Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Bicycle Helmets Kill

Jump to new
Garpal Gumnut said:
Recent evidence based article make yours redundant.

That study is so full of holes, it is recognised as being redundant.

I could as well argue that if everyone from birth to old age on waking wore a helmet that the incidence of head injuries would decrease.

And for the fecund, that the wearing of a helmet on retiring for a naughtie would obviate that rare bedhead knock leading to an ABI. ( Acquired brain injury )

The study you quote is a point in time and lacks validity and any likelihood ratios.

I prefer the wind in my hair on a bicycle and the scent of a Marlboro.

gg
Click to expand...

What exactly is redundant? There are many more case-control studies that replicate the findings. Look at case-control studies under en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet. Plenty of odds ratios there...

P.S I am digging up the MJA article and will post ratios on this later ...
 
FlyingFox said:
Personally, helmets discouraging cycling is a mute point. There should be no reason to be discouraged from cycling just because you have to wear a helmet. As pointed out in the article, general safety, lack of bike paths are more of a disincentive.

I stopped riding for a long time due to the later reasons.
Click to expand...

Go to Europe mate.

Heaps of cyclists.

No helmets.

It's a happy place.

Australia is a risk averse place, with totalitarian laws on safety.

The lycra mob have made cycling in to a blood sport requiring helmets, rather than a pleasant morning activity, with a Marlboro between one's lips, on the way to the newsagent to pick up one's paper.

Show me one evidence based study proving that bicycle helmets improve the health of a population and i'll shout you a carton of Marlboro.

marlboro.jpg


gg
 
Definitely a subject for freakonomics three. More people die in the us from walking home drunk that by drink driving. No more working around drunk? More people die each year from grid iron head injuries that shark attacks. No more grid iron?

Causality assumptions in research ate their finest.
 
Bort said:
Definitely a subject for freakonomics three. More people die in the us from walking home drunk that by drink driving. No more working around drunk? More people die each year from grid iron head injuries that shark attacks. No more grid iron?

Causality assumptions in research ate their finest.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the support Bort.

I sometimes feel like the one eyed man in the land of the blind.

Evidence:

Free bicycles Paris, London, Dusseldorf, Berlin, Amsterdam, Stockholm a huge suuccess........ no helmets required.

Free bicycles Brisbane a dismal failure ......helmets required.

And the number of people dying from heart attacks because they don't ride bicycles is enormous.

The Totalitarian Lycra mob control, with no evidence.

And they have government support.

Typical nanny state.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Go to Europe mate.

Heaps of cyclists.

No helmets.

It's a happy place.
Click to expand...

And also very different road conditions including car free zones and culture.

Garpal Gumnut said:
Australia is a risk averse place, with totalitarian laws on safety.

The lycra mob have made cycling in to a blood sport requiring helmets, rather than a pleasant morning activity, with a Marlboro between one's lips, on the way to the newsagent to pick up one's paper.
Click to expand...

I don't see cyclist campaigning for mandatory helmets. They do however regularly campaign for better paths and increased awareness.

Garpal Gumnut said:
Show me one evidence based study proving that bicycle helmets improve the health of a population and i'll shout you a carton of Marlboro.

marlboro.jpg


gg
Click to expand...

What do you mean by evidence based study? All previous studies provide evidence. A randomized control trail? You know that is not possible...

BTW extract from the paper ...

