published helmet research - not troll

patrick said:

I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
but I figured some of you might actually want to read
real research.

see the most recent issue of the Journal of Public
Policy (Vol. 23, Issue 23 - June 2004) - Wiley, Inc.
Publisher - can get abstract from the wiley site.

The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on
Bicycling Fatalities - Grant and Rutner.

First pass is that it was a pretty good article
for what it is worth.

p

by the way. don't bother replying. I dont use that
hotmail account anymore.

I recently heard something on NPR to the effect that the wearing of
helmets and the rate of bicycle fatalities is hard to draw claer
relationships to because many of the fatalities are/were children vs
auto, where a helmet (while still a great idea) is not going to have as
big an effect as it will in a one cyclist Done Fall Over incident, or
even in an adult vs auto.

FB - Thinks that all research aside a helmet is a good idea.
(Imperically speaking of course..)

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

Quoted message said:

patrick said:

I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
but I figured some of you might actually want to read
real research.

see the most recent issue of the Journal of Public
Policy (Vol. 23, Issue 23 - June 2004) - Wiley, Inc.
Publisher - can get abstract from the wiley site.

The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on
Bicycling Fatalities - Grant and Rutner.

First pass is that it was a pretty good article
for what it is worth.

p

by the way. don't bother replying. I dont use that
hotmail account anymore.

I recently heard something on NPR to the effect that the wearing of
helmets and the rate of bicycle fatalities is hard to draw claer
relationships to because many of the fatalities are/were children vs
auto, where a helmet (while still a great idea) is not going to have as
big an effect as it will in a one cyclist Done Fall Over incident, or
even in an adult vs auto.

FB - Thinks that all research aside a helmet is a good idea.
(Imperically speaking of course..)

Where's the proof? Where's the proof?
People around here don't need any real proof to be convinced that Lance is a
doper, but they need proof that a helmet makes sense to wear.

Bob C.

psycholist said:

People around here don't need any real proof to be convinced that
Lance is a doper, but they need proof that a helmet makes sense to
wear.

Nah, lots of us want proof on both counts.

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

Quoted message said:

I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
but I figured some of you might actually want to read
real research.

see the most recent issue of the Journal of Public
Policy (Vol. 23, Issue 23 - June 2004) - Wiley, Inc.
Publisher - can get abstract from the wiley site.

The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on
Bicycling Fatalities - Grant and Rutner.

First pass is that it was a pretty good article
for what it is worth.

It can be found here:
http://economics.uta.edu/grant/helmet.pdf

Gemma

Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

psycholist said:

People around here don't need any real proof to be convinced that
Lance is a doper, but they need proof that a helmet makes sense to
wear.

Nah, lots of us want proof on both counts.

As a significant comment on the pertinent article - they claim that a
helmet seems to save some 15% of youth fatalities. I haven't read the
article yet (I just got it) but in the abstract they say that 15%
equals some 1,500 kids.

Firstly, 25 years of fatalities is some 15,000 deaths. Of that only
40% or less are children or 6,000. 15% of 6,000 is 900.

Furthermore, the claim is that the benefits of helmets do not seem to
cross over to adults.

Could this be because:

1) An adult is a lot higher from the ground.
2) An adult is a great deal heavier than a child.
3) Because helmet laws tend to heavily discourage bicycle use by
children the statistics become highly skewed in directions that are
difficult to quantify.
4) Since the number of deaths of bicyclists are so small the
statistics are almost meaningless. "Typical" child fatalities are from
riding out in front of a vehicle in motion. In these cases the
specific impact points are far more important than body armor.

I'll read the article tonight and be able to analyze it more fully. I
will say that most articles on helmets that have been written by
college professors, as this one appears to be, aren't written to be
scientific knowledge but are written instead only to fulfill their
collegian duty of "Publish or Perish".

[email hidden] (Tom Kunich) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"psycholist" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

snip

Quoted message said:

Furthermore, the claim is that the benefits of helmets do not seem to
cross over to adults.

Could this be because:

1) snip

One of my friends thought it was due to the adults more developed
"protect your head reflex".. and anecdotally I like it ..

I had two bike related concussions as a kid, as an adult
1 broken wrist
1 broken collar-bone
1 separated shoulder
(all at different times)
never even a scratch or bump on the head..

someone should do a study with a breakdown of the types of injury by
age...
and exclude trials/bmx/free-riders...

[email hidden] (Tom Kunich) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

psycholist said:

People around here don't need any real proof to be convinced that
Lance is a doper, but they need proof that a helmet makes sense to
wear.

Nah, lots of us want proof on both counts.

As a significant comment on the pertinent article - they claim that a
helmet seems to save some 15% of youth fatalities.

An important distinction - they say this about *helmet laws*, not
helmets. The actual effect for helmets themselves may be higher if we
account for noncompliance, which may be substantial in this case (or
not, but still the distinction needs to be made).

