Helmets and Autopsy

"Coyoteboy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The problem is that, as I said, all the studies done so far have equally
large flaws as the ones we have FOR helmets - so they are pointless. For a
start NZ and Aus have such a small population and vehicle density that it
isnt even remotely comparable. Even in cities we are talking of cities of
400K people (Capital of NZ) and overall population of 4 million. Theres
more people living (driving and cycling) in some of our larger cities than
in the entirety of NZ. They have been brought up under different cultures,
with different road rules. They simply arent applicable in much the same
way as the anti-85% arguments that say "helmeted were mostly white upper
class in parks" and "unhelmeted were mostly black, riding on the streets".
The arguments dont work one way. You need a statistically and
scientifically fair test in the country in questions and across a range of
locations. No point comparing city riding in NZ to city riding in the UK.

"Russells Teapot".

Actually, city riding in Oz is similar to city riding in the UK, and I bet
the types of accident are similar too - which means the lessons they've
learned are applicable over here.

cheers,
clive

Helen Deborah Vecht said:

bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>typed

Quoted message said:

Coyoteboy said:

Just been on Ch4 with Dr John Heyworth (emergency medicine specialist)
claiming 85% reduction in cycle related serious head injuries with
helmets, stressing the vitality of helmets? His opinion, based
(presumably) on facts - surely well regarded since he is a fellow of the
royal medical gods etc?

Quoted message said:

Interesting.

Quoted message said:

The question occurs to me; how many A&E staff, and/or
surgeons are knowledgeable in statistics (which one might
presume is NOT their speciality).

Quoted message said:

The "I've seen head injuries so I know what I'm talking
about" approach to statistics is NO more valid when the speaker
is medically trained.

Quoted message said:

BugBear

I think he has a fair statistical background (I have worked with him
indirectly).

I stand corrected, and accept that I was (fairly evidently) generalising.

BugBear

Coyoteboy said:

Quoted message said:

Coyoteboy said:

...both sides quote flawed material and no-one actually sets about
doing a good study, so the usenet arguments are futile.

Maybe someone like the CTC or suchlike should commission a proper study

That's tricky to arrange, given that it involves destructive testing
of a statistically significant number of heads...

On the other hand, we can have a look at the experience of those
countries which have mandated helmet use and confirm that they have
observed a significant reduction in serious injuries and deaths: After
all, you would expect to see some sort of reduction if helmets are
effective.

Curiously, we don't. I won't try and paraphrase the findings here
(the studies are listed at the cyclehelmets.org site), but Australia,
New Zealand and other countries that have tried it don't seem to have
benefited from cumpulsory helmet wearing.

<snip>

The problem is that, as I said, all the studies done so far have equally
large flaws as the ones we have FOR helmets - so they are pointless.

I disagree with that.

Quoted message said:

For a start NZ and Aus have such a small population and vehicle density that
it isnt even remotely comparable. Even in cities we are talking of
cities of 400K people (Capital of NZ) and overall population of 4
million. Theres more people living (driving and cycling) in some of our
larger cities than in the entirety of NZ.

Australian cities are of a decent size (Sydney is over 4million). The
population density of the city I live in is only 20% higher than Sydney
although it is much smaller. The population density of the inner city
in Sydney is equivalent to Newham or Brent.

It is however irrelevant. The population density and the driving
culture is vastly different between London (or Manchester) and somewhere
like the Black Isle.

However I am amazed at people who think that there is something special,
something different about the UK. The people who think that giving up
the pound for the Euro would lead to us all losing our Englishness.
Others like you who seem to think that just possibly the UK may see a
significant decline in deaths if helmets are mandatory even though all
those countries which have tried mandatory helmet laws haven't seen
such a decline.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Clive George said:

"Russells Teapot".

Actually, city riding in Oz is similar to city riding in the UK, and I
bet the types of accident are similar too - which means the lessons
they've learned are applicable over here.

cheers,
clive

But once again thats just your opinion. I know a few people from aus
that work in our department. All of whome were regular riders in aus,
none of whome would touch a bike in the UK. I cant see it being THAT
similar, but then I havent recently experienced Aus myself so I have no
authority to comment.

Andy Leighton said:

Coyoteboy said:

Quoted message said:

On 21 Nov, 13:39, Coyoteboy <[email hidden]> wrote:
> ...both sides quote flawed material and no-one actually sets about
> doing a good study, so the usenet arguments are futile.
>
> Maybe someone like the CTC or suchlike should commission a proper study
That's tricky to arrange, given that it involves destructive testing
of a statistically significant number of heads...

On the other hand, we can have a look at the experience of those
countries which have mandated helmet use and confirm that they have
observed a significant reduction in serious injuries and deaths: After
all, you would expect to see some sort of reduction if helmets are
effective.

Curiously, we don't. I won't try and paraphrase the findings here
(the studies are listed at the cyclehelmets.org site), but Australia,
New Zealand and other countries that have tried it don't seem to have
benefited from cumpulsory helmet wearing.

<snip>

The problem is that, as I said, all the studies done so far have equally
large flaws as the ones we have FOR helmets - so they are pointless.

I disagree with that.

Quoted message said:

For a start NZ and Aus have such a small population and vehicle density that
it isnt even remotely comparable. Even in cities we are talking of
cities of 400K people (Capital of NZ) and overall population of 4
million. Theres more people living (driving and cycling) in some of our
larger cities than in the entirety of NZ.

Australian cities are of a decent size (Sydney is over 4million). The
population density of the city I live in is only 20% higher than Sydney
although it is much smaller. The population density of the inner city
in Sydney is equivalent to Newham or Brent.

It is however irrelevant. The population density and the driving
culture is vastly different between London (or Manchester) and somewhere
like the Black Isle.

However I am amazed at people who think that there is something special,
something different about the UK. The people who think that giving up
the pound for the Euro would lead to us all losing our Englishness.
Others like you who seem to think that just possibly the UK may see a
significant decline in deaths if helmets are mandatory even though all
those countries which have tried mandatory helmet laws haven't seen
such a decline.

I think you're overlooking an aweful lot. But that is where my argument
rests because I'm not willing to waste any more of my life arguing
pointlessly on the internet where none of the contributors are well
placed to comment on either side.

Response to Coyoteboy

Quoted message said:

The problem is that, as I said, all the studies done so far have equally
large flaws as the ones we have FOR helmets - so they are pointless. For
a start NZ and Aus have such a small population and vehicle density that
it isnt even remotely comparable.

Comparable with what? The figures from the Antipodes compare broadly
the same populations & vehicle densities over a period of time. Helmet-
wearing rose steeply in a short period of time, with no concomitant fall
in KSIs. There is no reason that I know of to believe these figures
have large flaws. What do you think is wrong with them?

For my part, there are two quick and obvious points to be made.

Firstly, according to the Department for Transport, walking and cycling
in the UK are about equally safe per mile; IOW, the risk of death or
serious injury when doing either activity is equally low, and I for one
don't bother wearing a helmet whether I'm walking or cycling; obviously,
you can if you like.

Secondly, if any individual or body decide to recommend any safety
measure, it's up to them to demonstrate that the intervention does more
good than harm. Exactly as you say, there seems to be no credible
evidence to support the notion that this intervention is worthwhile; and
if an emergency-room specialist appears to quote a single discredited
small-scale study, that reflects much more on him than on the issue
itself. IOW, this thread doesn't add anything new. Surprise. ;-)

--
Mark, UK
"The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but
not when it misses."

Coyoteboy said:

Quoted message said:

Coyoteboy said:

...both sides quote flawed material and no-one actually sets about
doing a good study, so the usenet arguments are futile.

Maybe someone like the CTC or suchlike should commission a proper study

That's tricky to arrange, given that it involves destructive testing
of a statistically significant number of heads...

On the other hand, we can have a look at the experience of those
countries which have mandated helmet use and confirm that they have
observed a significant reduction in serious injuries and deaths: After
all, you would expect to see some sort of reduction if helmets are
effective.

Curiously, we don't. I won't try and paraphrase the findings here
(the studies are listed at the cyclehelmets.org site), but Australia,
New Zealand and other countries that have tried it don't seem to have
benefited from cumpulsory helmet wearing.

<snip>

The problem is that, as I said, all the studies done so far have equally
large flaws as the ones we have FOR helmets - so they are pointless. For
a start NZ and Aus have such a small population and vehicle density that
it isnt even remotely comparable. Even in cities we are talking of
cities of 400K people (Capital of NZ) and overall population of 4
million. Theres more people living (driving and cycling) in some of our
larger cities than in the entirety of NZ. They have been brought up
under different cultures, with different road rules. They simply arent
applicable in much the same way as the anti-85% arguments that say
"helmeted were mostly white upper class in parks" and "unhelmeted were
mostly black, riding on the streets". The arguments dont work one way.
You need a statistically and scientifically fair test in the country in
questions and across a range of locations. No point comparing city
riding in NZ to city riding in the UK.

