Ivor Tingting wrote:
Surprised this comment has not been removed by the forum censors for being pro helmet and not according with the general anti helmet brigade on this thread. Twice now I have commented on this thread in support of wearing a helmet which makes this thread is irrelevant but each occasion my comment has been REMOVED. Nasty. I suspect the Spanish paramedics are no different to Uk ones who when they arrive to help you when you are lying injured in the road, the first thing they are ask is "Have you hit your head? Good to see you wearing a helmet!" I know, as twice it has happened to me and on both occasions I was asked this and a helmet saved my head from injury.
I quite agree: pro helmet efficacy threads should be removed to the helmet ghetto.
Perhaps if I point out your mistakes about efficacy it will be.
What do you think would be the effect on cycling casualties if a country passed a law mandating helmets? If the wearing rate increased from about a third to near one hundred per cent overnight? Surely there would be a perceptible effect on casualties if helmet wearing was effective?
This happened. The country was Australia and the change in cycling casualty rate insignificant. How do you explain that?
There is no country where helmet laws have reduced casualty rates. Note that this is an argument against helmet laws, but also an argument against helmet efficacy.
Paramedics (and medics) are trained in injury repair, but not in how to reduce rates. In this they are subject to the same biases as the rest of us. Henry Marsh is a neurosurgeon who cycles around London lidless.
Calling those who disagree with you a "brigade" is a poor debating style.