(Photos: Sydney Morning Herald, Thursday, September 16, 2010)
The platform for the helmet debate continues to be provided by mainstream media. At last the reporting of academic research in today's "Head case" article has been widened beyond the ancient, worn out Thompson & Rivara study.
Notwithstanding why does the first and last word on the efficacy of bicycle helmets have to be left to a doctor when clearly this is outside his area of expertise? Neurosurgeons deal with brains and brain injuries, not bicycle helmet mechanics.
"It's counter-intuitive to me; why would it make things worse?" That doesn't make any sense to me"
...can hardly be considered authoritative - it's so subjective, so 'flat-earthy'!
In fact such a statement appears to rely on gut feelings!
Is that really how we want our legislators to make our laws - on medico/political gut feelings?
History is littered with resulting flawed policies & procedures. Consider how long it took to convince doctors that the safest sleeping position for babies was on their backs - this despite the data being available for decades.
So why oh why, Mr SMH Editor, did you allow non-expert opinion to conclude your almost balanced article?
Multinational sham: how Australia was hoodwinked
20 hours ago