I know i should not but what the

Status
Not open for further replies.

Paul99

Über Member
Arm injuries up, head injuries down. All that says to me is that the Aussies have learned to use their arms to break their fall instead of their face.
 

StuartG

slower but further
Location
SE London
I need to go read this. What puzzles me in the report is the statement that head injuries are declining @ 4% per annum. Not the stepchange one would expect in 1991. Compulsory helmet wearing cannot effect that since, presumably, it continues at near 100%.

On the other hand how could improved infrastructure help? If it causes less collisions then we would expect a similar decline in arm injuries.

It doesn't add up. What have I missed?
 

byegad

Legendary Member
Location
NE England
Is it down globally by 4% or down among the remaining cyclists by 4%?? They reduced the number of cyclists by 30-40% depending on the figures you believe. So if they've only lost 4% of injuries that's a huge rise among the remaining 60-70%.
 

tadpole

Senior Member
Location
St George
Is it down globally by 4% or down among the remaining cyclists by 4%?? They reduced the number of cyclists by 30-40% depending on the figures you believe. So if they've only lost 4% of injuries that's a huge rise among the remaining 60-70%.
“This decline is happening despite the State’s population rising by 22% during the study period and despite cycling participation rates rising by 51% in the past decade.
 

Andy_R

Hard of hearing..I said Herd of Herring..oh FFS..
Location
County Durham
Isn't it great when people start bandying percentages about. Give us real numbers so we can see the real picture. 15% of the readers of the article read it all the way through and 45% of that 15% understood 62% of the statistical analysis and agreed with 43% of it:wacko:. Total bollox. (the numbers, not necessarily the anlysis). USE. REAL. NUMBERS.
 

Mr Haematocrit

msg me on kik for android
Isn't it great when people start bandying percentages about. Give us real numbers so we can see the real picture. ..... Total bollox. (the numbers, not necessarily the anlysis). USE. REAL. NUMBERS.
The article, no matter if you believe it or not only provides percentages but also states REAL NUMBERS !! (as such you can interpret the data effectively and easily)

Between 1991 and 2010, arm injuries rose by 145% (660 to 1620 per year) while head injuries increased by just 20% (590 to 706). The report also has a couple of data points from 1990, a year before the helmet law was introduced, which show that arm injuries were then lower than head injuries, with the latter being ~900.
This should be viewed in the context of a population increase (5.9m, 1991 to 7.2m, 2010) and an increase in people riding bikes (a survey by the Australian Sports Commission in 2010 showed participation increased from 400k (2000) to 604k (2010)

The data is very clearly presented imho and includes the date period when the data was taken, its very easy to conclude from the data provided that head injuries increased from 590 in 1991 to 706 by 2010 while the population increased from 5.9million to 7.2million during the same period, this also showed and increase of people riding bikes of 4000 thousand in 2000 to 604 thousand people in 2010.. This data simply suggests that the population riding bikes is growing at a faster rate than head injury's.
How you interpt the data is up to you, but the real numbers are there for all to see.
 

StuartG

slower but further
Location
SE London
I still don't get it. Head injuries are reducing. But it can't be from helmets as they are compulsory over this period hence we presume the incidence of helmet wearing is fairly constant.

So on what grounds can they attribute this decline to helmets?
 

snorri

Legendary Member
(a survey by the Australian Sports Commission .
That sounds odd to me.
Why would a Sports body be doing road traffic surveys, were they counting those engaged in cyclesport, or all cyclists?
 

MrJamie

Oaf on a Bike
Sorry for imprecise language but how can the rate reduction be attributable to helmets when we presume the rate of helmet use to be near constant over the period?
I'd guess the law change didn't make everyone start wearing helmets right away but gradually as people grow up with them being the norm.
 

StuartG

slower but further
Location
SE London
Thanks. Does the research actually suggest that the continuing head injury rate reduction is due to helmets? I only have access to the abstract which does not mention such a connection, viz:

Since the 1991 enactment of mandatory helmet legislation (MHL) for cyclists in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, there has been extensive debate as to its effect on head injury rates at a population level. Many previous studies have focused on the impact of MHL around the time of enactment, while little has been done to examine the ongoing effects. We aimed to extend prior work by investigating long-term trends in cyclist head and arm injuries over the period 1991–2010. The counts of cyclists hospitalised with head or arm injuries were jointly modelled with log-linear regression. The simultaneous modelling of related injury mechanisms avoids the need for actual exposure data and accounts for the effects of changes in the cycling environment, cycling behaviour and general safety improvements. Models were run separately with population counts, bicycle imports, the average weekday counts of cyclists in Sydney CBD and cycling estimates from survey data as proxy exposures. Overall, arm injuries were higher than head injuries throughout the study period, consistent with previous post-MHL observations. The trends in the two injury groups also significantly diverged, such that the gap between rates increased with time. The results suggest that the initial observed benefit of MHL has been maintained over the ensuing decades. There is a notable additional safety benefit after 2006 that is associated with an increase in cycling infrastructure spending. This implies that the effect of MHL is ongoing and progress in cycling safety in NSW has and will continue to benefit from focusing on broader issues such as increasing cycling infrastructure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom