"Nick Maclaren" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In article <
[email protected]>, "John Doe"
> <
[email protected]> writes:
> |>
> |> Hmm Think I was saying how it is in this country not what I believe is
the
> |> correct approach. Was not expressing an opinion due to the form of
debate
> |> it takes on with such learned folk as yourself. You end up with a tis
snot
> |> tis snow type of school argument that I am not interested in. I do not
have
> |> the research behind me to make such an informed decision so I am at the mercy of people I have
> |> intrusted with such. This is one of those
debates
> |> that cannot be won with anecdotal guessing.
> |>
> |> Once again. I do not have an opinion apart from the fact that I have
to
> |> trust the opinions of people that are given the job of deciding these
things
> |> based on their careful study. Rightly or wrongly it is the best I can
hope
> |> for. However I will not trust the John Does (like myself) on Usenet to
make
> |> up my mind. I do not have the time to research this to the full extent
that
> |> it requires for me to make my own personal decision as I already have a
job
> |> that consumes most of my time and my family the other.
> |>
> |> This debate comes up every few months and ends up being long heated and
full
> |> of half truths till it dies a natural death of boredom.
>
> Correct. But let me introduce myself. While I am very rusty, I am a statistician by training and
> was once fairly good. Again, while I haven't looked at ALL of the evidence, I did spend some time
> looking at many of the references quoted by the pro-helmet brigade, and found that all except a
> couple were complete nonsense. Their data may have been correct, but the analysis was so obviously
> incorrect that their conclusions were often the OPPOSITE of what should have been derived from the
> data. The couple that weren't complete nonsense were inconclusive, and counterbalanced by
> equivalent research that indicated that bicycle helmets increased the risk of brain damage.
Hi, totally agree. The big problem with these studies is the interpretation of the data. The reason
we get these conflicting studies is that it is down to individual human interpretation. Sometimes
the study is also funded by a specific interest group (helmet manufacturer) that can also have an
effect (even if the scientists say they impartial funding can have a sub conscious effect).
The only twe reasons that I have seen that they increase brain damage is that they increase the
incidence by the way riders ride (please correct me here if there are others). They think they are
safe because they strap some egg shells to their head so ride with less caution. Studies have also
shown since the advent of air bags, people tend to tail gate more often. (however I believe that it
cannot be all down to that. People are just less patient and more aggressive these days. Cars per
capita in this country has exploded in the last 30 years and traffic is worse increasing peoples
tension. Lots of other reasons that could explain this also). The second reason due to the decrease
in cycling popularity. Now anecdotally I have noticed far less children riding on the roads compared
to when I was young and doing it. That was the only way we got around. Now we have mum driving us
everywhere via a 3T all terain vehicle. The majority of riders you see seen now are enthusiasts that
are either training, social or transport.
The first reason is individual. If you still ride as carefully with and without then you may have
increased your level of protection. The second reason is out of your control.
<snip>
> Mandatory and even semi-mandatory helmet wearing reduces the number of normal cyclists
> significantly, especially those that are using cycling as a form of transport rather than
> recreation. And 'significantly' is of the order of tens of percent.
>
> The rest is politics, dogma and so on.
Yes. This is a main reason I have heard against the arguement. Decreases the incidence of cyclists
so much that drivers have lost the ability to see them or the skills to pass safely. Their could be
other reasons why mothers have stopped their children and adults have stopped riding. Motor vehicles
per capita have boomed in the last 30 years and would also explain the booming level of obesity in
this country. Road construction has not kept pace and traffic is a lot more aggressive and abundant.
Once again it is intrepretation of the data. What has happened in countries like the US where there
is no compulsory rules - and a similar obesity trend. Is Cycling as popular per capita as it was 30
years ago?
BTW: When they introduced compulsory helmet wearing for motor cyclists did the participation rate
drop? Although the reason that people are much more aggressive on the road could explain the
decrease in popularity.
regards pete
