The case for bicycle helmet legislation just got stronger.

There seems to be a reluctance in here to acknowledge that there is
evidence concerning cycle helmets outside the biased list produced by
the charlatans at cyclehelmets.org.

Here is one which has escaped their database.


http://www.hbns.org/getDocument.cfm?documentID=1479


Bike Helmet Laws Protect Children From Head Injury

By Taunya English, Associate Editor
Health Behavior News Service


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The case for bicycle helmet legislation just got stronger.

Many health researchers have looked at whether helmet laws result in
lower injury rates for bicyclists and most have found that they work.
Still, that conclusion is open to criticism because many of these are
not well-designed studies, according to investigator Anneliese Spinks,
a research fellow in the Griffith University School of Medicine in
Queensland, Australia.

“We searched to find the highest-quality evidence and it shows that
with bicycle helmet legislation, head injuries decreased. By relying
only on the highest-quality evidence, we hope to reduce some of the
controversy over the issue,” said Spinks, co-author of a new review of
studies.

Some regions, including those in Australia, have established universal
bike helmet laws, but legislation limited to children is more typical.
The five studies included in the new review evaluated children-only
bike-helmet laws.

The review appears in the current issue of The Cochrane Library, a
publication of The Cochrane Collaboration, an international
organization that evaluates research in all aspects of health care.
Systematic reviews draw evidence-based conclusions about medical
practice after considering both the content and quality of existing
trials on a topic.

Spinks’ team looked for studies that included a comparison group to
better gauge changes in an area where legislation was enacted versus
an area where bike helmets were not required.

Three of the five studies were fielded in the United States, two in
Canada. One of the largest studies examined hospital records of
bike-related injuries in California over 10 years to assess that
state’s child helmet law. The authors conclude that traumatic brain
injury in youth cyclists dropped by more than 18 percent after the
bike-helmet law was established.

A Canadian study of more than 9,700 bicycle-related hospital
admissions compared injury rates in children in provinces throughout
the country. Provinces that enacted helmet interventions saw childhood
head injuries fall by 45 percent. There was a 27 percent decrease in
provinces with no interventions in place.

Three studies also found that helmet laws, or helmet law enforcement,
lead to significantly greater bike helmet use. The increases ranged
from 45 percent to 84 percent.

Spinks said most scientists believe that bike helmets protect children
and that legislation is effective in reducing injury rates. However,
she believes bike-helmet laws will continue to be a hot debate topic
because solid research remains scarce about some of the biggest
objections.

Skeptics worry that the legislation will have unintended, adverse
consequences. One big concern is that some people will give up cycling
to avoid wearing a helmet, and lose out on cycling’s health benefits.
But Spinks said, “There hasn’t been a well-designed study that looked
at what effects helmet legislation has on bicycle riding.”

The argument also comes with some unlikely assumptions, said
pediatrician Brent Hagel, a physician researcher with the Alberta
Children’s Hospital in Canada.

“If you are going to make that kind of assertion, then you are going
to have to assume that people are going to stop cycling and they are
going to start watching TV and not do anything else, which in my
opinion is fairly unlikely. They may take up in-line skating or they
may do some other activity that is good for cardiovascular health,”
Hagel said.

There is little evidence to support the theory, but other debates
revolve around the notion that helmet legislation prompts cyclists to
ride in riskier ways or bike under less-safe conditions.

Spinks’ review did not turn up good evidence to support or discount
any adverse effects of bike helmet legislation. It is likely,
therefore, that policy makers who propose bike helmet legislation will
continue to face considerable uncertainty.

“It’s going to be tough for them. I’d encourage them to work with
researchers. We need more evaluative studies and we’re looking for
more evidence to really answer this question definitively,” Spinks
said.

--




The Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (BHRF) is an independent body with the message:
Helmets are not beneficial to cyclists - unless the evidence forces them to a dramatically different conclusion.

"Judith Smith" wrote in message
...
There seems to be a reluctance in here to acknowledge that there is
evidence concerning cycle helmets outside the biased list produced by
the charlatans at cyclehelmets.org.

Here is one which has escaped their database.


http://www.hbns.org/getDocument.cfm?documentID=1479


Bike Helmet Laws Protect Children From Head Injury

By Taunya English, Associate Editor
Health Behavior News Service


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The case for bicycle helmet legislation just got stronger.

