About this product: Franklin can hardly wait to show off his cool new bicycle helmet at the Bike Safety Rally. But before the rally, he overhears Fox and Beaver making fun of his helmet. Now he's ashamed! Some words of encouragement from Rabbit help him put things in perspective - he likes the helmet, and he's going to wear it!
About this product: This wonderful new survey follows the evolution of the sports helmet from early military and aviation uses, through early motorcycle and auto racing, and to modern helmets used in a wide variety of sports today. The science of helmet design and manufacture is covered before moving into the art of the helmet. Helmets for six major sports are extensively covered: auto and motorcycle racing, bicycling, equestrian activities, skiing, football, and ice hockey. Some lesser known sports and their helmets are also included to give a fascinating and complete panorama of the field. The design innovations, both for safety and appearance, the colors, and the fascinating history will engage the reader, while nearly 600 color images will please even the most particular sports fan. For designers, players, scientists, and historians this book is a true delight.
About this product: This digital document is a journal article from Accident Analysis and Prevention, published by Elsevier in 2007. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Description: Debate continues over bicycle helmet laws. Proponents argue that case-control studies of voluntary wearing show helmets reduce head injuries. Opponents argue, even when legislation substantially increased percent helmet wearing, there was no obvious response in percentages of cyclist hospital admissions with head injury-trends for cyclists were virtually identical to those of other road users. Moreover, enforced laws discourage cycling, increasing the costs to society of obesity and lack of exercise and reducing overall safety of cycling through reduced safety in numbers. Countries with low helmet wearing have more cyclists and lower fatality rates per kilometre. Cost-benefit analyses are a useful tool to determine if interventions are worthwhile. The two published cost-benefit analyses of helmet law data found that the cost of buying helmets to satisfy legislation probably exceeded any savings in reduced head injuries. Analyses of other road safety measures, e.g. reducing speeding and drink-driving or treating accident blackspots, often show that benefits are significantly greater than costs. Assuming all parties agree that helmet laws should not be implemented unless benefits exceed costs, agreement is needed on how to derive monetary values for the consequences of helmet laws, including changes in injury rates, cycle-use and enjoyment of cycling. Suggestions are made concerning the data and methodology needed to help clarify the issue, e.g. relating pre- and post-law surveys of cycle use to numbers with head and other injuries and ensuring that trends are not confused with effects of increased helmet wearing.
About this product: This digital document is a journal article from Accident Analysis and Prevention, published by Elsevier in 2005. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Description: Effective interventions for care of health need to be based on scientific evidence. To this end, the Cochrane Collaboration insists that its reviews should be based on reliable data, normally obtained by randomised controlled trial. To constitute evidence, data should also support a hypothesis in accord with scientific laws and knowledge. From these considerations, an appraisal is made of the conclusion of the Cochrane review Helmets for preventing head and facial injuries in bicyclists, that it establishes scientific evidence that all types of standard helmet protect against injuries to the brain. It is concluded that the review takes no account of scientific knowledge of types and mechanisms of brain injury. It provides, at best, evidence that hard-shell helmets, now rarely used, protect the brain from injury consequent upon damage to the skull. The review therefore is not a reliable guide to the efficacy of helmets and to interventions concerning their use.
About this product: This digital document is an article from Sea&Shore, published by U.S. Navy Safety Center on March 22, 2004. The length of the article is 959 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Citation Details Title: Wearing bicycle helmets.(Work zone: reducing mishaps by 50%) Publication:Sea&Shore (Magazine/Journal) Date: March 22, 2004 Publisher: U.S. Navy Safety Center Page: 3(3)
About this product: This digital document is a journal article from Accident Analysis and Prevention, published by Elsevier in 2006. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Description: This paper is a rebuttal of the criticism by Hagel and Pless of my 2005 article in which I dispute the conclusion of a Cochrane Collaboration review that all types of standard bicycle helmet protect against injury to the brain. The main ground of rebuttal is that my critics take the relevant efficacy of helmets as given and argue from there.
About this product: This digital document is a journal article from Accident Analysis and Prevention, published by Elsevier in . The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Description: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of California's bicycle helmet law on bicycle-related head injuries in San Diego County with a year 2000 population of approximately 3 million people. The study design is an ecological trend design based on observational data from a Trauma Registry. Outcome measures include helmet use compliance, site/severity of injury and abbreviated injury scale (AIS). There were 1116 bicycle trauma patients recorded in the San Diego County Trauma Registry between 1992 and 1996. The percentages of pre-law and post-law helmet use were 13.2 and 31.7%, respectively. Over the whole study period, the overall helmet use increased by an average of 43% per year with an averaged 84% rate increase in helmet use among children. Only 16.1% of patients with serious head injury used helmets, compared to 28.2% in those who did not have serious head injury. The odds ratio of helmet use against serious head injuries is 0.43 (95% CI 0.28-0.66) after adjusting for age, ethnicity and time. The p-values for comparing pre- and post-legislation serious head injury rates are p=0.764, 0.4 and 0.194 for the overall, adult and child populations, respectively. Helmet legislation increased helmet use in the targeted child population and the effect was carried over to the adult population. Helmet use has a protective effect against serious head injury. Probably due to several of its limitations, the current study did not confirm that helmet legislation alone significantly reduced head injury rates in San Diego County during the study period.
About this product: This digital document is an article from Medical Update, published by Benjamin Franklin Literary & Medical Society, Inc. on March 1, 1997. The length of the article is 2330 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Digital Locker immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Citation Details Title: Further evidence for the effectiveness of bicycle safety helmets. Author: Edwin W. Brown Publication:Medical Update (Newsletter) Date: March 1, 1997 Publisher: Benjamin Franklin Literary & Medical Society, Inc. Volume: v20 Issue: n9 Page: p4(1)
About this product: This digital document is a journal article from Accident Analysis and Prevention, published by Elsevier in . The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Description: In a recent paper published in Accident Analysis & Prevention, Curnow puts forward a number of arguments against legislating bike helmet use [Curnow, W.J., 2005. The Cochrane Collaboration and bicycle helmets. Accid. Anal. Prevent. 37(3), 569-573]. He begins by criticizing the scientific evidence that helmets protect against head and brain injuries. The crux of his argument is that in theory helmets should not protect all mechanisms of brain injury and, therefore, all epidemiological research showing they are beneficial in a variety of circumstances is invalid. This short communication identifies some of the questionable elements in Curnow's assertions.
BOOK
