published helmet research - not troll

patrick wrote:

I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
but I figured some of you might actually want to read
real research.

There has been plenty of "real research" cited on this topic.

For example, you might visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org and track down
some of the cited articles. Regarding the effect of helmet use on
fatalities, you can visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1012 and
see citations at the page bottom.

Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots of
citations listed there, too.

Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to make
it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time without a
helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute supports
carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age groups."

Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets. In
general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more skeptical
of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski writes:


Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots
of citations listed there, too.

This site (at least, the so-called "Helmet FAQ") was created by a rabid
anti-helmet person who would spew continued personal abuse at anyone
who disagreed with him in the slightest. You should note Krygowski's
tactics. He posts a link to Randy's site for "balance" but immediately
disparages it.

Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to
make it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time
without a helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute
supports carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age
groups."

Randy's site is not "rabid," even if you don't agree with everything
he says (or anything he says, for that matter.)

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Frank Krygowski wrote:
In general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more skeptical
of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.

I read in my local paper (The Lansing State Journal) that riding without
a helmet makes you 14 times more likely to get killed. That claim exceeds
any made by Swart. Imagine a helmet that is 100% effective in preventing
brain injury. This 14x claim would still require that 93% of all fatal
crashes involve fatal brain injury with no other mortal wounds.
Gannett News printed the claim as if it were an established fact.

Mitch.

LioNiNoiL_a t_Ne t s c a pE_D 0 T_Ne T wrote:

The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on Bicycling Fatalities -
Grant and Rutner.


Their statistics are sound, and their calculation of a 15% reduction in
the juvenile bicycling fatality rate during the helmet-law era appears
to be accurate, although virtually indistinguishable from the
already-existing downward trend since 1975, represented by the blue line
in their data graph:

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/9715/graph.gif

Yes - if helmets were having a significant effect, that graph should
show a significant drop in juvenile fatalities, over and above the
prevailing trend, from 1991 to 1997, when (as they show) the helmet laws
became fashionable.

Incidentally, there are several sources on the web which plot cylist
fatalities and pedestrian fatalities over the decades. Despite the
increase in helmet use, the plots are stubbornly parallel... with, of
course, a certain amount of random variation superimposed.

It seems clear that a) the emergency medical people have gotten
gradually better at their job (probably in large part due to
technology), and b) helmets aren't making a significant difference in
cyclists' fatalities. If they were, the cyclist plot would drop
relative to the ped. plot.




--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
patrick wrote:

I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
but I figured some of you might actually want to read
real research.

There has been plenty of "real research" cited on this topic.

For example, you might visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org and track down
some of the cited articles. Regarding the effect of helmet use on
fatalities, you can visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1012 and
see citations at the page bottom.

Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots of
citations listed there, too.

Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to make
it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time without a
helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute supports
carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age groups."

Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets. In
general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more skeptical
of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets.

What makes it so serious, compared to other discussions? Letters after people's
names? Big egos? Feeding frenzy at the hog trough of research dollars?
Self-importance typically associated with these things? Or is it earnest
effort, for once!

In
general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more
skeptical of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.

Ah, but there's no money to be made in telling people they don't need helmets!
And no political points gained from being "anti-safety."

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:


Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets.


What makes it so serious, compared to other discussions? Letters after people's
names? Big egos? Feeding frenzy at the hog trough of research dollars?
Self-importance typically associated with these things? Or is it earnest
effort, for once!

Maybe "serious" doesn't describe it well enough.

When you log onto the web sites for some of these journals, you can find
discussions between the original authors and other knowledgeable
scientists who discuss their work.

A recent paper out of Scotland reached some very pro-helmet conclusions,
for example; but correspondents were able to point out errors in
computation that invalidated its results. That was interesting, because
it pitted two (or more) statistics experts against each other, with one
emerging a clear loser.

The discussions take place at a much higher level than the typical
wreck.bike discussions (if you can believe such a thing!) For example,
no time is wasted on tales like "My buddy ran into a swarm of
butterflies, and I _know_ his helmet saved his life!!!!" ;-)
It all tends to be very scientific, very mathematical.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Frank Krygowski wrote:

The discussions take place at a much higher level than the typical
wreck.bike discussions (if you can believe such a thing!) For example,
no time is wasted on tales like "My buddy ran into a swarm of
butterflies, and I _know_ his helmet saved his life!!!!" ;-) It all
tends to be very scientific, very mathematical.

Uh oh. I'm afraid you may have just woken up the Anti-Science Beast. Or
perhaps I should say "drawn the attention of" -- the Beast never sleeps.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.
-- Ambrose Bierce

(Bill Z.) writes:

You should note Krygowski's tactics.

Yours are exactly the same tactics. Hmmm.

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 01:48:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote in message :

Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to make
it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time without a
helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute supports
carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age groups."

And Randyt thinks that stopping using the Thompson, Rivara and
Thompson figure of 85% efficacy would be "unhelpful" despite it's
being derived by comparing entirely different populations and
ascribing all the difference to helmet use. In other words, he is a
True Believer :-)

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