Originally Posted by Maelochs

This, my friend, is a flat lie.

There is no way, no matter how much you pretend to be doing some sort of "scientific" inquiry, to get good data with a flawed premise.

The actual debates have been, "Only stupid riders don't wear helmets" versus "Helmets work in a limited number of circumstances, and I choose not use that particular bit of safety gear, just an many riders choose not to use hip, wrist, or elbow pads, despite those also working to some degree in some situations."

A lot of people who choose not to use all the available safety gear, make that choice because decades of riding how shown that that safety gear would be of limited utility. Some also point out that there is no actual evidence of exactly how much helmets (or any other safety gear) help in anything but low-speed tip-overs.

As you note .... nobody has the numbers. Also, these aren't the kinds of things lending themselves to easy lab testing. I suppose with enough of a budget, some sort of testing rig could be developed ... but since bike accidents come in so many varieties, it would be really hard to test them all. And because so few people die riding bikes, no one really wants to spend the money doing serious research---no matter what, nobody would profit much. Sad that science is a business, but it is.

Fact is, the two camps seem to be "I want to wear a helmet, therefore everyone should be forced to," and "I choose to continue to ride without every conceivable bit of safety gear, and since I am still riding more than five decades after I started, I'd have to say the evidence of my existence proves that wrist, elbow, hip, shoulder, and head pads are Not necessary to cyclists' survival."

None of the people who choose to ride without a helmet ever claim that anyone else shouldn't have the option, whereas I have seen several times where people who choose to wear helmets want helmets to be mandatory ... and how they justify that is the start of a lot of the debate. Not a lot of people are pleased when some stranger, with zero actual data, tries to impose his or her will on strangers, and then ridicules those same strangers for making different choices.

Helmet debates are a lot like Vehicular Cycling debates.... essentially religious in nature. Some people claim to have a "greater understanding," some received wisdom which makes their choices "better" than everyone else's. When pressed for actual proof, they have nothing. But some maintain that if a person always rides in the middle of a lane, cars and trucks simply cannot hit that person, while if a person ride to the right he or she is literally asking to be hit (patent absurdity.) Similarly, some maintain that any cyclist who is not already brain-damaged Needs to wear a helmet ... and again, actual, citable proof about how much of a difference it might make is lacking, and actual real-world experience is ignored or denied.

I don't mess with people's religions ... if it works for you, Great! I fight hard when people try to force their faiths or belief systems on me, or to have those faiths and belief systems instituted as law.

The arrogance and selfishness of people who "know better than everyone else" and try to make everyone accept their world views is titanic ... yet those people can never seem to see the beams in their own eyes. The people who do not want to be forced to accept anyone else's world views ... are Not demanding anything but freedom to choose, to follow their own faiths.

As I mentioned above, I have Never seen a person who only occasionally uses VC principles, try to deny others the right to ride VC all the time. I have Never seen anyone who chooses not to ride in full padding, try to deny others the right to use whatever safety gear each chose.

The problem is all one-sided here---a small cadre of people have deemed themselves the arbiters of cycling orthodoxy and are trying to impose their faiths on others. The others are simple saying, "Make your own choices, I will make mine."

That is the debate here. Not the crap that was stated in the first line of the first post.

If you start out dishonest, you can pretty much never end up anywhere worthwhile. Try starting out Honest. Then, when and if you get the data you are seeking---data which I would also find interesting---we could actually have an honest, adult discussion about it.

If you start off lying, then you eliminate yourself from the possibility of offering anything valuable before you start.

A good researcher makes sure At The Outset that the hypothesis is valid, that all the premises are valid, and that any experiments closely test the hypothesis. If you Really want to add something worthwhile to the discussion, please do. But you need to dump your own biases first.