F
On Mar 7, 7:19 am, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> If you look at the FARS data, normalized for the different level of
> helmet usage, you do see a statistical benefit in fatalities in helmet
> use. However you also see that while helmet wearers had a lower fatality
> rate, they also had a higher rate of serious injuries. The logical
> conclusion is that some of the fatalities of the non-helmet wearers
> would have instead been serious injuries if they had been wearing a
> helmet. These were not double-blind studies, they were simply accident
> report data. The AHZ's response to the data is that the claimed level of
> helmet use in the general population was underestimated, and thus the
> injury and fatality data cannot be normalized based on helmet usage
> rates.
Steven M. Scharf should give sources for the data he's talking about,
and give some specifics, preferably including actual numbers. As it
is, we have only a fog of non-specifics, filtered through a guy who
has steadfastly refused to address specifically cited counter-data
provided by others.
Oh, and it would be good to desist from claims like "The AHZ's
response is that..." Quit calling names, quit building straw men, and
let your opponents speak for themselves.
> Certainly it's a possibility that helmet usage rates were not
> accurately reported, though there is no evidence that this was the case.
> It's not a perfect study, you get what you or you get nothing.
???
> I'm an engineer, and I go by the data,
Then let us see the data you're "going by." Or at least tell us
exactly where to find it, and exactly what data you're claiming to pay
attention to.
> I'd have more trouble arguing for helmets at all, if they were proven to
> be completely ineffective. But they haven't been. No one has presented
> any evidence that they are ineffective, only that their effectiveness is
> limited, something that we all can agree on.
Of course we agree they have _some_ level of protection. Making that
fact a cornerstone of your viewpoint is extremely silly, since
anything you're likely to wear any place on your body has _some_
limited evel of protection.
Stick to the issues. a) Are existing bike helmets doing what's
promised in the real world? And even more basic, b) are the serious
injuries we're being "threatened" with likely enough to occur during
ordinary cycling, that the promised protection is even necessary?
From the reams of data I've seen, cited, linked and have on file, I'd
say the answers are a) absolutely not, and b) absolutely not. Serious
head injuries for ordinary cyclists are extremely rare (more rare than
for pedestrians), and helmets do not seem to have reduced them by any
significant amount. Or as someone once said in these forums, "Bicycle
helmets are an ineffective solution to an imaginary problem."
Regarding "ordinary cycling": we've gotten stories about racing and
mountain biking (where "if you don't crash, you're not trying hard
enough"). I'm willing to discuss helmets for those activities, but I
think that discussion should be separate from the very normal act of
riding a bike on a road for utility or pleasure.
I'll add comment on Scharf's list in another post.
- Frank Krygowski
>
>
> If you look at the FARS data, normalized for the different level of
> helmet usage, you do see a statistical benefit in fatalities in helmet
> use. However you also see that while helmet wearers had a lower fatality
> rate, they also had a higher rate of serious injuries. The logical
> conclusion is that some of the fatalities of the non-helmet wearers
> would have instead been serious injuries if they had been wearing a
> helmet. These were not double-blind studies, they were simply accident
> report data. The AHZ's response to the data is that the claimed level of
> helmet use in the general population was underestimated, and thus the
> injury and fatality data cannot be normalized based on helmet usage
> rates.
Steven M. Scharf should give sources for the data he's talking about,
and give some specifics, preferably including actual numbers. As it
is, we have only a fog of non-specifics, filtered through a guy who
has steadfastly refused to address specifically cited counter-data
provided by others.
Oh, and it would be good to desist from claims like "The AHZ's
response is that..." Quit calling names, quit building straw men, and
let your opponents speak for themselves.
> Certainly it's a possibility that helmet usage rates were not
> accurately reported, though there is no evidence that this was the case.
> It's not a perfect study, you get what you or you get nothing.
???
> I'm an engineer, and I go by the data,
Then let us see the data you're "going by." Or at least tell us
exactly where to find it, and exactly what data you're claiming to pay
attention to.
> I'd have more trouble arguing for helmets at all, if they were proven to
> be completely ineffective. But they haven't been. No one has presented
> any evidence that they are ineffective, only that their effectiveness is
> limited, something that we all can agree on.
Of course we agree they have _some_ level of protection. Making that
fact a cornerstone of your viewpoint is extremely silly, since
anything you're likely to wear any place on your body has _some_
limited evel of protection.
Stick to the issues. a) Are existing bike helmets doing what's
promised in the real world? And even more basic, b) are the serious
injuries we're being "threatened" with likely enough to occur during
ordinary cycling, that the promised protection is even necessary?
From the reams of data I've seen, cited, linked and have on file, I'd
say the answers are a) absolutely not, and b) absolutely not. Serious
head injuries for ordinary cyclists are extremely rare (more rare than
for pedestrians), and helmets do not seem to have reduced them by any
significant amount. Or as someone once said in these forums, "Bicycle
helmets are an ineffective solution to an imaginary problem."
Regarding "ordinary cycling": we've gotten stories about racing and
mountain biking (where "if you don't crash, you're not trying hard
enough"). I'm willing to discuss helmets for those activities, but I
think that discussion should be separate from the very normal act of
riding a bike on a road for utility or pleasure.
I'll add comment on Scharf's list in another post.
- Frank Krygowski