You are reading a single comment by @spindrift and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
Your first link:
It is estimated that up to 85 percent of head injuries can be
prevented through proper usage of helmetshttp://www.cyclehelmets.org/1131.html
In June 2013, US federal agencies The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
decided that they could no longer justify citing the claim that
bicycle helmets reduce the risk of head injury by 85%. The agencies
had been challenged under the Data Quality Act to show why they
ignored later research, none of which had produced such convincing
results. Other US Government agencies are expected to follow suit.
(GGW, 2013)
spindrift
Head injuries are not the rare event you want to think they are as % of cyclists who are hospitalised.d
Source 1:
https://www.aans.org/en/Patients/Neurosurgical-Conditions-and-Treatments/Sports-related-Head-Injury
Source 2:
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f2674
(amongst others)
You continue to fail to respond to the points I've made, continuing to satisfy yourself with this endless cry of helmets put people off cycling.
So I'll argue against that- just this once- as evidenced by the follow-on resurgence of cycling in Australia, Canada and other places with compulsory helmet laws.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/he/HE11178
(amongst others).
The data supports helmets reduce head injuries. Again- I'm not arguing that long term inactivity is not more of a problem, just that helmets work. I have literally never suggested (and I cannot beleive I'm saying this again ) that helmets should be mandatory.
And if we're all honest- Helmet or no is not going to change inactivity levels in a wider spectrum of the population.
I anticipate waking up to you arguing a completely different point, yet again. Enjoy. xxx