But you don't have to compare NZ with UK, you compare NZ before
legislation with NZ after...

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:34:21 +0000,

marc said:

Coyoteboy said:

Quoted message said:

On 21 Nov, 13:39, Coyoteboy <[email hidden]> wrote:
> ...both sides quote flawed material and no-one actually sets about
> doing a good study, so the usenet arguments are futile.
>
> Maybe someone like the CTC or suchlike should commission a proper study

That's tricky to arrange, given that it involves destructive testing
of a statistically significant number of heads...

On the other hand, we can have a look at the experience of those
countries which have mandated helmet use and confirm that they have
observed a significant reduction in serious injuries and deaths: After
all, you would expect to see some sort of reduction if helmets are
effective.

Curiously, we don't. I won't try and paraphrase the findings here
(the studies are listed at the cyclehelmets.org site), but Australia,
New Zealand and other countries that have tried it don't seem to have
benefited from cumpulsory helmet wearing.

<snip>

The problem is that, as I said, all the studies done so far have equally
large flaws as the ones we have FOR helmets - so they are pointless. For
a start NZ and Aus have such a small population and vehicle density that
it isnt even remotely comparable. Even in cities we are talking of
cities of 400K people (Capital of NZ) and overall population of 4
million. Theres more people living (driving and cycling) in some of our
larger cities than in the entirety of NZ. They have been brought up
under different cultures, with different road rules. They simply arent
applicable in much the same way as the anti-85% arguments that say
"helmeted were mostly white upper class in parks" and "unhelmeted were
mostly black, riding on the streets". The arguments dont work one way.
You need a statistically and scientifically fair test in the country in
questions and across a range of locations. No point comparing city
riding in NZ to city riding in the UK.

But you don't have to compare NZ with UK, you compare NZ before
legislation with NZ after...

Coyoteboy's point is that the conditions in NZ are so different to
the conditions here that you will not get the same result (no
significant reduction in KSIs) for the same input (making helmets
mandatory). I disagree.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Andy Leighton said:

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:34:21 +0000,

marc said:

Coyoteboy said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> On 21 Nov, 13:39, Coyoteboy <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> ...both sides quote flawed material and no-one actually sets about
>> doing a good study, so the usenet arguments are futile.
>>
>> Maybe someone like the CTC or suchlike should commission a proper study
> That's tricky to arrange, given that it involves destructive testing
> of a statistically significant number of heads...
>
> On the other hand, we can have a look at the experience of those
> countries which have mandated helmet use and confirm that they have
> observed a significant reduction in serious injuries and deaths: After
> all, you would expect to see some sort of reduction if helmets are
> effective.
>
> Curiously, we don't. I won't try and paraphrase the findings here
> (the studies are listed at the cyclehelmets.org site), but Australia,
> New Zealand and other countries that have tried it don't seem to have
> benefited from cumpulsory helmet wearing.
<snip>

The problem is that, as I said, all the studies done so far have equally
large flaws as the ones we have FOR helmets - so they are pointless. For
a start NZ and Aus have such a small population and vehicle density that
it isnt even remotely comparable. Even in cities we are talking of
cities of 400K people (Capital of NZ) and overall population of 4
million. Theres more people living (driving and cycling) in some of our
larger cities than in the entirety of NZ. They have been brought up
under different cultures, with different road rules. They simply arent
applicable in much the same way as the anti-85% arguments that say
"helmeted were mostly white upper class in parks" and "unhelmeted were
mostly black, riding on the streets". The arguments dont work one way.
You need a statistically and scientifically fair test in the country in
questions and across a range of locations. No point comparing city
riding in NZ to city riding in the UK.

But you don't have to compare NZ with UK, you compare NZ before
legislation with NZ after...

Coyoteboy's point is that the conditions in NZ are so different to
the conditions here that you will not get the same result (no
significant reduction in KSIs) for the same input (making helmets
mandatory). I disagree.

The input in NZ is human skulls, I would have thought they compared very
well with human skulls anywhwere else in the world. I agree with your
disagreement.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

None of that necessarily translates to "has stopped and thought a bit

As Dr James Watson so amply illustrated recently, even Nobel Prize
winning pioneers can have their "hasn't stopped and thought about it"
moments in their subject area.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

The problem is that, as I said, all the studies done so far have equally
large flaws as the ones we have FOR helmets - so they are pointless. For
a start NZ and Aus have such a small population and vehicle density that
it isnt even remotely comparable.

