Tuesday, April 21, 2015

We've got to talk about helmet law

(Thanks to Lagatta à Montréal for reminding me about this treasure viewed on Marc's Amsterdamize)

The academics are out in force in the media playing boffin 'ping-pong' over quad bikes.

In the 'Blue Corner' we've got Professor Raphael Grzebieta taking on the Californian researcher Dr John Zellner in the 'Red Corner' ... and the aussie prof is lobbing back over the net some pretty interesting shots of speculation and hypothesis ...


... yes, apparently Dr Zellner's work is full of them ... and not only that, apparently his work is based on computer simulations too


... and also, Dr Zillman's work lacks any field data.


I'm sorry but that is just too too funny!

Pray tell, Prof Grzebieta, exactly what field data did you have when you championed mandatory helmet laws?

(and stating mandatory helmet laws were 'a no-brainer' does not count)

Did your observational self-reporting studies count as field data or more like, speculation or hypothesis?

Surely it's fair to conclude that twenty years plus into this uniquely bicycle helmet experiment of ours, there has been no net benefit in terms of staving off injuries as a result of bicycle helmet law, and not only that, unquestionably we have become the laughing stock of the world.

... 'hypothetical testing only' ... 'based on computer simulation.'


Oh eminent prof ... re mandatory helmet laws, learn from the babies!


  1. I had forgotten about that marvelous piece of research by Grzbietta et al. The one that found in a state where helmet wearing is compulsory, surprise surprise that cyclists who didn't wear helmets were three times more likely to break other road rules. And, that cyclists without helmets who were hospitalised were four times more likely to be drunk, but concluded that it was the not wearing a helmet that made them more prone to crashing - not the fact that they were drunk. Grzbietta is a "confounding factor" in his own right. Basic reasoning and logic totally lacking. Dear oh dear.

  2. Talking about confirmation bias, i too can show internet images of 'normalisation of transport' in another country.
    Anyone who has been to asia will see that this is the norm in many countries. But does that make it the best option?

    My point being that any legislation should be argued on its merits and not via incessant photo grabs of what is 'normal' in one cherry-picked country or other.