SMS wrote:

Most of the junk science regarding helmets relies on a disconnect with
logical thought. Invariably, the junk science (and not just as it
relates to bicycle helmets) ignores legitimate control-group studies,

Baloney - assuming you mean, as you usually do, the people using "junk
science" are those who disagree with the Thompson & Rivara methods that
predicted 85% benefit. Most of the people who _disagree_ with studies
like T&R have looked into their methods and data far more deeply than
those who agree with the study!

How many pro-helmet people realize that T&R's "case" and "control"
groups were different in many important ways beyond the presence of a
helmet? How many people realize that the presentations to T&R's ER had
a much higher percentage helmet wearing than the general population
(meaning the people with helmets were _more_ likely to show up in the
ER)? How many people realize that T&R's calculation methods also
"prove" that helmets prevent over 70% of serious leg injuries?

And most of all, how do those people explain the fact that the fantasy
protection figure of 85% has never, not once, been approached in any
jurisdiction that got lots of cyclists to wear helmets?

There is a lot of "ignoring" going on, but it's not by the people you
think.

and looks solely at whole population studies without taking into account
the myriad of other factors that can affect the whole population.

You have yet to explain how (after a mandatory helmet law) helmet
wearing can suddenly increase from 30% or less to over 70%, with no
detectable benefit in head injuries per rider, unless the helmets are
not working. Pretending "other factors" coincidentally wiped out all
the helmet benefit in the very same year of the law seems delusional at
best.

A statement such as "cycling injuries/deaths went up after a helmet law
was passed, so helmets are not necessary" shows a lack of understanding
of correlation versus causation that a more educated person would not
fall for.

I've waited for years for your explanations to counter the points I
made above. You've never given them. Perhaps it's because you "lack
understanding" of those points?

- Frank Krygowski