Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda

A pack of rabid Mandatory Helmet Law zealots in Australia (Raphael
Grzebieta, Jake Olivier (former USian), and some other clown who's name
eludes me), recently published a paper that looks at the ratio of
cycling fatalities per head of population in comparison with pedestrian
fatalities per head of population, before and after MHL-Day (1990-91).

They claim some 36% decline in cycling fatalities that are a direct
result of the MHL protecting cyclists from death.

They fail to acknowledge *any* reduction in participation due to the MHL
putting people off riding a bike, and IIRC they suggest there is no good
evidence that MHL puts people off riding a bike.

"In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure
following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction
in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to
increased helmet use and not other factors."

https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ije/dyz003/5307412?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Just yesterday I was made aware of a recent study from a large USian
hospital, who examined some 1454 cycling ER cases. 14% wore a helmet.
35% of the helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injuries. 34% of
non-helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injures. There was no
difference in mortality (1% for both groups).

https://chembiopublishers.com/IJARO/IJARO180008.pdf?platform=hootsuite


How can both studies be correct?

--
JS

On 2/14/2019 7:39 PM, James wrote:
A pack of rabid Mandatory Helmet Law zealots in Australia (Raphael
Grzebieta, Jake Olivier (former USian), and some other clown who's name
eludes me), recently published a paper that looks at the ratio of
cycling fatalities per head of population in comparison with pedestrian
fatalities per head of population, before and after MHL-Day (1990-91).

They claim some 36% decline in cycling fatalities that are a direct
result of the MHL protecting cyclists from death.

They fail to acknowledge *any* reduction in participation due to the MHL
putting people off riding a bike, and IIRC they suggest there is no good
evidence that MHL puts people off riding a bike.

"In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure
following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction
in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to
increased helmet use and not other factors."

https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ije/dyz003/5307412?redirectedFrom=fulltext


Just yesterday I was made aware of a recent study from a large USian
hospital, who examined some 1454 cycling ER cases.Â* 14% wore a helmet.
35% of the helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injuries.Â* 34% of
non-helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injures.Â* There was no
difference in mortality (1% for both groups).

https://chembiopublishers.com/IJARO/IJARO180008.pdf?platform=hootsuite


How can both studies be correct?

They can't both be correct. And I have been, and remain, astonished at
Olivier's skill at either extreme self deception or, more likely,
blatant lying.

Not only is there plenty of robust evidence of large cycling drops in
Australia and New Zealand due to the MHLs, there is no logical way there
could _not_ be significant drops. Obviously, many people will not ride
if they are forced to wear the plastic hat. They say so repeatedly. How
can there be an equal number of people who say "I never wanted to ride a
bicycle, but now that they've made it more expensive and less
convenient, I want to take it up"??

To me, the most depressing aspects are these: First, so many bicyclists
are so uneducated and so innumerate that they think helmets are both
absolutely necessary and tremendously effective; and second, so many
bicyclists are now so intolerant that they disparage and even mock those
who do not buy into the helmet propaganda.

For more on that, here's an article by Peter Flax, former
editor-in-chief of _Bicycling_ magazine.
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/11/comm...a-bike-helmet/

Note what he says about the "firestorm of shouty criticism" the staff
endured any time they printed a photo of a cyclist riding without a
helmet. Or about the hassling, trolling and shouting he endures for
riding just as everyone rode until about 1975.

The belief in magic hats is intensely irrational. The militancy of the
true believers is obnoxious. Yes, it's not the most important issue in
the world, but it's depressing.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 10:11:14 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2019 7:39 PM, James wrote:
A pack of rabid Mandatory Helmet Law zealots in Australia (Raphael
Grzebieta, Jake Olivier (former USian), and some other clown who's name
eludes me), recently published a paper that looks at the ratio of
cycling fatalities per head of population in comparison with pedestrian
fatalities per head of population, before and after MHL-Day (1990-91).

