Helmet debate, helmet debate

In da Age today... http://tinyurl.com/g2ml7

Helmets fail fitness 'test'

FORCING cyclists to wear helmets damages public health because they
discourage many people from riding, an academic says.

Dorothy Robinson, a former senior statistician at the University of
New England, found that while laws that make wearing helmets mandatory
reduced the seriousness of some head injuries, the cost to public
health and fitness outweighed their benefit.

But some researchers have suggested Ms Robinson's conclusions
"crumble" under scrutiny.

Writing in The British Medical Journal, Ms Robinson, a keen cyclist,
said: "The overall effect on public health is bad, with less people
getting fit by cycling since the laws came in, and more driving."


--
SuzieB

Resound Wrote:
We don't need helmets. We just need to replace everything with exact
replicas made out of nerf.

touche, Hiratio!

running away now........


--
flyingdutch

This report in the BMJ was _years_ ago wasn't it?

Sounds good to me, though ;-) Bloody helmets... flame suit on

SuzieB wrote:
In da Age today... http://tinyurl.com/g2ml7

Helmets fail fitness 'test'

FORCING cyclists to wear helmets damages public health because they
discourage many people from riding, an academic says.

Dorothy Robinson, a former senior statistician at the University of
New England, found that while laws that make wearing helmets mandatory
reduced the seriousness of some head injuries, the cost to public
health and fitness outweighed their benefit.

But some researchers have suggested Ms Robinson's conclusions
"crumble" under scrutiny.

Writing in The British Medical Journal, Ms Robinson, a keen cyclist,
said: "The overall effect on public health is bad, with less people
getting fit by cycling since the laws came in, and more driving."

Just make helmets compulsory for motorists as well...discourage people from
driving cars.

"SuzieB" wrote in message
...

In da Age today... http://tinyurl.com/g2ml7

Helmets fail fitness 'test'

FORCING cyclists to wear helmets damages public health because they
discourage many people from riding, an academic says.

On 2006-03-24, SuzieB (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
In da Age today... http://tinyurl.com/g2ml7
....
But some researchers have suggested Ms Robinson's conclusions
"crumble" under scrutiny.

Darn, small article not going into enough depth. I would love to have
read a bit more about these researchers, and the nature of the
crumbling.

I've seen plenty of doubts about this kind of research, but nothing
that leads me to beleive that the theory that helmets cause more halm
than good is so obviously flawed.

Getting this kind of debate out into the public is a good thing -- the
people making the laws need to realise that the argument for helmets
is not so simplistic "it saves lives", but it's such a short article
that it will go missed by the vast majority of people.

--
TimC
A mouse is a device used to focus xterms.

from recent personal experience....take cyclist, make him fall head
first into ground at 37km/hr, have another rider on bike run over head
- take away helmet - what next?

yuh sure helmets are useless....yup yup....get rid of them!


--
endroll

"Jules" wrote in message
...
This report in the BMJ was _years_ ago wasn't it?

It's all originally based upon the 'safety in numbers' principle doen by P
L Jacobson - Safety in Numbers: More walkers and bicyclists, safer walking
and cycling. Summary he

Objective: To examine the relationship between the numbers of people walking
or bicycling and the frequency of collisions between motorists and walkers
or bicyclists. The common wisdom holds that the number of collisions varies
directly with the amount of walking and bicycling. However, three published
analyses of collision rates at specific intersections found a non-linear
relationship, such that collisions rates declined with increases in the
numbers of people walking or bicycling.
Data: This paper uses five additional data sets (three population level and
two time series) to compare the amount of walking or bicycling and the
injuries incurring in collisions with motor vehicles.

Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be
struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or
bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communities of varying size,
from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time
periods.

Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the people
walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are larger, it
indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the likelihood of
collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears that motorists
adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling. There
is an urgent need for further exploration of the human factors controlling
motorist behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling.

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and
bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers
of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route to improving
the safety of people walking and bicycling.

This work was then looked at by D Robinson, you can view it he

http://www.bfa.asn.au/bfanew/pdf/pub...in_numbers.pdf

It shows that the safety in Numbers principle 'works' for Australia, and
draws the conclusion that discouraging cycling by whatever means (even if
'safety focussed') is more detrimental to public health than encouraging it.

The helmet stuff comes in to the mix because there was an approx 30% instant
drop in the numbers of cyclists at the time of mandatory helmet wearing.
And now she's published another article, which I can't access until I get to
work on Monday..... :-)

And.... look out soon for some South Australian research on the Safety in
Numbers principle..... to be published.

On 2006-03-25, Gemma_k (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
And.... look out soon for some South Australian research on the Safety in
Numbers principle..... to be published.

First the safety ad, and now this!


Thanks Gemma_k! You're my hero.

--
TimC
Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is
moving faster.

"Gemma_k" wrote in message
news:1143255900.438754@teuthos...

"Jules" wrote in message
...
This report in the BMJ was _years_ ago wasn't it?

It's all originally based upon the 'safety in numbers' principle doen by
P L Jacobson - Safety in Numbers: More walkers and bicyclists, safer
walking and cycling. Summary he

Objective: To examine the relationship between the numbers of people
walking or bicycling and the frequency of collisions between motorists and
walkers or bicyclists. The common wisdom holds that the number of
collisions varies directly with the amount of walking and bicycling.
However, three published analyses of collision rates at specific
intersections found a non-linear relationship, such that collisions rates
declined with increases in the numbers of people walking or bicycling.
Data: This paper uses five additional data sets (three population level
and two time series) to compare the amount of walking or bicycling and the
injuries incurring in collisions with motor vehicles.

Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be
struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or
bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communities of varying size,
from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time
periods.

Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the
people walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are
larger, it indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the
likelihood of collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears
that motorists adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking and
bicycling. There is an urgent need for further exploration of the human
factors controlling motorist behavior in the presence of people walking
and bicycling.

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and
bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the
numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route to
improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.

This work was then looked at by D Robinson, you can view it he

http://www.bfa.asn.au/bfanew/pdf/pub...in_numbers.pdf

It shows that the safety in Numbers principle 'works' for Australia, and
draws the conclusion that discouraging cycling by whatever means (even if
'safety focussed') is more detrimental to public health than encouraging
it.

The helmet stuff comes in to the mix because there was an approx 30%
instant drop in the numbers of cyclists at the time of mandatory helmet
wearing. And now she's published another article, which I can't access
until I get to work on Monday..... :-)

And.... look out soon for some South Australian research on the Safety in
Numbers principle..... to be published.


I wonder if there's a volume of bicycle traffic, a critical mass if you
will, where motorist behaviour changes substantially. There's probably a
point where it stop being considered the behaviour of the radical nutbag and
starts being something that most or at least a lot of people do.

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 08:18:05 +1100, SuzieB wrote:


In da Age today... http://tinyurl.com/g2ml7

Helmets fail fitness 'test'

FORCING cyclists to wear helmets damages public health because they
discourage many people from riding, an academic says.

Dorothy Robinson, a former senior statistician at the University of
New England, found that while laws that make wearing helmets mandatory
reduced the seriousness of some head injuries, the cost to public
health and fitness outweighed their benefit.

But some researchers have suggested Ms Robinson's conclusions
"crumble" under scrutiny.

Writing in The British Medical Journal, Ms Robinson, a keen cyclist,
said: "The overall effect on public health is bad, with less people
getting fit by cycling since the laws came in, and more driving."

The report is bull****.

Last I heard sales of cycles is at an all time high.