il padrone wrote:Xplora wrote:because there are two sides to every argument, and we need to accept the research at hand.
Correction to that. We need to question and critique any research conclusions to establish their validity.
The validity of the conclusion (that cyclists who don't wear helmets are likely to take more risks) is entirely valid, but that is correlation, and not causality, ie helmets do not cause helmet wearers to take less risks, risk averse people are simply more likely to wear helmets. ie I wouldn't even bother to read the study to try find errors with that, because I feel its extremely unlikely to be an incorrect conclusion.
Another detected correlation is the tendency for people that have lit lights on their cycles to have less severe accidents (and probably less accidents) during broad daylight, because fitting lights is correlated with peoples ability to perceive risks, as is the frequency and severity of their accidents.
As it turns out, dutch accident and head injury rates for cycling without helmets (by trip or by kms) are vastly better than ours with helmets, which is an example of why offloading what should be infrastructure safety to PPG is a poor governmental level practice.