Ahem ... helmet legislation

Donga said:

Forwarded from the Bikeqld list for the edification of passionate a.b-
ers:

New from the Cochrane Library - 'evidence for healthcare decision-
making'

mrw.interscience.wiley.comframe.htmlOpen ↗

[Review]
Bicycle helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention
of head injuries

A Macpherson and A Spinks

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007 Issue 2 (Status: New)
Copyright © 2007 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005401.pub2 This version first published
online: 18 April 2007 in Issue 2, 2007
Date of Most Recent Substantive Amendment: 29 January 2007

This record should be cited as: Macpherson A, Spinks A. Bicycle helmet
legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention of head
injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art.
No.: CD005401. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005401.pub2.

I didn't see any mention of whether cycling levels per capita increasing or decreasing post helmet-legislation had been taken in to consideration. If it hasn't, then the study's worthless.

Donga said:

Forwarded from the Bikeqld list for the edification of passionate a.b-
ers:

New from the Cochrane Library - 'evidence for healthcare decision-
making'

http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD005401/
frame.html

[Review] Bicycle helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use and
prevention of head injuries

A Macpherson and A Spinks

Given the obvious conclusions, it looks like someone needs to publish a
few papers to satisfy their quota.

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 11 May 2007 08:32:23 +1000

EuanB said:

I didn't see any mention of whether cycling levels per capita
increasing or decreasing post helmet-legislation had been taken in to
consideration. If it hasn't, then the study's worthless.

The whole hting seemed useless because they said at the start that
they had bugger all data and couldn't compare like with like or, as
you say, get any sensible data on participation.

I'd be interested to know the current Vic data on participation.
Anecdotal evidence would be that cycling is increasing? And what
about helmet wearing, I see more cyclists now than I did
when I was commuting in the mid 90s but I also see more helmetless
ones. I can't tell if the proportions are the same, my memory isn't
that good!

But I do see more helmetless now than I saw when I restarted commuting
a year ago. Including couriers. Probably as many "no helmet visible"
implying they don't ever wear one as I see "helmet on bars or
backpack" implying they wear it sometimes.

I see them in the CBD and on the Bridge bikepath, and on the Cook's
River path. I don't see them on faster roads like Pyrmont Bridge, but
I see fewer cyclists generally on that part of my commute.

Zebee

Donga said:

Forwarded from the Bikeqld list for the edification of passionate a.b-
ers:

New from the Cochrane Library - 'evidence for healthcare decision-
making'

http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD005401/frame.html

Quoted message said:

[Review]
Bicycle helmet legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention
of head injuries

A Macpherson and A Spinks

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007 Issue 2 (Status: New)
Copyright © 2007 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005401.pub2 This version first published
online: 18 April 2007 in Issue 2, 2007
Date of Most Recent Substantive Amendment: 29 January 2007

This record should be cited as: Macpherson A, Spinks A. Bicycle helmet
legislation for the uptake of helmet use and prevention of head
injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007, Issue 2. Art.
No.: CD005401. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005401.pub2.

After reading this abstract I actually have no idea of what the authors are
trying to say.
It is a great use of the English language; many words with no meaning

Peter

--
The Kiwi bird is very aptly New Zealand's national emblem.
It is a bird which cannot fly.
It only comes out at night.
It has nostrils at the end of its long beak, and
It is always poking its nose into things.

In article <[email hidden]>,

EuanB said:

I didn't see any mention of whether cycling levels per capita
increasing or decreasing post helmet-legislation had been taken in to
consideration.

"There were no included studies reporting change in bicycle use or other
adverse consequences of legislation." That could mean no change was
found, or it could mean the studies didn't consider the issue.

--
Shane Stanley

Shane Stanley said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

EuanB said:

I didn't see any mention of whether cycling levels per capita
increasing or decreasing post helmet-legislation had been taken in to
consideration.

"There were no included studies reporting change in bicycle use or other
adverse consequences of legislation." That could mean no change was
found, or it could mean the studies didn't consider the issue.

It's ambiguous language, I'm inclined to believe that it means they didn't include any studies.

Peter Keller said:

After reading this abstract I actually have no idea of what the authors are
trying to say.
It is a great use of the English language; many words with no meaning

Touché. 😉

EuanB said:

It's ambiguous language, I'm inclined to believe that it means they didn't include any studies.

