published helmet research - not troll



P

patrick

Guest
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.

see the most recent issue of the Journal of Public
Policy (Vol. 23, Issue 23 - June 2004) - Wiley, Inc.
Publisher - can get abstract from the wiley site.

The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on
Bicycling Fatalities - Grant and Rutner.

First pass is that it was a pretty good article
for what it is worth.

p

by the way. don't bother replying. I dont use that
hotmail account anymore.
 
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.
>
> see the most recent issue of the Journal of Public
> Policy (Vol. 23, Issue 23 - June 2004) - Wiley, Inc.
> Publisher - can get abstract from the wiley site.
>
> The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on
> Bicycling Fatalities - Grant and Rutner.
>
> First pass is that it was a pretty good article
> for what it is worth.
>
> p
>
> by the way. don't bother replying. I dont use that
> hotmail account anymore.


I recently heard something on NPR to the effect that the wearing of
helmets and the rate of bicycle fatalities is hard to draw claer
relationships to because many of the fatalities are/were children vs
auto, where a helmet (while still a great idea) is not going to have as
big an effect as it will in a one cyclist Done Fall Over incident, or
even in an adult vs auto.

FB - Thinks that all research aside a helmet is a good idea.
(Imperically speaking of course..)
 
"Faster Bordello" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
> >
> > see the most recent issue of the Journal of Public
> > Policy (Vol. 23, Issue 23 - June 2004) - Wiley, Inc.
> > Publisher - can get abstract from the wiley site.
> >
> > The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on
> > Bicycling Fatalities - Grant and Rutner.
> >
> > First pass is that it was a pretty good article
> > for what it is worth.
> >
> > p
> >
> > by the way. don't bother replying. I dont use that
> > hotmail account anymore.

>
> I recently heard something on NPR to the effect that the wearing of
> helmets and the rate of bicycle fatalities is hard to draw claer
> relationships to because many of the fatalities are/were children vs
> auto, where a helmet (while still a great idea) is not going to have as
> big an effect as it will in a one cyclist Done Fall Over incident, or
> even in an adult vs auto.
>
> FB - Thinks that all research aside a helmet is a good idea.
> (Imperically speaking of course..)


Where's the proof? Where's the proof?
People around here don't need any real proof to be convinced that Lance is a
doper, but they need proof that a helmet makes sense to wear.

Bob C.
 
"psycholist" <[email protected]> writes:

> People around here don't need any real proof to be convinced that
> Lance is a doper, but they need proof that a helmet makes sense to
> wear.


Nah, lots of us want proof on both counts.
 
"patrick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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.
>
> see the most recent issue of the Journal of Public
> Policy (Vol. 23, Issue 23 - June 2004) - Wiley, Inc.
> Publisher - can get abstract from the wiley site.
>
> The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on
> Bicycling Fatalities - Grant and Rutner.
>
> First pass is that it was a pretty good article
> for what it is worth.


It can be found here:
http://economics.uta.edu/grant/helmet.pdf

Gemma
 
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "psycholist" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > People around here don't need any real proof to be convinced that
> > Lance is a doper, but they need proof that a helmet makes sense to
> > wear.

>
> Nah, lots of us want proof on both counts.


As a significant comment on the pertinent article - they claim that a
helmet seems to save some 15% of youth fatalities. I haven't read the
article yet (I just got it) but in the abstract they say that 15%
equals some 1,500 kids.

Firstly, 25 years of fatalities is some 15,000 deaths. Of that only
40% or less are children or 6,000. 15% of 6,000 is 900.

Furthermore, the claim is that the benefits of helmets do not seem to
cross over to adults.

Could this be because:

1) An adult is a lot higher from the ground.
2) An adult is a great deal heavier than a child.
3) Because helmet laws tend to heavily discourage bicycle use by
children the statistics become highly skewed in directions that are
difficult to quantify.
4) Since the number of deaths of bicyclists are so small the
statistics are almost meaningless. "Typical" child fatalities are from
riding out in front of a vehicle in motion. In these cases the
specific impact points are far more important than body armor.

I'll read the article tonight and be able to analyze it more fully. I
will say that most articles on helmets that have been written by
college professors, as this one appears to be, aren't written to be
scientific knowledge but are written instead only to fulfill their
collegian duty of "Publish or Perish".
 
[email protected] (Tom Kunich) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > "psycholist" <[email protected]> writes:


> > snip


>
> Furthermore, the claim is that the benefits of helmets do not seem to
> cross over to adults.
>
> Could this be because:
>
> 1) snip


One of my friends thought it was due to the adults more developed
"protect your head reflex".. and anecdotally I like it ..

