Russell said:I take the point that merely wearing a helmet increases the size and
therefore the likelyhood of hitting your head. But looking at my
helmet (no not that one!), its only about 1/2" thick so I can't
believe it makes a lot of difference.
You "can't believe?" Why not make an effort? How else do you account for
the observed fact that helmeted cyclists are more likely to hit their heads?
Until you can account for inconvenient facts like that, and the documented
fact that even large-scale increases in helmet use have not resulted in
reductions in serious or fatal head injuries, then you should be asking not
asserting.
Quoted message said:I spent most of my lunchtime
today trawling the net for some true scientifc research and found
plenty.
Bully for you. Some of us have spent much of the last year researching the
issue, and I know at least one person who's been looking into it for much
longer. He is John Franklin, author of Cyclecraft, the advanced cycling
manual.
http://www.lesberries.co.uk/cycling/helmets/helmets.html
And don't forget http://www.cyclehelmets.org and
http://www.cycle-helmets.com.
Sooner or later you will realise that the helmet zealots are only giving you
half the story. If you are smart you will start asking why that is, and
what the rest of the story might be. Otherwise you might as well go and
join BeHIT with the rest of the ostriches.
You will discover along the way that the BMA does not consider helmet
compulsion to be desirable, a judgement it shares with every single cycling
body in the UK, not one of which was prepared to support a recent helmet
bill in Parliament.
Quoted message said:I'm not surprised to say I didn't find any scientific evidence
to support the theory that wearing a helmet increases the risk of
injury.
Hardly a surprise if you were looking at the interventionist medical press.
Have you read "Trust Us, We're Experts?" The peer-review process used by
these jornals has a fundamental flaw in that it allows bias to pass
unchallenged; often the authors choose their own reviewers, and they cite
each other as "independent" evidence that they are right. James Annan
recently posted a rather interesting dissection of one of the more egregious
errors not picked up in peer review, by one of the small number of groups
who produce the primary evidence. And it does seem to be a small number of
groups, endlessly rehashing the same arguments and continually failing to
address the real-world data.
Interestingly, the editor of Injury Prevention, who is strongly pro-helmet,
was recently forced to conclude that even children exhibit more risk-taking
behaviour when wearing helmets. He had previously denied this possibility.
So there's one reason why the inflated claims of small-scale studies are not
realised in practice (you will need to know more about risk compensation, of
course, before this makes much sense, so I recommend you read Risk by John
Adams, Routledge, 1995, ISBN 1857280687).
Quoted message said:So, come on all you anti-helmet brigade.
Where? I'm longing to meet this anti-helmet brigade. As I said, I can only
think of one person I know who is actually anti-helmet.
Quoted message said:Show me one true scientific study that concludes
wearing a helmet can increase the risk of injury.
Show me one country where increased helmet wearing rates have been
associated with reductions in head injury rates. I can show you one where
helmet use rose from 43% to over 95% in three years with no measurable
change in head injury rates, leading Scuffham to conclude that helmets
provide no significant benefit. In the US, head injury rates rose by 40% as
helmet use rose from 18% to 50%. Does that square with the claims for
effectiveness you've been finding? Those figures are collected by
Government agencies, not by researchers aiming to prove a point. You do
know that most of the published helmet research is designed from the outset
to prove a pre-existing conclusion, don't you?
According to figures produced by Cook & Sheikh, reductions in child helmet
use have resulted in reductions in head injury rates. How could that be?
Of course, their conlusions said the opposite. Maybe that was because they
had already decided on the conclusions before getting the data.
Quoted message said:Here's just one study to the contrary - sorry about the massive link.
I hope it posts ok.
Amazing - you really think we haven't read TR&T 1989! How much Googling did
you do on this group before wading in?
Read this: http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1068.html
The 1989 Thompson, Rivara and Thompson study is widely criticised and even
the authors acknowledge that the figures are wrong. Guess where my .sig
comes from?
On that one study, just ask yourself this: do you genuinely believe that
helmets are more effective against brain injury than against trivial head
injuries? The conculsions of TR&T are that helmets prevent 85% of head
injuries and 88% of brain injury. Head injuries includes cuts and bruises,
brain injuries start with concussion. Do you know the current thinking on
the mechanisms of serious and fatal brain injury? Have you heard of the
term "diffuse axonal injury?"
You have only scratched the surface thus far.
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington
University