Have you actually ridden in Australian or New Zealand cities or is this
another ill informed assumption you are making. Because I have and my
experience was that it was a pretty similar experience to UK cities.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

Coyoteboy said:

I got involved in one and was basically told my opinion wasn't worth
listening to.

perhaps because your information wasn't particularly up to speed?

My points were simply that the references given, suggesting helmets were
bad, were as flawed as the opposition. It didn't go down well and I'm a
busy man, I don't have time for too much petty online arguing, although
it does get the better of me at times!

And you clearly didn't have time to inform yourself before presenting
ill informed opinion on the topic either. Yet you seem surprised that
you were pulled up for it.

Quoted message said:

One would hope that more research were done into this area and the
opponents on both sides of the argument would be consulted on the test
procedure in order to settle the argument once and for all. It seems to
me that both sides quote flawed material and no-one actually sets about
doing a good study, so the usenet arguments are futile.

There's plenty of research out there and if you have a training in
research evaluation as many of us here have, its pretty easy to sift
through it and sort out the good from the bad. Its even been done with
a commentary at cyclehelmets.org for those too lazy or inexperienced to
do it for themselves. But I take it that unlike many here, you haven't
bothered to do that exercise and have built your suggestion on a false
premise.

Quoted message said:

Maybe someone like the CTC or suchlike should commission a proper study?

No need. Just spend the time to read the research or put some trust in
those of us here who have and as a consequence a) changed our individual
positions on helmet wearing and b) all came independently to the same
conclusion. The fact that you walk in years after that process was
completed and try to re-open the debate from a position of ignorance and
presumption is where your problem was.

--
Tony

"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from
the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent
disinclination to do so."
- Douglas Adams

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I think you're overlooking an aweful lot. But that is where my argument
rests because I'm not willing to waste any more of my life arguing
pointlessly on the internet where none of the contributors are well
placed to comment on either side.

ITYM you are not well placed to comment on either side. Some of us have
bothered to read the research, lots of it, and some of us have also
ridden in the places you claim are different (and not by listening to
some colleagues who haven't apparently even bothered to try riding in
the UK). So some of us are well placed but as usual you want to
preserve your beliefs by pretending its not so and flouncing off under a
pretence.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

In article <[email hidden]>, ikmotgeenspam@m-
gineering.nl says...

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

(One note about the quality of the equipment, it was actually made to
higher specifications those days than it is now).

You've got to be carefull here: the important specifications (weight,
ventilation, design, comfort, pricelevels) have much improved 😉

And the unimportant stuff like protective ability was solved by
downgrading the certification requirement so the new improved helmets
could achieve them.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

Tony Raven said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I think you're overlooking an aweful lot. But that is where my argument
rests because I'm not willing to waste any more of my life arguing
pointlessly on the internet where none of the contributors are well
placed to comment on either side.

ITYM you are not well placed to comment on either side. Some of us have
bothered to read the research, lots of it, and some of us have also
ridden in the places you claim are different (and not by listening to
some colleagues who haven't apparently even bothered to try riding in
the UK). So some of us are well placed but as usual you want to
preserve your beliefs by pretending its not so and flouncing off under a
pretence.

🙂 I'm not flouncing anywhere, just refusing to be "fed" information
from any side. The internet is full of experts who claim to have read a
lot and done this, that and the other, I simply question their validity,
especially because they question everyone elses so frequently. And some
of the quoted information is just rehashed old information, pointless.
I'm not trying to preserve anything any more than the next man; much as
I would in a pub discussion, I'm just walking away from an argument I
know I wont win because the other side is trying to preserve THEIR
argument. Any two idiots can argue all day long, it doesnt make either
of them right. The point is that there are reports that lead to opposing
conclusions, both sides reports are flawed - who decides which is more
valid? Certainly not a bunch of Usenet cyclists, one would hope.

TerryJ said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Just been on Ch4 with Dr John Heyworth (emergency medicine
> specialist) claiming 85% reduction in cycle related serious head
> injuries with helmets, stressing the vitality of helmets? His
> opinion, based

I thought the case had 'fallen' from a 6th floor onto concrete.
Her chest was full of blood amongst other things.I did not stay with
the program, so unfortunately missed his assertion that a cycle helmet
would have helped.
I look forward to a live demonstration with him as the subject.
If her skull was in such a state I wonder what her brain must have
looked like.