I had two bike related concussions as a kid, as an adult
1 broken wrist
1 broken collar-bone
1 separated shoulder
(all at different times)
never even a scratch or bump on the head..

someone should do a study with a breakdown of the types of injury by
age...
and exclude trials/bmx/free-riders...
 
[email protected] (Tom Kunich) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > "psycholist" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > > People around here don't need any real proof to be convinced that
> > > Lance is a doper, but they need proof that a helmet makes sense to
> > > wear.

> >
> > Nah, lots of us want proof on both counts.

>
> As a significant comment on the pertinent article - they claim that a
> helmet seems to save some 15% of youth fatalities.


An important distinction - they say this about *helmet laws*, not
helmets. The actual effect for helmets themselves may be higher if we
account for noncompliance, which may be substantial in this case (or
not, but still the distinction needs to be made).

In other words, requiring kids to wear helmets does not mean every one
of them will. This study appears to be examining the effect of the
legislation, which can only approach and never exceed the effect that
would be attained by perfect compliance.

-RJ
 
Ronaldo Jeremiah wrote:

> [email protected] (Tom Kunich) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>>>"psycholist" <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>People around here don't need any real proof to be convinced that
>>>>Lance is a doper, but they need proof that a helmet makes sense to
>>>>wear.
>>>
>>>Nah, lots of us want proof on both counts.

>>
>>As a significant comment on the pertinent article - they claim that a
>>helmet seems to save some 15% of youth fatalities.

>
>
> An important distinction - they say this about *helmet laws*, not
> helmets. The actual effect for helmets themselves may be higher if we
> account for noncompliance, which may be substantial in this case (or
> not, but still the distinction needs to be made).
>
> In other words, requiring kids to wear helmets does not mean every one
> of them will. This study appears to be examining the effect of the
> legislation, which can only approach and never exceed the effect that
> would be attained by perfect compliance.


Based on my quick skimming of the article, it appeared they did not have
any direct data on changes in ridership resulting from the introduction
of helmet laws. They claimed that there was no such effect based on not
seeing any increase in pedestrian fatalities (which might be expected if
cyclists switched to walking instead) or in motor vehicle miles. I'm
skeptical of their conclusions since even a pretty substantial reduction
in ridership with previous riders now getting rides from parents would
have only a very minor impact on total motor vehicle miles driven and
might not be detected in the statistics. Also recreational (i.e just
for fun) riding by juveniles may have been replaced by other activities
such as playing video games, etc.

Previous studies have shown substantial reductions in ridership upon the
introduction of helmet laws and such a reduction could easily account
for all of the observed 15% decline in fatalities even if helmets were
totally ineffective. Locally (northern Cal.) there was an obvious
reduction in the number of bicycles in school bike racks immediately
following the introduction of the juvenile helmet law and the numbers
have remained lower than they were before.

Their discussion of cost/benefit ratio appeared to assume the only cost
of the helmet law was the monetary and inconvenience cost of the
helmets. But if ridership decreases then there are also the health
benefits of cycling that are lost as a consequence of such laws.
Hillman's study for the British Med. Assoc. indicated that for every
year of life lost due to cycling accidents there were 20 years of life
gained due to the beneficial effects of the cycling-related exercise. A
helmet law that results in reducing ridership by as little as 5% would
therefore have a net detrimental effect on overall years of life even if
helmets were 100% effective in reducing fatalities (which is clearly not
the case).
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Ronaldo Jeremiah <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Tom Kunich) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>>
>> As a significant comment on the pertinent article - they claim that a
>> helmet seems to save some 15% of youth fatalities.

>
>An important distinction - they say this about *helmet laws*, not
>helmets. The actual effect for helmets themselves may be higher if we
>account for noncompliance, which may be substantial in this case (or
>not, but still the distinction needs to be made).


Or the effect could be lower. Helmet laws change behavior, especially among
children, there is no doubt about that. If you assume children are safer with
their parents than when unsupervised, and that a helmet law will decreases
juvenile ridership more for children riding alone than with their parents,
then it's possible that the effect of helmets for children is less than a 15%
reduction in fatalities.
 
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]
 
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> 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
 
> 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/tables/2003/03hus069.pdf
 
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.
 
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]
 
"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> 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]
>
 
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.
 
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]
 
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
 

Similar threads

J
Replies
0
Views
507
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
J
Replies
0
Views
436
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
J
Replies
0
Views
346
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
J
Replies
0
Views
304
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J