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.


Views: 839

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Prof Grzebieta is a best mate of our own late unlamented ex-member Bennelong Bicyclist. And no more credible.

Ahhh I miss Timmy


...silent majority drive cars everywhere and just want cyclists off the roads altogether...

Well said. I often get this vibe.

You mean this vibe?

Over half the car journeys people make in this country are less than five miles: this is what policy failure looks like. Why don’t people cycle instead? Perhaps because, though the number of motorists killed or seriously injured has fallen sharply, the number of cyclists killed or hurt on the roads has climbed since 2003. This now accounts for 14% of all casualties, though cycling amounts to only 1% of the distance we travel.


I am pretty sure that the vibe I get is that the modern car is way smarter than the driver and they will now do just anything to get off the roads and away from all the dumb people that use them


Reducing the speed limits to 30kph would result in a huge reduction in the road toll.  Imagine the outrage if that safety initiative was implemented

He gets paid for this?

After googling some accident stats, I think it's pretty clear that all people over the age of 65 need MHL 24 hours per day - I just read that the biggest contributor to brain injury in the 65+ age group is falls, a whopping 40%! Including a statistically relevant number of falls from bed - HENCE THE REQUIRED LEGISLATION FOR 24 HOURS PER DAY HELMET USAGE.

And full MTB body armour!

Grzebieta comes from the same school as the originators of all this nonsense - Thompson, Thompson and Riveira. 

He sets up a 'meta study' with carefully constructed inclusion criteria that allows him to ignore all findings he disagrees with, does not disclose his own campaigning on this issue prior to publishing and fails to discuss issues of publication bias or conflicts of interest. Then he claims the issue is closed, even as he fails to understand the irrelevance of his work to the wider questions surrounding MHL.

He's a charlatan; a political campaigner masquerading as a researcher. And a nasty piece of work with it.

This post actually summarizes it exactly.

One of the more bizarre claims in the article is that the study of finnish riders was able to determine that x number of riders would have been "saved" if they were wearing helmets, that kind of thing is always a sign of non science.

Landed in Australia ... shit nothing has improved :-(


© 2019   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service