They claim some 36% decline in cycling fatalities that are a direct
result of the MHL protecting cyclists from death.

They fail to acknowledge *any* reduction in participation due to the MHL
putting people off riding a bike, and IIRC they suggest there is no good
evidence that MHL puts people off riding a bike.

"In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure
following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction
in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to
increased helmet use and not other factors."

https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ije/dyz003/5307412?redirectedFrom=fulltext


Just yesterday I was made aware of a recent study from a large USian
hospital, who examined some 1454 cycling ER cases.Â* 14% wore a helmet.
35% of the helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injuries.Â* 34% of
non-helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injures.Â* There was no
difference in mortality (1% for both groups).

https://chembiopublishers.com/IJARO/IJARO180008.pdf?platform=hootsuite


How can both studies be correct?

They can't both be correct. And I have been, and remain, astonished at
Olivier's skill at either extreme self deception or, more likely,
blatant lying.

Not only is there plenty of robust evidence of large cycling drops in
Australia and New Zealand due to the MHLs, there is no logical way there
could _not_ be significant drops. Obviously, many people will not ride
if they are forced to wear the plastic hat. They say so repeatedly. How
can there be an equal number of people who say "I never wanted to ride a
bicycle, but now that they've made it more expensive and less
convenient, I want to take it up"??

To me, the most depressing aspects are these: First, so many bicyclists
are so uneducated and so innumerate that they think helmets are both
absolutely necessary and tremendously effective; and second, so many
bicyclists are now so intolerant that they disparage and even mock those
who do not buy into the helmet propaganda.

For more on that, here's an article by Peter Flax, former
editor-in-chief of _Bicycling_ magazine.
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/11/comm...a-bike-helmet/

Note what he says about the "firestorm of shouty criticism" the staff
endured any time they printed a photo of a cyclist riding without a
helmet. Or about the hassling, trolling and shouting he endures for
riding just as everyone rode until about 1975.

The belief in magic hats is intensely irrational. The militancy of the
true believers is obnoxious. Yes, it's not the most important issue in
the world, but it's depressing.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I've been involved in bike-car accidents with and without helmets. Have a scar on my forehead to remind me everyday of the one without a helmet. Got banged up, broken up in both accidents. Emergency room, ambulance for both. Unconscious for the one without a helmet. So I have enough personal experience to prove wearing a helmet helps a lot.

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 9:33:44 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 10:11:14 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2019 7:39 PM, James wrote:
A pack of rabid Mandatory Helmet Law zealots in Australia (Raphael
Grzebieta, Jake Olivier (former USian), and some other clown who's name
eludes me), recently published a paper that looks at the ratio of
cycling fatalities per head of population in comparison with pedestrian
fatalities per head of population, before and after MHL-Day (1990-91)..

They claim some 36% decline in cycling fatalities that are a direct
result of the MHL protecting cyclists from death.

They fail to acknowledge *any* reduction in participation due to the MHL
putting people off riding a bike, and IIRC they suggest there is no good
evidence that MHL puts people off riding a bike.

"In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure
following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction
in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to
increased helmet use and not other factors."

https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ije/dyz003/5307412?redirectedFrom=fulltext


Just yesterday I was made aware of a recent study from a large USian
hospital, who examined some 1454 cycling ER cases.Â* 14% wore a helmet.
35% of the helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injuries.Â* 34% of
non-helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injures.Â* There was no
difference in mortality (1% for both groups).

https://chembiopublishers.com/IJARO/IJARO180008.pdf?platform=hootsuite


How can both studies be correct?

They can't both be correct. And I have been, and remain, astonished at
Olivier's skill at either extreme self deception or, more likely,
blatant lying.

Not only is there plenty of robust evidence of large cycling drops in
Australia and New Zealand due to the MHLs, there is no logical way there
could _not_ be significant drops. Obviously, many people will not ride
if they are forced to wear the plastic hat. They say so repeatedly. How
can there be an equal number of people who say "I never wanted to ride a
bicycle, but now that they've made it more expensive and less
convenient, I want to take it up"??

