Scientific American does bicycle helmets

From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?

and on the web he
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...6B2&sc=I100322
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists

(note the different headlines!)


This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:

1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists (anti-helmet)
2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (pro-helmet)
3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries" (anti-helmet)
4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between 1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)

It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
"Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists (and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they read the research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars."

It's not apparent in the web version, but this column is called "Fact or Fiction" and designed for "investigations into popular myths". For example, the July column definitely concluded that premium gas is useless for standard cars.

This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication.

"Gooserider" wrote

---Then there are the people who have had a helmet take an impact and
believe they were saved by said helmet. No study will convince me that the
truck mirror which cracked my helmet at 20mph would have had no effect on
my naked skull. :-)

I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help. But
then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your helmet in
contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear cut.

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:39:44 GMT, "Mike Kruger"
wrote:

From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?

and on the web he
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...6B2&sc=I100322
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists

(note the different headlines!)


This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:

1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists (anti-helmet)
2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (pro-helmet)
3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries" (anti-helmet)
4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between 1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)

It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
"Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists (and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they read the research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars."

Are you sure he's a reporter, and not a politician in training?

Pat

Email address works as is.

"Mike Kruger" wrote in message et...
From the October 2007 Scientific American in print,
Do Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists?

and on the web he
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...6B2&sc=I100322
Strange but True: Helmets Attract Cars to Cyclists

(note the different headlines!)


This is by a reporter, not a scientist, and cites the following:

1. Ian Walker's study showing helmets attract cars to cyclists (anti-helmet)
2. Randy Swart, founder of the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (pro-helmet)
3. Dorothy Robinson's work showing mandatory helmet laws "did not have a significant effect on bicycle accidents resulting in head injuries" (anti-helmet)
4. New York City report showing that of the 225 cyclists dying between 1996 and 2005 on NYC streets, 97% were not wearing helmets. (pro-helmet)

It ends in a wishy-washy manner:
"Walker, whose much-publicized report may inspire a new generation of bareheaded riders, won't make any specific recommendations to other cyclists (and neither will Scientific American), though he notes that when it comes to riding in traffic, motorists are the real problem. "If people read the research and decide a helmet makes them safer, they should wear one; if they read the research and decide it doesn't, perhaps they don't need to," Walker says, adding the caveat, "But they do need to read the research!" And watch out for cars."

It's not apparent in the web version, but this column is called "Fact or Fiction" and designed for "investigations into popular myths". For example, the July column definitely concluded that premium gas is useless for standard cars.

This isn't of interest because it provides new information; it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication.


Next topic : Does wearing your helmut in Iraq attract bullets.

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:03:09 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Bill
Sornson" wrote:

I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help.
But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your
helmet in contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear
cut.

Hardly.

Yeah, I'd rather keep my hair and avoid the road rash (and impact
damage).

IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 00:39:44 GMT in rec.bicycles.misc, "Mike
Kruger" wrote:

it's interesting because of the headline switch and the fact that the helmet debate makes it into a general interest publication.

Uh... Scientific American *is* a general interest publication.
Always has been. It's certainly not a peer reviewed journal.

On Oct 3, 2:03 am, (Dennis P. Harris)
wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:03:09 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Bill

Sornson" wrote:
I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help.
But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your
helmet in contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear
cut.

Hardly.

Yeah, I'd rather keep my hair and avoid the road rash (and impact
damage).

IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.

Ahhhh, here comes the self righteous ad hominem blanket attack without
any evidence. You might do better with a plain penis pump.

Just remember, the vast majority of riders on the planet think you're
a cocksucker.

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:08:46 -0000, landotter
wrote:

On Oct 3, 2:03 am, (Dennis P. Harris)
wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 22:03:09 -0700 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Bill

Sornson" wrote:
I would say that your's is a case where the helmet probably did help.
But then again, you weren't sliding across the pavement with your
helmet in contact with a rough surface. That situation is less clear
cut.

Hardly.

Yeah, I'd rather keep my hair and avoid the road rash (and impact
damage).

IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.

Ahhhh, here comes the self righteous ad hominem blanket attack without
any evidence. You might do better with a plain penis pump.

Just remember, the vast majority of riders on the planet think you're
a cocksucker.

Something wrong with cocksuckers? I rather like them.

On Oct 3, 3:03 am, (Dennis P. Harris)
wrote:


IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.

Hmm. That included Albert Einstein, according to the photo hanging in
my office.

http://www.einsteinsbicycle.com/

- Frank Krygowski

IMHO folks who don't wear helmets don't have much to protect.

Ad hominem attacks on people who hold a different view are not a sign
of superior intellect. Therefore, by your logic, I would have to
conclude that you must have been using a defective helmet.