Comment 65930

By misterque (registered) - website
Posted July 09, 2011 at 23:48:24 in reply to Comment 65690

There is no "main problem" with the study. They focus on the best possible evidence with absolutely no bias. Cochrane is the group that has brought this kind of research up to the standard that allows us to make informed decisions based on evidence. This is not blind faith.

In addition a detailed Meta Analysis from Harbourview concludes that helmets are good for brains:  http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffect.html

The study you are referring to (I assume) is that by Piet De Jong: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?a... This is a recent actuarial assessment of several studies and is decent (hard to understand) science and makes a good point. It also recommends that you wear a helmet in hostile bicycling locations.

This helmet argument is a waste of time. There is overwhelming case controlled evidence that shows the helmets prevent brain injury. And brain injury really sucks. In the last week I have seen two destroyed helmets both of which represent energy that was not delivered to the skull. Wear a helmet. Legislate it, educate it, and enforce it. At the same time work for bike lanes, and all the rest.

I worry for the success of cycling when the energy of those who seem to care about it goes into advise that leads to preventable severe disabling injury.

The self transport lane is important in every city: bikes, skateboards, inline, etc. Support it. You need to convince a lot of people to get the bike lane installed. Blathering about helmet laws with weak science is damaging our cause.

Reply | Permalink | Context

:)hUe

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Site Tools

Feeds