helmet laws - flawed research

rooster
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:30 pm

helmet laws - flawed research

Postby rooster » Thu Dec 30, 2010 8:10 am

Article today in the Herald in which the authors in the original study that had suggested that helmet laws had no effect on head injuries now concede there were major flaws in their analyses. :oops:
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/authors-admit ... 19a9x.html

Ultimately this type of population level study don't really address the real question as far as i'm concerned: if I'm about to have a serious stack, would I be better off with a helmet on?

TheSkyMovesSideways
Posts: 732
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 5:36 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: helmet laws - flawed research

Postby TheSkyMovesSideways » Thu Dec 30, 2010 8:29 am

rooster wrote:Ultimately this type of population level study don't really address the real question as far as i'm concerned: if I'm about to have a serious stack, would I be better off with a helmet on?

That's a pretty dumb question.

(Also, this link has already been posted.)
- Dave

rooster
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:30 pm

Re: helmet laws - flawed research

Postby rooster » Thu Dec 30, 2010 8:42 am

Really? I presume you've got the evidence somewhere in your back pocket...
The fact that there might be a population level association (or not) between helmet laws and head injuries should be irrelevant to your personal decision about whether you should wear a helmet or not.

User avatar
simonn
Posts: 3762
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: helmet laws - flawed research

Postby simonn » Thu Dec 30, 2010 9:14 am

rooster wrote: The fact that there might be a population level association (or not) between helmet laws and head injuries should be irrelevant to your personal decision about whether you should wear a helmet or not.


Quite. The question is whether you should be forced by law to wear a helmet with punitive measures taken against you if you do not.

The problem is that instead of simply sticking to the above the anti-MHL campaigners strolled into territory they should have avoided and shot themselves in the arse in the process.

Anyway...


Missy24
Posts: 7198
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brunswick

Re: helmet laws - flawed research

Postby Missy24 » Thu Dec 30, 2010 9:15 am

Oh hey, if I was looking to beat a dead horse this is where I'd come ;)

TheSkyMovesSideways
Posts: 732
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 5:36 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: helmet laws - flawed research

Postby TheSkyMovesSideways » Thu Dec 30, 2010 9:20 am

rooster wrote:Really? I presume you've got the evidence somewhere in your back pocket...

You misunderstand. I wasn't implying that you'd be better off without a helmet on. I thought the question was dumb for two reasons; firstly because the answer is so obvious that the question is unnecessary, you would be better off with a helmet on in the event of a crash, and secondly because the question was given in the context of an article on mandatory helmet laws, yet is completely irrelevant to whether helmets should be mandated or not.

rooster wrote:The fact that there might be a population level association (or not) between helmet laws and head injuries should be irrelevant to your personal decision about whether you should wear a helmet or not.

I like this attitude. Personal decisions are something we should be allowed to make. :D

simonn wrote:Anyway...

Oh damn you... Now I need to find a copy of Digger. :| :lol:
- Dave

User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11575
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: helmet laws - flawed research

Postby AUbicycles » Thu Dec 30, 2010 9:50 am

Mod Says:
1) Please post in the correct section - this has been moved out of General into Cycling Safety
2) This topic exists already here hence the thread is now closed

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: secret_agent