While the silent majority wanted bike helmet laws, a small and vocal minority group, which often opposed helmets as an infringement of their rights, had used "crazy science" to lobby against them, he said. Poor research cited by these groups had cost lives, and Professor Grzebieta was lobbying to have these publications retracted.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/bike-helmet-review-throws-cold-water-on-s...

Views: 860

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The study is about bicycle crashes not bicycle riding.

Repeat the exercise on people who have had a car crash - chances are most of them would have benefited from wearing a helmet.

The focus should be squarely on reducing the number of collisions/stacks for all types of vehicles - but it invariably comes back to hi-vis and helmets. 

JM

Great first post!

Massive bullshitting clickbait wank.

This Grzebieta fella sounds like a he's a bit up himself, wanting to have rival studies contradicting his findings retracted and deriding them as "crazy science". I'm sure it would be just as easy to dismiss his research in the same way -- what do they say about "lies, damned lies and statistics"?

Anyone who discredits their opposition instead of promoting and convincing people of the validity of their own work, needs to be viewed with the greatest suspicion.

And it's disgraceful clickbait masquerading as journalism from the SMH. It's not as if cyclists don't cop enough of this crap from the telegraph; try as they might, the SMH is still not as good a tabloid trash publication...

Having just read the article, Professor Grzebieta completely misses the point that most people who are opposed to mandatory helmet laws are generally not opposed to wearing bicycle helmets, just being fined for not doing so. So he is just as guilty of the obfuscation and misinformation as those he is trying to discredit. 

Exactly.

Here is the actual study that is used as a leader piece for the article.  The findings are simply that helmets reduce the likelihood of head injuries in an accident.  No surprises here.

You could run the same study for pedestrians, motorists, ladder users or people showering and get similar results.

Showering with a helmet!!!  What do you do in the shower?  :-)

Why stop at helmets?
Smoking - banned
Alcohol - banned
Bacon - banned
Sunscreen - mandatory
Bullet & stab resistant vests - mandatory
Daily exercise regime - mandatory

I'll stop now before I reach a 100 points.

I shower in with cycling cap still on - best way to give them a gentle wash. I've heard of people showering with helmets on to wash them too but I've not tried that.

As for banning bacon - why not just ban life?

JM

Sunscreen - mandatory

Oh but the nano tech in 50% of sunscreens is dangerous

and the chemicals in the other 50% affects your body!

won't someone think of the children! *maniacal screaming*

Is Prof Grzebieta guilty of obfuscation and misinformation or is it the way the Herald has reported his findings?

"While the silent majority wanted bike helmet laws, a small and vocal minority group, which often opposed helmets as an infringement of their rights, had used "crazy science" to lobby against them, he said."

So could be the Prof is doing so, or the Herald, or both. If the silent majority in Australia want bike helmet laws, it's only because the silent majority drive cars everywhere and just want cyclists off the roads altogether.

RSS

© 2019   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service