wrote:

Well, you seem to want to be able to take all kinds of poetic license.
Are you opposed to my doing the same?

So what poetic license have I taken?

It's like the scene in Jerry Maguire where Tom Cruise's client
isn't interested in Nice Words, he wants Tom's character to "show
me the money!". The change is I'm asking you to show me the
casualty savings. The data is there for you to look at,
governments with a vested interest in showing their mandatory
helmet laws have produced a beneficial effect haven't been able to
find those savings though. In the UK the government is pro-helmet
and seeks to encourage their use, yet in a written reply to a
parliamentray question the responsible minister had to admit there
was no known case of helmets being preoven to improve safety, and
he had a whole department of civil service statisticians to help him.

So:
"Show me the casualty savings!"

BS, and you know it.

Actually, I know it's true. Again, the data and research is out
there for several countries, so you show me the data that tells us
the extent to which compulsory seatbelt laws have improved things.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Nice that you have socialized medicine. We don't. But were you to go
to the ER what do you figure it costs you in terms of paying yourself?
If you are not aware of this factor, it means figuring out what the
time in the hospital cost you in terms of how much an hour you get
paid. The same principle can be applied to driving across town to save
a dime a galloin on gas, FWIW.

But this assumes I'd be spending more time there. As the
neurosurgeon expert witnesses observed by Brian Walker pointed out,
it isn't actually as straightforward as a helmet makes you safer,
period, and as David Jamieson, UK Government Minister, had to
admit, the [UK] Government knows of no case where cyclist safety
has improved with increasing helmet use (and again I emphasize that
this man is *pro* helmet).

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Again, where is your ddata on the non-reported accidnets?

Again, the non-serious accidents don't get reported, because they
are by definition not very serious. However, again I point out to
you that if serious accidents are being downgraded then there
should be a drop in the rate for serious injuries. There isn't.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

The only trend visible here is that you are using apples to make a
case about oranges and are remarkably without any data concerning less
than serious accidents. That is what is patently visible.

I'll tell you again.
The non-serious accidents don't get reported, because they are by
definition not very serious. However, again I point out to you
that if serious accidents are being downgraded then there should be
a drop in the rate for serious injuries. There isn't.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Tell it to the MIT researcher who was just fired for manupulating data
and using false data. He got caught, but now everyone ois wondering
about all the previous stuff that went through this process without
detection. Tell it to the cold fusion gang, too.

The national figures for several different nations are widely
available in raw form to be used and interpreted by anyone as they
see fit. Bogus use tends to be found out in time, as this chap at
MIT has discovered, but since one is working with openly available
data and there are lots of folks who know what they're on about
such cases don't remain at large indefinitely. And we've been
looking at these figures for a *long* time now, and even with a
vested interest in showing that the helmets they've mandated are
working well, governments who have introduced an MHL have been
conspicuous in their inability to show any clear casualty savings.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

See above. Even those folks you are waxing poetic about can be fooled.
Happens all the time.

Why do you assume that it must be me that's been fooled, and it
can't be you. You seem to be working on nothing but assumptions.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Precisely, and what about that helmet in those situations? Did they
prevent a serious injury to the point it bacame non-reportable? What
would the cost have been had the lack of a helmet elevated that injury
to a reportable one? ThatIS the problem with using one category of
data to make a categorical statement about bike injuries.

Again I have to point out that if helmets are degrading serious
injuries to being non serious then that will have an affect on the
serious figures. That you don't catch them elsewhere doesn't
affect a drop in the serious figures, but there is no such drop.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Hold it, now you seem to be on the other side. Either they work or
they don't.

Don't be simplistic. A good thick leather jacket will protect
against stray duckshot quite effectively, but that doesn't mean
it's worth a damn against targeted high velocity rifle fire.

With regard to helmet efficacy (or not) I have been stating the
point that they are no proven use against serious head injuries.
That is very different to saving you a nasty graze and a headache.
I've had those doing housework, yet in common with almost the
whole population I don't feel the need for a helmet doing my housework.

Not true. That is an ASSumption.

"Show me the casualty savings!"

But, one or two or three at some point become those hundreds or
thousands do they not?

They should, yes. So why do those thousands not add up to any
improvement? Perhaps the anecdotes aren't as clear as the reports
assume them to be?

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Aggregate data is like a generalization. There are always exceptions.
Anecdotal evidence is that one and two and three. . .

And since the aggregate is no change, that suggests that there are
2 or 3 the other way where they made things worse...

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Getting up out of bed is far more hazardous. So what? Neither compare
to cycling in any form.

But they do compare very well. Pedestrian serious injury rates
from RTAs have closely mirrored cyclist serious injury rates over
the time we've got figures for, and this happens in different
countries too. Where one jumps, the other jumps (as happened after
compulsory seatbelt legislation has been passed). So they do
compare, because they act the same way over time. One is an
excellent control for the other.

walked far more miles than I have cycled over the last 14-15. Walking
has only resulted in a tweaked ankle or two.

You might tell people on ventilators after being run over when they
were crossing the road that your anecdote is more meaningful than
theirs.

One last thought, and you really should address this with real data
rather than on-the-fly assumptions, because the data is out the

"Show me the casualty savings!"

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/