|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
But many deny the evidence - robust though it is, and colected by traffic statistics programmes which have existed for decades - that helmets have no measurable effect at the population level. But that is not the data that is being used to push through the MHLs. The MHL proponents look at the comparative injury data of helmeted versus non-helmeted cyclists. This data is compelling on its own. Also, since they measure and report the severity of the injuries, a lot of injuries that would be classified as minor on a non-helmeted rider show up in the statistics, while the helmeted rider would not even go into the ER for treatment. I agree that they should look at the overall data, not just the comparative severity of injury data when injuries occur. No law is needed. They'd be better off finding another way to encourage helmet use, i.e. charging for emergency care to non-helmted cyclists involved in crashes where helmets would have an effect. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:17:46 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote: That is not the question. The reason that the mandatory helmet law is being advocated is because it will reduce the severity of head injuries when a crash occurs. And the people advocating it are in denial about the possibility that the likelihood of crashing in the first place will increase. And about the fact that helmets are not designed to withstand impacts with motor vehicles. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 17:42:01 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
wrote: But many deny the evidence - robust though it is, and colected by traffic statistics programmes which have existed for decades - that helmets have no measurable effect at the population level. But that is not the data that is being used to push through the MHLs. No indeed, the data used to push helmet laws is very selectively chosen to exclude that which proves helmet laws don't work. There's probably a reason for that :-) The MHL proponents look at the comparative injury data of helmeted versus non-helmeted cyclists. This data is compelling on its own. "compelling on its own" in the sense of "coimpelling when viewed in isolation from balancing data", I suppose. Although if it was /that/ compelling the proponents wouldn't need to make quite such a big deal about the 1989 Thompson, Rivara and Thomspson study whose authors have since published much lower estimates following criticisms of their methodology. It's almost as if the problem is not big enough if you use current data. In the UK the proponents also find it necessary to exaggerate the numbers involved. For example, we recently had them claim that 50 children a year die and 22,500 are hospitalised for cycling related head injuries. The real numbers are 10 and 2,000, both figures easily checked and in the public domain. And they also feel it necessary to drag in fatalities, despite the fact that almost all cyclist fatalities are in road trafic crashes involving motor vehicles, whch vastly exceed the protective capabilites of helmets. Oh, and they engage in gratuitous shroud-waving. In the UK they paraded the case of a boy who "would have been saved" by a helmet after riding off the pavement into thepath of a car while riding a biek with defective brakes. Only a true zealot can see this as a justification for a helmet law, particularly since the child had already broken the laws on maintenance and pavement cycling, so was not much of a one for spontaneous compliance. since they measure and report the severity of the injuries, a lot of injuries that would be classified as minor on a non-helmeted rider show up in the statistics, while the helmeted rider would not even go into the ER for treatment. If you read Dorothy Robinson's critique of TR&T 1989 you will see where that falls down. I agree that they should look at the overall data, not just the comparative severity of injury data when injuries occur. No law is needed. They'd be better off finding another way to encourage helmet use, i.e. charging for emergency care to non-helmted cyclists involved in crashes where helmets would have an effect. No, actually they would be better off looking at cycle safety n the round, and realising that helmet use is just a sideshow. Tinkering at the margins. Guy -- May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Steven M. Scharf wrote:
The fact that there are other ways [besides helmets] to also reduce injuries, are irrelevant. These other measures should be taken, but they are not exclusive. The anti-helmet zealots want to prove that helmets don't prevent injuries, but the facts speak for themselves. You have to look at how helmeted versus non-helmeted cyclists fare in crashes, the fact that traffic calming might have prevented some of the accidents doesn't figure into the equation. First: In engineering, people are generally trained to expend resources where they're most efficient or effective. If, for example, convincing all cyclists to ride on the proper side of the road would prevent 35% of bike traffic fatalities & serious injuries; and if convincing all cyclists to wear polka-dotted jackets would prevent 1%, then its logical to go with the 35% benefit. What we currently have is, as Guy indicated, plenty of impartial analysis showing that universal helmet use makes little difference, but an almost total fixation on helmets as the be-all of bike safety. Even if you're convinced helmets have significant value, the current overemphasis on helmets makes no sense. There are better ways. Second: If a person limits themselves to looking at how helmeted versus non-helmeted cyclists fare in crashes, they _must_ be sure that the presence of a helmet is the only difference! This isn't an academic point; one of the