J
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:48:00 GMT, "Steven M. Scharf"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:
>The public has had cycling helmets beaten into their heads for about the
>last 20 years, especially helmets for children. It's not just articles
>in ad insert magazines like Parade, it's in schools, from health plans,
>etc. It all goes in one ear and out the other.
********. The idea that helmets render the wearer nigh-on invincible
is now so deeply ingrained in the handwringer community that I
challenge you to find any press article on the death or injury of a
cyclist which does not mention the H word, even when the injuries are
not to the head.
Exhibit A: a widow whose husband was killed by a motorist; his
insurers are not going to pay out the full amount because he was not
wearing a helmet. The motorist was convicted of careless driving, but
the insurers think it perfectly acceptable to require the victim's
widow to disprove the idea that helmets make one invincible, rather
than (as should more properly be the case) standing up and providing
evidence that it would have made a difference in this particular
case..
Exhibit B: Carlie Annetts, whose son Troy was killed when he rode off
a footway into the path of a car on a bike with defective brakes. She
thinks this is an example of why helmets should be compulsory, clearly
believing that the child would have obeyed a helmet law while happily
breaking the laws on construction and use and footway cycling.
>What I don't like to see is the idea being pounded into peoples heads
>that cycling is somehow an extremely dangerous activity, and that all
>the danger can be eliminated by wearing a helmet.
This is the primary promotion technique of the helmet lobby.
>Some of the worst injuries can be prevented, i.e reductions in brain
>injuries from 45% (some studies show much higher reductions, but even
>the most conservative study showed a 45% reduction). 45% seems high, but
>less than 15% of serious injuries involve brain injuries in the first place.
I am aware of no credible evidence linking helmet use to reductions in
the prevalence of serious brain injury (i.e. none which is supported
by studies which do not contain self-selection bias and other
confounding). But do prove me wrong by citing some. Do bear in mind
that brain injury in the studies almost invariably refers to
concussion, by the way. You did know that didn't you?
And 45% is not "the most conservative" figure - there are studies
showing zero and negative benefit.
>The bottom line is that the chance of being involved in an accident
>where a helmet would make a difference is very small, so no MHL is
>necessary. There is probably no way to undo the laws regarding kids and
>helmets, and it it makes parents allow their kids to ride when they
>otherwise wouldn't, then I guess it's okay.
On the other hand it is just as likely that some parents will have
banned their children from cycling because it is so dangerous it may
not be done without special protective equipment, and others may not
think it worth the cost for the amount of cycling their child does, so
the bike is in the back of the garage and never used any more.
Given that enforced helmet laws always lead to reductions in cycling,
especially among teenagers and doubly so among girls, I would want to
see some kind of evidence that any helmet law would actually encourage
cycling.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:
>The public has had cycling helmets beaten into their heads for about the
>last 20 years, especially helmets for children. It's not just articles
>in ad insert magazines like Parade, it's in schools, from health plans,
>etc. It all goes in one ear and out the other.
********. The idea that helmets render the wearer nigh-on invincible
is now so deeply ingrained in the handwringer community that I
challenge you to find any press article on the death or injury of a
cyclist which does not mention the H word, even when the injuries are
not to the head.
Exhibit A: a widow whose husband was killed by a motorist; his
insurers are not going to pay out the full amount because he was not
wearing a helmet. The motorist was convicted of careless driving, but
the insurers think it perfectly acceptable to require the victim's
widow to disprove the idea that helmets make one invincible, rather
than (as should more properly be the case) standing up and providing
evidence that it would have made a difference in this particular
case..
Exhibit B: Carlie Annetts, whose son Troy was killed when he rode off
a footway into the path of a car on a bike with defective brakes. She
thinks this is an example of why helmets should be compulsory, clearly
believing that the child would have obeyed a helmet law while happily
breaking the laws on construction and use and footway cycling.
>What I don't like to see is the idea being pounded into peoples heads
>that cycling is somehow an extremely dangerous activity, and that all
>the danger can be eliminated by wearing a helmet.
This is the primary promotion technique of the helmet lobby.
>Some of the worst injuries can be prevented, i.e reductions in brain
>injuries from 45% (some studies show much higher reductions, but even
>the most conservative study showed a 45% reduction). 45% seems high, but
>less than 15% of serious injuries involve brain injuries in the first place.
I am aware of no credible evidence linking helmet use to reductions in
the prevalence of serious brain injury (i.e. none which is supported
by studies which do not contain self-selection bias and other
confounding). But do prove me wrong by citing some. Do bear in mind
that brain injury in the studies almost invariably refers to
concussion, by the way. You did know that didn't you?
And 45% is not "the most conservative" figure - there are studies
showing zero and negative benefit.
>The bottom line is that the chance of being involved in an accident
>where a helmet would make a difference is very small, so no MHL is
>necessary. There is probably no way to undo the laws regarding kids and
>helmets, and it it makes parents allow their kids to ride when they
>otherwise wouldn't, then I guess it's okay.
On the other hand it is just as likely that some parents will have
banned their children from cycling because it is so dangerous it may
not be done without special protective equipment, and others may not
think it worth the cost for the amount of cycling their child does, so
the bike is in the back of the garage and never used any more.
Given that enforced helmet laws always lead to reductions in cycling,
especially among teenagers and doubly so among girls, I would want to
see some kind of evidence that any helmet law would actually encourage
cycling.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound