On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 10:11:14 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 2/14/2019 7:39 PM, James wrote:
A pack of rabid Mandatory Helmet Law zealots in Australia (Raphael
Grzebieta, Jake Olivier (former USian), and some other clown who's name
eludes me), recently published a paper that looks at the ratio of
cycling fatalities per head of population in comparison with pedestrian
fatalities per head of population, before and after MHL-Day (1990-91).

They claim some 36% decline in cycling fatalities that are a direct
result of the MHL protecting cyclists from death.

They fail to acknowledge *any* reduction in participation due to the MHL
putting people off riding a bike, and IIRC they suggest there is no good
evidence that MHL puts people off riding a bike.

"In the absence of robust evidence showing a decline in cycling exposure
following helmet legislation or other confounding factors, the reduction
in Australian bicycle-related fatality appears to be primarily due to
increased helmet use and not other factors."

https://academic.oup.com/ije/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/ije/dyz003/5307412?redirectedFrom=fulltext


Just yesterday I was made aware of a recent study from a large USian
hospital, who examined some 1454 cycling ER cases.Â* 14% wore a helmet.
35% of the helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injuries.Â* 34% of
non-helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injures.Â* There was no
difference in mortality (1% for both groups).

https://chembiopublishers.com/IJARO/IJARO180008.pdf?platform=hootsuite


How can both studies be correct?

They can't both be correct. And I have been, and remain, astonished at
Olivier's skill at either extreme self deception or, more likely,
blatant lying.

Not only is there plenty of robust evidence of large cycling drops in
Australia and New Zealand due to the MHLs, there is no logical way there
could _not_ be significant drops. Obviously, many people will not ride
if they are forced to wear the plastic hat. They say so repeatedly. How
can there be an equal number of people who say "I never wanted to ride a
bicycle, but now that they've made it more expensive and less
convenient, I want to take it up"??

To me, the most depressing aspects are these: First, so many bicyclists
are so uneducated and so innumerate that they think helmets are both
absolutely necessary and tremendously effective; and second, so many
bicyclists are now so intolerant that they disparage and even mock those
who do not buy into the helmet propaganda.

For more on that, here's an article by Peter Flax, former
editor-in-chief of _Bicycling_ magazine.
https://cyclingtips.com/2018/11/comm...a-bike-helmet/

Note what he says about the "firestorm of shouty criticism" the staff
endured any time they printed a photo of a cyclist riding without a
helmet. Or about the hassling, trolling and shouting he endures for
riding just as everyone rode until about 1975.

The belief in magic hats is intensely irrational. The militancy of the
true believers is obnoxious. Yes, it's not the most important issue in
the world, but it's depressing.


--
- Frank Krygowski

I've been involved in bike-car accidents with and without helmets. Have a scar on my forehead to remind me everyday of the one without a helmet. Got banged up, broken up in both accidents. Emergency room, ambulance for both. Unconscious for the one without a helmet. So I have enough personal experience to prove wearing a helmet helps a lot.