common shortcomings of helmet promoting studies is to assume that only the helmet is different. The most quoted figure on helmet effectiveness is "85% benefit" - most quoted precisely because it's the highest, so it's the best for selling helmets. Yet that benefit has never been seen in large populations of helmeted cyclists. Why the discrepancy? The tiny study that produced that figure compared two groups: essentially white, middle class kids wearing helmets who fell riding on bike paths or soft surfaces, versus black low income kids riding helmetless on streets and experiencing harder crashes. (Yes, the division wasn't absolute, but those differences were significantly present.) There are _many_ reasons those low-income kids appeared to fare worse. Just as an example, it's likely the wealthier parents took their kid to the ER "just to be sure" (since insurance covers the visit anyway). It's likely that poor kids go to the ER much more reluctantly - that is, only if the kid's seriously hurt. ER costs money if you don't have insurance. So, as usual, the issue is more complicated than many people believe. For this reason, the most reliable indication of helmet effectiveness really is the time-series study, especially when it involves nearly the entire population of cyclists in a country. And of course, those studies show the least benefit to widespread helmet use. -- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu] |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Steven M. Scharf wrote:
Maybe the province should simply insert a provision into the health care laws that they will not treat bicycle related injuries that would have been prevented by the wearing of helmet; treatment will be at the patient's expense. If this makes sense, then the province should also treat heart attacks only in people who are not overweight and who exercise at least half an hour daily. Anyone for that? ;-) -- Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu] |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Steven M. Scharf wrote:
No law is needed. They'd be better off finding another way to encourage helmet use, i.e. charging for emergency care to non-helmted cyclists involved in crashes where helmets would have an effect. This thinking is interesting! Scharf's faith in helmets is strong enough that he wants to punish anyone who disagrees. No, not by enacting a law; by making them pay extra for medical treatment. Seems to me helmets would have an effect in motor vehicle crashes, too. And I'm not alone in that feeling. See http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/carhelm.html So why not impose the same penalty on unhelmeted motorists? It makes more sense. Those folks are about 50% of serious head injuries! Think of the money savings! -- --------------------+ Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu] |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Steven M. Scharf" wrote:
wrote in message ... "Steven M. Scharf" wrote: I can see both sides of the helmet issue. The pro-helmet people vastly over-exaggerate the statistical benefit of helmets, while the anti-helmet people will simply ignore the evidence regarding injuries in helmet versus non-helmet head injury studies. I guess it would depend on the definition of dangerous, wouldn't it? How many people are killed on stairs, in the bathtub/shower, walking on the street. None of this is relevant to the bicycle helmet debate. Yes it is, the issue is having a law shoved on the population to protect people from harm, regardless of how the people feel about it. Ok, then let's ban stairs, people are killed on them also. Motorists lose control of their vehicles and kill pedestrians and bicyclists, let's ban cars; or restrict them to certain streets and not allow pedestrians or bicyclists on those streets. Increase bicycle safety? Ok, no more two wheel bicycles, people fall down without having a third or fourth wheel. Mandatory knee pads, elbow pads, heavy clothing to prevent road rash. Excessive speed? Gee, there goes all those extra gears, now they won't ride so fast they speed into an accident. Sound silly? Think of the how many people would be saved from harm by those laws. When you make laws to protect people from harm where do you stop? Helmets should be a choice for the individual. Some people accept the added risk inherent in not wearing a helmet, because the risk of being involved in an accident where head injuries are involve are small. Very few people deny the evidence that shows that helmeted riders had less severe head injuries in crashes involving head injuries. And it would be nice for the mandatory helmet crowd to admit that wearing a helmet does not guarantee safety, or survival in case of an accident. Your whole life is a risk. How much of it are you willing to give up to government regulation? -- -TTFN -Steven |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
We know that the countries with the worst cyclist safety records have high helmet wearing rates. Your lack of logic is astounding. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
And the people advocating it are in denial about the possibility that the likelihood of crashing in the first place will increase. I don't think that anyone is foolish enough to believe that helmet use will cause the likelihood of crashing to increase. The people advocating the helmet laws aren't in denial of this possibility, or in acceptance of it; it's just so patently ridiculous that neither side has brought it up. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
Another doctor questions helmet research | JFJones | General | 80 | August 16th 04 10:44 AM |
First Helmet : jury is out. | Walter Mitty | General | 125 | June 26th 04 02:00 AM |
Fule face helmet - review | Mikefule | Unicycling | 8 | January 14th 04 05:56 PM |