"It gives out the message that cycling is dangerous, which it is not. The evidence that cycling helmets work to reduce injury is not conclusive."
I agree with the first part but no one could seriously argue that helmets don't reduce injury in the event of a crash.
Another added: "Since nowhere with a helmet law can show any reduction in ** risk **to cyclists, only a reduction in cyclists, why would anyone want to bring in a law for something which is clearly not effective at reducing the ** risk **to cyclists?"
Here the word risk is used carelessly. Risk isn't just a number it's a combination of the chance of being involved in an accident and the consequences of an accident.
I like reading this stuff but remarks like those are meaningless.
The wording really bothers me..
"It gives out the message that cycling is dangerous, which it is not. The evidence that cycling helmets work to reduce injury is not conclusive."
I agree with the first part but no one could seriously argue that helmets don't reduce injury in the event of a crash.
Another added: "Since nowhere with a helmet law can show any reduction in ** risk **to cyclists, only a reduction in cyclists, why would anyone want to bring in a law for something which is clearly not effective at reducing the ** risk **to cyclists?"
Here the word risk is used carelessly. Risk isn't just a number it's a combination of the chance of being involved in an accident and the consequences of an accident.
I like reading this stuff but remarks like those are meaningless.