Ahem ... helmet legislation

EuanB Wrote:
So for the less academically inclined (puts hand up) that means there
were no studies of sufficient merit so whether participation rates
increased or decreased has not been considered?
That's it, pretty much It suggests a gap in research that either
hasn't been looked at, or not in sufficient detail. It would be quite
a difficult one to research...

ali


--
alison_b

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 11 May 2007 15:42:48 +1000
alison_b wrote:

EuanB Wrote:
So for the less academically inclined (puts hand up) that means there
were no studies of sufficient merit so whether participation rates
increased or decreased has not been considered?
That's it, pretty much It suggests a gap in research that either
hasn't been looked at, or not in sufficient detail. It would be quite
a difficult one to research...

But it would seem to be utterly vital to determine the head injury
rate wouldn't it?

No point counting absolute numbers of injuries without exposure data.

It's like saying the road toll now is higher than in 1955, without
noting the number of cars on the road....

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:


But it would seem to be utterly vital to determine the head injury
rate wouldn't it?

No point counting absolute numbers of injuries without exposure data.

It's like saying the road toll now is higher than in 1955, without
noting the number of cars on the road....

Zebee
The original post simply suggests that *according to the Cochrane
guidelines* the data isn't available. They're not suggesting that
counting numbers out of context would be a good alternative...

ali


--
alison_b

EuanB Wrote:
So for the less academically inclined (puts hand up) that means there
were no studies of sufficient merit so whether participation rates
increased or decreased has not been considered?

FWIW the oft-referred to correlation of helmet law intro and supposed
corresponding drop in riding would seem to be utter bollox.
The stats that i have seen show the same drop in riding for the 2-3
years prior. IE the die was set before the law's intro. I ain't
personally advocating use or not, just saying drop in numbers wasn't
due to helmet laws.
Oh crap. i just entered a helmet-debate...


--
flyingdutch

Speaking of helmets, of the 12 people (i wont necessarily call them
cyclists) i saw on bikes on my ride to work on friday, a total of FIVE
were wearing helmets! The mind boggles ...

Ash


--
a5hi5m

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 12 May 2007 23:53:07 +1000
a5hi5m wrote:

Speaking of helmets, of the 12 people (i wont necessarily call them
cyclists) i saw on bikes on my ride to work on friday, a total of FIVE
were wearing helmets! The mind boggles ...

Be interesting to see if anyone does a head injury rate vs
participation vs helmet use rate won't it...

Dunno why you wouldn't call them cyclists. They are riding bicycles
after all. Can't exclude them just because you don't agree with their
safety choices.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

No point counting absolute numbers of injuries without exposure data.

It's like saying the road toll now is higher than in 1955, without
noting the number of cars on the road....

Never mind the number of cars on the road. In 1964 the road toll in WA
topped 400. Now the gov't is screaming at us and doubling demerit points and
fines because the road toll is nearly 200, up from 180 the previous year.

Theo

a5hi5m wrote:
Speaking of helmets, of the 12 people (i wont necessarily call them
cyclists) i saw on bikes on my ride to work on friday, a total of FIVE
were wearing helmets! The mind boggles ...

I was riding to work in 1961 as were a lot of other people, never saw anyone
with a helmet, and my mind didn't boggle at all.

Theo