🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <782b4l$oik@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA>,
  riehm@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Carl Riehm) wrote:
> In article <781b71$hbb@freenet-news.carleton.ca:,
> Avery Burdett <ab833@FreeNet.Carleton.CA: wrote:
> :
> :   "I looked at fatalities by helmet wearing in two States - Victoria and
> :NSW.  In Victoria, surveys showed approx 75% of cyclists were wearing
> :helmets.  So were 75% of fatally injured cyclists.  In NSW, surveys
> :showed roughly 80% wearing, and lo and behold, so were 80% of fatally
> :injured cyclists"
> :
> :Same result - no helmet effect on fatality stats.
> :
>
> Certainly that is clear: no effect on overall fatality rates. But this is
> not the same thing as saying that helmets are neither harmful nor beneficial.
> For example if it were true that helmet wearers logged many more miles
> than non-helmet wearers, or fewer, then (assuming that the number of miles
> travelled affects the probability of an accident) the statistics quoted
> would not prove that wearing a helmet has no effect on injury or fatality
> rates.

That is true Carl. But while it is possible that helmet wearers aren't
a reasonably flat cross-section of the bicyclists, it is unlikely.
I think that you can just stand around any place where cyclists pass
often and just look at the variety of cyclists and try and determine
if you can see any difference between the wearers and non-wearers.
I've done this and my opinion is that whatever leads people to wear helmets
it surely isn't specific to a single group nor even biased.

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own