TerryJ

The quote about helmets was a comment following a discussion on brain injury
and a demonstration after the discussion of the lady who fell.

There was no mention of head injury to the fall victim. I would have
thought that her head would have decelerated pretty quickly (even if there
was no direct contact with the ground) leading to an interesting closed-head
type of brain trauma.

--

Nigel

Mark McNeill said:

Response to Coyoteboy

Quoted message said:

The problem is that, as I said, all the studies done so far have equally
large flaws as the ones we have FOR helmets - so they are pointless. For
a start NZ and Aus have such a small population and vehicle density that
it isnt even remotely comparable.

Comparable with what? The figures from the Antipodes compare broadly
the same populations & vehicle densities over a period of time. Helmet-
wearing rose steeply in a short period of time, with no concomitant fall
in KSIs. There is no reason that I know of to believe these figures

Comparable to the UK, not each other.

Quoted message said:

For my part, there are two quick and obvious points to be made.

Firstly, according to the Department for Transport, walking and cycling
in the UK are about equally safe per mile; IOW, the risk of death or
serious injury when doing either activity is equally low, and I for one
don't bother wearing a helmet whether I'm walking or cycling; obviously,
you can if you like.

I've lost the link to the figures but I'm fairly sure walking was
notably safer. I'll accept your point, however I would tend to protect
against my own mistakes more than those of others causing me injury - as
such I rarely fall over when walking, however when cycling at 20mph on
muddy concrete surfaces its considerably more frequent and more likely
to cause head injury than a static fall (though I have no proof of that,
naturally).

Quoted message said:

Secondly, if any individual or body decide to recommend any safety
measure, it's up to them to demonstrate that the intervention does more
good than harm. Exactly as you say, there seems to be no credible
evidence to support the notion that this intervention is worthwhile; and
if an emergency-room specialist appears to quote a single discredited
small-scale study, that reflects much more on him than on the issue
itself. IOW, this thread doesn't add anything new. Surprise. ;-)

Sure, hard to do when no-one carries out fair tests on either side eh.
Which is what I've been arguing from the start. However everyone seems
to think that the anti-helmet tests are all fair and above board but the
pro helmet ones are all flawed. Its a joke.

This thread adds nothing new, no, because I originally quoted someone
who was quoting old information- the thread wasnt designed to add to the
overall knowledge of society, it was a question as to the source of the
information, the question was answered - unfortunately a bunch of the
anti-helmet brigade took it on themselves to start saying I was arguing
for the pro-helmet side and that all anti-helmet evidence was
irrefutable. Also a joke.

No-one can discuss anything helmet related without the big mouths of the
anti-helmet brigade shouting people down - they simply cant accept
criticism of their own propaganda, while dishing out plenty toward the
pro helmet brigade. People keep assuming I'm pro helmet too, when in
fact I am still in the process of considering it for myself. Fanatical
knee-jerk yelling from the AH members leads me to question them more.

marc said:

Coyoteboy said:

Quoted message said:

On 21 Nov, 13:39, Coyoteboy <[email hidden]> wrote:
> ...both sides quote flawed material and no-one actually sets about
> doing a good study, so the usenet arguments are futile.
>
> Maybe someone like the CTC or suchlike should commission a proper study

That's tricky to arrange, given that it involves destructive testing
of a statistically significant number of heads...

On the other hand, we can have a look at the experience of those
countries which have mandated helmet use and confirm that they have
observed a significant reduction in serious injuries and deaths: After
all, you would expect to see some sort of reduction if helmets are
effective.

Curiously, we don't. I won't try and paraphrase the findings here
(the studies are listed at the cyclehelmets.org site), but Australia,
New Zealand and other countries that have tried it don't seem to have
benefited from cumpulsory helmet wearing.

<snip>

The problem is that, as I said, all the studies done so far have
equally large flaws as the ones we have FOR helmets - so they are
pointless. For a start NZ and Aus have such a small population and
vehicle density that it isnt even remotely comparable. Even in cities
we are talking of cities of 400K people (Capital of NZ) and overall
population of 4 million. Theres more people living (driving and
cycling) in some of our larger cities than in the entirety of NZ. They
have been brought up under different cultures, with different road
rules. They simply arent applicable in much the same way as the
anti-85% arguments that say "helmeted were mostly white upper class in
parks" and "unhelmeted were mostly black, riding on the streets". The
arguments dont work one way. You need a statistically and
scientifically fair test in the country in questions and across a
range of locations. No point comparing city riding in NZ to city
riding in the UK.

