Australia is to examine its mandatory helmet law as part of a broader inquiry into ‘personal choice and community impacts’ reports Bicycling Australia. The Federal Government Senate Standing Committee on Economics will be looking at a number of measures which restrict personal choice ‘for the individual’s own good.’ As well as cycle helmets, this will include the sale and use of tobacco and alcohol and the classification of publications, films and computer games.
In 1991 Australia became the first country to require cyclists to wear helmets, and while there has been a fall in the number of head injuries recorded among cyclists since then, opponents of the law claim this is down to other factors. Furthermore, they say the law deters many people from riding bikes, arguing that this has an even bigger impact on public health in a wider sense.
The Australian reports that the new inquiry into ‘nanny state’ laws and regulations was initially launched by New South Wales senator, David Leyonhjelm, who is described by the newspaper as being ‘a staunch defender of the right to make bad choices.’
Leyonhjelm said:
“It’s not the government’s business unless you are likely to harm another person. Harming yourself is your business, but it’s not the government’s business.
“So bicycle helmets, for example, it’s not a threat to other people if you don’t wear a helmet; you’re not going to bang your bare head into someone else.
“I’m expecting the people who think we should all have our personal choices regulated will find this uncomfortable. These are the people who think they know better than we do what’s best for us.”
Submissions to the committee close on August 24 with a report due by June 13, 2016.
Earlier this year, Arnold Schwarzenegger became the latest celebrity to fall foul of Australia’s compulsory cycle helmet laws after he was stopped by a policeman for not wearing one while riding a bike in Melbourne. Boris Johnson and Twilight star Robert Pattinson have also been stopped in the past. Last year, police also said they might fine any riders who took part in an anti-helmet compulsion protest ride in Adelaide if they didn’t wear a helmet.
In 2010, two researchers at Sydney University claimed that Australia’s compulsory bicycle helmet law did not work and called for a trial to be conducted to try and predict what would happen if it were repealed. They said that the fall in head injuries largely came about before the law was introduced due to other road safety measures, such as random breath testing, and suggested that having greater numbers of cyclists on the roads would do far more to make cycling safer.
65 thoughts on “Australia to examine mandatory cycle helmet law”
Hear, hear.
Hear, hear.
Apart from the issue of
Apart from the issue of personal freedom, there is the question of seeing cycling as inherently hazardous, and the kind of message that sends out.
Also the evidence: for evidence on lack of effects of helmet compulsion in nearby New Zealand, and the reason for this lack of evidence, are here http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/17/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law/ and here
http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/27/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law-the-evidence-and-what-it-means/
“while there has been a fall
“while there has been a fall in the number of head injuries recorded among cyclists since then”
STOP THE TRUCK RIGHT UP THERE
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet-law-spin.html sez:
“the reduction in cyclist DSHI was just 23%, which is less than the 36% reduction in numbers of cyclists counted in the 1991 survey”
…a rather important distinction for an article on a cycling website concerning helmets, wouldn’t you say Alex? That post-helmet-law, cycling got *more dangerous*?
The main reason compulsory
The main reason compulsory helmet laws are a bad idea is that further brain trauma will not make an appreciable difference to the cognitive capacity of anyone dumb enough to choose not to wear a helmet.
Toro Toro wrote:The main
So that’s “proof” for your side of the argument is it? A bit of angry name-calling? Thanks for your contribution. #o
portec wrote:Toro Toro
No, that’s not angry name-calling, that’s expressing his point of view in a witty and concise way.
The fact that his opinion is wrong-headed and ill considered doesn’t demean his ability to present it well.
Toro Toro wrote:The main
Your own ‘cognitive capacity’ is clearly limited as you appear to be incapable of understanding that there is absolutely no evidence that compulsory helmet wearing saves lives or injuries … despite over 20 years of data from ‘the great experiment’ in Oz and NZ. None whatsoever.
Someone who ignores all the available evidence … in preference to their own ignorance, assumptions and misconceptions … is the ‘dumb’ one.
You should be on the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs. They ignore all the evidence too. You’d be perfect. Much better than that Professor Nutt who had to be sacked when he started discussing actual facts.
Toro Toro wrote:The main
Bicycle helmets are not very effective, motorcycle helmets are much more effective at higher speeds than 12mph, so you wear one of them right, or do you stick to 12mph?
By your logic if you’re not wearing a motorcycle helmet that means your cogitative ability is lacking / you are dumb.
Are all pedestrians and drivers also dumb for not wearing a helmet?
Quote:The main reason
A shame then that the protective effect of helmets is so poorly represented in population wide studies, No?
…and instead of beginning from the point of view that helmets are indispensable, it would be refreshing if you and all the other people wait for a while and let the 20 odd years of data be examined, y’know, in a scientific way?
Joe, I specifically said that
Joe, I specifically said that I *wasn’t* in favour of compulsory helmet laws. So why the lack of evidence that they worked would confound me, I’ve no idea.
I said that choosing not to use helmets was, nevertheless, the province of idiots. And congratulations; you and the three-and-counting fellow-misreaders who “liked” your comment confirm my hypothesis quite nicely.
Toro Toro wrote:Joe, I
Why is choosing not to use helmets “the province of idiots” when there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that helmets help to reduce injuries or deaths? The limited data that *is* available suggests that helmeted cyclists are actually *more* likely to sustain serious injuries than those who don’t. The uncomfortable truth for PPE advocates like you.
Are the cyclists in the Netherlands and Denmark all “idiots” in your opinion … despite the fact that virtually none of them wear helmets … and yet they happen to experience the fewest deaths and injuries whilst cycling compared to anywhere in the world?
Do you wear a helmet when drinking alcohol, using stairs or being in a motorised vehicle? Why not? Statistically, all of those activities are *vastly* more likely to result in a serious head injury than cycling.
But hey … don’t you let the actual facts get in the way of your own personal decision-making. I particularly enjoy the way you judge others by the same feeble-brained and deeply-flawed hypothesis by which you live your own life. Keep up the good work!
Don’t have to wear a helmet
Don’t have to wear a helmet in Queensland as long as you are riding on a bike path (not a bike lane on the road) or the footpath..
That ruling is on trial and was introduced at the start of the year..
Its awesome to see more people; families and kids rolling around having fun…
Riders on the roads though certainly take a calculated risk, as the level of ignorance, selfishness and arrogance in drivers in QLD is staggering to behold.. (not uniquely to this area…).
Many of the educationally challenged really do seem to fear anything different..
shadwell wrote:Don’t have to
Just a FYI this is law did not come into being in Queensland. It was proposed a few years ago as a trial and was being considered but politics won and they did not implement it. Helmets are still mandatory on paths.
It’s not that there is a
It’s not that there is a dearth of evidence, Joe, it’s that people determined not to wear helmets are strikingly poor at interpreting it coherently, at resisting the urge to cherrypick recalcitrant data points, at distinguishing reliable from anecdotal studies, and solid from wildly speculative conclusions to draw from it.
For instance; yes, it is obviously much safer to cycle without a helmet in Denmark or the Netherlands, because safety is environment-relative. Since those are much safer environments for all sorts of reasons, it is much safer to ride without a helmet in them.
But to extrapolate from that, as you have done, to the claim that it is therefore safer to ride without helmets in *this* environment, which has British rather than Danish drivers and British rather than Danish road infrastructure, is just scientifically illiterate.
FWIW, it’s *still* safer to ride with a helmet in Denmark or Holland than without. It’s just that given the far safer environment – WHICH WE DON’T SHARE – the marginal improvement in one’s safety which it achieves is comparatively tiny, and so much more easily outweighed by considerations of convenience and the like.
Anyway, this is the reason for the crack about anti-helmeters’ cognitive capacity; because your global-warming denialist-style attempts to wilfully cherry-pick and distort clear medical and statistical findings in order to support your claim are so thoroughly, thoroughly inept and, well, dumb.
What hypothesis? What does this even mean?
Toro Toro wrote:
Anyway, this
All of which would be beyond the cognitive capacity of someone with severe brain trauma, so your comparison was not only distasteful but pretty, well, dumb.
