@ProfMattFox In order to ensure a complete debate some perspective is needed.
Medical doctors generate spectacular claims of helmet benefit using methods that are inherently biased and not scientifically valid in my view.
Medical doctors generate spectacular claims of helmet benefit using methods that are inherently biased and not scientifically valid in my view.
@ProfMattFox I view the majority of claims of helmet benefit coming from medical doctors as being derived using methods that are;
1. Scientifically invalid,
2. Inherently biased against the poor,
3. Implicitly racist.
Doctors who push cycling helmets are a threat to public health.
1. Scientifically invalid,
2. Inherently biased against the poor,
3. Implicitly racist.
Doctors who push cycling helmets are a threat to public health.
@ProfMattFox The most widely cited medical bike helmet studies do not review actual crashes - there is no examination of what happened what the helmet did or didn’t do. No examination of how the person was struck or how they fell.
@ProfMattFox Instead medical doctors have used observational or case control reviews of injury rates among groups of patients.
They select those groups based simply on whether they wear helmets or not.
They select those groups based simply on whether they wear helmets or not.
@ProfMattFox But helmet wearing is a marker of socio-economic status and race. If you wear a helmet you are more likely to be white from a high income family with college education.
Being white and from a high income family has an established protective effect against injury.
Being white and from a high income family has an established protective effect against injury.
@ProfMattFox The poor and members of ethnic minorities are at increased risk of injury from all causes, burns, electric shocks, traffic collisions and collisions while cycling bikes.
Among the reasons are that the poor frequently have to live and cycle in places that are not very safe.
Among the reasons are that the poor frequently have to live and cycle in places that are not very safe.
@ProfMattFox Prominent medical bike helmet "studies" involve comparing injuries among a group of richer, mainly white people (helmet users) with injuries among a group who are poorer and more likely to be black or members of other minorities (non users).
This is not scientifically credible.
This is not scientifically credible.
@ProfMattFox For more detailed exploration: Rebuttal (by me) of claims of helmet benefit in the British Medical Journal Open Ed.
bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/9/e0…
"nothing meaningful about the effects of cycle helmets [...] can be concluded from studies using the methodology employed"
bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/9/e0…
"nothing meaningful about the effects of cycle helmets [...] can be concluded from studies using the methodology employed"
@ProfMattFox There is an omission in my response: The last sentence in 3rd paragraph should read "children of parents classified as never having worked or as long-term unemployed (NS-SEC 8) had a death rate as cyclists that was 27.5 (6.4 to 118.2) times higher." ("as cyclists" added)
@ProfMattFox The story of bike helmets is a story of biased and implicitly racist medical research that created unrealistically high and unscientific claims of benefit. This created a smoke screen for injury and death patterns that can be attributed to marginalization and structural violence. 
@ProfMattFox By pushing helmets as a main cycling safety intervention, medical doctors, politicians, police and others have acted to excuse and extend marginalization and structural violence against the poor and people of color.
(Who often have reduced access to cars)
(Who often have reduced access to cars)
@ProfMattFox In the worst cases, biased and implicitly racist medical claims about bicycle helmets were used by medical doctors to campaign for helmet laws that, once adopted, became a weapon in racialized policing.
