The helmet section?

[Dave W]

Anyone read about this chap?

https://www.maths.unsw.edu.au/news/2016 ... y-research

[Dave W]

Maybe this?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... tudy-finds


That's kind of cocked things up a bit don't you think?

[Mike Sales]

Maybe this?

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... tudy-finds


That's kind of cocked things up a bit don't you think?

Six pages of discussion already under the heading "New Study on Helmet Effectiveness, in, surprisingly, the Helmet Section!

[Dave W]

Yes, just found it. No surprises there either. I think most of the cycling public will quickly absorb that information rather than the long winded stuff in the other post.
It featured on the GCN cycling video on youtube.

[Steady rider]

http://crag.asn.au/helmet-fanatics-misl ... e-inquiry/

The reduction in cycling was disputed by Jake Olivier and others who presented evidence to the Australian Senate, however it was reported;

1.2 During the course of the hearing, and based on available data, it became clear MHL have undermined cycling participation rates. Attempts to argue to the contrary, especially given evidence from around the world, were not at all persuasive.

Members of the Senate did not believe him.

[Mike Sales]

Yes, just found it. No surprises there either. I think most of the cycling public will quickly absorb that information rather than the long winded stuff in the other post.
It featured on the GCN cycling video on youtube.

Wow, you are a quick reader. Have you looked at the comments on the Guardian site too?

[Dave W]

No, not yet.

[Mike Sales]

No, not yet.

So there may yet be surprises?

[Dave W]

No, not yet.


Have now, but it's the same boring rubbish about compulsory helmet wearing which doesn't interest me either way.
The only bit that interests me is the protection/no protection arguments.

[Mike Sales]

Wow, quick reading.
I think if you read more carefully you would find very little specifically about compulsion.
It strikes me that you misunderstand the mentions of the laws in Oz and NZ.
The point is that these laws produced a huge step change in the proportion of helmet wearing cyclists, but the effect on head injury rates is not favourable. The rates of injury got worse.
I can see why you want to dismiss this, it rather demolishes the idea that helmets work, but you have no explanation.

Your certainty that there is nothing new which could make you think again seems to show a closed mind.

[Cunobelin]

No, not yet.


Have now, but it's the same boring rubbish about compulsory helmet wearing which doesn't interest me either way.
The only bit that interests me is the protection/no protection arguments.

Why does that remind me of someone in denial of reality?

[Dave W]

Because the paragraph ýou have written has been used so many times in the helmet section it's like a stuck record. I'm not interested.
You guys are the ones with the closed minds.

Someone new puts up a statement that actually helmets do save lives, impossible can't be so can it?

[Mike Sales]

Fair enough. You have no interest in evidence or reason. Just don't expect to convince anybody else.

[broadway]

:twisted: Because the paragraph ýou have written has been used so many times in the helmet section it's like a stuck record. I'm not interested.
You guys are the ones with the closed minds.

Someone new puts up a statement that actually helmets do save lives, impossible can't be so can it?

For someone who isn't interested you seem to have a lot to say on the subject.

[Mike Sales]

Someone new puts up a statement that actually helmets do save lives, impossible can't be so can it?

Olivier is not someone new. He has form. He is a known partisan in a university which has previous for biased work. His study includes work by the notorious Rivara and Thompson which is discredited.
You would know this if you had read the discussions here and on the Guardian.

I prefer the work of Goldacre and Spiegelhalter. You have read the quotation from their BMJ article, haven't you? It has been mentioned often enough.