Don’t have to wear a helmet
wasn’t aware Queensland trialing that …. live in Victoria hate putting on a helmet for a 5 minute ride to the shops but don’t like the idea of footpath (pavement) riding – here under 12’s can ride on footpath and an adult can ride with them but I found it as dangerous as riding on the road with sight lines for driveways/carparks often dangerously poor. Driver attitude to cyclists reverts to that they should be treated like cyclists and don’t have the rights of pedestrians. Add in the hassle of weaving around tram and bus queues, tables and signs, push chairs and toddlers, the elderly and dogs it really is a very poor outcome for cycling and for other footpath users. Looks to me like a quick fix to get cyclists off the road rather than politically unacceptable methods like reduction in speed limits and taking road space/parking spaces away from vehicles
antigee wrote:
Don’t have to
Just a FYI this is law did not come into being in Queensland. It was proposed a few years ago as a trial and was being considered but politics won and they did not implement it. Helmets are still mandatory on paths.
As a side note it is already legal to ride on footpaths in Queensland and I find it a godsend in busy parts despite the risks of driveways etc. I do wonder if it delays better on road infrastructure though.
Quote:Do you wear a helmet
This, meanwhile, is an instance of a *really* elementary statistical error known as the Base Rate Fallacy.
It’s true that “*vastly* more” people who present with head injuries have been climbing stairs, drinking alcohol, or travelling in motor vehicles when the injury took place. But that’s because vastly more people climb stairs, drink alcohol, and travel in motor vehicles than cycle. There are vastly more events where someone does one of those acts than events where someone cycles. Even most cyclists do these things more often than they ride their bikes.
That doesn’t mean they are more likely to cause head injuries. Consider; far more people present with head injuries after cycling than do after playing Russian Roulette, or hitting themselves in the face with hammers. Does that mean cycling is much more dangerous than Russian roulette, or hitting oneself with a hammer? That it’s more likely to cause head injuries? Of course not. It just means that fewer people are doing the more dangerous thing.
Again, this is pretty elementary stuff. Only very strongly motivated disbelief would blind someone to it. Which makes the constant banging on about “look at the evidence” equal parts hilarious and dispiriting.
Why do you sciency types
Why do you sciency types insist on putting random words in inverted commas? It’s so weird.
@ ToroToro: informed choice
@ ToroToro: informed choice is just that, and your mangling of all sorts of pseudo-statistical nonsense into an argument supporting the single most anti-cycling policy tool in existence would be an absolute joke, were it not such a deadly matter . Your passive-aggressive douchebaggery can Get In The Fucking Sea right now.
KiwiMike wrote:@ ToroToro:
You can *use* the word “pseudo-statistical” all you like; I’m the one who’s explained simple statistical errors in the anti-helmet reasoning.
And *once again* – I’m not in favour of a compulsory helmet-wearing policy. I don’t know how many times or ways I can say that. To still be banging that drum just shows again your absolute wilful resistance to facts and evidence.
Toro Toro wrote:
You can
Here is how the case against the law in Oz and NZ works.
1. Take government figures for amount of cycling.
2. Take government figures for number of head injuries.
3. Divide 1 by 2 to derive rate.
Pass law. Observe rate of wearing increases from about a third to rather above 90%.
Repeat 1 to 3.
Note head injury rate does not change, although marked decrease in cycling means fewer casualties. Since less cycling is bad for public health (in one of the fattest countries in the world) this is an own goal, especially from a cyclist’s point of view.
Please explain the simple errors in that.
Toro Toro wrote:
And *once
The effectiveness of a helmet cannot vary depending on whether it is worn voluntarily or the rider is forced to wear it.
Here is a piece from the New York Times, a paper famous for the rigour of its fact checking.
A Bicycling Mystery: Head Injuries Piling Up
By JULIAN E. BARNES
Published: July 29, 2001
Edited to add link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/business/a-bicycling-mystery-head-injuries-piling-up.html
Millions of parents take it as an article of faith that putting a bicycle helmet on their children, or themselves, will help keep them out of harm’s way.
But new data on bicycle accidents raises questions about that. The number of head injuries has increased 10 percent since 1991, even as bicycle helmet use has risen sharply, according to figures compiled by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But given that ridership has declined over the same period, the rate of head injuries per active cyclist has increased 51 percent just as bicycle helmets have become widespread.
Actually, the most important
Actually, the most important thing about this review isn’t whether helmets work or not, it’s that a politician is prepared to admit that a law might be wrong. This may not be the first example of this, but it is certainly welcome, and if the law is dropped, it should reduce pressure from helmet zealots for laws elsewhere.
