More data against H****ts
 

Publication by the Scottish Executive
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/...71/0015829.pdf

39% of injured cyclists reported they were wearing a helmet at the time
of their accident.

Yet for Scottish cyclists in general 65% never wear a helmet and only
23% wear a helmet on all or most trips. So ~ 23% of the (helmet
wearing) population account for ~40% of injuries.

(Section 6.1, p21)

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

More data against H****ts
 

Response to Tony Raven:

Haven't we seen this before, or am I deja-vu-ing?

[Later: yes, we have, and here it is - http://tinyurl.com/e9loe ]

Yet for Scottish cyclists in general 65% never wear a helmet and only
23% wear a helmet on all or most trips. So ~ 23% of the (helmet
wearing) population account for ~40% of injuries.

But there are so many confounders! - the figure you quote above may
imply nothing more than that off-roaders are more likely to have
accidents.


IIRC and from a *very* quick glance, the proper conclusions to draw
we

cycling is pretty safe

cycling on roads is safer than cycling off-road

helmets can prevent minor injuries [by far the top three types of head
and neck injuries reported are abrasions, contusions, and lacerations]

helmet-wearing is associated with limb injuries [a slight positive
correlation, but there are plenty of confounders]

helmets don't make much difference to the severity of injuries [ditto]

the writers of the report take for granted the efficacy of helmets,
which is not supported by their data.

--
Mark, UK
"History teaches us that whenever a weak and ignorant people possess a
thing which a strong and enlightened people want, it must be yielded up
peaceably."

More data against H****ts
 

"Mark McNeill" wrote in message
...
r

But there are so many confounders! - the figure you quote above may
imply nothing more than that off-roaders are more likely to have
accidents.


You clearly don't understand statistics in the urc world.


IIRC and from a *very* quick glance, the proper conclusions to draw
we


Ah, proper conclusions!, you're getting into the spirit of things. ;o)

More data against H****ts
 

Tony Raven wrote:
Publication by the Scottish Executive
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/...71/0015829.pdf

39% of injured cyclists reported they were wearing a helmet at the time
of their accident.

Yet for Scottish cyclists in general 65% never wear a helmet and only
23% wear a helmet on all or most trips. So ~ 23% of the (helmet
wearing) population account for ~40% of injuries.

Or else some injured helmetless cyclists are lying.

--
Gareth Rees

More data against H****ts
 

in message , Gareth Rees
') wrote:

Tony Raven wrote:
Publication by the Scottish Executive
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/...71/0015829.pdf

39% of injured cyclists reported they were wearing a helmet at the
time of their accident.

Yet for Scottish cyclists in general 65% never wear a helmet and only
23% wear a helmet on all or most trips. So ~ 23% of the (helmet
wearing) population account for ~40% of injuries.

Or else some injured helmetless cyclists are lying.

It is, of course, entirely possible that the average helmetted cyclist
cycles more miles than the average unhelmetted cyclist. Without data on
that you cannot say whether cycling with/without a helmet is more
dangerous per unit distance, which seems to me the interesting issue.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

pSchroedinger's cat is blinkstrongNOT/strong/blink dead./p