You are reading a single comment by @Charlie_L and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
An example of straightforwardly dishonest use of statistics as a marketing tool for a product with no evaluation of actual protective effect of their product.
10 seconds evaluation of the first data table shows that before 2010 almost no casualties were recorded where helmet use was not known, most likely these were recorded as "no helmet". The ad bases it's claim on a 2006 study of data from the previous decade. They have cherry picked some old data because it is the most frightening. As a meaningful statistic it is shit.
Charlie_L
aggi
It appears to come from here https://helmets.org/stats.htm or here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2496939/
Looks to be using data from 10 - 20 years ago and isn't that good a sample Among those for whom helmet use was known (59%), almost all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.
The actual product looks quite decent though, although I suspect it may not in reality. The US has a whole variety of protective caps for baseball players and all the ones I've seen up close look bulky and shit.