How can wearing a helmet offer no protection from injury?

[mcshroom]

You can't assess it unless you know how many had fish and chips for dinner last night

 

[mcshroom]

[QUOTE 2158027, member: 45"]You can't assess a risk without considering the scenario. "Pedestrian" or "cyclist" isn't enough.[/quote]

Seems to be when helmet compulsion is considered.

The dataset is large enough to determine the trends and probablilties, removing the noise of your little diversions. A whole dataset is objective, as soon as you start arbritarily dividing it up it becomes subjective to the posters views and agendas.

Now of course were you to provide evidence that there was enough of a statistical anomaly then you may have a reason to challenge the dataset. Until then all you are doing is trying to divert and deceive. I'll ask for it again - where's your data to back up your assertions?

 

[mcshroom]

Stop prevaricating Mr P - evidence please.

 

[mcshroom]

[QUOTE 2158047, member: 45"]No, I'm talking about assessing risk. And the stats you're banking on tell me nothing about whether I'm more at risk blasting down the Malverns than I am on a deserted cycle path, nor whether I'm more at risk drunkenly staggering over the A38 than I am soberly waiting for the green man.[/quote]

Evidence please - not holding my breath but you may eventually provide some evidence that the dataset is flawed, or stop cherry picking.

 

[mcshroom]

Evidence please?

 

[Norm]

Has any reasonable study anywhere I the world ever turned up evidence that helmets offer any benefit?

You'd think, if it was that obvious that they help, that it would be easy to prove that they help.

 

[mcshroom]

So you have no evidence then.

 

[mcshroom]

[QUOTE 2158091, member: 45"]Evidence of my assertion?[/quote]

From your posts from page 28 onwards: -

Fish and chips the night before have no influence on whether you'll acquire a severe head injury when you bang your head. Whether or not you're an alcoholic most certainly does.

People crossing roads are at a higher risk of head injury than those walking in a park

Accepting that this is a paraphrase of your post when you stated that a higher risk from crossing the road shouldn't raise the risk for walking across a park.

My comments like this started in response to the ridiculous claim made on here that it's more dangerous walking than cycling

Maybe you could tell us who has said this. As I have provided evidence for, the risks are comparable with both being tiny and the datum values higher for pedestrians but within the margin of error.

Or you could show us that the risk statistics are flawed, as you keep telling us they are.

 

[snorri]

Well I'm back no incidents to report this time so whether I wore a helmet or not is immaterial this time.Any evidence come to light yet

There's more muddied waters here than on the black route at Brechfa

 

[classic33]

Are you having trouble following ? Im not asking for advice just some evidence to base a descision on, bit early for you is it ?

No trouble following, only I asked the same question, which you dismissed with

I dont think anybody with half an atom is going to give you that advice

Early/Late, depends on how you view the evidence before you.

You dismissed a question that you later go onto ask, for your benefit, yet you still cling to your outdated notion that you & only you are correct

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 2158027, member: 45"]You can't assess a risk without considering the scenario. "Pedestrian" or "cyclist" isn't enough.[/quote]

Which is the point you are avoiding.

We are not talking about risk, but the unfortunate who has actually injured themself

 

[mcshroom]

[QUOTE 2158809, member: 45"]Let's not confuse the argument we're putting forward by implying things that we can't corroborate."[/quote]

Like that there are subsets that skew the overall data

 

[steve52]

mmmmm in this new quantom world ( dont think i spelt it right) am i right in saying i both do and do not wear a helmet right up untill the moment of impact?

 

[ufkacbln]

[QUOTE 2158793, member: 45"]I'm not with you.[/quote]

It is very simple.

A person has a head injury that needs treatment

In that case the "likelihood", risk, whether they are over 65 or drunk is irrelevant - it has happened

If a helmet could have reduced that injury, why was wearing one not appropriate?

 

[mcshroom]

Yet you have no evidence that these numbers are statistically significant. When you have that come back and argue the facts rather than just casting aspersions.