Results: In Canada, over the study period 2006- 2011,there was an average of 3690 hospitalisations per year and an estimated 593 million annual trips by bicycle among people 12 years of age and older, for a cycling hospitalisation rate of 622 per 100 million trips (95%CI 611 to 633). Hospitalisation rates varied substantially across the jurisdiction, age and sex strata, but only two characteristics explained this variability. For all injury causes, sex was associated with hospitalisation rates; females had rates consistently lower than males. For traffic-related injury causes, higher cycling mode share was consistently associated with lower hospitalisation rates. Helmet legislation was not associated with hospitalisation rates for brain, head, scalp, skull, face or neck injuries.
Words not to that effect at all. The survey finds that laws requiring cyclists to wear helmets are ineffective at reducing serious injury. The full article plainly stated that helmet use is directly associated with reduced head and facial injury. It is the laws that don't work, possibly because people simply ignore them. I routinely wear a helmet because I believe they work, but I have never seen the sense in compelling everyone else to do likewise.
jeremyduncombe14 wrote: The full article plainly stated that helmet use is directly associated with reduced head and facial injury.
It would be useful if you quoted the part you refer to. If it is this bit then I interpret that as referring to other helmet research not this research. It is generally accepted that helmet laws increase wearing rates. So if there was strong protective effect you would expect helmet laws to reduce injury rates.
Bicycling injury research is dominated by helmet research; it shows that helmet use is associated with reduced odds of head injuries among those injured in a crash
The article also said that "studies among those injured in a cycling crash consistently show lower odds of head, brain or face injuries among those who wore a helmet". I agree that the writers of the paper were quoting other people's research, their own research was specifically into the effectiveness of helmet-wearing laws. Their conclusion was that the laws are ineffective, not that helmet wearing is ineffective. They suggested that the best way to reduce cycling injuries is to provide better infrastructure, in particular segregated cycle routes. I wholeheartedly agree.
Studies amongst those injured are using a biased selection though - it's like asserting that since 2/3rds of people injured in car crashes are sober it's safer to drive drunk.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
I refer everyone to Goldacre & Spiegelhalters' BMJ editorial of a couple of years ago where they opine (based on some pretty dynamite credentials and huge evidence piles) that it's all actually a bit complicated, and much as it would be nice to choose a paper that backs up what you'd like to think and leave it there, that doesn't actually make very good sense.
We don't really know what they do outside of their (very limited) testing regime, in other words. That's a ridiculous basis to promote or mandate them as a general thing.
the study wrote:..........................................Helmet legislation was not associated with hospitalisation rates for brain, head, scalp, skull, face or neck injuries.
Seems fairly plain - either helmet legislation doesn't increase helmet wearing rates or helmet wearing rates don't impact hospitalisation rates. Choose according to your prejudice.
[XAP]Bob wrote:Studies amongst those injured are using a biased selection though - it's like asserting that since 2/3rds of people injured in car crashes are sober it's safer to drive drunk.
Most people die in bed, so don't go to bed!
Staying on the humouous side to this, I like the bit in the excerpt at the OP.
For all injury causes, sex was associated with hospitalisation rates
Mick F wrote:Staying on the humouous side to this, I like the bit in the excerpt at the OP.
For all injury causes, sex was associated with hospitalisation rates
ie, don't have sex.
Certainly not whilst riding a bike anyway...
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way.No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse. There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
