🚀 go-pugleaf

The following is an extract of a message posted to rec.bicycles.soc
concerning bicycle helmet papers presented at recent conferences held in
Australia. It appears that data from the NZ helmet law demonstrates failure
in a manner similar to data from Australian helmet laws. The posting implies
that universal helmet laws in Australia, NZ and more recently in Canada, have
not only no scientific basis, but result from the efforts of dishonest injury
prevention "professionals" including Diane and Robert Thompson, and Frederick
Rivara, authors of the paper most widely quoted by helmet zealots, and 
participants at the conferences.

It was posted by Nigel Perry, a New Zealander who presented his own paper
"Regaining Balance in Injury Prevention" at the conference. He was replying
to Dorre Robinson, an Australian researcher who has been studying Australian
helmet laws. 

     Dorre: 

     At the recent Third International Conference on Injury Prevention and
     Control (3icipc) in Melbourne, the New Zealanders came out straight and
     stated "the substantial increases in helmet wearing have not been
     matched by a decline in serious head injury" both in a period of
     increased voluntary wearing before the law and with the increased helmet
     wearing because of the law.

     Nigel:

     Also an associated conference - International Conference on Bicycle
     Helmet Initatives (ICBHI)

          Papers presented at the 3icipc were:

     "Trends in Cycle Injury in New Zealand Under Voluntary Helmet Use", P.
     Scuffam and J. Langley, Injury Prevention Research Unit (IPRU), Otago
     University, Dunedin, NZ

     "Postscript to the Cycle Helmet Legislation in New Zealand", J Simpson
     and J Langley, Land Transport Safety Authority (LTSA), and IPRU, Otago
     University, Dunedin, NZ

          Notes:

     a) The LTSA stated that the research had been returned to the IPRU "2 or
     3 times" for them to try to find the error/reason for the result. All
     methods gave the same results.

     b) At the ICBHI some of the experts from Oz stated they'd looked at the
     data from NZ, agreed with the conclusions, and couldn't explain it.

     c) At 3icipc other experts *refused* to accept the results, *without*
     studying the data, and suggested it was in error. Given (a) that was
     an insult.

     d) The reasons behind (c) were obvious at both 3icipc and ICBHI - to
     most injury prevention professionals working in this area helmets and
     helmet laws are "articles of faith" and *any* negative results must be
     dismissed. This is really SCARY, they have lost all sense of balance on
     this issue.

     Dr Nigel Perry                  Email: N.Perry@massey.ac.nz
     Department of Computer Science  Tel:   +64 6 350 4007
     Massey University               Fax:   +64 6 350 5611 Attn. Dr N. Perry
     Palmerston North, NZ            Ftp/Gopher: smis-asterix.massey.ac.nz

I also have a longer set of notes from Nigel covering the conference. Please
e-mail me if you want a copy. 

--
Avery Burdett
Ottawa, Ontario