helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: Derek C on 24 May 2010 08:17 On May 24, 1:05 pm, Naich <d...(a)mrao.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 24 May 2010, Tony Raven wrote: > > Derek C wrote: > > >>> See: "The Effectiveness of Bicycle Helmets:A Review", Dr. Michael > >>> Henderson [ISBN 0 T310 6435 6] > > >>> Cue the psycholists whining that Guy Chapman's completely made up > >>> statistics trounce any medical study. > > >> These studies might prove useful: > > >>http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffe.... > > >> They show that cycle helmets reduce injuries to the skull, brain, and > >> upper face by significant factors. > > > They also show that helmets cut leg injuries by 75%. > > Where? > Part of the psycholist folk lore! Derek C
From: Peter Clinch on 24 May 2010 08:24 Derek C wrote: > On May 24, 1:05 pm, Naich <d...(a)mrao.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> On Mon, 24 May 2010, Tony Raven wrote: >>> Derek C wrote: >>>>> See: "The Effectiveness of Bicycle Helmets:A Review", Dr. Michael >>>>> Henderson [ISBN 0 T310 6435 6] >>>>> Cue the psycholists whining that Guy Chapman's completely made up >>>>> statistics trounce any medical study. >>>> These studies might prove useful: >>>> http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffe... >>>> They show that cycle helmets reduce injuries to the skull, brain, and >>>> upper face by significant factors. >>> They also show that helmets cut leg injuries by 75%. >> Where? >> > > Part of the psycholist folk lore! IIRC, the original "cut brain injuries 85%" data was taken and assessed for the difference to leg injuries rather than heads. Since it was a case control study on the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets it was naturally assumed that the difference in injuries between case and control groups must be down to the presence or not of a helmet. And the case group had 75% fewer leg injuries. So either the basic methodology in the original paper (and consequently the result) is utterly duff, or helmets really give significant protection to heads. Your call. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: Peter Clinch on 24 May 2010 08:30 Derek C wrote: > I have already pointed out that data may be skewed by just looking at > hospital admissions and reported accidents, which is why I suggested a > truly randomised study. Then the lying whatsits at 'cyclehelmets.org' > will have no confounding factors to hide behind. If it was /really/ that easy, why do you think it hasn't been done yet? I think BHRF would /love/ clear-cut evidence. If it turns out that cyclists can genuinely be much, much safer, why wouldn't all the cyclists that make up BHRF's editorial board be happy that they high quality evidence they could save their own skins? You have yet to provide any reason why BHRF have anything to gain by deliberate lying. They have a lot to /lose/. Professional reputations, personal safety, blood on their hands and a great deal of private, unpaid time. If there weren't /really/ holes in the evidence, what would anyone gain by inventing some? Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: Peter Clinch on 24 May 2010 09:00 Peter Clinch wrote: > So either the basic methodology in the original paper (and consequently > the result) is utterly duff, or helmets really give significant > protection to heads. Ho ho, that should've said "legs", of course... My bad. Pete. -- Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
From: Derek C on 24 May 2010 09:34
On May 24, 2:00 pm, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > Peter Clinch wrote: > > So either the basic methodology in the original paper (and consequently > > the result) is utterly duff, or helmets really give significant > > protection to heads. > > Ho ho, that should've said "legs", of course... My bad. > > Pete. > -- Freudian slip perhaps? Derek C |