To me, the most depressing aspects are these: First, so many bicyclists
are so uneducated and so innumerate that they think helmets are both
absolutely necessary and tremendously effective; and second, so many
bicyclists are now so intolerant that they disparage and even mock those
who do not buy into the helmet propaganda.

For more on that, here's an article by Peter Flax, former
editor-in-chief of _Bicycling_ magazine.
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/11/comm...a-bike-helmet/

Note what he says about the "firestorm of shouty criticism" the staff
endured any time they printed a photo of a cyclist riding without a
helmet. Or about the hassling, trolling and shouting he endures for
riding just as everyone rode until about 1975.

The belief in magic hats is intensely irrational. The militancy of the
true believers is obnoxious. Yes, it's not the most important issue in
the world, but it's depressing.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I've been involved in bike-car accidents with and without helmets. Have a scar on my forehead to remind me everyday of the one without a helmet. Got banged up, broken up in both accidents. Emergency room, ambulance for both. Unconscious for the one without a helmet. So I have enough personal experience to prove wearing a helmet helps a lot.

This is always false premise. I was wearing a helmet and fell less than 3 feet onto my forehead which was protected by my helmet and was knocked unconscious for over 5 minutes. Since I was walking and talking when I arrived at the hospital they simply sent me out the door.

What I'm saying is that depending on how you fell, your experiences might have been totally opposite. I wear a helmet because of the minor injuries it reduces and not for the serious injuries it would have no effect on.

On 2/15/2019 12:33 PM, wrote:
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 10:11:14 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2019 7:39 PM, James wrote:
A pack of rabid Mandatory Helmet Law zealots in Australia (Raphael
Grzebieta, Jake Olivier (former USian), and some other clown who's name
eludes me), recently published a paper that looks at the ratio of
cycling fatalities per head of population in comparison with pedestrian
fatalities per head of population, before and after MHL-Day (1990-91).

They claim some 36% decline in cycling fatalities that are a direct
result of the MHL protecting cyclists from death.

They fail to acknowledge *any* reduction in participation due to the MHL
putting people off riding a bike, and IIRC they suggest there is no good
evidence that MHL puts people off riding a bike.

"In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure
following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction
in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to
increased helmet use and not other factors."

https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ije/dyz003/5307412?redirectedFrom=fulltext


Just yesterday I was made aware of a recent study from a large USian
hospital, who examined some 1454 cycling ER cases.Â* 14% wore a helmet.
35% of the helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injuries.Â* 34% of
non-helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injures.Â* There was no
difference in mortality (1% for both groups).

https://chembiopublishers.com/IJARO/IJARO180008.pdf?platform=hootsuite


How can both studies be correct?

They can't both be correct. And I have been, and remain, astonished at
Olivier's skill at either extreme self deception or, more likely,
blatant lying.

Not only is there plenty of robust evidence of large cycling drops in
Australia and New Zealand due to the MHLs, there is no logical way there
could _not_ be significant drops. Obviously, many people will not ride
if they are forced to wear the plastic hat. They say so repeatedly. How
can there be an equal number of people who say "I never wanted to ride a
bicycle, but now that they've made it more expensive and less
convenient, I want to take it up"??

To me, the most depressing aspects are these: First, so many bicyclists
are so uneducated and so innumerate that they think helmets are both
absolutely necessary and tremendously effective; and second, so many
bicyclists are now so intolerant that they disparage and even mock those
who do not buy into the helmet propaganda.

For more on that, here's an article by Peter Flax, former
editor-in-chief of _Bicycling_ magazine.
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/11/comm...a-bike-helmet/

Note what he says about the "firestorm of shouty criticism" the staff
endured any time they printed a photo of a cyclist riding without a
helmet. Or about the hassling, trolling and shouting he endures for
riding just as everyone rode until about 1975.

