Old 06-12-06 | 03:27 PM
  #42  
popdelusions's Avatar
popdelusions
it's your bicycle bells
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
From: Brooklyn, NY
Originally Posted by cyclintom
Dr Pete - It is normal to actually cite a study rather than just telling us there's one out there.
http://www.americanjournalofsurgery....01061/abstract

Seemed like he did give a citation (enough info to easily locate the study), but here you go for the authors names and the abstract, have to go to the library or pay 30 bucks to read it tho'

Originally Posted by cyclintom
There are two decades of statistics from the government that show the following:

http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/kunich.html (American trend)
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/fatals.html (Canadian trend)
http://www.helmets.org/veloaust.htm (Australian trend)
http://www.magma.ca/~ocbc/scuffham.html (New Zealand trend)

Why is it that when some mathematician massages numbers a hundred ways from Sunday and then states that there is SOME detectable difference people like you are willing to believe them without the slightest reference to the real world?
Even so, these aren't "studies" you're referring to. They're literature reviews done by someone with an established anti-helmet perspective; some of the numbers referenced are germane to the discussion, some not. Largely these are collections of fatality numbers which have little to say with regard to major injury reduction, or they are analysis of the effect of helmet legislation; also with little to say about injury reduction. Certainly we can all agree that in a collision with a given amount of energy -- say getting hit head on by a drunk driver crossing the lane at 70 mph -- a bicycle helmet might not do all that much (and none of us would expect that to be the case), but none of these numbers suggest (from the numbers available to us casual observers) that bicycle helmets are a bad idea.
popdelusions is offline  
Reply