The utility cyclist wrote:We have lots of certainties against wearing, there are no certainties in a positive sense to wearing helmets.
Based on logic, probability, known outcomes and how by wearing it has massively changed the onus of safety and from that had a massive detrimental effect not just on cycling itself but health and well being as a whole, to choose to wear a helmet is really ignorant of the certainties and illogically contributes to putting yourself at greater risk of harm. That IS a certainty!
I think you forgot to say In your opinion....
I couldn't agree more with everything you say.(this isn't strictly true but the rest of my post was deleted
What I said isn't opinion, it is fact.
Fact, people including children take greater risks when adorned with a safety aid, this is incontrovertible despite so called plastic hat experts denying this (back to the denialist thread!), it is a human psychology issue and tested time and time and time again and found to be so, not just for adornments worn on the head. Thus from that the probability of an incident occurring is increased, this is again a certainty not opinion.
Fact, a helmet increases your head size, also fact is that by definition of that size increase it will increase the probability of you striking your head compared to not wearing in any given scenario. again, not opinion.
Fact, headgear in boxing has not decreased TBIs, in fact it has increased TBIs significantly.
Fact, concussions/TBIs in American Football/gridiron increased massively with the onset of the Naismith helmet, far from actually protecting participants, he and others have actually increased the injuries 9of all types) and TBIs over the years to such a point that there are hundreds of thousands of former players suffering with the long term effects of multiple traumatic brain injury and other injuries caused by the reckless and unadulterated play style. Fact, this level of TBI is not seen in rugby, the injury level of gridiron is not seen in rugby, why? Because headgear was not worn, the rules of the game were changed, spear tackling/leading with the head or shoulder to the head was nowhere near as common place, why, because players did not feel protected by a helmet/headgear to be as reckless, again this is uncontrvertible fact not opinion.
Even now the rulers in gridiron will not remove helmet to helmet contact when a player is deemed to be a 'runner' though they have outlawed head contact when a player is deemed to be defenceless. Rugy has evolved far quicker in terms of looking at preventing even just arm swing tackles never mind directly striking an opponent at full speed with your head, shoulder charging/barging was outlawed simply because there was a high chance of direct head contact and also the whiplash effect. Again, this changes the environment instead of trying to 'armour' up.
Fact, those who road race at the top level are at least twice as likely to suffer a traumatic injury comparative to those in the 1980s/early 90s, this was a study undertaken only a few years ago which took data from professional riders of two eras. the helmet wearing era were over twice the level for suffering traumatic injuries as the non helmet wearing era. We already know that despite better on course H&S, more marshals, barriers on courses, better grippier tyres, better brakes and helmets, more riders die in the pro road racing ranks post helmet rules than pre. Again, this is fact not opinion.
As i said, there are certainties and not opinion that say helmets are not helping but hindering and exposing the wearer to greater risk, that doesn't even take into account the other variables that ad up to a much worse situation for all of us.