In other words, requiring kids to wear helmets does not mean every one
of them will. This study appears to be examining the effect of the
legislation, which can only approach and never exceed the effect that
would be attained by perfect compliance.

-RJ

Ronaldo Jeremiah said:

[email hidden] (Tom Kunich) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"psycholist" <[email hidden]> writes:

>People around here don't need any real proof to be convinced that
>Lance is a doper, but they need proof that a helmet makes sense to
>wear.

Nah, lots of us want proof on both counts.

As a significant comment on the pertinent article - they claim that a
helmet seems to save some 15% of youth fatalities.

An important distinction - they say this about *helmet laws*, not
helmets. The actual effect for helmets themselves may be higher if we
account for noncompliance, which may be substantial in this case (or
not, but still the distinction needs to be made).

In other words, requiring kids to wear helmets does not mean every one
of them will. This study appears to be examining the effect of the
legislation, which can only approach and never exceed the effect that
would be attained by perfect compliance.

Based on my quick skimming of the article, it appeared they did not have
any direct data on changes in ridership resulting from the introduction
of helmet laws. They claimed that there was no such effect based on not
seeing any increase in pedestrian fatalities (which might be expected if
cyclists switched to walking instead) or in motor vehicle miles. I'm
skeptical of their conclusions since even a pretty substantial reduction
in ridership with previous riders now getting rides from parents would
have only a very minor impact on total motor vehicle miles driven and
might not be detected in the statistics. Also recreational (i.e just
for fun) riding by juveniles may have been replaced by other activities
such as playing video games, etc.

Previous studies have shown substantial reductions in ridership upon the
introduction of helmet laws and such a reduction could easily account
for all of the observed 15% decline in fatalities even if helmets were
totally ineffective. Locally (northern Cal.) there was an obvious
reduction in the number of bicycles in school bike racks immediately
following the introduction of the juvenile helmet law and the numbers
have remained lower than they were before.

Their discussion of cost/benefit ratio appeared to assume the only cost
of the helmet law was the monetary and inconvenience cost of the
helmets. But if ridership decreases then there are also the health
benefits of cycling that are lost as a consequence of such laws.
Hillman's study for the British Med. Assoc. indicated that for every
year of life lost due to cycling accidents there were 20 years of life
gained due to the beneficial effects of the cycling-related exercise. A
helmet law that results in reducing ridership by as little as 5% would
therefore have a net detrimental effect on overall years of life even if
helmets were 100% effective in reducing fatalities (which is clearly not
the case).

In article <[email hidden]>,

Ronaldo Jeremiah said:

[email hidden] (Tom Kunich) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

As a significant comment on the pertinent article - they claim that a
helmet seems to save some 15% of youth fatalities.

An important distinction - they say this about *helmet laws*, not
helmets. The actual effect for helmets themselves may be higher if we
account for noncompliance, which may be substantial in this case (or
not, but still the distinction needs to be made).

Or the effect could be lower. Helmet laws change behavior, especially among
children, there is no doubt about that. If you assume children are safer with
their parents than when unsupervised, and that a helmet law will decreases
juvenile ridership more for children riding alone than with their parents,
then it's possible that the effect of helmets for children is less than a 15%
reduction in fatalities.

Ajames54 said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"psycholist" <[email hidden]> writes:

One of my friends thought it was due to the adults more developed
"protect your head reflex".. and anecdotally I like it ..
I had two bike related concussions as a kid, as an adult 1 broken wrist
1 broken collar-bone 1 separated shoulder (all at different times) never
even a scratch or bump on the head..

...So were you wearing a helmet when you sustained all these injuries?

--

patrick said:

I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
but I figured some of you might actually want to read
real research.

There has been plenty of "real research" cited on this topic.

For example, you might visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org and track down
some of the cited articles. Regarding the effect of helmet use on
fatalities, you can visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1012 and
see citations at the page bottom.

Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots of
citations listed there, too.

Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to make
it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time without a
helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute supports
carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age groups."

Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets. In
general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more skeptical
of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski said:

Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots
of citations listed there, too.

This site (at least, the so-called "Helmet FAQ"😉 was created by a rabid
anti-helmet person who would spew continued personal abuse at anyone
who disagreed with him in the slightest. You should note Krygowski's
tactics. He posts a link to Randy's site for "balance" but immediately
disparages it.

Quoted message said:

Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to
make it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time
without a helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute
supports carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age
groups."

Randy's site is not "rabid," even if you don't agree with everything
he says (or anything he says, for that matter.)

Bill

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Quoted message said:

The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on
Bicycling Fatalities - Grant and Rutner.

