Frank Krygowski wrote:

Steven Bornfeld wrote:



Frank Krygowski wrote:

Steven Bornfeld wrote:



Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Tough to run a controlled
study of this type in real-life conditions.




It would be tough if there weren't such things as mandatory helmet
laws (MHLs). Or even better, _enforced_ MHLs. When you've got a
step increase in the percentage of cyclists in helmets for a whole
country, it's not a bad test of "real-life conditions." All you have
to do is remember to account for the decrease in cycling those laws
have caused. (Pro-helmet papers have been known to ignore a 35%
cycling drop, and count the 30% HI drop as a good sign!)




I don't know how you can call this a real test with any
control. In your response to Jay, you just said:

"Other pro-helmet studies from Australia have done things like ignore
the drop in cycling, ignore the concurrent installation of speed
cameras and stiff drunk driving enforcement, etc. to maximize the
supposed helmet benefit. Still, this is the first time I recall any
study but T&R's coming anywhere close to 85%. Despite the fudging,
other pro-helmet studies come out much lower. I'd like to check the
original paper."


If there were confounding factors in the prior example, you can't
come back and now say these can be ignored.


Do you understand that we're talking about multiple papers?

And do you understand that if the confounding factors all would tend to
decrease cyclist injuries, it's disingenuous to attribute all reduced
injuries to just one factor, the helmets?

I think it is disingenuous to say that all the other factors would
decrease cyclist injuries EXCEPT for the helmets!


I am suggesting that antihelmet partisans can be depended upon to
parse the data out there selectively.


... whereas pro-helmet partisans ...???

Sure.

Incidentally, the word "antihelmet" is rather imprecise.
"Anticompulsion" would be more accurate for many. "Anti-over-promotion"
would fit others. "Anti-fearmongering" still others. But I must say, I
can't recall anyone ever wanting to make helmets illegal.

Of course, it may be that the Church of the Helmet requires absolute
belief in _all_ pro-helmet dogma. If so, then there really are lots of
anti-helmet people.


Oh, a libertarian. Never mind--this explains it.


I've heard the same arguments from people who don't wear
seatbelts in cars. I thought they made what could be valid
points--until I spent a year covering head/neck trauma during my
residency.



So tell us about your head trauma experience. Since we're talking
about saving lives, what percentage of the head trauma fatalities you
saw were cyclists?



They don't usually call the dentist on the head trauma
fatalities. I was called on facial injuries. There were a
substantial number of cycling accidents. Most weren't wearing
helmets, but then this was 28 years ago.


Oh, a dentist.

IOW, you know something about teeth. You know relatively little about
head trauma. I should have guessed.


Ad hominem. You have no idea what I know about head trauma. Do you
want to tell me about your academic qualifications?



You probably realize that nationally, cyclists are less than 1% of
that problem, right?


If it's you, you're 100% dead.


... and, apparently, you know relatively little about evaluating
relative risk.


I personally know several people (including myself) who have suffered
head injury of various degrees while cycling. In most of these, there
was no automobile involved.
I hope you are lucky enough to have escaped serious injury, and that
your loved ones do the same.

Good luck,
Steve





--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY