Mick F wrote:Utterly agree with you.Si wrote:No way am I arguing for h*lm*ts, but I am arguing against not interpreting data correctly when making a decision on them.
I actually can't remember which one of these numerous threads the graph came from, or the background to it, but if it were in favour of cyclists wearing helmets (rather than the other way round), you could bet your bottom dollar that the pro-hemeters would be publicising it right left and centre.
It may have issues with respect to statistics and analysis, but it's a good graphic representation of the different risks in different situations. It shows that the figures can be interpreted in different ways.
I see it very simply, look at the number of head injuries presenting to A and E, actual events as opposed to an ephemeral and disputable risk.
... and for the seeker of the argument lets assume helmets have a positive effect
Compulsory helmets would arguably save a few hundred cyclists from head injury either through mitigation or prevention
Yet the same intervention would mitigate or prevent tens of thousands of head injuries if all these groups had worn helmets
That is the basic angle , look at the head injuries that have occurred