Re: Helmets reduce bicycle-related head and facial injuries



On 16/06/2010 19:09, Ian Smith wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to uk.rec.cycling.]
On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 12:04:07 +0100, D Kennedy<docinneide@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I've read some of this thread, and it appears to me that "fear" is
indeed the appropriate word. There is something deeply unsettling
to me as a cyclist in the apparent underlying message that the use
of helmets should not be encouraged. Is there incontrovertible
evidence that they do harm?

Is there incontrovertible evidence that lucky rabbits feet do harm?
If not, do you think they should be encouraged, or even mandated?

There's been a bit of water under the bridge since I wrote that, and I know you were attempting to make a point by ridicule, but I wasn't saying that their use should necessarily be encouraged and certainly not mandated, but was worried that the message was to actively discourage encouragement with no evidence of ill-effect.

It seems a very strange basis for promoting something - do so unless
there's incontrovertible evidence it does harm. Shall we have tai-chi
every morning? A community sing-song every evening? Listening to a
broadcast from the prime minister every Tuesday lunchtime? There's no
incontrovertible evidence that any of these do harm, so presumably, if
that's really your operating criterion, they should all be mandatory.

There is a logical difference between frowning on the discouragement of encouragement with no evidence of ill-effect and promoting that encouragement.

--
Derv
.