Their statistics are sound, and their calculation of a 15% reduction in
the juvenile bicycling fatality rate during the helmet-law era appears
to be accurate, although virtually indistinguishable from the
already-existing downward trend since 1975, represented by the blue line
in their data graph:

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/9715/graph.gif

They conclude that their calculated reduction is not due to any
corresponding reduction in bicycling among juveniles, but their opinion
is unsupported by the data. The indirect evidence they infer from a lack
of increase in vehicle-miles per capita, and in the juvenile pedestrian
fatality rate, is insufficient to offset the direct evidence easily
inferred from the significant increase in the rate of juvenile obesity
from 11.3% [1988-1994] to 15.3% [1999-2000]:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/tables/2003/03hus069.pdf

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

Quoted message said:

Ajames54 said:

Quoted message said:

> "psycholist" <[email hidden]> writes:

One of my friends thought it was due to the adults more developed
"protect your head reflex".. and anecdotally I like it ..
I had two bike related concussions as a kid, as an adult 1 broken wrist
1 broken collar-bone 1 separated shoulder (all at different times) never
even a scratch or bump on the head..

...So were you wearing a helmet when you sustained all these injuries?

There were no bike helmets when I was a kid... the collar bone was
when hit by a car.. no helmet... the shoulder was when mountain biking
... with a helmet .. the wrist was when hit with a car door .. no
helmet.

That being said I wear a helmet about 80% of the time on the road and
100% when trail riding...

Frank Krygowski said:

In general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more skeptical
of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.

I read in my local paper (The Lansing State Journal) that riding without
a helmet makes you 14 times more likely to get killed. That claim exceeds
any made by Swart. Imagine a helmet that is 100% effective in preventing
brain injury. This 14x claim would still require that 93% of all fatal
crashes involve fatal brain injury with no other mortal wounds.
Gannett News printed the claim as if it were an established fact.

Mitch.

LioNiNoiL_a t_Ne t s c a pE_D 0 T_Ne T said:

Quoted message said:

The Effect of Bicycle Helmet Legislation on Bicycling Fatalities -
Grant and Rutner.

Their statistics are sound, and their calculation of a 15% reduction in
the juvenile bicycling fatality rate during the helmet-law era appears
to be accurate, although virtually indistinguishable from the
already-existing downward trend since 1975, represented by the blue line
in their data graph:

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/9715/graph.gif

Yes - if helmets were having a significant effect, that graph should
show a significant drop in juvenile fatalities, over and above the
prevailing trend, from 1991 to 1997, when (as they show) the helmet laws
became fashionable.

Incidentally, there are several sources on the web which plot cylist
fatalities and pedestrian fatalities over the decades. Despite the
increase in helmet use, the plots are stubbornly parallel... with, of
course, a certain amount of random variation superimposed.

It seems clear that a) the emergency medical people have gotten
gradually better at their job (probably in large part due to
technology), and b) helmets aren't making a significant difference in
cyclists' fatalities. If they were, the cyclist plot would drop
relative to the ped. plot.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

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

Quoted message said:

patrick said:

I know, I know. this has been hashed to hell and back,
but I figured some of you might actually want to read
real research.

There has been plenty of "real research" cited on this topic.

For example, you might visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org and track down
some of the cited articles. Regarding the effect of helmet use on
fatalities, you can visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org/mf.html#1012 and
see citations at the page bottom.

Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/ with it's "Helmet FAQ." There are lots of
citations listed there, too.

Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
www.bhsi.org This "institute" (named Randy Swart) is working to make
it illegal for anyone of any age to ride a bike at any time without a
helmet. I quote: "The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute supports
carefully drawn mandatory helmet laws covering all age groups."

Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets. In
general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more skeptical
of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski said:

Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets.

What makes it so serious, compared to other discussions? Letters after people's
names? Big egos? Feeding frenzy at the hog trough of research dollars?
Self-importance typically associated with these things? Or is it earnest
effort, for once!

Quoted message said:

In
general, we seem to have the public (under the influence of heavy
promotion) believing that helmets are a godsend. Meanwhile, competent
statisticians who examine the actual data are much, much more
skeptical of both the supposed benefit, and the supposed need.

Ah, but there's no money to be made in telling people they don't need helmets!
And no political points gained from being "anti-safety."

Matt O.

Matt O'Toole said:

Frank Krygowski said:

Be aware that there is _very_ serious discussion taking place in many
scholarly publications regarding the effectiveness of helmets.

What makes it so serious, compared to other discussions? Letters after people's
names? Big egos? Feeding frenzy at the hog trough of research dollars?
Self-importance typically associated with these things? Or is it earnest
effort, for once!

Maybe "serious" doesn't describe it well enough.

When you log onto the web sites for some of these journals, you can find
discussions between the original authors and other knowledgeable
scientists who discuss their work.

A recent paper out of Scotland reached some very pro-helmet conclusions,
for example; but correspondents were able to point out errors in
computation that invalidated its results. That was interesting, because
it pitted two (or more) statistics experts against each other, with one
emerging a clear loser.

The discussions take place at a much higher level than the typical
wreck.bike discussions (if you can believe such a thing!) For example,
no time is wasted on tales like "My buddy ran into a swarm of
butterflies, and I _know_ his helmet saved his life!!!!" ;-)
It all tends to be very scientific, very mathematical.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]