The belief in magic hats is intensely irrational. The militancy of the
true believers is obnoxious. Yes, it's not the most important issue in
the world, but it's depressing.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I've been involved in bike-car accidents with and without helmets. Have a scar on my forehead to remind me everyday of the one without a helmet. Got banged up, broken up in both accidents. Emergency room, ambulance for both. Unconscious for the one without a helmet. So I have enough personal experience to prove wearing a helmet helps a lot.

If you could prove that both crashes were precisely identical in every
respect, including every detail of how you fell, then you might have a
point. Otherwise you have two anecdotes, and anecdotes are cheap.

My "prevented a brain injury" story was from long ago. I was riding on a
winter's day delivering papers. I hit ice, my bike slid out and I fell
directly backwards, hitting the back of my head on the pavement.

It was a pretty hard hit, and I remember thinking "That really hurt!" I
felt no blood, and felt fine other than the residual pain, so I
continued delivering papers.

I suffered no ill effects. But if I had worn a helmet, it would
certainly have been crushed in back, and everyone would have claimed it
saved my life, or prevented a concussion, or whatever.

But you're free to believe what you like about your incidents. Just
realize that if you use them to promote helmets, _as you just did_, they
will be subject to debate and rebuttal.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:33:42 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 10:11:14 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2019 7:39 PM, James wrote:
A pack of rabid Mandatory Helmet Law zealots in Australia (Raphael
Grzebieta, Jake Olivier (former USian), and some other clown who's name
eludes me), recently published a paper that looks at the ratio of
cycling fatalities per head of population in comparison with pedestrian
fatalities per head of population, before and after MHL-Day (1990-91).

They claim some 36% decline in cycling fatalities that are a direct
result of the MHL protecting cyclists from death.

They fail to acknowledge *any* reduction in participation due to the MHL
putting people off riding a bike, and IIRC they suggest there is no good
evidence that MHL puts people off riding a bike.

"In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure
following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction
in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to
increased helmet use and not other factors."

https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ije/dyz003/5307412?redirectedFrom=fulltext


Just yesterday I was made aware of a recent study from a large USian
hospital, who examined some 1454 cycling ER cases.* 14% wore a helmet.
35% of the helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injuries.* 34% of
non-helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injures.* There was no
difference in mortality (1% for both groups).

https://chembiopublishers.com/IJARO/IJARO180008.pdf?platform=hootsuite


How can both studies be correct?

They can't both be correct. And I have been, and remain, astonished at
Olivier's skill at either extreme self deception or, more likely,
blatant lying.

Not only is there plenty of robust evidence of large cycling drops in
Australia and New Zealand due to the MHLs, there is no logical way there
could _not_ be significant drops. Obviously, many people will not ride
if they are forced to wear the plastic hat. They say so repeatedly. How
can there be an equal number of people who say "I never wanted to ride a
bicycle, but now that they've made it more expensive and less
convenient, I want to take it up"??

To me, the most depressing aspects are these: First, so many bicyclists
are so uneducated and so innumerate that they think helmets are both
absolutely necessary and tremendously effective; and second, so many
bicyclists are now so intolerant that they disparage and even mock those
who do not buy into the helmet propaganda.

For more on that, here's an article by Peter Flax, former
editor-in-chief of _Bicycling_ magazine.
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/11/comm...a-bike-helmet/

Note what he says about the "firestorm of shouty criticism" the staff
endured any time they printed a photo of a cyclist riding without a
helmet. Or about the hassling, trolling and shouting he endures for
riding just as everyone rode until about 1975.

The belief in magic hats is intensely irrational. The militancy of the
true believers is obnoxious. Yes, it's not the most important issue in
the world, but it's depressing.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I've been involved in bike-car accidents with and without helmets. Have a scar on my forehead to remind me everyday of the one without a helmet. Got banged up, broken up in both accidents. Emergency room, ambulance for both. Unconscious for the one without a helmet. So I have enough personal experience to prove wearing a helmet helps a lot.

