🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6d44mm$mdc$1@nnrp2.dejanews.com:,
 <tkunich@diabloresearch.com: wrote:
:In article <6d1akj$h7q@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>,
:  riehm@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Carl Riehm) wrote:
:>
:> In article <MPG.f5cd9cf442541539896a8@news.ea.com>,
:> Darren Stone <dstone@ea.removethis.com> wrote:
:> >
:> >2.  If you suffer a head injury on a bicycle, statistically, you have a
:> >25% chance of dying from it.  (Robinson, D.  An Assessment of the
:> >Mandatory Bicycle Helmet Law in Australia.)  Motorists have fully a 19%
:>
:> desired conclusions on the part of the writer), I just don't believe it.
:> The conclusions in this report defy common sense. And the reasoning is
:> questionable at best.
:
:I'd be intersted in knowing why you say that Carl. While I think that
:what was meant was "serious" head injuries (and I expect serious to mean
:that hospital admitance was necessary) I would think that simply looking
:at hospital admitances for head injuries in a bicycle accident and
:the number of those leading to death would pretty much be a cut and
:dried statistic. What would methodology have to do with that?
:
o
Nothing of course. I was not disputing that particular point. I regret getting
drawn into this discussion, since the argument has already descended into
a personal attack (not by you but by someone else who does this regularly). 
As far as that particular point is concerned, one has to take into account the
number of head accidents which occur per capita and per mile travelled, to 
come to some sort of useful conclusion. Perhaps one should also point out
that in many jurisdictions, strong steps (laws regarding seat and shoulder
belts and airbags) have been taken which help to lessen the severity and 
number of head injuries as well as other kinds of injuries.  And of course 
these measures engender the same kind of resistance from a lot of people as 
do helmet laws.

I also think that the conclusion drawn re the long term health effects of 
wearing or not wearing helmets (the tradeoff between head injuries and 
lack of exercise resulting from avoiding cycling because of helmet laws) 
is superficial.   For example, do some of those who abandon cycling because
of helmet laws take up some other form of exercise, perhaps in some cases
an even more healthful form?

It is possible that Robinson's study takes these factors into account, but 
nothing I have read in this newsgroup now or during earlier discussions leads
me to think that it has. I would be very glad to get a copy of it if someone
has one.

Carl