Many health researchers have looked at whether helmet laws result in
lower injury rates for bicyclists and most have found that they work.
Still, that conclusion is open to criticism because many of these are
not well-designed studies, according to investigator Anneliese Spinks,
a research fellow in the Griffith University School of Medicine in
Queensland, Australia.

"We searched to find the highest-quality evidence and it shows that
with bicycle helmet legislation, head injuries decreased. By relying
only on the highest-quality evidence, we hope to reduce some of the
controversy over the issue," said Spinks, co-author of a new review of
studies.

Some regions, including those in Australia, have established universal
bike helmet laws, but legislation limited to children is more typical.
The five studies included in the new review evaluated children-only
bike-helmet laws.

The review appears in the current issue of The Cochrane Library, a
publication of The Cochrane Collaboration, an international
organization that evaluates research in all aspects of health care.
Systematic reviews draw evidence-based conclusions about medical
practice after considering both the content and quality of existing
trials on a topic.

Spinks' team looked for studies that included a comparison group to
better gauge changes in an area where legislation was enacted versus
an area where bike helmets were not required.

Three of the five studies were fielded in the United States, two in
Canada. One of the largest studies examined hospital records of
bike-related injuries in California over 10 years to assess that
state's child helmet law. The authors conclude that traumatic brain
injury in youth cyclists dropped by more than 18 percent after the
bike-helmet law was established.

A Canadian study of more than 9,700 bicycle-related hospital
admissions compared injury rates in children in provinces throughout
the country. Provinces that enacted helmet interventions saw childhood
head injuries fall by 45 percent. There was a 27 percent decrease in
provinces with no interventions in place.

Three studies also found that helmet laws, or helmet law enforcement,
lead to significantly greater bike helmet use. The increases ranged
from 45 percent to 84 percent.

Spinks said most scientists believe that bike helmets protect children
and that legislation is effective in reducing injury rates. However,
she believes bike-helmet laws will continue to be a hot debate topic
because solid research remains scarce about some of the biggest
objections.

Skeptics worry that the legislation will have unintended, adverse
consequences. One big concern is that some people will give up cycling
to avoid wearing a helmet, and lose out on cycling's health benefits.
But Spinks said, "There hasn't been a well-designed study that looked
at what effects helmet legislation has on bicycle riding."

The argument also comes with some unlikely assumptions, said
pediatrician Brent Hagel, a physician researcher with the Alberta
Children's Hospital in Canada.

"If you are going to make that kind of assertion, then you are going
to have to assume that people are going to stop cycling and they are
going to start watching TV and not do anything else, which in my
opinion is fairly unlikely. They may take up in-line skating or they
may do some other activity that is good for cardiovascular health,"
Hagel said.

There is little evidence to support the theory, but other debates
revolve around the notion that helmet legislation prompts cyclists to
ride in riskier ways or bike under less-safe conditions.

Spinks' review did not turn up good evidence to support or discount
any adverse effects of bike helmet legislation. It is likely,
therefore, that policy makers who propose bike helmet legislation will
continue to face considerable uncertainty.

"It's going to be tough for them. I'd encourage them to work with
researchers. We need more evaluative studies and we're looking for
more evidence to really answer this question definitively," Spinks
said.


In what way had this 'missed their database'?

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:34:28 -0000, "OG"
wrote:


"Judith Smith" wrote in message
.. .
There seems to be a reluctance in here to acknowledge that there is
evidence concerning cycle helmets outside the biased list produced by
the charlatans at cyclehelmets.org.

Here is one which has escaped their database.


http://www.hbns.org/getDocument.cfm?documentID=1479


Bike Helmet Laws Protect Children From Head Injury

By Taunya English, Associate Editor
Health Behavior News Service


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The case for bicycle helmet legislation just got stronger.

Many health researchers have looked at whether helmet laws result in
lower injury rates for bicyclists and most have found that they work.
Still, that conclusion is open to criticism because many of these are
not well-designed studies, according to investigator Anneliese Spinks,
a research fellow in the Griffith University School of Medicine in
Queensland, Australia.

"We searched to find the highest-quality evidence and it shows that
with bicycle helmet legislation, head injuries decreased. By relying
only on the highest-quality evidence, we hope to reduce some of the
controversy over the issue," said Spinks, co-author of a new review of
studies.