And equally, I have been involved in two crashes with broke bones,
once my pelvis and once with only a broken rib. In neither case were
there any marks on my helmet that indicated that it had touched the
ground.
--

Cheers,

John B.

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:33:42 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 10:11:14 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2019 7:39 PM, James wrote:
A pack of rabid Mandatory Helmet Law zealots in Australia (Raphael
Grzebieta, Jake Olivier (former USian), and some other clown who's name
eludes me), recently published a paper that looks at the ratio of
cycling fatalities per head of population in comparison with pedestrian
fatalities per head of population, before and after MHL-Day (1990-91).

They claim some 36% decline in cycling fatalities that are a direct
result of the MHL protecting cyclists from death.

They fail to acknowledge *any* reduction in participation due to the MHL
putting people off riding a bike, and IIRC they suggest there is no good
evidence that MHL puts people off riding a bike.

"In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure
following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction
in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to
increased helmet use and not other factors."

https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ije/dyz003/5307412?redirectedFrom=fulltext



Just yesterday I was made aware of a recent study from a large USian
hospital, who examined some 1454 cycling ER cases.* 14% wore a helmet.
35% of the helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injuries.* 34% of
non-helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injures.* There was no
difference in mortality (1% for both groups).

https://chembiopublishers.com/IJARO/IJARO180008.pdf?platform=hootsuite


How can both studies be correct?

They can't both be correct. And I have been, and remain, astonished at
Olivier's skill at either extreme self deception or, more likely,
blatant lying.

Not only is there plenty of robust evidence of large cycling drops in
Australia and New Zealand due to the MHLs, there is no logical way there
could _not_ be significant drops. Obviously, many people will not ride
if they are forced to wear the plastic hat. They say so repeatedly. How
can there be an equal number of people who say "I never wanted to ride a
bicycle, but now that they've made it more expensive and less
convenient, I want to take it up"??

To me, the most depressing aspects are these: First, so many bicyclists
are so uneducated and so innumerate that they think helmets are both
absolutely necessary and tremendously effective; and second, so many
bicyclists are now so intolerant that they disparage and even mock those
who do not buy into the helmet propaganda.

For more on that, here's an article by Peter Flax, former
editor-in-chief of _Bicycling_ magazine.
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/11/comm...a-bike-helmet/

Note what he says about the "firestorm of shouty criticism" the staff
endured any time they printed a photo of a cyclist riding without a
helmet. Or about the hassling, trolling and shouting he endures for
riding just as everyone rode until about 1975.

The belief in magic hats is intensely irrational. The militancy of the
true believers is obnoxious. Yes, it's not the most important issue in
the world, but it's depressing.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I've been involved in bike-car accidents with and without helmets. Have
a scar on my forehead to remind me everyday of the one without a helmet.
Got banged up, broken up in both accidents. Emergency room, ambulance
for both. Unconscious for the one without a helmet. So I have enough
personal experience to prove wearing a helmet helps a lot.

And equally, I have been involved in two crashes with broke bones,
once my pelvis and once with only a broken rib. In neither case were
there any marks on my helmet that indicated that it had touched the
ground.
--

Cheers,

John B.


You need a bigger helmet :-)

On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 03:46:55 +0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
wrote:

John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:33:42 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 10:11:14 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2019 7:39 PM, James wrote:
A pack of rabid Mandatory Helmet Law zealots in Australia (Raphael
Grzebieta, Jake Olivier (former USian), and some other clown who's name
eludes me), recently published a paper that looks at the ratio of
cycling fatalities per head of population in comparison with pedestrian
fatalities per head of population, before and after MHL-Day (1990-91).

They claim some 36% decline in cycling fatalities that are a direct
result of the MHL protecting cyclists from death.

They fail to acknowledge *any* reduction in participation due to the MHL
putting people off riding a bike, and IIRC they suggest there is no good
evidence that MHL puts people off riding a bike.

