NEW RESEARCH-NO EVIDENCE THAT ENFORCED HELMET LAWS IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH

[DiscoDuck]

- Forcing helmets on cyclists has done nothing to reduce head injury
rates, but has discouraged people from cycling according to newly
published research in the British Medical Journal, March 25th.
Researcher Dorothy Robinson compared cycling and injury patterns before
and after helmets were made compulsory in different jurisdictions and
found the laws had no effect on head injury trends which were already
falling, but cut cyclist numbers by 30 per cent. Helmet advocates in
the Canadian medical community disputed the findings.

more here: http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/519001/?sc=rsmn

[Eric®]

DiscoDuck wrote . . .

Post by DiscoDuck
- Forcing helmets on cyclists has done nothing to reduce head injury
rates, but has discouraged people from cycling according to newly
published research in the British Medical Journal, March 25th.
Researcher Dorothy Robinson compared cycling and injury patterns before
and after helmets were made compulsory in different jurisdictions and
found the laws had no effect on head injury trends which were already
falling, but cut cyclist numbers by 30 per cent. Helmet advocates in
the Canadian medical community disputed the findings.
more here: http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/519001/?sc=rsmn

What I find remarkable is the paper arguing against Robinson's findings.
http://press.psprings.co.uk/bmj/march/ac725.pdf

I could be wrong but it looks to me as though they are arguing that "It
doesn't matter if helmet laws discourage cycling, because most cyclists
don't ride enough to confer any health benefits anyway".

"Doyle-
Baker, an expert in the epidemiology of health and fitness,
notes: “It is a rule of thumb that 45 minutes of
cycling six days a week (about 2000 kcal) would confer
health benefits” (personal communication). It seems
unlikely that most leisure cyclists, adults or children,
are cycling for 45 minutes six days a week. In fact, Lippi
et al,12 commenting on a recent review,13 state, “There is
still open debate regarding intensity and type of physical
activity required to achieve most favourable health
changes without overwhelming favourable health outcomes.”

While not coming right out & saying it, it looks as though the authors
are suggesting that cycling less than 45 minutes, 6 days a week, means
no health benefits are conferred. This seems like a pretty dishonest
tactic.

Eric

[TVC]

Three of the four objectors are members of the Canadian medical
profession and support helmet laws. They suggest Robinson didn't show
that the cyclists who quit actually suffered any health benefit losses,
therefore it's OK that helmet laws cause cycling to decline. Obviously
they put political expediency ahead of science. I wouldn't want any of
them making decisions affecting my health.