Bicyclists Without Helmets Far More Likely to Suffer Traumatic HeadInjury

What would the researchers know about it? They only need to ask a
psycholist to find out that helmets are responsible for most crashes and
most injuries. Bashing your head on the ground will not happen in the
absence of a helmet.

A study by researchers at the University of Arizona showed that
helmet-wearing cyclists enjoy 58 percent lower odds of severe traumatic
brain injury.

The findings were presented today at the 2015 Clinical Congress of the
American College of Surgeons. The authors say they hope the findings
encourage helmet use, the development of better helmets, and the
creation of stricter helmet laws

Not only do helmet-wearing riders have dramatically lower odds of severe
traumatic brain injury, they are far less likely to end up dead in an
accident.

http://www.healthline.com/health-new...-injury-100815

Mrcheerful wrote:

What would the researchers know about it? They only need to ask a
psycholist to find out that helmets are responsible for most crashes and
most injuries.

Please provide a source for your claim.

--
john smith
'_The Guardian_. Wrong about everything. All the time'
(Anon)

In ,
Mrcheerful typed:
What would the researchers know about it? They only need to ask a
psycholist to find out that helmets are responsible for most crashes
and most injuries. Bashing your head on the ground will not happen
in the absence of a helmet.

A study by researchers at the University of Arizona showed that
helmet-wearing cyclists enjoy 58 percent lower odds of severe
traumatic brain injury.

The findings were presented today at the 2015 Clinical Congress of the
American College of Surgeons. The authors say they hope the findings
encourage helmet use, the development of better helmets, and the
creation of stricter helmet laws

Not only do helmet-wearing riders have dramatically lower odds of
severe traumatic brain injury, they are far less likely to end up
dead in an accident.

http://www.healthline.com/health-new...-injury-100815

.... and Cairns proved this statistically during WWII when the wearing of
crash helmets was made compulsory for despatch riders. Cairns was careful
not to claim that crash helmets would solve everything.

Enoch Powell fought, unsuccessfully, for people to decide for themselves
about the wearing of helmets. Similarly the wearing of seat belts was also
eventually made compulsory.

--
Iain

On 15/10/2015 12:54, John Smith wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:

What would the researchers know about it? They only need to ask a
psycholist to find out that helmets are responsible for most crashes and
most injuries.

Please provide a source for your claim.


You should read the newsgroup archives.

On 15/10/2015 12:57, David Hume wrote:
Mrcheerful writes:

What would the researchers know about it? They only need to ask a psycholist
to find out that helmets are responsible for most crashes and most injuries.
Bashing your head on the ground will not happen in the absence of a helmet.


How does a helmet cause a crash?

According to the psycholists: the cyclists brain overheats and they go
giddy and crash, the use of a helmet makes the cyclist think he is safer
and he takes more risks. The increased weight of the head causes injury
in the event of a crash, etc. etc. The straps strangle the cyclist.

Mrcheerful wrote:
On 15/10/2015 12:54, John Smith wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:

What would the researchers know about it? They only need to ask a
psycholist to find out that helmets are responsible for most crashes and
most injuries.

Please provide a source for your claim.


You should read the newsgroup archives.

You lose.
--
john smith
'_The Guardian_. Wrong about everything. All the time'
(Anon)

On 15/10/2015 14:08, John Smith wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
On 15/10/2015 12:54, John Smith wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:

What would the researchers know about it? They only need to ask a
psycholist to find out that helmets are responsible for most crashes and
most injuries.

Please provide a source for your claim.


You should read the newsgroup archives.

You lose.


That is what they have said, you should read the older stuff, it is funny.

Mrcheerful wrote:
On 15/10/2015 14:08, John Smith wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
On 15/10/2015 12:54, John Smith wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:

What would the researchers know about it? They only need to ask a
psycholist to find out that helmets are responsible for most crashes and
most injuries.

Please provide a source for your claim.


You should read the newsgroup archives.

You lose.


That is what they have said, you should read the older stuff, it is funny.

More inane trolling.
--
john smith
'_The Guardian_. Wrong about everything. All the time'
(Anon)

"John Smith" wrote in message ...

Mrcheerful wrote:
On 15/10/2015 14:08, John Smith wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:
On 15/10/2015 12:54, John Smith wrote:
Mrcheerful wrote:

What would the researchers know about it? They only need to ask a
psycholist to find out that helmets are responsible for most crashes
and
most injuries.

Please provide a source for your claim.


You should read the newsgroup archives.

You lose.


That is what they have said, you should read the older stuff, it is funny.

More inane trolling.

More inane posting

On 15/10/2015 12:54, John Smith wrote:

Mrcheerful wrote:

What would the researchers know about it? They only need to ask a
psycholist to find out that helmets are responsible for most crashes and
most injuries.

Please provide a source for your claim.

He did that (not that it was his claim; it was the claim of those he cited).

The URL, in case you missed it (though that seems unlikely) was:

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/bicyclists-without-helmets-far-more-likely-to-suffer-traumatic-head-injury-100815