"In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure
following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction
in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to
increased helmet use and not other factors."

https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ije/dyz003/5307412?redirectedFrom=fulltext



Just yesterday I was made aware of a recent study from a large USian
hospital, who examined some 1454 cycling ER cases.* 14% wore a helmet.
35% of the helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injuries.* 34% of
non-helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injures.* There was no
difference in mortality (1% for both groups).

https://chembiopublishers.com/IJARO/IJARO180008.pdf?platform=hootsuite


How can both studies be correct?

They can't both be correct. And I have been, and remain, astonished at
Olivier's skill at either extreme self deception or, more likely,
blatant lying.

Not only is there plenty of robust evidence of large cycling drops in
Australia and New Zealand due to the MHLs, there is no logical way there
could _not_ be significant drops. Obviously, many people will not ride
if they are forced to wear the plastic hat. They say so repeatedly. How
can there be an equal number of people who say "I never wanted to ride a
bicycle, but now that they've made it more expensive and less
convenient, I want to take it up"??

To me, the most depressing aspects are these: First, so many bicyclists
are so uneducated and so innumerate that they think helmets are both
absolutely necessary and tremendously effective; and second, so many
bicyclists are now so intolerant that they disparage and even mock those
who do not buy into the helmet propaganda.

For more on that, here's an article by Peter Flax, former
editor-in-chief of _Bicycling_ magazine.
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/11/comm...a-bike-helmet/

Note what he says about the "firestorm of shouty criticism" the staff
endured any time they printed a photo of a cyclist riding without a
helmet. Or about the hassling, trolling and shouting he endures for
riding just as everyone rode until about 1975.

The belief in magic hats is intensely irrational. The militancy of the
true believers is obnoxious. Yes, it's not the most important issue in
the world, but it's depressing.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I've been involved in bike-car accidents with and without helmets. Have
a scar on my forehead to remind me everyday of the one without a helmet.
Got banged up, broken up in both accidents. Emergency room, ambulance
for both. Unconscious for the one without a helmet. So I have enough
personal experience to prove wearing a helmet helps a lot.

And equally, I have been involved in two crashes with broke bones,
once my pelvis and once with only a broken rib. In neither case were
there any marks on my helmet that indicated that it had touched the
ground.
--

Cheers,

John B.


You need a bigger helmet :-)

Nope, from the injuries I probably need some sort of body armor. See:
https://www.chainreactioncycles.com/...y-armour-suits

--
Cheers,
John B.

Am 15.02.2019 um 18:33 schrieb :
I've been involved in bike-car accidents with and without helmets.
Have a scar on my forehead to remind me everyday of the one without a
helmet. So I have enough personal experience to prove wearing a helmet helps a
lot.

I've been involved in bike-car accidents without a helmet, and even in
one where a helmet probably would have helped, but luckily I took a
different learning:

Age 14: Left-turn, following my dad without looking at oncoming traffic.
Took the bonnet as trampolin, sprained ankle, wrecked bike.

Age 16: Cycle home from school, dreaming. Find myself sprawled over the
boot of a parked car. No injuries, wrecked fork.

Age 17: Cycle home from school, not looking up so that the sleet does
not hit my face. Wake up in hospital after allegedly crashing head-on
into a parked large truck at 15-20 mph. Concussion, wrecked fork.

I finally learned the lesson that I should really focus on traffic
permanently while riding a bike.

Since then, no major crash on bicycle, car or motorbike in 30 years; as
a post-grad student I drafted a bike safety training.

On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 12:40:07 AM UTC, James wrote:

How can both studies be correct?

Confirmation bias: the answer depends on the assumptions that analysts if the evidence held before they started the study. It's the opposite of true science, which is indifferent about whether the initial hypothesis is upheld or undermine by the inevitable conclusion a true view of the evidence leads to.

Have you ever noticed that the same people always come up with a whole row of similar-sounding answers? Or, worse, that they don't apologise when it is pointed out they made a mistake?

Andre Jute
It's not rocket science