Trauma registry data on such patients admitted to seven tertiary level hospitals in Sydney, New South Wales (Liverpool, St George, Royal Prince Alfred, Westmead, Royal North Shore, St Vincent’s and Prince of Wales hospitals) between July 2008 and June 2009 were obtained. Patients were included if they were aged 15 years or over with an incident occurring on a public road. The Abbreviated Injury Scale and Injury Severity Score were used to classify body regions and severity of injury, respectively. Helmet use, incident and other injury details were routinely collected by trained data and case managers from standard ambulance and trauma clinical case notes. Inhospital costs were calculated using standardised cost weights (NSW Program and Product Data Collection, 2008–09). Primary outcomes were any head injury and severe head injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale severity score ﰀ 3), including significant intracranial haemorrhages, and diffuse axonal injury. Logistic regression was used to determine odds ratios for head injury and severe head injury, adjusting for age (as a continuous variable) and location of incident (based on incident postcode) as a-priori confounders based on previous work.2
There were 398 cases identified. Of these, 50 patients (13%) had missing helmet information, leaving 348 cases analysed. Baseline characteristics stratified by helmet use are shown in the Box. For any head injury associated with helmet non-use, the adjusted odds ratio was 5.6 (95% CI, 2.1–14.9; P < 0.001) for pedal cyclists and 2.2 (95% CI, 0.9–5.0; P = 0.06) for motorcyclists, compared with helmeted patients in each group. For severe head injury associated with helmet non-use, the adjusted odds ratio was 5.5 (95% CI, 1.5–20.6; P =
0.01) for pedal cyclists and 3.5 (95% CI, 1.3–8.9; P = 0.01) for motorcyclists, compared with helmeted patients in each group. For the 50 patients with severe head injury, inhospital costs (AUD) were around three times higher in non-helmeted patients (median, $72 000; interquartile range, $33 000–$140 000) compared with helmeted patients (median, $24 000; interquartile range, $15 000–$60 000) (P = 0.02).
Click to expand...
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Free bicycles Brisbane a dismal failure ......helmets required.
Click to expand...

And this can't be for any other reason right? When I lived in Brisbane, I used to ride to work. Bike paths the majority of the way except that the last 500m was on Adelaide street.

After being abused regularly and possibly injured on a few occasion due to cars passing too close or drivers opening doors without looking, I stopped ...
 
FlyingFox said:
And this can't be for any other reason right? When I lived in Brisbane, I used to ride to work. Bike paths the majority of the way except that the last 500m was on Adelaide street.

After being abused regularly and possibly injured on a few occasion due to cars passing too close or drivers opening doors without looking, I stopped ...
Click to expand...

I would if I were in that situation walk my bike down Adelaide St., for the last 500m of my trip. It's only 500m for gawds sake.

It has some of the most beautiful women and men, of a morning, depending on your preference, on which you could gaze, without having a lycra induced kerfuffle with motorists.

Bike paths are for muppets intent on flaying pedestrians and slow , Marlboro puffing cyclists, such as I with their sweat, horrible calves and small arses.

You have still not addressed the very suss p values on the dodgy study you posted above.

You are a bounder sir.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
I would if I were in that situation walk my bike down Adelaide St., for the last 500m of my trip. It's only 500m for gawds sake.

It has some of the most beautiful women and men, of a morning, depending on your preference, on which you could gaze, without having a lycra induced kerfuffle with motorists.

Bike paths are for muppets intent on flaying pedestrians and slow , Marlboro puffing cyclists, such as I with their sweat, horrible calves and small arses.

You have still not addressed the very suss p values on the dodgy study you posted above.

You are a bounder sir.

gg
Click to expand...

Which p is suss? only one above 0.05 is for motor cyclists.
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
There is no evidence, and I repeat no evidence that wearing a bicycle helmet improves the health of a population, rather it dimishes the health by discouraging cycling.

I know less about hockey than I do about ludo, so cannot comment.

To get back to your point.

You are extrapolating an individual experience to the general.
Click to expand...

You raise a good point about extrapolating individual experience. What is the wider evidence that you accept?
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Piet de Jong from Macquarie University has published an excellent paper on the net harm that bicycle helmets have done to public health versus their role in head injury.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1368064

Logique brought the above paper to my notice.

gg
Click to expand...

Have you read the paper or are you quoting from the abstract?

BTW. you have not said which p values where suss in regards to cyclists in the article I linked to earlier?
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Piet de Jong from Macquarie University has published an excellent paper on the net harm that bicycle helmets have done to public health versus their role in head injury.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1368064

Logique brought the above paper to my notice.

gg
Click to expand...

Good to see you're not letting Popper's falsification prevent you from applying models for ascertaining something. Perhaps you will see the benefit in other areas also?

With regard to that study, have you read it and able to discuss the details of the model, the inputs and the outputs? In particular, is the the loss in μ compensated for by other potential activities or assumed a complete loss?

Have you read other studies on the topic? And no, I haven't but might start looking into it.

