|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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] |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
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 They conclude that their calculated reduction is not due to any corresponding reduction in bicycling among juveniles, but their opinion is unsupported by the data. The indirect evidence they infer from a lack of increase in vehicle-miles per capita, and in the juvenile pedestrian fatality rate, is insufficient to offset the direct evidence easily inferred from the significant increase in the rate of juvenile obesity from 11.3% [1988-1994] to 15.3% [1999-2000]: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tab...3/03hus069.pdf |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
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] |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
"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] |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
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] |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
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 |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
published helmet research - not troll
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | General | 1927 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
First Helmet : jury is out. | Walter Mitty | General | 125 | June 26th 04 02:00 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
France helmet observation (not a troll) | Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles | General | 20 | August 30th 03 08:35 AM |