Quoted message said:I thought so too. This is my reaction thus far - not sure what I'm
going to do with it yet.
Just skimmed through it. Reads very well - much more interesting than the
stuff I should have been reading this morning.
[para 4]
Quoted message said:Road Safety Minister David Jamieson would surely not have stated, as he
did in a letter to Michael Jack, MP, that the British Government knows
of no data linking increases in helmet use with improvements in
cycling safety.
Would the government still claim this?
[para 8]
"head injury rates rose from around 40%.." should be helmet wearing rates.
[para 9]
Quoted message said:Even if pre-existing trends and trends for non-cyclists are ignored,
so the results of all safety improvement for cyclists are attributed
solely to helmets, the laws in New Zealand still resulted in less than
a quarter of the injury reduction claimed in advance
Does this mean that the decline in cycling didn't completely account for
the drop in injury rates for cyclists?
[para 10]
Quoted message said:According to the US Consumer Products Safety Commission, the risk of
head injury has approximately doubled during the period when helmet
use rose from under 20% to around 50%
Have cyclist KSIs continued to track those of other road users, but at a
lower relative level than they used to?
[para 11]
You mentioned one of the new pieces of research. Was the finding you
mentioned representative of the reports (cycle-relevent) findings? Are
there really no post-1997 studies that have 'pro-helmet' findings (i.e. was
this report cherry picked?)
[para 12]
Quoted message said:why were the 2003 figures not used?
Were these a lot lower then? (I know, I know - stupid question :-). Wonder
how low the 2004 ones'll be..
[para 12]
Quoted message said:The KSI figure for child cyclists in 2002 is about the same as that
for bus users - does the BMA think that bus travel is especially
dangerous?
I see your point, but it might be read as 'same as that for [child] bus
users' as IMO it isn't really a particularly valid comparison otherwise.
[para 13]
Quoted message said:written by ?the? Lee and Mann
I suppose they could be that infamous to warrant a 'The'..
[Para 17]
Quoted message said:brings the claimed benefit down to zero within the limits of statistical
accuracy.
Presumably the statistics aren't very accurate. What's the 95% range
thingy and is the zero you mention towards the end of this range?
[para 18]
Quoted message said:a 19 per cent reduction in head injuries to cyclists in the three
years > after the intoduction of legislation
You mention a careful selection of timeframe, but the study is the three
years after legislation! In what way was this a careful selection of
timeframe?
[Para 21]
Quoted message said:much of the claimed reduction in head injuries turns out to have happened
before the programme started.
Out of pure interest, did they manage to claim the crdit for the reductions
that happened before the programme started? If so, how?
[para 25]
Quoted message said:a poll of the BMA's own members placed helmets last in the hierarcgy
of possible effectiveness of various measures.
I can't believe that a load of normal doctors would be that sceptical of
the benefits of magic helmets! How representative was this poll of true
opinion amongst doctors?
Quoted message said:I am not aware of any objective assessment of the relative merits of
various cycle safety interventions which puts helmets anywhere other
than last.
How many objective assessments are you aware of?
[para 27]
Quoted message said:Lack of enforcement meant that helmet weearing rates did not change
after passage of the law
Did wearing rates really not change? Did rates rise sharply in the run up
to the law?
