Reply to Why are there no safety rules regarding children on bikes?

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Why are there no safety rules regarding children on bikes?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote]
[b]There's no single thing we could do that's easier, cheaper and more effective in reducing head injuries than requiring cyclists to wear helmets. [/b]

And yet the bike lobby (while claiming safety is their priority) is like, "Wah, I don't want to wear a helmet." [/quote]

If you go back to this article, https://www.thewashcycle.com/2013/06/nhtsa-admits-helmet-effectiveness-claim-violates-data-quality-act.html , that claim is addressed:

[quote]
NHTSA did not, however, agree to our request that the agency either substantiate or remove the claim that “wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” NHTSA said that WABA had not met its burden of proof. Evidently, WABA and NHTSA disagree on whether NHTSA is required to provide at least one study showing its statement to be correct, before WABA would be required to show the statement to be wrong.

[/quote][/quote]
What do you think this “proves” exactly?[/quote]

NHTSA was unable to provide any proof for the statement on their website, "wearing a helmet is the single most effective way (or device) to prevent a head injury.” Yet they continue to perpetuate this statement without evidence. [/quote]
Do you have an account of NHTSA saying they have no proof?[/quote]

They were asked to substantiate the claim and their response was that they felt they didn't have to. Why would they refuse to provide proof if they had it?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics