Anti-Helmet Arguments: Lies, Damned Lies and Flawed Statistics

Olivier, J; Wang, J; Walter, S; Grzebieta, R

Anti-Helmet Arguments: Lies, Damned Lies and Flawed Statistics

Olivier, J Wang, J

Walter, S Grzebieta, R

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 2014, 25 (4), pp. 10 - 23
Issue Date:: 2014

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	JACRS2014V025N04_010.pdf	Published Version	463.12 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Olivier, J	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Wang, J https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0088-7003	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Walter, S	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Grzebieta, R	en_US
dc.date.issued	2014	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 2014, 25 (4), pp. 10 - 23	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1832-9497	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/118800
dc.description.abstract	Bicycle helmets are designed to mitigate head injury during a collision. In the early 1990’s, Australia and New Zealand mandated helmet wearing for cyclists in an effort to increase helmet usage. Since that time, helmets and helmet laws have been portrayed as a failure in the peer-reviewed literature, by the media and various advocacy groups. Many of these criticisms claim helmets are ineffective, helmet laws deter cycling, helmet wearing increases the risk of an accident, no evidence helmet laws reduce head injuries at a population level, and helmet laws result in a net health reduction. This paper reviews the data and methods used to support these arguments and shows they are statistically flawed. When the majority of evidence against helmets or mandatory helmet legislation (MHL) is carefully scrutinised it appears overstated, misleading or invalid. Moreover, much of the statistical analysis has been conducted by people with known affiliations with anti-helmet or antiMHL organisations.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety	en_US
dc.title	Anti-Helmet Arguments: Lies, Damned Lies and Flawed Statistics	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	4	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	25	en_US
utslib.for	010401 Applied Statistics	en_US
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services	en_US
utslib.for	1507 Transportation and Freight Services	en_US
utslib.for	1701 Psychology	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Science
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Science/School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.consider-herdc	false	en_US
pubs.issue	4	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	25	en_US

Abstract:

Bicycle helmets are designed to mitigate head injury during a collision. In the early 1990’s, Australia and New Zealand mandated helmet wearing for cyclists in an effort to increase helmet usage. Since that time, helmets and helmet laws have been portrayed as a failure in the peer-reviewed literature, by the media and various advocacy groups. Many of these criticisms claim helmets are ineffective, helmet laws deter cycling, helmet wearing increases the risk of an accident, no evidence helmet laws reduce head injuries at a population level, and helmet laws result in a net health reduction. This paper reviews the data and methods used to support these arguments and shows they are statistically flawed. When the majority of evidence against helmets or mandatory helmet legislation (MHL) is carefully scrutinised it appears overstated, misleading or invalid. Moreover, much of the statistical analysis has been conducted by people with known affiliations with anti-helmet or antiMHL organisations.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/118800