mikeymo wrote:Jdsk wrote:Mike Sales wrote:I think that if helmets work, it should be easy to tell. Certainly benefits "too modest to capture" are not good enough to force us to wear them.
The existing studies might be too weak to show even a large effect, especially in particular settings or for particular groups of riders.
The existing studies most frequently quoted to support anti-helmeters' opinion don't study the effect of cycle helmets on safety. They study the effect of legislation. A statute is not the same thing as a helmet.
If you read the piece from which the quotation is taken, it's certainly referring to effects of legislation, but also to the experience in the Low Countries, where helmet-wearing rates are low, and so are injuries. It's hard to defend a view that the quotation is considering only legislative effects. It's talking about the benefits of helmets, not the benefits of legislation.
Nor is it a quotation from an anti-helmeteer, but from a statistician whose interest is in any example of how statistics are used in medicine, epidemiology and similar fields, and for whom this seems to be just one more example. I'm not aware that the author has any other interest in helmets or cycling.