95% of cyclist deaths?

[LSMike]

in 2006 in Leftpondia were apparently non-h*lm*t wearers:

http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2006/bicycles.html

[Martin[_2_]]

LSMike wrote:
> in 2006 in Leftpondia were apparently non-h*lm*t wearers:
>
> http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2006/bicycles.html

1) they quote 85%
2) they claim most fatalities are caused by head injuries, and other
injuries don't count.
3) Total cyclist deaths per anum, they talk about data year on year, but
ignore the trend.
4)Between 1994 and 2006, there has been a slight decrease in the deaths
of cyclists, but the proportion of helmet wearing cyclists killed has
gone up. Ok I know this is meaningless.
5) Most deaths occurred between June and September, i.e. when there are
far more people cycling.
6) This site does not include two sets of key data, the total miles
cycled, without which most of rest of the data is meaningless.
7) And the proportion of helmet wearers, without which any conclusions
they make wrt helmet wearing are meaningless.

[JNugent[_4_]]

Martin wrote:
>
> LSMike wrote:
>> in 2006 in Leftpondia were apparently non-h*lm*t wearers:
>>
>> http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2006/bicycles.html
>
> 1) they quote 85%
> 2) they claim most fatalities are caused by head injuries, and other
> injuries don't count.
> 3) Total cyclist deaths per anum, they talk about data year on year, but
> ignore the trend.
> 4)Between 1994 and 2006, there has been a slight decrease in the deaths
> of cyclists, but the proportion of helmet wearing cyclists killed has
> gone up. Ok I know this is meaningless.
> 5) Most deaths occurred between June and September, i.e. when there are
> far more people cycling.
> 6) This site does not include two sets of key data, the total miles
> cycled, without which most of rest of the data is meaningless.
> 7) And the proportion of helmet wearers, without which any conclusions
> they make wrt helmet wearing are meaningless.

It's all missed the point.

Most cyclists, like most motorists and most habitual pedestrians and
PT-users, die of natural causes.

[Martin[_2_]]

LSMike wrote:
> in 2006 in Leftpondia were apparently non-h*lm*t wearers:
>
> http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2006/bicycles.html

For every 95 cyclists killed without a helmet, 5 were killed wearing a
helmet (or seatbelt according to FARS). Also 28.3 were wearing a helmet
and survived (using the 85% stat).


http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1174

> strongly suggests that the overall helmet use rate among fatally injured bicyclists is more likely now to be in the 20 - 25% range nationally, rather than the 10% indicated by FARS.

If 20% (25) were killed wearing a helmet (or baby seat), then 113 (142)
were wearing a helmet and survived an otherwise fatal accident.

This only adds up if 62%-69% of leftpondians were wearing a helmet when
they had an accident.
Are helmet wearing rates that high in leftpondia?

[burtthebike]

"LSMike" > wrote in message
...
> in 2006 in Leftpondia were apparently non-h*lm*t wearers:
>
> http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2006/bicycles.html

They quote the 85% figure in the second sentence, thus demonstrating that
the authors are either incompetent or grossly biassed. I didn't bother
reading any more, it must be nonsense and life's to short to spend it
reading rubbish.

[Zog The Undeniable]

LSMike wrote:
> in 2006 in Leftpondia were apparently non-h*lm*t wearers:
>
> http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2006/bicycles.html

They're still quoting the Thompson, Rivara and Thompson figure which is
not only fatally flawed in methodology, it's been deprecated by its own
authors.

[_[_2_]]

On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:18:48 +0100, Zog The Undeniable wrote:

> LSMike wrote:
>> in 2006 in Leftpondia were apparently non-h*lm*t wearers:
>>
>> http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2006/bicycles.html
>
> They're still quoting the Thompson, Rivara and Thompson figure which is
> not only fatally flawed in methodology, it's been deprecated by its own
> authors.

Can you supply a cite for this; which I think was a letter to a journal
following a letter critical of their first paper? I would very much like
to be able to point to it exactly.

[Zog The Undeniable]

_ wrote:
> On Sat, 10 May 2008 08:18:48 +0100, Zog The Undeniable wrote:
>
>> LSMike wrote:
>>> in 2006 in Leftpondia were apparently non-h*lm*t wearers:
>>>
>>> http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts_2006/bicycles.html
>> They're still quoting the Thompson, Rivara and Thompson figure which is
>> not only fatally flawed in methodology, it's been deprecated by its own
>> authors.
>
> Can you supply a cite for this; which I think was a letter to a journal
> following a letter critical of their first paper? I would very much like
> to be able to point to it exactly.

According to Guy Chapman's website, the reference is Effectiveness of
bicycle safety helmets in preventing head injury: a case-control study
Thompson DC, Rivara FP, Thompson RS. Journal of the American Medical
Association 1996 vol 276 p1968-73.

This revised their previous figure to 69%, but you might as well read
the whole critique:

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Thompson%2C_Rivara_and_Thompson_%281989%29

[Jeremy Parker]

"LSMike" > wrote in message
...
> in 2006 in Leftpondia were apparently non-h*lm*t wearers:
>

And the percentage of accidents where the helmet wearing status is
not known has now gone down to zero. This is pretty impressive
considering what Riley Geary of the Institute for Traffic Safety
Analysis said about the subject in June 2006.

See http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/12/3/148

Jeremy Parker