|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
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. 14% wore a helmet. 35% of the helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injuries. 34% of non-helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injures. There was no difference in mortality (1% for both groups). https://chembiopublishers.com/IJARO/IJARO180008.pdf?platform=hootsuite How can both studies be correct? -- JS |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 12:40:07 AM UTC, James wrote:
How can both studies be correct? Confirmation bias: the answer depends on the assumptions that analysts if the evidence held before they started the study. It's the opposite of true science, which is indifferent about whether the initial hypothesis is upheld or undermine by the inevitable conclusion a true view of the evidence leads to. Have you ever noticed that the same people always come up with a whole row of similar-sounding answers? Or, worse, that they don't apologise when it is pointed out they made a mistake? Andre Jute It's not rocket science |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:39:56 +1100, 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. How can both studies be correct? Any paper bsed on Australian data can only show corelation and not causation. The quacks screamed for MHL but failed to collect any data that enabled them to show that helmets were the reason for the reduction in cycling fatalities. I've always enjoyed throwing that factoid in the face of any doctor that sprouts the MHL bleat. In any case, medical professionals are responsible for far more fatalities in Australia each year. A recent article stated you'd be lucky to survive 6 months after surgery in Australia. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 6:19:00 AM UTC-8, news18 wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:39:56 +1100, 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. How can both studies be correct? Any paper bsed on Australian data can only show corelation and not causation. The quacks screamed for MHL but failed to collect any data that enabled them to show that helmets were the reason for the reduction in cycling fatalities. I've always enjoyed throwing that factoid in the face of any doctor that sprouts the MHL bleat. In any case, medical professionals are responsible for far more fatalities in Australia each year. A recent article stated you'd be lucky to survive 6 months after surgery in Australia. From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets prevent or reduce certain injuries.. Mandating helmet use is a permissible legislative choice. Policy in Oregon is controlled in large part by voters in Portland, which by size has the highest bicycle mode share of any city in the US, and yet Oregon does not have a MHL for adults. This is because efforts have been turned back by reasonable people appearing at legislative committee meetings, submitting exhibits and doing the hard work associated with supporting or opposing legislation. Your counter-bleating does nothing to promote your cause, nor does criticizing doctors who are understandably concerned with individual patient outcomes and not population studies. They see a massive scalp wound and naturally conclude that a semi-rigid head covering would have helped. I don't want a MHL, but every time I hear the complaining and the level of upset it causes, it reminds me of a patient dying of heart failure who is complaining about an unsightly mole. There are so many other problems we should be addressing, mostly unrelated bicycles and helmets. -- Jay Beattie. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 at 4:40:07 PM UTC-8, 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. 14% wore a helmet. 35% of the helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injuries. 34% of non-helmeted cyclists suffered serious head injures. There was no difference in mortality (1% for both groups). https://chembiopublishers.com/IJARO/IJARO180008.pdf?platform=hootsuite How can both studies be correct? -- JS The paper I wrote showed no measurable difference between pedestrian fatalities and cycling fatalities before and after the advent of helmets. And practically everyone here started wearing helmets. I think that you can still find this one by searching Tom Kunich and bicycle safety helmets. I did one as well on head injuries of motorcyclists before and after the massive use of helmets when I was the director of safety for the American Federation of Motorcyclists and again it showed nothing. But the claim then was that the extreme speeds of motorcycles were far beyond the scope of helmet protection. But helmets did work well on the track because virtually every crash was a slide-out. I think that after 5 years of racing that there were no fatalities on a road racing tracks and some of them such as Sears Point were pretty dangerous tracks. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 9:33:44 AM UTC-8, wrote:
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. This is always false premise. I was wearing a helmet and fell less than 3 feet onto my forehead which was protected by my helmet and was knocked unconscious for over 5 minutes. Since I was walking and talking when I arrived at the hospital they simply sent me out the door. What I'm saying is that depending on how you fell, your experiences might have been totally opposite. I wear a helmet because of the minor injuries it reduces and not for the serious injuries it would have no effect on. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Latest on Australian Mandatory Helmet Law propaganda
On 2/15/2019 12:27 PM, jbeattie wrote:
From a biomechanical standpoint, helmets prevent or reduce certain injuries. That's certainly true. Nobody here has ever claimed that they don't reduce abrasions, cuts and perhaps some other minor injuries. On the other hand, there's been no decrease in bicyclists' concussions since bike helmets became widely used; in fact, there's been a massive increase. The MIPS bandwagon is a direct result of that demonstrable failure. (Not that I expect MIPS to cause any huge improvement.) Also, there's no obvious evidence that bike helmets really save lives. As Tom has demonstrated, percentage wise, cycling fatalities have not dropped any faster than pedestrian fatalities. That's also true for the subset of fatalities caused by traumatic brain injuries. (And cycling has always had fewer TBI fatalities, and fewer per mile traveled, than pedestrian travel. There are something like 325 bike fatalities per year attributed to TBI, but over 1800 ped TBI fatalities.) So while helmets may prevent or reduce certain minor injuries, they're not effective against the ones they have been promoted for. If they were made to meet FDA standards for proven effectiveness, they'd be taken off the market! Mandating helmet use is a permissible legislative choice. Policy in Oregon is controlled in large part by voters in Portland, which by size has the highest bicycle mode share of any city in the US, and yet Oregon does not have a MHL for adults. This is because efforts have been turned back by reasonable people appearing at legislative committee meetings, submitting exhibits and doing the hard work associated with supporting or opposing legislation. Ohio does not have a MHL for either adults or for kids. I did that hard work of opposing legislation via letters and appearing at a legislative committee hearing. It worked. Your counter-bleating does nothing to promote your cause... On the contrary, many of the facts I presented in opposition to MHLs were things I learned in part because of discussions here. nor does criticizing doctors who are understandably concerned with individual patient outcomes and not population studies. They see a massive scalp wound and naturally conclude that a semi-rigid head covering would have helped. Any clue why they yell about helmets only for the 1.5% - 2% of such injuries that are related to bicycling, but not for the 99% that are related to activities like motoring, pedestrian travel, descending stairs, climbing ladders, walking around the home? Bicycling has always been a very minor source of brain trauma. It doesn't even make the unbiased lists of causes; it's just too small a percentage of the problem. Yet bicyclists are saddled with laws, with dishonest fear mongering, with endless helmet promotions, and with insults if they ride without helmets. It's a sign of the times that those who decide based on data are attacked by those who are overconfident know-nothings. And society as a whole suffers from this. It's not our biggest problem, but obesity and other effects of sedentary life certainly are societal health problems. Bicycling is a very practical way of building activity into daily life. And every study on the subject has found its benefits GREATLY outweigh its tiny risks. Yet it's saddled with this false image of "Danger!" even by dedicated cyclists. It's just weird. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mandatory treadmill helmet laws soon to be announced.. | James[_8_] | Techniques | 2 | November 6th 14 12:57 PM |
Helmet propaganda debunked | [email protected] | Social Issues | 310 | June 23rd 05 07:56 AM |
Helmet propaganda debunked | [email protected] | Racing | 17 | April 27th 05 04:34 PM |
Helmet propaganda debunked | [email protected] | UK | 14 | April 26th 05 10:54 AM |
No mandatory helmet law in Switzerland... for now. | caracol40 | General | 0 | December 21st 04 12:58 PM |