On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 03:26:26 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote:

I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly
over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the
anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in
helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies.

And the sceptics acknowledge both, look at the injury trends for whole
populations (which are necessarily more robust than for the tiny
groups in pro-0helmet observational studies) and conclude that,
overall, if you want to reduce cyclist injuries, helmets are a long
way down the prority list.

A poll of British doctors put it sixth out of six possible
interventions, a study by the Transport research Laboratory put it
tenth of ten possible interventions and a factor of 25 behind the
likely most effective, being traffic calming.

So the logical thing to do is tell all the helmet zealots to butt out
and return to a proper cycle safety agenda.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University