>>937480>Abusing SI unit symbolsPlease re-read the SI Brochure
>>937509Yes. It turns out that the use of advocacy thereof of seabelts has no known detrimental effect on the modal share of cycling.
>>937548>but doctors say you should wear itDo they?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10866273/Cycle-helmets-are-useless-says-brain-surgeon.html>>937556>What is your genuine reason for not wearing a helmet?Nonsense question. You may as well ask why he doesn't wear a chastity belt, bulletproof vest or buttplug.
>>937565The null hypothesis is that the risk of both activities is the same. If you're going to claim that one is more dangerous than the other you need to provide some evidence to that effect.
>>937580BTFO
I applaud you for your impeccably precise deconstruction of the helmet superstitionists' nonsense.
>>937712>Except helmets only protect you against the concussionModern bicycle helmets actually do a pretty poor job in this regard. The standards they are designed to conform to were primarily conceived to protect against skull fractures. The attached image is what an effective anti-concussion helmet would look like, according to 'helmet experts' consulted by
helmets.org.
http://helmets.org/concussionhelmet.htmNB:
helmets.org is a great site for evaluating the relative effectiveness of different bicycle helmets on the market, but their advocacy of helmet use goes far beyond what is supported by the evidence. They self-describe as an alarmist site.
>>937728>Helmets and neck braces worn for downhill riding are more effectiveIs there any independent evidence which supports the effectiveness of Leatt-style neck braces? I have looked for it but not found any.
>Given the number of recent records set in major UCI events helmets don't adversely affect performance.Given the increased number of fatalities in pro road cycling since helmets were made mandatory, we can say that they don't significantly benefit safety either.