Some regions, including those in Australia, have established universal
bike helmet laws, but legislation limited to children is more typical.
The five studies included in the new review evaluated children-only
bike-helmet laws.

The review appears in the current issue of The Cochrane Library, a
publication of The Cochrane Collaboration, an international
organization that evaluates research in all aspects of health care.
Systematic reviews draw evidence-based conclusions about medical
practice after considering both the content and quality of existing
trials on a topic.

Spinks' team looked for studies that included a comparison group to
better gauge changes in an area where legislation was enacted versus
an area where bike helmets were not required.

Three of the five studies were fielded in the United States, two in
Canada. One of the largest studies examined hospital records of
bike-related injuries in California over 10 years to assess that
state's child helmet law. The authors conclude that traumatic brain
injury in youth cyclists dropped by more than 18 percent after the
bike-helmet law was established.

A Canadian study of more than 9,700 bicycle-related hospital
admissions compared injury rates in children in provinces throughout
the country. Provinces that enacted helmet interventions saw childhood
head injuries fall by 45 percent. There was a 27 percent decrease in
provinces with no interventions in place.

Three studies also found that helmet laws, or helmet law enforcement,
lead to significantly greater bike helmet use. The increases ranged
from 45 percent to 84 percent.

Spinks said most scientists believe that bike helmets protect children
and that legislation is effective in reducing injury rates. However,
she believes bike-helmet laws will continue to be a hot debate topic
because solid research remains scarce about some of the biggest
objections.

Skeptics worry that the legislation will have unintended, adverse
consequences. One big concern is that some people will give up cycling
to avoid wearing a helmet, and lose out on cycling's health benefits.
But Spinks said, "There hasn't been a well-designed study that looked
at what effects helmet legislation has on bicycle riding."

The argument also comes with some unlikely assumptions, said
pediatrician Brent Hagel, a physician researcher with the Alberta
Children's Hospital in Canada.

"If you are going to make that kind of assertion, then you are going
to have to assume that people are going to stop cycling and they are
going to start watching TV and not do anything else, which in my
opinion is fairly unlikely. They may take up in-line skating or they
may do some other activity that is good for cardiovascular health,"
Hagel said.

There is little evidence to support the theory, but other debates
revolve around the notion that helmet legislation prompts cyclists to
ride in riskier ways or bike under less-safe conditions.

Spinks' review did not turn up good evidence to support or discount
any adverse effects of bike helmet legislation. It is likely,
therefore, that policy makers who propose bike helmet legislation will
continue to face considerable uncertainty.

"It's going to be tough for them. I'd encourage them to work with
researchers. We need more evaluative studies and we're looking for
more evidence to really answer this question definitively," Spinks
said.


In what way had this 'missed their database'?


Apologies - I had looked for McPherson A - and it was not found - my
mistake - it is of course there - and complete with a BHRF Commentary.





--




The Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (BHRF) is an independent body with the message:
Helmets are not beneficial to cyclists - unless the evidence forces them to a dramatically different conclusion.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:34:28 -0000, "OG"
said in :

In what way had this 'missed their database'?

We don't pick up /every/ wish-fulfillment fantasy piece published,
but we do know about Spinks - I guess the paper referenced is this
one: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1181.html

Benefit is only visible if one assumes that the levels of cycling
remain the same post-law. They don't. Accounting for levels of
cycling using any credible mechanism (counts, head vs. non-head or
whatever) shows no benefit, and this is acknowledged in the sources.

The "Canadian study" is probably one of the ones discussed he
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1153.html

I haven't looked into it in any detail, though, as I am a bit busy
ordering three new SANs.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
GPG sig #3FA3BCDE http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:34:28 -0000, "OG"
said in :

In what way had this 'missed their database'?

We don't pick up /every/ wish-fulfillment fantasy piece published,
but we do know about Spinks - I guess the paper referenced is this
one: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1181.html


Yes, she apologised for her claim that it wasn't on the BHRF site.

"Phil W Lee" phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote in message
...
"OG" considered Thu, 26 Feb 2009 21:34:28

In what way had this 'missed their database'?

It missed the database because it isn't research,

wrong - the paper /is/ on the cyclehelmets.org website with a commentary.