I do actually work in the healthcare industry (helping run clinical trials no less!). My impression of this short article and an even shorter abstract (lol) is that I cannot say the conclusion is supported one way or the other, because there simply isn't enough information and details to chew on. Statistical analysis is a very tough subject and if there's something I learned from my profession, it's that having an MD is no qualification to working the numbers (an inside joke is that it's an anti-qualification), which is why we always have a clinical science person (often MD or MD-PhD), and a statistician with a PhD in that field (because yes, Shirley, it's *that* specialized). Until we see more, we should really take the conclusions drawn with cup of salt.
I will like to see if there are any sponsors to this analysis. The sentence "next step is to create injury prevention programs to increase helmet use among bicyclists, to manufacture better helmets, and to develop and enforce stricter laws for helmet use." creates a little suspicion on possible conflicts of interest. On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 5:11:02 AM UTC-8, Steve Palincsar wrote: > > When did mandatory helmet laws enter this discussion? I didn't read the > article all that closely, but the gist of it as I recall it is that the > wearing of helmets was in fact effective in the cases cited. That itself > has been called in question in the past, and it is worthwhile attempting to > answer it. And within that context, the introduction of mandatory helmet > laws/helmet wars is an irrelevant distraction. One can be for the wearing > of helmets but against mandatory helmet laws; I am and I know many others > who feel the same way. In fact, although I know many, many helmet users I > don't know anyone who favors criminalizing the not wearing of them. > > On 11/23/2015 12:19 AM, Doug Williams wrote: > > Hey, I wear my helmet all the time, but…The article fails to mention > several OTHER important facts. Because of this, the study simply can’t be > taken seriously. You simply can’t pick only the facts that support your > desired conclusion; you must weigh all the facts. Those advocating helmet > laws can't ignore other inconvenient facts that don’t support their > conclusion. That’s not how science works, and anyone who ignores > established and pertinent facts when making their conclusion shouldn’t be > taken seriously. Let’s start by granting their single fact that helmets may > reduce injuries in the event of a crash. This single fact has to be weighed > against the other proven facts before we can arrive at a conclusion that > mandatory helmet laws save lives. > > > Fact 1: Mandatory Helmet Laws reduced ridership. This has been proven over > and over again in study after study. > > > Fact 2: Bicycling in general is safer with more bicycles on the road. > Drivers get used to seeing bicycles and become accustomed to them. The > drivers then act more safely around bicycles. This is also well documented. > > > Fact 3: Bicycling is much safer than they represent when the risk of > bicycle injury is weighed against other known risks. Many, many, more > people would be saved by mandatory helmet laws for pedestrians and > motorists. Around 4,500 pedestrians and 45,000 motorists are killed in > accidents each year in the U.S. The percentage of these people who would > have reduced injuries with a helmet is similar to that for bicyclists. Why > not save these people as well? I’ll take these people seriously when they > propose a UNIVERSAL helmet law for everyone instead of just for bicyclists. > > > Fact 4: Around 600 bicyclists die each year in the U.S. but well over > 300,000 die of obesity and lack of exercise related diseases. The reduced > ridership caused by mandatory helmet laws would cause more deaths from > reduced health status than would be saved by helmets. > > All “studies” that argue for mandatory helmet laws ignore the above facts. > Find me a study that doesn’t and then we can reopen the helmet wars. In the > meantime…yawn. > > On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 7:02:05 PM UTC-8, Eric Norris wrote: >> >> Not that this is going to change a single mind on the subject, but it is >> perhaps of interest to some: >> >> https://www.facs.org/media/press-releases/2015/haider >> >> And yes, I realize that the helmet and non-helmet camps have firmly >> established their entrenched positions, which have been expressed many >> times on this forum. >> >> --Eric Norris >> campyo...@me.com >> <http://www.campyonly.com>www.campyonly.com >> campyonlyguy.blogspot.com >> >> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "RBW Owners Bunch" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to rbw-owne...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
