3 ms·

I am not misrepresenting the paper: it attempts to explain why countries with mandatory helmet laws see _no_clearly_measurable_reduction in KSI (Killed, Seriou

I am not misrepresenting the paper: it attempts to explain why countries with mandatory helmet laws see _no_clearly_measurable_reduction in KSI (Killed, Seriously Injured) rates. More cyclists wear helmets in those jurisdictions (parts of Canada, all of Australia and N.Z.) and yet ecological studies fail to clearly demonstrate any benefit from helmets. If you sprayed a field with RoundUp and saw no difference in the number of weeds compared to an unsprayed field you would start to wonder about the effects of the treatment.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago
> I am not misrepresenting the paper: it attempts to explain why countries with mandatory helmet laws see _no_clearly_measurable_reduction in KSI (Killed, Seriously Injured) rates. And in doing so, it goes to some effort to explain why you cannot, from that, conclude that helmets have no effect on individual accident outcomes, all other things being equal. (Mainly because all other things aren't equal, and it's very difficult to devise a methodology that makes them so.)
- snowwrestler 7y ago
  > it goes to some effort to explain why you cannot, from that, conclude that helmets have no effect on individual accident outcomes Right. A friend who's an ER doctor once put it this way: "I'm going to hit you in the head with a hammer; you can wear a bike helmet or not, your choice." Statistics are all well and good, but it would take a rare allegiance to epidemiology to skip the helmet. I've also heard it said that statistics look different when you are the statistic...
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    Nobody is saying that you shouldn't wear a helmet. The point is that Helmets are at best only a marginally effective public policy to make cyclists safer. > an emphasis on helmets reflects a seductively individualistic approach to risk management (or even “victim blaming”) while the real gains lie elsewhere. It is certainly true that in many countries, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, cyclists have low injury rates, even though rates of cycling are high and almost no cyclists wear helmets. This seems to be achieved through interventions such as good infrastructure; stronger legislation to protect cyclists; and a culture of cycling as a popular, routine, non-sporty, non-risky behaviour.
wiseleo 7y ago
Fallen with helmet on a couple of times hard enough to require a new helmet. These falls were a non-event and so they were never reported. The lack of reporting is likely causing this.
- frabbit 7y ago
  The injuries prevented by a helmet with a fall are essentially non-events. The helmet makes no measurable difference to the stuff you care about: dying or being brain-damaged.

PhasmaFelis 7y ago

> I am not misrepresenting the paper: it attempts to explain why countries with mandatory helmet laws see _no_clearly_measurable_reduction in KSI (Killed, Seriously Injured) rates. And in doing so, it goes to some effort to explain why you cannot, from that, conclude that helmets have no effect on individual accident outcomes, all other things being equal. (Mainly because all other things aren't equal, and it's very difficult to devise a methodology that makes them so.)

snowwrestler 7y ago
> it goes to some effort to explain why you cannot, from that, conclude that helmets have no effect on individual accident outcomes Right. A friend who's an ER doctor once put it this way: "I'm going to hit you in the head with a hammer; you can wear a bike helmet or not, your choice." Statistics are all well and good, but it would take a rare allegiance to epidemiology to skip the helmet. I've also heard it said that statistics look different when you are the statistic...
- shkkmo 7y ago
  Nobody is saying that you shouldn't wear a helmet. The point is that Helmets are at best only a marginally effective public policy to make cyclists safer. > an emphasis on helmets reflects a seductively individualistic approach to risk management (or even “victim blaming”) while the real gains lie elsewhere. It is certainly true that in many countries, such as Denmark and the Netherlands, cyclists have low injury rates, even though rates of cycling are high and almost no cyclists wear helmets. This seems to be achieved through interventions such as good infrastructure; stronger legislation to protect cyclists; and a culture of cycling as a popular, routine, non-sporty, non-risky behaviour.

wiseleo 7y ago

Fallen with helmet on a couple of times hard enough to require a new helmet. These falls were a non-event and so they were never reported. The lack of reporting is likely causing this.

frabbit 7y ago
The injuries prevented by a helmet with a fall are essentially non-events. The helmet makes no measurable difference to the stuff you care about: dying or being brain-damaged.