Re: published helmet research - not troll - Page 2 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

06-17-2004, 07:37 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, 09:33 AM

"Frank Krygowski" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].edu...
> 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]
>

06-17-2004, 09:33 AM

"Frank Krygowski" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].edu...
> 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]
>

06-17-2004, 09:33 AM

"Frank Krygowski" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].edu...
> 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]
>

06-17-2004, 09:33 AM

"Frank Krygowski" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].edu...
> 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]
>

06-17-2004, 09:33 AM

"Frank Krygowski" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].edu...
> 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]
>

06-17-2004, 09:47 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> 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!

> 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.

06-17-2004, 09:47 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> 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!

> 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.

06-17-2004, 09:47 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> 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!

> 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.

06-17-2004, 09:47 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> 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!

> 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.