Oh, look, some more "refutation" from that same Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1034.html:
Key facts about injury when cycling in perspective
* The road users most at risk from head injury are pedestrians and young drivers. [1] [2]
So what? A cyclist is not a pedestrian nor a driver of any kind. Does not address the question of whether cycling helmets help prevent head injuries.
* In Great Britain, 6 times more pedestrians and 18 times more motor vehicle occupants suffer lethal head injuries than cyclists. Pedestrians and motor vehicle occupants also suffer more lethal injuries to the abdomen and thorax. [3] [4]
So what? A cyclist is not a pedestrian nor a motor vehicle occupant. Does not address the question of whether cycling helmets help prevent head injuries.
* Children are 2.6 times more likely to suffer head injury through jumping and falling than by cycling. [5]
So what? A cyclist, even though he may very well be a child, is not a child engaged in jumping or falling. Does not address the question of whether cycling helmets help prevent head injuries.
* More than 99% of head injuries seen by UK hospitals do not involve road cyclists. [6]
So what? A road cyclist wasn't part of that "[m]ore than 99%". Does not address the question of whether cycling helmets help prevent head injuries.
* Helmets for motorists are much more effective than those for cyclists and more beneficial than seat belts, interior padding or air bags. Their potential for reducing injury is 17 times greater than that of cycle helmets. [7] [3]
So what? A cyclist is not a motorist, nor does he have the advantages of seat belts, interior padding, or air bags. Does not address the question of whether cycling helmets help prevent head injuries.
This entire page - which is linked to from the Wikipedia page on cycling helmet - tosses a bunch of utterly irrelevant stats in the air. It never once even tries to address the efficacy or lack thereof of bicycle helmets.
One would think the authors are deliberately trying to avoid a straight answer to the question as to whether or not bicycle helmets help to prevent head injuries.
And let's not forget
official Wikipedia editor's opinions of the quality of the Wiki page on bike helmets:
What this page has done to bicycle helmets is what creationists would like to do to the page on evolution.
Ouch.
The debate as presented is peppered with obscure rebuttals. For instance, consider the statement, "Hence, the evidence comes from two main types of observational study: time-trend analyses, rated as grade 2, and case-control studies with more potential ways of being wrong than either of the above, rated at grade 3 on a standard scale." Yes, it has a citation, but how is this scale "standard"? Yes, case-controlled studies are rated at grade 3, but that does not mean that case-controlled studies are therefore low-grade science, because the "Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Levels of Evidence" is a set of guidelines that should not be taken dogmatically. And no, time-trend analysis (which are the article's main evidence that bicycle helmets aren't worth it) are not "rated as grade 2" in the cited chart. Cohort studies are rated as level 2, but that's not the same as an epidemiological time-trend study. That sort of evidence is not rated on the chart at all, and it is generally grossly inconclusive even compared to case-control studies.
Wow, looks like the "junk science" is coming from the "helmets aren't worth it" crowd.
The central claim of the overgrown section on the helmet debate is that the evidence against helmets is better than the evidence in favor helmets. The article says that the evidence against is class 2, but the evidence in favor is class 3. This is both a misreading and a misuse of the standards of evidence-based medicine --- which first off should cite the much clearer Wikipedia page on evidence-based medicine rather than a cryptic PDF chart from a medical center. It's a misreading because a time trend is an uncontrolled national trial and not an ecological cohort study. It's a misuse because ultimately the grades of evidence-based medicine are guidelines of scientific common sense and not usually legalistic rules. A legalistic interpretation of such grades is only appropriate for evaluating potentially dangerous medical treatments. Bicycle helmets may be a bother, but they are not dangerous in the same sense that surgery is dangerous.
So yes, original research is the existing problem with this article.
Hmm, didn't closetbiker claim to have done "original research". Then he refers to the Wiki page in arguments to support his claims.
Circular argument at its best?
The fact remains that this article is tendentious and lop-sided against the use of bicycle helmets, when to the contrary the prevailing medical opinion is that bicycle helmets are important. You're clearly one of the skeptics and most of the article was clearly written by skeptics. Now, you guys may be right, but you're giving your dissent more space than the main recommendation of the medical community.
You deserve credit for paying some lip service to prevailing medical opinion. Just not as much as you devote to your own view. For instance, the section "position and arguments" devotes 150 words to the supporters --- like the American Medical Association and the American National Safety Countil --- but 400 words to opponents, which are described vaguely as "many notable academics" and so on.
You really haven't earned the right to the larger soapbox on this issue. The article smacks of original research even though you think that it doesn't. A paragraph that you just edited is still highly tendentious, for instance the quote "the evidence currently available is complex and full of contradictions, providing at least as much support for those who are sceptical as for those who swear by them". This is a fatuous description: research on bicycle helmets isn't any more complicated or contradictory than any other kind of scientific research. It is also an inappropriate citation, because it is a lay organization's assessment of scientific research. Given the length and structure of this article, it would be a Sisyphean effort to settle all of its bias on a point-by-point basis.
Look - "inappropriate citations" in the Wiki article on bike helmets.