But you don't have to compare NZ with UK, you compare NZ before
legislation with NZ after...

But that comparison is flawed also, due to the fact that there has now
been publicity of the problems etc, and after how long were the tests
carried out. ITs not as simple as that. I have not read said reprt so
I'll not delve deeper. All I've said is both sides arguments are flawed.

Coyoteboy said:

Tony Raven said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I think you're overlooking an aweful lot. But that is where my argument
rests because I'm not willing to waste any more of my life arguing
pointlessly on the internet where none of the contributors are well
placed to comment on either side.

ITYM you are not well placed to comment on either side. Some of us have
bothered to read the research, lots of it, and some of us have also
ridden in the places you claim are different (and not by listening to
some colleagues who haven't apparently even bothered to try riding in
the UK). So some of us are well placed but as usual you want to
preserve your beliefs by pretending its not so and flouncing off under a
pretence.

🙂 I'm not flouncing anywhere, just refusing to be "fed" information
from any side.

Fair enough - however you are about the only person on either the
pro-compulsion or anti-compulsion side of the argument that argues
that only data from the UK (and seemingly only that from urban areas
as your point was partly about densities) is valid for the UK.

Explaining why you think that could be illuminating.

Quoted message said:

I would in a pub discussion, I'm just walking away from an argument I
know I wont win because the other side is trying to preserve THEIR
argument.

The truth is you have a position on helmets which is at odds with many
here (but not all). You are trying to normalise that by disclaiming all
evidence from both sides and saying that you will continue to wear a
helmet anyway. Presumably you believe that cycling is significantly
more dangerous (wrt to head-injury) than other everyday activities
such as walking or driving?

Quoted message said:

of them right. The point is that there are reports that lead to opposing
conclusions, both sides reports are flawed - who decides which is more
valid? Certainly not a bunch of Usenet cyclists, one would hope.

Well a bunch of cyclists (Usenet or not) would be better than
Westminster politicians or Whitehall or certain so-called charities.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Coyoteboy said:

marc said:

Coyoteboy said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> On 21 Nov, 13:39, Coyoteboy <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> ...both sides quote flawed material and no-one actually sets about
>> doing a good study, so the usenet arguments are futile.
>>
>> Maybe someone like the CTC or suchlike should commission a proper
>> study
>
> That's tricky to arrange, given that it involves destructive testing
> of a statistically significant number of heads...
>
> On the other hand, we can have a look at the experience of those
> countries which have mandated helmet use and confirm that they have
> observed a significant reduction in serious injuries and deaths: After
> all, you would expect to see some sort of reduction if helmets are
> effective.
>
> Curiously, we don't. I won't try and paraphrase the findings here
> (the studies are listed at the cyclehelmets.org site), but Australia,
> New Zealand and other countries that have tried it don't seem to have
> benefited from cumpulsory helmet wearing.

<snip>

The problem is that, as I said, all the studies done so far have
equally large flaws as the ones we have FOR helmets - so they are
pointless. For a start NZ and Aus have such a small population and
vehicle density that it isnt even remotely comparable. Even in cities
we are talking of cities of 400K people (Capital of NZ) and overall
population of 4 million. Theres more people living (driving and
cycling) in some of our larger cities than in the entirety of NZ.
They have been brought up under different cultures, with different
road rules. They simply arent applicable in much the same way as the
anti-85% arguments that say "helmeted were mostly white upper class
in parks" and "unhelmeted were mostly black, riding on the streets".
The arguments dont work one way. You need a statistically and
scientifically fair test in the country in questions and across a
range of locations. No point comparing city riding in NZ to city
riding in the UK.

But you don't have to compare NZ with UK, you compare NZ before
legislation with NZ after...

But that comparison is flawed also, due to the fact that there has now
been publicity of the problems etc, and after how long were the tests
carried out. ITs not as simple as that.

You're not a scientist are you?

I have not read said reprt so

Quoted message said:

I'll not delve deeper. All I've said is both sides arguments are flawed.

I wish I had known that you don't need to read the evidence to know that
the argument is flawed, it could have saved me so much time over the
last couple of years! :-(