Originally Posted by
GIFCo147
The AAP has cites NINETEEN SOURCES for the development of this policy statement.
This does not appear to be a case of the organization parroting one bad study.
Do you really believe that thousands of Physicians across multiple disciplines (Peds, Surgeons, Emergency) and the World Health Organization are that easily mislead?
... and there are at least as many of equally reputable bodies that disagree.
Trombone made a good post on how some papers can be of low quality on the "Helmets cramp my style" thread
Originally Posted by
trombone
It’s not exactly on topic, but many people reading this thread might be surprised at the low quality of a lot of the academic research presented. Alternatively, they might be dismissive of criticisms of methodology or bias presented, amongst others, by people like myself; after all these are peer-reviewed papers in prestigious scientific journals. Surely they must be accurate, despite what people on the internet might say.
What many people not acquainted with both the career development and funding aspects of higher education might not realise is how the current system is set up to produce a high quantity of low-quality research. Grants, funding, tenure and promotion in academic circles depends, in today’s climate, primarily on a count of published research articles. Not quality, or originality, or practical value – quantity is what counts. University departments that have the longest lists of publications get the most funding. Researchers with the longest lists of articles get the best tenures and promotions. This is an unfortunate by-product of the current obsession in educative circles generally on quantative measurement – it’s very easy and cheap to compare the research output of two departments by counting papers, much harder by comparing research quality and originality.
Given this climate, there is a real and severe pressure on all academic researchers to publish and publish quickly. This tends to drive down the quality of research; particularly the time-consuming (and expensive) business of data collection. It also fosters an environment where self-critiquing of research methods is not encouraged; researchers simply cannot afford to get part way through a piece of research only to re-consider whether they are using the correct approach, and have to start again. Their next tenure, or department’s grant funding, might be dependent on then getting published.
There is also pressure on journals. The number of submissions is rising dramatically, making it harder to separate the wheat from the chaff. The who system of peer-review also comes under strain, given than those doing the reviewing are under the same pressures as other researchers. There are also many more journals springing up to cope with the volume; many of which have lower quality thresholds than more established publications. However, their existence in of itself puts pressure on larger journals to also lower their standards in order to ensure they still get enough submissions. Finally, it leads to a huge quantity of derivative papers to be produced; a ‘me-too’ paper that comes to the same conclusions as previously published research, however sloppy in execution, is likely to get published based on the precedent of the preceding articles.
Inside academia, this is an often discussion and recognised problem. For ‘lay’ readers of academic research, however, it can be difficult to distinguish the good stuff from the ‘filler’.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/106557388/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4D9143BF930A25755C0A96E948260
Some things are certain though. A claim of a bicycle helmet being a very effective device that can prevent the occurrence of up to 88% of serious brain injuries has never been shown to be true in real world applications.
As an example, New Zealand instituted an all-ages mandatory helmet law that has been vigorously enforced. Dr. Nigel Perry charted head injury among cyclists with the rise in helmet use against head injury amongst the general population to see the effects of wearing helmets made for cyclists.
Now, does that look anything like an 88% reduction in injury?
Use a little common sense, don't have a closed mind, and you'll find there is much debate and disagreement on the topic, it's not black and white, and that the 88% figure quoted has never been replicated in areas that have instituted mandatory helmet use. (in my own province that has had an all ages mandatory helmet law for over 11 years there not been a drop in serious head injuries from before the law was enacted. the only difference in the death reports now is that the dead cyclists are now wearing helmets)
I acknowledge that a bicycle helmet has some merit (and have worn one for over 20 years), but to claim a helmet reduces serious brain injuries by 88% is a big red flag that who ever is making such a claim hasn't done their homework.
I've done a bit more work to show (from an independent source) how the issue is divided.
The British Government's Department for Transport have a page on the debate
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety...?page=11#a1050
On the page, it says,
The purpose of this section is to summarise the range of arguments that have been deployed in the bicycle helmet debate and to consider some of the ways in which this debate has been conducted. A selection of papers from the late 1980s/2002 were chosen for analysis; largely editorials and opinion pieces with associated correspondence from the main journals in the field together with reports from various interest groups and associations (see reference list for Section 7).
The sample was not scientifically selected but aimed to capture the flavour of the debate as it has emerged in the 1990s onwards. In the interests of balance, approximately half the sample were for and half against bicycle helmet wearing.
Key points
*The pro-bicycle helmet group base their argument overwhelmingly on one major point: that there is scientific evidence that, in the event of a fall, helmets substantially reduce head injury.
*The anti-helmet group base their argument on a wider range of issues including: compulsory helmet wearing leads to a decline in bicycling, risk compensation theory negates health gains, scientific studies are defective, the overall road environment needs to be improved.
*The way in which the debate has been conducted is unhelpful to those wishing to make a balanced judgement on the issue.
Britain's National Cycling Strategy Board made a statement of policy on cycle helmet wearing in January 2004,
Arguments that appear to disavow the efficacy or utility of cycle helmet wearing, or on the other hand claim it as the major influence in reducing injury to cyclists, are both wide of the mark. In particular, campaigns seeking to present cycling as an inevitably dangerous or hazardous activity, or which suggest that helmet wearing should be made compulsory, risk prejudicing the delivery of those very benefits to health and environment which cycling can deliver: they also serve to confuse the general public about the wider social and economic advantages of cycling.
This falls more to my feeling on the issue. That the benefits of cycling outweigh the risks, that cycling increases health. Even brain injury can be reduced by cycling without a helmet because the larger risk is of acquisition through lack of exercise that cycling provides. By simply riding, your chances of receiving brain injury are being reduced.
An excellent site for cyclist safety is bicyclesafe.com
Here the author tackles the helmet issue nicely
Focusing on helmets distracts people from what's more likely to actually save their lives: Learning how to ride safely. It's not that I'm against helmets, I'm against all the attention placed on helmets at the expense of safe riding skills. Helmets are not the most important aspect of bike safety. Not by a long shot.
The main problem with helmets is not with the helmets themselves, it's with the attitude towards them, the idea that they're the first and last word in bike safety. If that's the definition (and that's pretty much how people view helmets) then there are two big problems with that:
A helmet does nothing to prevent a cyclist from getting hit by a car.
The effectiveness of helmets in preventing injury is seriously exaggerated.
I don't believe that helmets are useless. I think if you want the maximum protection possible in a crash you ought to wear one. But I also believe that if you think a helmet will do as much to protect you as you probably think it does then you're kidding yourself.
So when an opinion piece reduces the importance in a collision between a 12 year old and a truck to simply the cyclist should be wearing a helmet I'd say the writer is looking for a short, quick, easy answer that doesn't exist and misleads the public into believing in something that hasn't been shown to be effective. I'd say,
that's dangerous.