Sorry about that. I'm a newbee in this forum, and I did not know. However I did not down-vote because I disliked the conclusions. Rather because I though the use of "arguments" was close to dim-witted and reflected a lack of will to take in the arguments on both sides.

Also I must add that I have refrained from voting up some posts that are marked with the conclusion that I agree with ( No they shouldn't ), because I did not find the arguments to be be clear or bring the debate further.

That is not pragmatically correct, people have much more freedom to drive cars in the U.S. than to walk, as far as I can see. Almost all road infrastructure is car-centric. And this came about in large part because car, petrol/gas/cars were subsidised. Directly or indirectly. Ever heard of economic externalities ?

I am sorry to say, but it appears that you have not read 10% of the arguments in the debate on this page...

I agree with your arguments. Perhaps you post got marked with the conclusion "yes they should" by mistake :-)

I agree totally. This small experiment, was first of all too small, and possibly not very well designed. It does not prove anything. In the strictest of senses, proving something is extremely hard, as you will know from the statistics course. The point is still, that the question has been raised. Risk compensation by car drivers as a reaction to helmet wearing or wig-wearing has entered the debate.

Compared to other sounder and "drier" and more convincing reports on helmets ( e.g. those of Dorothy Robinson and W. Curnow ), this one got way too much attention. Ian Walker has a talent, or the "bizarre" angle captured something that journalists fell for. They way to often go after what is "fun" or stirs up emotions rather than what is wll argued and important.

Bicycle helmets and motorcycle helmets are not directly comparable. But they too have their flaws. A new model has developed that is designed to reduce the risk of rotational injuries to the brain. Cycling and travel by motorcycle are not comparable either.

There are other ways and better of achieving safety objectives. Reduced speed of cars. Improved education for cyclists and car drivers, both in courses and using awareness campaigns etc. More cyclists on the streets has also generally improved road safety ( in towns and cities at least )

Nobody is telling you or anybody else to stop wearing a helmet. :-)

That is not what the question is about. It is about whether helmet wearing should be generally advised, on the grounds of the supposed (and discredited) efficiency of "normal" helmets in reducing serious injury. And it could also be interpreted as a question on whether people should be forced to wear helmets. The way the discussion is going however, it is natural to discuss whether helmets statistically offer any protection that warrants the focus and attention helmet wearing receives.

I repeat : Nobody here has been telling people to stop wearing helmets. However the false reasons that have been given for the so called necessity of helmets is being pointed out.

Here is a link to a YouTube video dealing with the many pitfalls in blindly believing in and acting decisively on the basis of "common sense".

As to the universal value of common sense, here are some is some other common sense knowledge ( of old):

o The earth is flat as a pancake

o The sun travels over the sky. Possibly circling the earth

o Bloodletting is one of the best treatments there are, for a host of illnesses

o If you get sick, or if natural catastrophes happen, it must be because of a sin the individual or the society committed on some level