🚀 go-pugleaf

Cross-posted from uk.rec.cycling - originally posted by derek.hodge@almac.co.uk
(DEREK HODGE)

     Garry Lee <glee@iol.ie>  wrote:

     >I would say read the opinions from ALL studies before making up your
     >mind. Have a read of this.
     >http://www.bhsi.org/webdocs/henderso.htm

     If you want to read the opinions from all studies stay well clear of 
     that particular document. It is a blatant piece of pro-helmet propaganda
     which ignores the extensive body of evidence which shows that mandatory
     helmet laws as being a complete waste of time.

     For a critique of the paper from an anti MHL point of view see
     http://www.pcug.org.au/~psvansch/hender1.htm 
 
     The introduction to this extensive document follows: 

     HELMET PROPAGANDA REVIEWED

     by Avery Burdett and Peter van Schaik - February 1996

     Individuals and organizations zealously pushing mandatory helmet use 
     for cyclists are continuing to churn out reams of propaganda. One of 
     the more voluminous efforts is Michael Henderson's "The Effectiveness 
     of Bicycle helmets: A Review" 1995, a politically motivated paper 
     prepared on behalf of the Motor Accidents Authority of New South  Wales,
     Australia apparently in a desperate effort to justify the  State's
     botched law outlawing cyclists who ride without a helmet. 

     Henderson's report recycles much of the same old material that's been
     cited by others over the years. The studies he references fail to 
     provide a real world context, and to show any particular understanding
     of cycling. Although presenting bicycle head injuries as a worldwide
     problem, Henderson neglects to provide us with any sense of the size or
     scope of it. Worldwatch Magazine in its Jan/Feb 1993 edition reported
     that bicycles outnumber cars globally two to one, but only 2% of the
     world's traffic fatalities are cyclists. Mayer Hillman in "Cycle 
     Helmets - the case for and against" states that only 2% of all cycling
     injuries are severe or critical head injuries. So why didn't Henderson
     paint the background? Maybe it was fear of having his grand illusion
     exposed. 

     Nowhere in the report does Henderson respond to other issues raised by
     Mayer Hillman in his authoritative 1993 review of available helmet
     research. Hillman identified deficiencies in the methods used by
     researchers. Ironically, Henderson relies heavily on many of the same
     researchers. It is inconceivable that Henderson was not aware of
     Hillman's widely quoted study. We believe that he chose to ignore it
     because it completely undermines his own report. Such is the nature of
     those who are so obsessed by the means that they lose sight of the end,
     in Henderson's case - his commitment to universal helmet use by
     legislated means causes him to ignore evidence of the negative effects
     such a measure has on community health.
--------------------------------------------

DEREK HODGE
--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario