Re: Cycle helmets ***

Patrick Herring wrote:
Tony Raven <junk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|
| Patrick Herring wrote:
| | > | > Is that the Mok et al one (which I have as a ref on my ***)? If so I
| > don't suppose you know of a web copy url - I can find only the abstract.
| > | | It is indeed Mok but I don't know an open access web version - you'll | have to do it the old fashioned way. If you are registered you can get | it at http://www.pulsus.com/Paeds/09_05/contents.htm but registration costs.

mmm, I know, I wished to point my gentle readers in the direction of a
free look at the reference since the explicit reason for the ref isn't
in the abstract (about more damage to bikes with helmets)..

Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph
Cycle helmets - for & against: http://www.anweald.co.uk/cyclehelmets.html

You need the following texts:

"Of the 19 children injured in a PE related activity, five
were PE users and their responses were compared with those
of the 14 who did not use PE. In general, more users gave
responses suggestive of RC than did nonusers. For example,
four of the five users (80%) reported riding faster versus five
of the 14 nonusers (36%) (Table 2). Riding near busy roads
showed little difference and too few children were injured
in hockey or football to include in a separate analysis. As
for the general question asked to the 19 children referred to
above, three of the five users (60%) reported behaving in a
‘more dangerous than usual’ manner compared with only
three of the 14 nonusers (21%) (Table 2). For the 10
specific hypothetical questions, there was considerable
variability in the responses and no pattern. However, in
response to the general hypothetical question, more than
50% reported an inclination to change behaviour with
PE use (Table 3)." (Results p328)

"Ours is the first study to attempt to test the RC theory using children who have been injured. The responses show a tendency toward agreement with the RC hypothesis. For example, in general, children using PE such as helmets report going faster and more often reported damage to their bike, perhaps because wearers took risks resulting in more severe
crashes." (Discussion p329)


Interestingly two of the authors, Hagel and Pless, in an attempt to rubbish a paper by Robinson showing no benefits from helmets, rubbished the concept of risk compensation (BMJ 2006;332:725-726 (25 March)). A classic example of not letting even their own data get in the way of their beliefs.

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the right."
- Lord Hailsham
.