helmets increase danger
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Proposed Motion of No Confidence in URCM Moderation
Next: Ok cyclists - is this reasonable behaviour?
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 24 May 2010 15:45 On Mon, 24 May 2010 13:05:41 +0100, Naich <dws(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/helmeteffect.html >>> >>> 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? > This is one of the pathetic "stats" which the anti-helmet brigade call out every now and again. No doubt Mr Raven will explain what he means. Don't hold your breath. The problem is - if you ask the psycholists for verification of what they say - then you must be a troll. -- 2008 DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 541 Pedestrians 382 All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3814 Pedestrians : 1666 (Pedal cyclist casualties up 9% - pedestrians up 2%: Cycling is becoming more dangerous each year when compared to walking as a means of transport)
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 24 May 2010 15:54 On Mon, 24 May 2010 13:24:48 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >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 ........ well no doubt you will be able to point us at that research as well. I see that you put "cut brain injuries 85%" - in quotes; there is an implication that that is what the research stated. Is that true? Or have you just made it up - and put in quotes for effect. People may think you are dishonest if that is the case. I think that you have been reading the BHRF too much: ========================================================== For example, they <BHRF> say that "One 1989 paper is cited more often than any other, with its claim that helmets reduce head injuries by 85% and brain injuries by 88%." This is just not true. The paper did not claim that helmets reduce head injuries by 85%; what it did say was that in the population which they investigated riders with helmets had an 85 percent reduction in their risk of head injury. Not the same thing. Its actual stated conclusion was "that bicycle safety helmets are highly effective in preventing head injury" - no mention of 85%; but still - let the BHRF rubbish it as it does sound like cycling is dangerous. ========================================================= -- 2008 DfT Figures: Passenger casualty rates Per billion passenger kilometers: Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 541 Pedestrians 382 All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3814 Pedestrians : 1666 (Pedal cyclist casualties up 9% - pedestrians up 2%: Cycling is becoming more dangerous each year when compared to walking as a means of transport)
From: JMS jmsmith2010 on 24 May 2010 17:45 On Mon, 24 May 2010 11:47:22 +0100, Peter Clinch <p.j.clinch(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: >Derek C wrote: > >> So a reputable educational organisation is wrong > >It's not impossible. Further note that education doesn't equate to >quality research. > >> 'cyclehelmets.org' is right? > >It's not impossible. After all, the editorial board contains folk who >work for a "reputable educational organisation", and also who are >reputable expert witnesses on cycling safety, and also who run companies >trusted by the UK government to test helmets Oh really - perhaps you could tell us the name of these "companies" perhaps give us an idea of their size - you know turnover - number of staff - that sort of thing. I guess if they are "trusted" by the Government - then they will have some sort of qualifications - certification - registration - that sort of thing. Could you perhaps point us to them? -- Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws. The answer: All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered. Registration number to be clearly visible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest. Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed. (With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
From: Derek C on 24 May 2010 18:04 On May 24, 1:30 pm, Peter Clinch <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote: > > 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. > -- Come on Pete! The BHRF and 'cyclehelmets.org' are just a pressure group formed by psycholists who just want to go on behaving exactly as they always have, with no Government interference or compulsion. They are worried that if too many cyclists start wearing helmets, then it will be easier to make them compulsory. I just hope they all feel suitably guilty about all the cyclists that have been killed or brain damaged after being taken in by their rhetoric and advice. Derek C
From: Derek C on 25 May 2010 01:09
On May 24, 11:27 pm, "Colin McKenzie" <n...(a)proof-read.co.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 24 May 2010 18:22:09 +0100, pk <p...(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote: > > "Peter Clinch" <p.j.cli...(a)dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message > >news:85vgjrFppdU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > >> either the basic methodology in the original paper (and consequently > >> the result) is utterly duff, or helmets really give significant > >> protection to legs. > > > I have not looked at the original paper, but it would seems reasonable > > to expect that if helmets protect the user's head as expected, then then > > number of hospital records of leg injuries would also fall. > > > Why? > > > IIRC, the data referred to hospital admissions/casualty visits of > > persons involved in cycle accidents. > > > Now, most of us would not rock up at casualty with leg injures of road > > rash, bruising, sprains and strains etc > > > Thus, if we assume helmets work, then: > > > - without a helmet, a knock on the head = sensible to visit casualty = > > leg injuries also recorded > > - with a helmet, head is protected = much less likely to visit casualty > > = reduced number of leg injuries recorded > > > Ergo, if helmets work, fewer cycling related leg injuries will be > > recorded at hospital emergency rooms. > > Pure speculation. You might just as well say that people who wear helmets > are more paranoid about all injuries, therefore more likely to turn up at > casualty for something the more relaxed non-wearers wouldn't bother with. > > Postulating a way in which the figures could be explained is not the same > as justifying the figures. That is why disproving any of the many possible > reasons for cycle helmets not improving safety in the real world does not > disprove the fact that they don't. > There has been a steady fall in cyclist KSI figures over the last 30 years or so, as helmet wearing has become more commonplace, so your assertion that they do not reduce casualties may not be correct. Derek C |