Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,099
- 245
- Thread starter
- #81
I specifically pointed out there is no correlation, yet you worry about something that no one is pointing to.
But you are doing exactly that, in this very post:
You're taking a statistically correlation that shows people are more likely to suffer injury when wearing a helmet, and trying to offer it as 'statistical certainty that bicycle helmet usage does not prevent significant brain injury', and that doesn't follow. There are any number of reasons why injuries might be more prevalent among people wearing helmets, not the least of which is that those doing dangerous things are more likely to wear a helmet.It is, nonetheless, a statistical certainty that bicycle helmet usage does not prevent significant brain injury. If it did there would be a noticeable drop in injuries as helmet use goes up, even if people were more likely to do crazy things while wearing a helmet. Pointing out that the opposite happens is not trying to correlate helmet use and brain injury, it is pointing out that they do not work.
I believe the statistics about motorcycle helmets and brain injuries actually show a drop when helmet use goes up. That proves they work, even though there is solid evidence that they increase the chances of neck injuries.
But you have to completely deny logical analysis to maintain that you're at more risk wearing a helmet. The only valid question is whether the design of bike helmets actually offer that much protection; there's seems reason to doubt the 'common wisdom' on that one, especially for those kind that just sort of ride on the crown of your head.
Either way, these kinds of statistical correlations say exactly nothing (pro or con) about a helmet's ability to protect a bike rider in a given circumstance. I apologize for being so strident on the issue, but its is a really common fallacy, foisted on us by leaders and advocates from every corner. Statistics can give us some useful information concerning the likeliness of different outcomes, but they don't say squat about the real risk present in a specific circumstance. In other words, once you've fucked up and your head is hitting pavement, you're going to be safer with helmet on.
How does pointing out that, if helmets actually help, brain injuries would go down when more people wore them, establish a correlation between brain injuries and helmet use? I think you need to reexamine your premise.
FYI, logic tells us that wearing a T-shirt protects against sunburn. The strange thing is that, despite logic, people still get sunburns when they wear T-shirts. This, believe it or not, does not equal a correlation between T-shirts and sunburn, it just tells us that we do not understand all the factors involved. It turns out that T-shirts that do not protect against UVA and UVB rays do not prevent sunburns.
Last edited: