...
Human nature makes people hold onto opinions even when new facts are presented. I have the same problem, and work hard to make sure it rarely controls me. You should consider the possibility that, just because you know helmets make you safer, it does not mean that they always work, or even work more often than not.
