Michael Warner wrote:

ISTM that non-helmet-wearers see entire nations of
compulsory-helmet-wearers as a threat to their civil liberties.

I see such people as more a threat to bicycling. It disturbs me greatly
when people portray cycling as SO dangerous that it's foolish to take a
neighborhood spin without protective headgear.

It disturbs me more when people believe that, and cycle less because of it.

That's
why they rail against it, and compile stats designed to show it in
a bad light. But data can be selected and massaged to show anything,
of course.

Sigh When someone makes that "data can show anything" argument, I
lament for the state of scientific education.

Certainly, one can _say_ data can show anything, just as one can say the
sun rises in the west. One must examine the data and conclusions and
resulting discussions to make an informed judgement about what's true
and what's not.

Some issues are pretty definite. A person saying the sun rises in the
west is easily proven wrong, and the discussion doesn't last long.
Other issues (like this one) are more complicated, and require more
thinking to understand.

Unfortunately, there's a large pool of people who stand to make money by
selling helmets, and another large pool of "safety missionaries" bent on
having everyone conform to their idea of risk. There's also a big
number of True Believers, who latch onto the first idea that comes their
way and never question it. These people greatly outnumber the pool of
people who love cycling, and have the scientific competentence to see
through the bull****.


Here's an example of some of the discussion, regarding a pro-helmet
paper published in a well-respected journal - but rife with mistakes.
Read on only if you're math-competent.

http://ip.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/9/3/266

[Note that the page shows letters in reverse cronological order. IOW,
start reading at the bottom.]


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]