Surprising helmet data from Florida

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

Quoted message said:

Not bicycle helmets, but motor cycle helmets.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/09/motorcycle.deaths.ap/

I am surprised by this report because I had always believed that
motorcycle helmets were vastly overrated in terms of their
effectiveness (the deformable padding is pretty thin when all is said
and done) and I expected that risk compensation would take care of the
rest.

I'm intrigued by one of the claims though. Deaths of U21s tripled, with 45%
not wearing helmets. This means that deaths of helmeted U21s were 50% higher
than the total deaths before, which implies there's something else going on.

cheers,
clive

On 11 Aug 2005 10:35:29 -0700,

Peter Headland said:

Not bicycle helmets, but motor cycle helmets.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/09/motorcycle.deaths.ap/

I am surprised by this report because I had always believed that
motorcycle helmets were vastly overrated in terms of their
effectiveness (the deformable padding is pretty thin when all is said
and done) and I expected that risk compensation would take care of the
rest.

You need to get the full study. There isn't enough information in this
news report to conclude anything at all - it looks possible that the
only group that saw an increase in deaths post repealing the law is the
only group for which helmets remained mandatory[1].

(Deaths in U21 - helmet compulsory although not all wear one - tripled.
All deaths up from approx 170/year to approx 310/year. If 70 of those
deaths in the pre-repealing law were U21s then U21s would account for
all the increase in deaths post repeal)

[1] helmets also remained mandatory for people who didn't have at least
$10000 health insurance.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Clive George <[email hidden]> whizzed past me shouting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/09/motorcycle.deaths.ap/

I'm intrigued by one of the claims though. Deaths of U21s tripled, with 45%
not wearing helmets. This means that deaths of helmeted U21s were 50% higher
than the total deaths before, which implies there's something else going on.

The info's incomplete: it's possible the number of new inexperienced
motorcyclists shot up, and it's known that they're most at risk.
Helmet laws deter people from borrowing a bike and having a go - repeal
the helmet law and suddenly they'll all want to try it.

--
Sue ]🙁🙂

Mountain bikes are for falling off

It's worth noting that those for whom helmets were technically
mandatory obviously felt they could get way with not wearing them once
the law was repealed (given the stated %age of those killed who were
U21 and helmetless). So there is further confounding even in that set.

FWIW, I often see motorcyclists without helmets here in sunny
California (which still has a moderately draconian motorcycle helmet
law).

It's odd, you know - rock climbers are allowed to climb rocks, fall off
them and get killed, hang glider pilots can smash themselves into the
ground without legal hindrance, etc., etc., etc., but selected groups
of road users somehow need special "protection". Just why is it that we
are singled out in this way?

--
Peter Headland

Peter Headland said:

It's odd, you know - rock climbers are allowed to climb rocks, fall off
them and get killed, hang glider pilots can smash themselves into the
ground without legal hindrance, etc., etc., etc., but selected groups
of road users somehow need special "protection". Just why is it that we
are singled out in this way?

The others do it mainly well away from the public's notice whereas
cyclists are visible in front of them all the time. So if "something
must be done" why not do it to people whom you regularly encounter and
whom you could kill unless "something is done"

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

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

Quoted message said:

Clive George <[email hidden]> whizzed past me shouting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/09/motorcycle.deaths.ap/

I'm intrigued by one of the claims though. Deaths of U21s tripled, with
45%
not wearing helmets. This means that deaths of helmeted U21s were 50%
higher
than the total deaths before, which implies there's something else going
on.

The info's incomplete: it's possible the number of new inexperienced
motorcyclists shot up, and it's known that they're most at risk.
Helmet laws deter people from borrowing a bike and having a go - repeal
the helmet law and suddenly they'll all want to try it.

But why are these new people who got put off before by having to wear a
helmet wearing a helmet when they crash?

cheers,
clive

Quoted message said:

people whom you regularly encounter and
whom you could kill unless "something is done

Great answer! That ties in perfectly with the evidence that drivers
give less room to cyclists that wear helmets. We worry them, they fear
they may hit and injure us, so they want us to get all nice and
"protected". All of this down at the totally subconscious/irrational
level, of course.

--
Peter Headland

Response to Peter Headland:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

people whom you regularly encounter and
whom you could kill unless "something is done

Great answer! That ties in perfectly with the evidence that drivers
give less room to cyclists that wear helmets. We worry them, they fear
they may hit and injure us, so they want us to get all nice and
"protected". All of this down at the totally subconscious/irrational
level, of course.

I've wondered in the past if some drivers' hatred of cyclists is caused
partly by what causes my irrational hatred of spiders and similar creepy-
crawlies: a fear not of what they might do to me, but of what I might do
to them. It feels very credible - psychologically *right*, so to speak.

--
Mark, UK

"History teaches us that whenever a weak and ignorant people possess a
thing which a strong and enlightened people want, it must be yielded up
peaceably."

Peter Headland said:

Not bicycle helmets, but motor cycle helmets.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/09/motorcycle.deaths.ap/

I am surprised by this report because I had always believed that
motorcycle helmets were vastly overrated in terms of their
effectiveness (the deformable padding is pretty thin when all is said
and done) and I expected that risk compensation would take care of the
rest.

The relevance to this NG is that I have always cited motorcycle helmet
compulsion (which I still oppose, BTW, because I think we should allow
people to risk their own lives/wellbeing if they wish to) as an example
of something widely believed to be beneficial without actually being
anything of the kind as an example of why bicyle helmet compulsion is
not desirable. I suppose I'll have to drop that particular argument.
:-(

PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT suggesting that bicycle helmets are in any way
functionally equivalent to motorcycle helmets. At least not any more -
I used to think that motorcycle helmets were as questionable as bicycle
helmets. :-)

Without knowing if the number of motorcycle miles ridden also shot up
(which is very likely) the article and figures therein are meaningless.

Peter Headland <[email hidden]> whizzed past me shouting

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

people whom you regularly encounter and
whom you could kill unless "something is done

Great answer! That ties in perfectly with the evidence that drivers
give less room to cyclists that wear helmets. We worry them, they fear
they may hit and injure us, so they want us to get all nice and
"protected". All of this down at the totally subconscious/irrational
level, of course.

The data aren't complete there either.

Helmets are worn by cyclists who think what they're doing isn't safe.
Anxious cyclists tend to ride closer to the kerb, which results in motor
drivers giving them less room - so it's possible the kind of cyclist who
wears a helmet is a less safe rider. Without knowing whether the helmet
wearers were hugging the kerb, we can't evaluate the data.

--
Sue ]8(🙂

What goes down must come up again - Confucius' Law of Mountain Biking