On 24 Apr, 12:34, Mike Clark wrote:

It wasn't so much contentious as uninformative with regard to the topic
under debate. I was hoping that you could point me to where the
empirical experience and knowledge of practitioners in the field of
bicycle helmet usage points to where the flaws in the statistical
analysis of the data on overall injury rates are?


That would be a pointless exercise on this newsgroup. Having surveyed
in detail some of the associated 'helmet' websites where some studies
are presented, the sites are a farrago of twisting prejudice, where
any any research which finds helmets beneficial is dismissed as
partisan and biased, and then attacked and interpreted with cod
science and specious reasoning, and then twisted with statistical
ignorance. Research which does not support beneficial effects helmets
is seemingly not subject to the same standards of (mis)interpretation.

My remarks on the topic stand as they are, as an indication of where
the real explanation for genuine anomalies can lie.

It would be pointless to make any points on real studies and actual
statistics since it merely stirs up a hornet's nest from our resident
******s.

Toom