It is not usually statistics that are inaccurate it's how they are compared and interpreted which is normally at odds. The piece in the Star provides good examples. First of all, the NY Times report contained data on cycist head injuries. The Star article talks about cyclist fatalities and "bicycle-related hospitalizations". Canadians replying to apples with oranges. Second as Marlon said, there's nothing to indicate cause and effect. "Bicycle-related deaths in Canada have consistently declined over-all since the mid-1980s, according to Health Canada figures." So what? Fatalities among other road users have declined also, probably because of changes in attitude towards drinking and driving. There's nothing in the fatality data to suggest helmets have had any effect on cyclist fatalities. Transport Canada data shows that from 1975 to 1999 cyclist fatality levels have closely tracked the fatality trend among pedestrians - the other vulnerable road user group. Both groups have experienced an almost identical 65% reduction annually in fatalities over the twenty five year period. About 50% of cyclists took up helmet use during the period, and of course 0% of pedestrians. Similar matching trends have been reported in the US and in Britain. No one should be surprised. Helmets are not designed to save lives. They are designed to mitigate the severity of an impact when falling off a bike. That means helmets lend themselves well to racing crits where the risk of falling is pretty high. (Just like Formula I race car drivers wear helmets where the risk is higher.) Third, few if any of the folks being quoted below have a clue about safe cycling (or even statistical analysis for that matter). "Bicycle helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of head injury by as much as 85 per cent and the risk of brain injury by as much as 88 per cent, according to Safe Kids." the article says. What Safe Kids has ignored is that the dated (1980's) study of patients attending emergency departments of Seattle area hospitals that they quote has been thoroughly discredited over the authors' application of poor statistical analysis methods. No such reductions in head injuries have been experienced among large populations in countries such as Australia and New Zealand which have had mass (legislated) helmet use since the early 1990's. Regardless of dueling statistics, the most important comment in the NY Times article has been skimmed over by the Star journalist. We would be well advised to burn in our minds what Dr. Richard A. Schieber, a childhood injury prevention specialist said: "We have moved the conversation from bicycle helmet use to bicycle safety. Thank God that the public health world is understanding there is more to bicycle safety than helmets." If only Emile Therien and the others quoted in the Star would start to clue in. -- Avery Burdett Ottawa, Ontario ------ To unsubscribe, send a blank message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Club Office: [EMAIL PROTECTED], (613) 230-1064 Web/mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb Newsletter: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.cyberus.ca/~obcweb/Newsletter ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aVxiDo.a2i8p1 Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email was sent to: [email protected] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
