Re: Helmet efficacy test

On 27 Mar 2025 10:36:06 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:

Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:

On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 20:29:06 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 

On Tue Mar 25 16:18:50 2025 AMuzi  wrote:

On 3/25/2025 4:02 PM, cyclintom wrote:

On Tue Mar 25 12:25:34 2025 Catrike Ryder  wrote:

 
You could prove that helmets don't always prevent head injuries, but
not that they don't sometimes do it. Proving a negative is difficult
task.

 
 
 
 
How would you propose that a helmet cause a head injury? You could
argue that the foam helmets are heavy and might increase your chances
of hitting your head but the Wavecel helmets are light. Helmets don't
interfere with vision on a normal road bike.

 
 
"Not preventing a head injury" is different from "causing
ahead injury".
 
You're welcome

 
 
 
 
The grammar on Catrike's posting appeared so be saying that while
helmets may prevent some injuries they may cause others.

 
No, I did not say helmets may cause injuries. Read it again.
 
--
C'est bon
Soloman
 

>
Indeed that argument is fairly weak and ends up being more demographic
though with the rise of hire bikes even that is probably dead.
>
It’s an overreach.
>
Roger Merriman

It's one thing for me (or anyone) to reject someone's suggestion that
I should wear a helmet, and quite something else to argue that helmets
have no value. I can't imagine why Krygowski does that.

--
C'est bon
Soloman