BlueRider wrote: Wanlock Dod wrote:
BlueRider wrote:No it isn't and i think it is irresponsible to peddle that misconception.
You are mixing up your causes and effects.
Would you care to expand on that, and provide evidence to support your assertions?
I have posted plenty of evidence and comment for that.
I assert that you (-ve helmets) are focussed on statistics and logic which only supports your position thathelmets are in actual fact a bad idea in an accident.
I (+ve helmets), have asserted that your statistics are simply just that and a relevent for law enforcement only. I have posted the Guardian report which does actually focus on the effects of helmets on head injuries, rather than the secondary/tertiary effects.
The nay sayers keep coming back and quote irrelevent statistics and whataboutery, but the simple fact remains that if you are going to hit your head off something, wearing a helmet is 99.9% of the time a better idea than not.
I asked earlier if the nay sayers would choose to have a helmet on or not during an actual head injury incident and i got more deflection and whataboutery.
As others have said, you don't seem to interested in facts or reason, only that helmets are cancer. I disagree. YMMV.
If I quote something that is unequivocal if you quote it is nonsense....
The reply is simple.
Head injuries occur for a number of reasons and causes.
The question is valid!
If you have a head injury would you choose to wear a helmet to mitigate the injury
The question remains though.
Would the helmet mitigate injury in a toddler, pedestrian, jogger, someone climbing stairs
All you need to do is explain why these are irrelevant