It means that the studies that their initial literature searching found did not reach a sufficiently high methodology standard with reference to the Cochrane hierarchy (where randomised controlled trials reign supreme, down to lowly case studies, etc.)

The Cochrane database is not original research - that is not it's purpose. The Cochrane (and similar groups) undertake meta-analysis of research data to interrogate the evidence for health care treatments, interventions, and related claims. The meta-analysis is undertaken by combining the data from smaller, well-structured research projects, in an effort to explore the strength of claims.

Ali

alison_b said:

It means that the studies that their initial literature searching found did not reach a sufficiently high methodology standard with reference to the Cochrane hierarchy (where randomised controlled trials reign supreme, down to lowly case studies, etc.)

The Cochrane database is not original research - that is not it's purpose. The Cochrane (and similar groups) undertake meta-analysis of research data to interrogate the evidence for health care treatments, interventions, and related claims. The meta-analysis is undertaken by combining the data from smaller, well-structured research projects, in an effort to explore the strength of claims.

Ali

So for the less academically inclined (puts hand up) that means there were no studies of sufficient merit so whether participation rates increased or decreased has not been considered?

EuanB said:

So for the less academically inclined (puts hand up) that means there were no studies of sufficient merit so whether participation rates increased or decreased has not been considered?

That's it, pretty much 🙂 It suggests a gap in research that either hasn't been looked at, or not in sufficient detail. It would be quite a difficult one to research...

ali

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 11 May 2007 15:42:48 +1000

alison_b said:

EuanB said:

So for the less academically inclined (puts hand up) that means there
were no studies of sufficient merit so whether participation rates
increased or decreased has not been considered?

That's it, pretty much 🙂 It suggests a gap in research that either
hasn't been looked at, or not in sufficient detail. It would be quite
a difficult one to research...

But it would seem to be utterly vital to determine the head injury
rate wouldn't it?

No point counting absolute numbers of injuries without exposure data.

It's like saying the road toll now is higher than in 1955, without
noting the number of cars on the road....

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone said:

But it would seem to be utterly vital to determine the head injury
rate wouldn't it?

No point counting absolute numbers of injuries without exposure data.

It's like saying the road toll now is higher than in 1955, without
noting the number of cars on the road....

Zebee

The original post simply suggests that *according to the Cochrane guidelines* the data isn't available. They're not suggesting that counting numbers out of context would be a good alternative...

ali

EuanB said:

So for the less academically inclined (puts hand up) that means there were no studies of sufficient merit so whether participation rates increased or decreased has not been considered?

FWIW the oft-referred to correlation of helmet law intro and supposed corresponding drop in riding would seem to be utter bollox.
The stats that i have seen show the same drop in riding for the 2-3 years prior. IE the die was set before the law's intro. I ain't personally advocating use or not, just saying drop in numbers wasn't due to helmet laws.
Oh [censored]. i just entered a helmet-debate... :o

Speaking of helmets, of the 12 people (i wont necessarily call them cyclists) i saw on bikes on my ride to work on friday, a total of FIVE were wearing helmets! The mind boggles ...

Ash

In aus.bicycle on Sat, 12 May 2007 23:53:07 +1000

a5hi5m said:

Speaking of helmets, of the 12 people (i wont necessarily call them
cyclists) i saw on bikes on my ride to work on friday, a total of FIVE
were wearing helmets! The mind boggles ...

Be interesting to see if anyone does a head injury rate vs
participation vs helmet use rate won't it...

Dunno why you wouldn't call them cyclists. They are riding bicycles
after all. Can't exclude them just because you don't agree with their
safety choices.

Zebee

Zebee Johnstone said:

No point counting absolute numbers of injuries without exposure data.

It's like saying the road toll now is higher than in 1955, without
noting the number of cars on the road....

Never mind the number of cars on the road. In 1964 the road toll in WA
topped 400. Now the gov't is screaming at us and doubling demerit points and
fines because the road toll is nearly 200, up from 180 the previous year.

Theo

a5hi5m said:

Speaking of helmets, of the 12 people (i wont necessarily call them
cyclists) i saw on bikes on my ride to work on friday, a total of FIVE
were wearing helmets! The mind boggles ...

I was riding to work in 1961 as were a lot of other people, never saw anyone
with a helmet, and my mind didn't boggle at all.

Theo