published helmet research - not troll
 

I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
but I figured some of you might actually want to read
real research.

see the most recent issue of the Journal of Public
Policy (Vol. 23, Issue 23 - June 2004) - Wiley, Inc.
Publisher - can get abstract from the wiley site.

The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on
Bicycling Fatalities - Grant and Rutner.

First pass is that it was a pretty good article
for what it is worth.

p

by the way. don't bother replying. I dont use that
hotmail account anymore.

published helmet research - not troll
 

patrick wrote:

I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
but I figured some of you might actually want to read
real research.

see the most recent issue of the Journal of Public
Policy (Vol. 23, Issue 23 - June 2004) - Wiley, Inc.
Publisher - can get abstract from the wiley site.

The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on
Bicycling Fatalities - Grant and Rutner.

First pass is that it was a pretty good article
for what it is worth.

p

by the way. don't bother replying. I dont use that
hotmail account anymore.

I recently heard something on NPR to the effect that the wearing of
helmets and the rate of bicycle fatalities is hard to draw claer
relationships to because many of the fatalities are/were children vs
auto, where a helmet (while still a great idea) is not going to have as
big an effect as it will in a one cyclist Done Fall Over incident, or
even in an adult vs auto.

FB - Thinks that all research aside a helmet is a good idea.
(Imperically speaking of course..)

published helmet research - not troll
 

"Faster Bordello" wrote in message
...
patrick wrote:

I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
but I figured some of you might actually want to read
real research.

see the most recent issue of the Journal of Public
Policy (Vol. 23, Issue 23 - June 2004) - Wiley, Inc.
Publisher - can get abstract from the wiley site.

The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on
Bicycling Fatalities - Grant and Rutner.

First pass is that it was a pretty good article
for what it is worth.

p

by the way. don't bother replying. I dont use that
hotmail account anymore.

I recently heard something on NPR to the effect that the wearing of
helmets and the rate of bicycle fatalities is hard to draw claer
relationships to because many of the fatalities are/were children vs
auto, where a helmet (while still a great idea) is not going to have as
big an effect as it will in a one cyclist Done Fall Over incident, or
even in an adult vs auto.

FB - Thinks that all research aside a helmet is a good idea.
(Imperically speaking of course..)

Where's the proof? Where's the proof?
People around here don't need any real proof to be convinced that Lance is a
doper, but they need proof that a helmet makes sense to wear.

Bob C.

published helmet research - not troll
 

"psycholist" writes:

People around here don't need any real proof to be convinced that
Lance is a doper, but they need proof that a helmet makes sense to
wear.

Nah, lots of us want proof on both counts.

published helmet research - not troll
 

"patrick" wrote in message
om...
I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
but I figured some of you might actually want to read
real research.

see the most recent issue of the Journal of Public
Policy (Vol. 23, Issue 23 - June 2004) - Wiley, Inc.
Publisher - can get abstract from the wiley site.

The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on
Bicycling Fatalities - Grant and Rutner.

First pass is that it was a pretty good article
for what it is worth.

It can be found he
http://economics.uta.edu/grant/helmet.pdf

Gemma

published helmet research - not troll
 

Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
"psycholist" writes:

People around here don't need any real proof to be convinced that
Lance is a doper, but they need proof that a helmet makes sense to
wear.

Nah, lots of us want proof on both counts.

As a significant comment on the pertinent article - they claim that a
helmet seems to save some 15% of youth fatalities. I haven't read the
article yet (I just got it) but in the abstract they say that 15%
equals some 1,500 kids.

Firstly, 25 years of fatalities is some 15,000 deaths. Of that only
40% or less are children or 6,000. 15% of 6,000 is 900.

Furthermore, the claim is that the benefits of helmets do not seem to
cross over to adults.

Could this be because:

1) An adult is a lot higher from the ground.
2) An adult is a great deal heavier than a child.
3) Because helmet laws tend to heavily discourage bicycle use by
children the statistics become highly skewed in directions that are
difficult to quantify.
4) Since the number of deaths of bicyclists are so small the
statistics are almost meaningless. "Typical" child fatalities are from
riding out in front of a vehicle in motion. In these cases the
specific impact points are far more important than body armor.

I'll read the article tonight and be able to analyze it more fully. I
will say that most articles on helmets that have been written by
college professors, as this one appears to be, aren't written to be
scientific knowledge but are written instead only to fulfill their
collegian duty of "Publish or Perish".

published helmet research - not troll
 

published helmet research - not troll
 

published helmet research - not troll
 

Ronaldo Jeremiah wrote:

(Tom Kunich) wrote in message . com...

Tim McNamara wrote in message ...

"psycholist" writes:


People around here don't need any real proof to be convinced that
Lance is a doper, but they need proof that a helmet makes sense to
wear.

Nah, lots of us want proof on both counts.

As a significant comment on the pertinent article - they claim that a
helmet seems to save some 15% of youth fatalities.


An important distinction - they say this about *helmet laws*, not
helmets. The actual effect for helmets themselves may be higher if we
account for noncompliance, which may be substantial in this case (or
not, but still the distinction needs to be made).

In other words, requiring kids to wear helmets does not mean every one
of them will. This study appears to be examining the effect of the
legislation, which can only approach and never exceed the effect that
would be attained by perfect compliance.

Based on my quick skimming of the article, it appeared they did not have
any direct data on changes in ridership resulting from the introduction
of helmet laws. They claimed that there was no such effect based on not
seeing any increase in pedestrian fatalities (which might be expected if
cyclists switched to walking instead) or in motor vehicle miles. I'm
skeptical of their conclusions since even a pretty substantial reduction
in ridership with previous riders now getting rides from parents would
have only a very minor impact on total motor vehicle miles driven and
might not be detected in the statistics. Also recreational (i.e just
for fun) riding by juveniles may have been replaced by other activities
such as playing video games, etc.

Previous studies have shown substantial reductions in ridership upon the
introduction of helmet laws and such a reduction could easily account
for all of the observed 15% decline in fatalities even if helmets were
totally ineffective. Locally (northern Cal.) there was an obvious
reduction in the number of bicycles in school bike racks immediately
following the introduction of the juvenile helmet law and the numbers
have remained lower than they were before.

Their discussion of cost/benefit ratio appeared to assume the only cost
of the helmet law was the monetary and inconvenience cost of the
helmets. But if ridership decreases then there are also the health
benefits of cycling that are lost as a consequence of such laws.
Hillman's study for the British Med. Assoc. indicated that for every
year of life lost due to cycling accidents there were 20 years of life
gained due to the beneficial effects of the cycling-related exercise. A
helmet law that results in reducing ridership by as little as 5% would
therefore have a net detrimental effect on overall years of life even if
helmets were 100% effective in reducing fatalities (which is clearly not
the case).

published helmet research - not troll
 

In article ,
Ronaldo Jeremiah wrote:
(Tom Kunich) wrote in message . com...

As a significant comment on the pertinent article - they claim that a
helmet seems to save some 15% of youth fatalities.

An important distinction - they say this about *helmet laws*, not
helmets. The actual effect for helmets themselves may be higher if we
account for noncompliance, which may be substantial in this case (or
not, but still the distinction needs to be made).

Or the effect could be lower. Helmet laws change behavior, especially among
children, there is no doubt about that. If you assume children are safer with
their parents than when unsupervised, and that a helmet law will decreases
juvenile ridership more for children riding alone than with their parents,
then it's possible that the effect of helmets for children is less than a 15%
reduction in fatalities.