published helmet research - not troll

I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
but I figured some of you might actually want to read
real research.

see the most recent issue of the Journal of Public
Policy (Vol. 23, Issue 23 - June 2004) - Wiley, Inc.
Publisher - can get abstract from the wiley site.

The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on
Bicycling Fatalities - Grant and Rutner.

First pass is that it was a pretty good article
for what it is worth.

p

by the way. don't bother replying. I dont use that
hotmail account anymore.

patrick wrote:

I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
but I figured some of you might actually want to read
real research.

see the most recent issue of the Journal of Public
Policy (Vol. 23, Issue 23 - June 2004) - Wiley, Inc.
Publisher - can get abstract from the wiley site.

The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on
Bicycling Fatalities - Grant and Rutner.

First pass is that it was a pretty good article
for what it is worth.

p

by the way. don't bother replying. I dont use that
hotmail account anymore.

I recently heard something on NPR to the effect that the wearing of
helmets and the rate of bicycle fatalities is hard to draw claer
relationships to because many of the fatalities are/were children vs
auto, where a helmet (while still a great idea) is not going to have as
big an effect as it will in a one cyclist Done Fall Over incident, or
even in an adult vs auto.

FB - Thinks that all research aside a helmet is a good idea.
(Imperically speaking of course..)

"Faster Bordello" wrote in message
...
patrick wrote:

I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
but I figured some of you might actually want to read
real research.

see the most recent issue of the Journal of Public
Policy (Vol. 23, Issue 23 - June 2004) - Wiley, Inc.
Publisher - can get abstract from the wiley site.

The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on
Bicycling Fatalities - Grant and Rutner.

First pass is that it was a pretty good article
for what it is worth.

p

by the way. don't bother replying. I dont use that
hotmail account anymore.

I recently heard something on NPR to the effect that the wearing of
helmets and the rate of bicycle fatalities is hard to draw claer
relationships to because many of the fatalities are/were children vs
auto, where a helmet (while still a great idea) is not going to have as
big an effect as it will in a one cyclist Done Fall Over incident, or
even in an adult vs auto.

FB - Thinks that all research aside a helmet is a good idea.
(Imperically speaking of course..)

Where's the proof? Where's the proof?
People around here don't need any real proof to be convinced that Lance is a
doper, but they need proof that a helmet makes sense to wear.

Bob C.

"psycholist" writes:

People around here don't need any real proof to be convinced that
Lance is a doper, but they need proof that a helmet makes sense to
wear.

Nah, lots of us want proof on both counts.

Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
"psycholist" writes:

People around here don't need any real proof to be convinced that
Lance is a doper, but they need proof that a helmet makes sense to
wear.

Nah, lots of us want proof on both counts.

As a significant comment on the pertinent article - they claim that a
helmet seems to save some 15% of youth fatalities. I haven't read the
article yet (I just got it) but in the abstract they say that 15%
equals some 1,500 kids.

Firstly, 25 years of fatalities is some 15,000 deaths. Of that only
40% or less are children or 6,000. 15% of 6,000 is 900.

Furthermore, the claim is that the benefits of helmets do not seem to
cross over to adults.

Could this be because:

1) An adult is a lot higher from the ground.
2) An adult is a great deal heavier than a child.
3) Because helmet laws tend to heavily discourage bicycle use by
children the statistics become highly skewed in directions that are
difficult to quantify.
4) Since the number of deaths of bicyclists are so small the
statistics are almost meaningless. "Typical" child fatalities are from
riding out in front of a vehicle in motion. In these cases the
specific impact points are far more important than body armor.

I'll read the article tonight and be able to analyze it more fully. I
will say that most articles on helmets that have been written by
college professors, as this one appears to be, aren't written to be
scientific knowledge but are written instead only to fulfill their
collegian duty of "Publish or Perish".

(Tom Kunich) wrote in message . com...
Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
"psycholist" writes:

snip


Furthermore, the claim is that the benefits of helmets do not seem to
cross over to adults.

Could this be because:

1) snip

One of my friends thought it was due to the adults more developed
"protect your head reflex".. and anecdotally I like it ..

I had two bike related concussions as a kid, as an adult
1 broken wrist
1 broken collar-bone
1 separated shoulder
(all at different times)
never even a scratch or bump on the head..

someone should do a study with a breakdown of the types of injury by
age...
and exclude trials/bmx/free-riders...

(Tom Kunich) wrote in message . com...
Tim McNamara wrote in message ...
"psycholist" writes:

People around here don't need any real proof to be convinced that
Lance is a doper, but they need proof that a helmet makes sense to
wear.

Nah, lots of us want proof on both counts.

As a significant comment on the pertinent article - they claim that a
helmet seems to save some 15% of youth fatalities.

An important distinction - they say this about *helmet laws*, not
helmets. The actual effect for helmets themselves may be higher if we
account for noncompliance, which may be substantial in this case (or
not, but still the distinction needs to be made).

In other words, requiring kids to wear helmets does not mean every one
of them will. This study appears to be examining the effect of the
legislation, which can only approach and never exceed the effect that
would be attained by perfect compliance.

-RJ

"patrick" wrote in message
om...
I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
but I figured some of you might actually want to read
real research.

see the most recent issue of the Journal of Public
Policy (Vol. 23, Issue 23 - June 2004) - Wiley, Inc.
Publisher - can get abstract from the wiley site.

The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on
Bicycling Fatalities - Grant and Rutner.

First pass is that it was a pretty good article
for what it is worth.

It can be found he
http://economics.uta.edu/grant/helmet.pdf

Gemma

patrick wrote:

I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
but I figured some of you might actually want to read
real research.

There has been plenty of "real research" cited on this topic.

For example, you might visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org and track down
some of the cited articles. Regarding the effect of helmet use on
fatalities, you can visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1012 and
see citations at the page bottom.

Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots of
citations listed there, too.

Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to make
it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time without a
helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute supports
carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age groups."

Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets. In
general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more skeptical
of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski writes:


Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots
of citations listed there, too.

This site (at least, the so-called "Helmet FAQ") was created by a rabid
anti-helmet person who would spew continued personal abuse at anyone
who disagreed with him in the slightest. You should note Krygowski's
tactics. He posts a link to Randy's site for "balance" but immediately
disparages it.

Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to
make it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time
without a helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute
supports carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age
groups."

Randy's site is not "rabid," even if you don't agree with everything
he says (or anything he says, for that matter.)

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB