Ahem ... helmet legislation

[Donga]

Forwarded from the Bikeqld list for the edification of passionate a.b-
ers:

New from the Cochrane Library - 'evidence for healthcare decision-
making'

http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD005401/frame.html

[Review]
Bicycle helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention
of head injuries

A Macpherson and A Spinks


Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007 Issue 2 (Status: New)
Copyright © 2007 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005401.pub2 This version first published
online: 18 April 2007 in Issue 2, 2007
Date of Most Recent Substantive Amendment: 29 January 2007

This record should be cited as: Macpherson A, Spinks A. Bicycle helmet
legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention of head
injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art.
No.: CD005401. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005401.pub2.

[EuanB[_63_]]

Donga Wrote:
> Forwarded from the Bikeqld list for the edification of passionate a.b-
> ers:
>
> New from the Cochrane Library - 'evidence for healthcare decision-
> making'
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yt7ngg
>
> [Review]
> Bicycle helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention
> of head injuries
>
> A Macpherson and A Spinks
>
>
> Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007 Issue 2 (Status: New)
> Copyright © 2007 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley &
> Sons, Ltd.
> DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005401.pub2 This version first published
> online: 18 April 2007 in Issue 2, 2007
> Date of Most Recent Substantive Amendment: 29 January 2007
>
> This record should be cited as: Macpherson A, Spinks A. Bicycle helmet
> legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention of head
> injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art.
> No.: CD005401. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005401.pub2.

I didn't see any mention of whether cycling levels per capita
increasing or decreasing post helmet-legislation had been taken in to
consideration. If it hasn't, then the study's worthless.


--
EuanB

[Peter]

Donga > wrote:

> Forwarded from the Bikeqld list for the edification of passionate a.b-
> ers:
>
> New from the Cochrane Library - 'evidence for healthcare decision-
> making'
>
> http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD005401/
> frame.html
>
> [Review] Bicycle helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use and
> prevention of head injuries
>
> A Macpherson and A Spinks
>
>

Given the obvious conclusions, it looks like someone needs to publish a
few papers to satisfy their quota.

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 11 May 2007 08:32:23 +1000
EuanB > wrote:
>
> I didn't see any mention of whether cycling levels per capita
> increasing or decreasing post helmet-legislation had been taken in to
> consideration. If it hasn't, then the study's worthless.

The whole hting seemed useless because they said at the start that
they had bugger all data and couldn't compare like with like or, as
you say, get any sensible data on participation.

I'd be interested to know the current Vic data on participation.
Anecdotal evidence would be that cycling is increasing? And what
about helmet wearing, I see more cyclists now than I did
when I was commuting in the mid 90s but I also see more helmetless
ones. I can't tell if the proportions are the same, my memory isn't
that good!

But I do see more helmetless now than I saw when I restarted commuting
a year ago. Including couriers. Probably as many "no helmet visible"
implying they don't ever wear one as I see "helmet on bars or
backpack" implying they wear it sometimes.

I see them in the CBD and on the Bridge bikepath, and on the Cook's
River path. I don't see them on faster roads like Pyrmont Bridge, but
I see fewer cyclists generally on that part of my commute.

Zebee

[Peter Keller]

Donga wrote:

> Forwarded from the Bikeqld list for the edification of passionate a.b-
> ers:
>
> New from the Cochrane Library - 'evidence for healthcare decision-
> making'
>
>
http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD005401/frame.html
>
> [Review]
> Bicycle helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention
> of head injuries
>
> A Macpherson and A Spinks
>
>
> Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007 Issue 2 (Status: New)
> Copyright © 2007 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley &
> Sons, Ltd.
> DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005401.pub2 This version first published
> online: 18 April 2007 in Issue 2, 2007
> Date of Most Recent Substantive Amendment: 29 January 2007
>
> This record should be cited as: Macpherson A, Spinks A. Bicycle helmet
> legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention of head
> injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art.
> No.: CD005401. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005401.pub2.

After reading this abstract I actually have no idea of what the authors are
trying to say.
It is a great use of the English language; many words with no meaning

Peter

--
The Kiwi bird is very aptly New Zealand's national emblem.
It is a bird which cannot fly.
It only comes out at night.
It has nostrils at the end of its long beak, and
It is always poking its nose into things.

[Shane Stanley]

In article >,
EuanB > wrote:

> I didn't see any mention of whether cycling levels per capita
> increasing or decreasing post helmet-legislation had been taken in to
> consideration.

"There were no included studies reporting change in bicycle use or other
adverse consequences of legislation." That could mean no change was
found, or it could mean the studies didn't consider the issue.

--
Shane Stanley

[EuanB[_65_]]

Shane Stanley Wrote:
> In article >,
> EuanB > wrote:
>
> > I didn't see any mention of whether cycling levels per capita
> > increasing or decreasing post helmet-legislation had been taken in to
> > consideration.
>
> "There were no included studies reporting change in bicycle use or
> other
> adverse consequences of legislation." That could mean no change was
> found, or it could mean the studies didn't consider the issue.
>

It's ambiguous language, I'm inclined to believe that it means they
didn't include any studies.


--
EuanB

[cfsmtb[_173_]]

Peter Keller Wrote:
>
> After reading this abstract I actually have no idea of what the authors
> are
> trying to say.
> It is a great use of the English language; many words with no meaning

Touché. ;)


--
cfsmtb

[alison_b[_2_]]

EuanB Wrote:
> It's ambiguous language, I'm inclined to believe that it means they
> didn't include any studies.
It means that the studies that their initial literature searching found
did not reach a sufficiently high methodology standard with reference to
the Cochrane hierarchy (where randomised controlled trials reign
supreme, down to lowly case studies, etc.)

The Cochrane database is not original research - that is not it's
purpose. The Cochrane (and similar groups) undertake meta-analysis of
research data to interrogate the evidence for health care treatments,
interventions, and related claims. The meta-analysis is undertaken by
combining the data from smaller, well-structured research projects, in
an effort to explore the strength of claims.

Ali


--
alison_b

[EuanB[_67_]]

alison_b Wrote:
> It means that the studies that their initial literature searching found
> did not reach a sufficiently high methodology standard with reference
> to the Cochrane hierarchy (where randomised controlled trials reign
> supreme, down to lowly case studies, etc.)
>
> The Cochrane database is not original research - that is not it's
> purpose. The Cochrane (and similar groups) undertake meta-analysis of
> research data to interrogate the evidence for health care treatments,
> interventions, and related claims. The meta-analysis is undertaken by
> combining the data from smaller, well-structured research projects, in
> an effort to explore the strength of claims.
>
> Ali

So for the less academically inclined (puts hand up) that means there
were no studies of sufficient merit so whether participation rates
increased or decreased has not been considered?


--
EuanB

[alison_b[_3_]]

EuanB Wrote:
> So for the less academically inclined (puts hand up) that means there
> were no studies of sufficient merit so whether participation rates
> increased or decreased has not been considered?
That's it, pretty much :) It suggests a gap in research that either
hasn't been looked at, or not in sufficient detail. It would be quite
a difficult one to research...

ali


--
alison_b

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 11 May 2007 15:42:48 +1000
alison_b > wrote:
>
> EuanB Wrote:
>> So for the less academically inclined (puts hand up) that means there
>> were no studies of sufficient merit so whether participation rates
>> increased or decreased has not been considered?
> That's it, pretty much :) It suggests a gap in research that either
> hasn't been looked at, or not in sufficient detail. It would be quite
> a difficult one to research...

But it would seem to be utterly vital to determine the head injury
rate wouldn't it?

No point counting absolute numbers of injuries without exposure data.

It's like saying the road toll now is higher than in 1955, without
noting the number of cars on the road....

Zebee

[alison_b[_4_]]

Zebee Johnstone Wrote:
>
>
> But it would seem to be utterly vital to determine the head injury
> rate wouldn't it?
>
> No point counting absolute numbers of injuries without exposure data.
>
> It's like saying the road toll now is higher than in 1955, without
> noting the number of cars on the road....
>
> Zebee
The original post simply suggests that *according to the Cochrane
guidelines* the data isn't available. They're not suggesting that
counting numbers out of context would be a good alternative...

ali


--
alison_b

[flyingdutch[_40_]]

EuanB Wrote:
> So for the less academically inclined (puts hand up) that means there
> were no studies of sufficient merit so whether participation rates
> increased or decreased has not been considered?

FWIW the oft-referred to correlation of helmet law intro and supposed
corresponding drop in riding would seem to be utter bollox.
The stats that i have seen show the same drop in riding for the 2-3
years prior. IE the die was set before the law's intro. I ain't
personally advocating use or not, just saying drop in numbers wasn't
due to helmet laws.
Oh crap. i just entered a helmet-debate... :o


--
flyingdutch

[a5hi5m[_8_]]

Speaking of helmets, of the 12 people (i wont necessarily call them
cyclists) i saw on bikes on my ride to work on friday, a total of FIVE
were wearing helmets! The mind boggles ...

Ash


--
a5hi5m

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 12 May 2007 23:53:07 +1000
a5hi5m > wrote:
>
> Speaking of helmets, of the 12 people (i wont necessarily call them
> cyclists) i saw on bikes on my ride to work on friday, a total of FIVE
> were wearing helmets! The mind boggles ...

Be interesting to see if anyone does a head injury rate vs
participation vs helmet use rate won't it...

Dunno why you wouldn't call them cyclists. They are riding bicycles
after all. Can't exclude them just because you don't agree with their
safety choices.

Zebee

[Theo Bekkers]

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> No point counting absolute numbers of injuries without exposure data.
>
> It's like saying the road toll now is higher than in 1955, without
> noting the number of cars on the road....

Never mind the number of cars on the road. In 1964 the road toll in WA
topped 400. Now the gov't is screaming at us and doubling demerit points and
fines because the road toll is nearly 200, up from 180 the previous year.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

a5hi5m wrote:
> Speaking of helmets, of the 12 people (i wont necessarily call them
> cyclists) i saw on bikes on my ride to work on friday, a total of FIVE
> were wearing helmets! The mind boggles ...

I was riding to work in 1961 as were a lot of other people, never saw anyone
with a helmet, and my mind didn't boggle at all.

Theo