Edit:

Another thought. If after any other issues, the model can show that helmets do provide safer riding but the disincentive outweights the benefit, could a policy be designed that kept the helmets but provided other incentives?
 
FlyingFox said:
Have you read the paper or are you quoting from the abstract?

BTW. you have not said which p values where suss in regards to cyclists in the article I linked to earlier?
Click to expand...

Some Dude said:
Good to see you're not letting Popper's falsification prevent you from applying models for ascertaining something. Perhaps you will see the benefit in other areas also?

With regard to that study, have you read it and able to discuss the details of the model, the inputs and the outputs? In particular, is the the loss in μ compensated for by other potential activities or assumed a complete loss?

Have you read other studies on the topic? And no, I haven't but might start looking into it.

Edit:

Another thought. If after any other issues, the model can show that helmets do provide safer riding but the disincentive outweights the benefit, could a policy be designed that kept the helmets but provided other incentives?
Click to expand...

I must admit to you both that I feel rather naked in my quoting of pees and mews, and am awaiting some assistance from my good helmet less French mathematician mate, Pierre-Simon Laplace.

I have probably overextended and misled on the p's.

I still think helmets are bad for a population's health.

As for evidence, it's a bit like fighting weather scientists.

I'll take a Popper and think further on the evidence and numbers.

gg
 
bellenuit

Currently in Ireland having just spent 5 days in Amsterdam. I lived there 35 years ago, but there seems to be a lot more bicyclists now. Most bikes are the older style and the ladies go in for what we used call High Nellies. Bikes designed for comfort rather than speed. Almost everyone cycles at a leisurely pace, wearing their normal clothing and I saw none wearing helmets, except for a few Lycra clad speed freaks who spoiled it for everyone, especially pedestrians. Sitting at a cafe on the Leidseplein, there is a continuous stream of bicyclists passing and just thousands of bicycles parked along the street. I'm 100% sure that imposing mandatory helmets would destroy the great biking tradition the Dutch have.
 
Re: bellenuit

bellenuit said:
Currently in Ireland having just spent 5 days in Amsterdam. I lived there 35 years ago, but there seems to be a lot more bicyclists now. Most bikes are the older style and the ladies go in for what we used call High Nellies. Bikes designed for comfort rather than speed. Almost everyone cycles at a leisurely pace, wearing their normal clothing and I saw none wearing helmets, except for a few Lycra clad speed freaks who spoiled it for everyone, especially pedestrians. Sitting at a cafe on the Leidseplein, there is a continuous stream of bicyclists passing and just thousands of bicycles parked along the street. I'm 100% sure that imposing mandatory helmets would destroy the great biking tradition the Dutch have.
Click to expand...

I would agree bellenuit.

Bicycle helmets kill by discouraging ordinary citizens from cycling at a leisurely pace without the ridiculous inconvenience of a polystyrene cap, thus contributing to obesity and heart disease.

The lycra steroid fuelled Sunday peleton mob of mis-shapened shaved legs do need them, but have imposed their will on lazy governments and an unwilling population.

gg
 
It seems that the eminently sensible Queensland Government may be the first to arrest the great toll that the bicycle helmet has inflicted on the Australian population.

The disincentive to sachay upon one's bicycle will be taken away by a move to allow cycists use bike paths without helmets.

More slow cyclists, better health for all, will be the response.

Next we need to ban lycra and fast bicycles from bicycle and pedestrian pathways.

http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/queensland-cyclists-to-get-1m-clearance-on-roads-permission-to-ride-without-helmets-under-proposed-laws/story-fnii5v6w-1226770826919

The Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee will today table its 200-page report on cycling laws after a five-month inquiry.

The report includes 68 recommendations on issues from cyclists running stop signs to the disparity between penalties for cyclists and motorists.

As well as relaxing helmet laws for people aged 16 and over on bike and footpaths, the report recommends:

• Minimum safe passing distance of 1m on streets up to 60km/h and of 1.5m on roads signed at higher speeds.

• An equalisation of penalties for cyclists and motorists.

• Giving cyclists permission to treat stop signs as give-way signs when it is safe to do so.

• A major public education campaign about cycling safety.
Click to expand...

gg
 
Top