poetd wrote:All of which stands only if you chose to ignore the vast body of research done that shows helmets do offer a signification level of injury prevention.
Or is all that just Big Helmet propaganda? Standards Agencies bought and paid for, entire governments taken over by their undercover agents?
But that's not the topic on discussion anyway.
This is about risk assessment.
IF you assert that riders chose helmets because they "think they'll be safe" then the risk increase argument could make sense.
But if you frame it that people chose helmets because it will add SOME protection to the head (and some being better than none) then the attempted correlation stands on shakier ground.
And while yes, 10 out of 23 studies found no correlation, only 2 did. Did we forget to omit that part?
What body of research would that be? You should point it out to Goldacre and Spiegelhalter, they must have missed it.
Standards Agencies test helmets in artificial situations like the anvil test. A headform of specified weight in a helmet is dropped a specified height. That is all. It tells us nothing about a helmet's performance in the real world.
I doubt you really think that the Road Safety establishment manages road safety in a rational way, in the interests of vulnerable road users. It is concerned with putting up a smokescreen for motors. Which is precisely what helmets are.
And as for politicians.....
Someone above suggested reading Risk
UCLP. It is a very stimulating read. [url]http://www.john-adams.co.uk/[/url
It would give you a better understanding of Risk Compensation.