Re: published helmet research - not troll

06-16-2004, 09:48 PM

patrick wrote:

> 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 [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and track down
some of the cited articles. Regarding the effect of helmet use on
fatalities, you can visit [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and
see citations at the page bottom.

Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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",
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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]

06-16-2004, 10:09 PM

Frank Krygowski <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

> Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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.

> Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
> you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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

06-16-2004, 10:09 PM

Frank Krygowski <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

> Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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.

> Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
> you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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

06-16-2004, 10:09 PM

Frank Krygowski <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

> Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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.

> Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
> you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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

06-16-2004, 10:09 PM

Frank Krygowski <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

> Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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.

> Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
> you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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

06-16-2004, 10:09 PM

Frank Krygowski <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> writes:

> Another source is the Vehicular Cyclist site, at
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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.

> Both of those are helmet skeptic sites. To be fair, I must also point
> you to the rabidly pro-helmet "Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute",
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] 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

06-17-2004, 06:37 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> 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.

06-17-2004, 06:37 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> 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.

06-17-2004, 06:37 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> 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.

06-17-2004, 06:37 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> 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.