The BMA Promote Safer Cycling

On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 22:39:32 +0100, Tom Crispin
wrote:

Do you think on balance that a cycle helmet is more likely to reduce
the risk of injuries to the head in case of an accident, or do you
think that it would increase the risk of injuries?
I must admit I do not know why they cannot answer this question.

That's because it's the wrong question to ask: it's too narrow.

Indeed. And it's not that people /can't/ answer the question, it's
more that they won't, and for good reason. Paul Smith was fond of
asking "would you rather be passed too close or too fast". Same deal.
The logical fallacy known as begging the question. In his case the
problem was a false dilemma - those are not the only options - but in
the case of helmets it's more subtle, as the question embodies the
assumption that wearing a helmet has no effect on the risk of
crashing.

Well, I guess it /could/ be true that it has no effect, but then you
have to look around for alternative explanations for the observed
failure of any real cyclist population to show reductions in head
injury rates from increases in helmet use, as well as accounting for
the fact that risk compensation has been observed in numerous differ
net scenarios including helmet use.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Newsgroup may contain nuts.