Originally Posted by
meanwhile
And, as Ach-ooOO! believes that POV endorsed by more than a dozen papers can be wrong:
No cyclehelmet.org again. Jeez.
OK, let's follow some of those links:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/308/6943/1534
Discussion : Cyclists who died in urban areas are more likely to be adults than children. In inner London, in relation to their traffic volume, heavy goods vehicles are estimated to cause 30 times as many cyclists' deaths as cars and five times as many as buses. Until the factors leading to this excess risk are understood, a ban on heavy goods vehicles in urban areas should be considered.
What? cyclehelmet.org links to a study concluding that "urban areas" need to "consider" "a ban on heavy goods vehicles"?!?!?!
"We need to ban truck from cities"?!?!?!
That's the quality of the "work" they do? Ouch.
http://www.egms.de/static/en/meeting...134.shtml#Text
Results
A total of 3395 head trauma patients were enrolled in this evaluation, 337 (10%) of them suffered a bicycle traffic accident. Other types of trauma mechanisms were related to leisure time (36%), housework (28%), business (15%) and non-bicycle traffic accidents (11%). The bicycle accident patients had a significantly higher rate of mid-level head trauma (GCS 9-12) than with other accident mechanisms, which reveals this type of injury is related to bicycle traffic accidents in a specific way. 89% of the cyclist were not wearing helmets. There was no significant difference concerning the level of head-trauma due to bicycle accident between cyclists wearing a helmet and others.
That one study relates to one specific type of injury.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/15389580590931590
Conclusions:
There is no evidence that cycle helmets reduce the overall cyclist injury burden at the population level in the UK when data on road casualties is examined. This finding, supported by research elsewhere could simply be due to cycle helmets having little potential to reduce the overall transport-related cycle injury burden. Equally, it could be a manifestation of the “ecological fallacy” where it could be conceived that the existence of various sub-groups of cyclists, with different risk profiles, may need to be accounted for in understanding the difference between predicted and realised casualty patterns.
Well, that clears things up.
Not.
What is the "overall cyclist injury burden"? What is the "overall transport-related cycle injury burden"?
Where's any comment on the efficacy of bike helmets? There is none.
Where are the links to publishied studies on general helmet efficacy?
There's lots of links about cycling helmet LEGISLATION on that page, though. So much so one would think that it's an advocacy site more concerned with preventing mandatory helmet laws than scientific accuracy.