Chris – it’s tasteless, yes,
Chris – it’s tasteless, yes, and for that my apologies. The aim here is to get people to take the possibility of severe mental trauma a bit more seriously, so perhaps mission accomplished in that regard. But yeah, my phrasing and frustration with a wonky internet connection let the rhetoric drift carelessly into the insensitive on that occasion. So, sorry.
kie – safety is always a matter of trade-offs. There are some respects in which cyclists would be more safe in motorbike helmets, and some in which they would be far less (balance, heat build-up, visibility, aerobic obstruction…). But “bike helmets aren’t even as good as these other helmets, so I’m not wearing any sort of helmet at all” is a pretty obviously spurious piece of reasoning. Again, only somebody *really, really determined* to justify not wearing a helmet to themselves would think that it made sense.
As to pedestrians and motorists – this is the base rate fallacy again. Yes, they’d be marginally safer wearing them. But only marginally, because the risk of head trauma is much lower in those activities in the first place. And that is consistent with more pedestrians and motorists than cyclists presenting head injuries, because there are many more pedestrians and motorists in the first place.
Toro Toro wrote:
As to
It is not the base rate fallacy because the RATE is similar for peds and motes.
The total number of people
The total number of people who walk each day is similar to the total number who cycle?
Or a similar proportion of journeys by foot and journeys by bike result in head trauma?
Either way, I’d *really* like to see stats. Neither seems remotely plausible.
Toro Toro wrote:The total
Per mile travelled as I recollect. I will get the evidence when I have finished my cooking duties.
Aregument from personal incredulity is invalid.
felixcat wrote:Toro Toro
Per mile travelled as I recollect. I will get the evidence when I have finished my cooking duties.
Aregument from personal incredulity is invalid.— Toro Toro
It’s not an argument from personal incredulity, it’s a demand for evidence on the basis of incredulity. Evidence which you still haven’t provided.
ONCE AGAIN, I’m not
ONCE AGAIN, I’m not advocating compulsory helmet-wearing. I don’t approve of the law, which I’ve now said on I think five separate occasions on this thread. I think everybody should have the choice, and one of the choices is deeply stupid.
Now, have you got those stats, or is this an attempt to change the subject?
Toro Toro wrote:
Now, have
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1239.html
There is a lot more stuff on this site.
Toro Toro wrote:ONCE AGAIN,
I did not accuse you of advocating compulsion. Helmeteers often claim the effects of compulsion are not the same as of voluntary wearing. I was showing that the ineffectiveness is the same.
I think you should stop calling those who disagree with you stupid etc. It is not likely tohelp change their mind and it looks like the tactic of someone who does not have a good argument otherwise.
Which reminds me. You are the one telling others to wear foam. I think it is up to you to show that it works. A reminder, anecdotes are not data.
Toro toro,
you have been
Toro toro,
you have been repeatedly attacking the evidence which shows that helmets are ineffective. Would it be too much to ask you to give us some evidence that they are effective?
I would like a bit more than “It’s obvious innit. It’s commonsense.”
First, the NYT has had
First, the NYT has had well-documented fact-checking disasters, and its credibility is thoroughly shot on that front. Google “Jayson Blair”.
Second, that has nothing to do with any argument I’ve made.
Third, are you or are you not going to back up the claim that the rates of head injury for pedestrians and motorists are similar to those for cyclists with statistical data?
Toro Toro wrote:First, the
Indeed they have had problems, which is why they are more scrupulous.
In any case that is a diversion. Do you allege the figures in the piece are made up? Or do you refuse to believe anything the NYT prints?
As for the rates I will get around to that when I have a bit more time.
In the meantime, can we have your evidence for helmet efficacy?
felixcat wrote:
Indeed they
The Blair scandal was from 2003, and your article was from 2001, so becoming more scrupulous since then is hardly relevant.
It is, as you say a diversion; but you’re the one who brought it up. Ultimately, a newspaper’s fact-checking procedures are of very limited probative value; what is needed are peer-reviewed scientifi studies.
I’ve provided a whole range of them. Despite being asked first – and repeatedly – you have not provided any evidence at all for a specific claim
I call Troll.
I call Troll.
Felix, nothing on that page
Felix, nothing on that page indicates either that the rate of head injuries per journey is similar, or that the total number of journeys is similar.
What it does is compare the absolute numbers of pedestrian and cyclist injuries before and after the compulsory helmet law. But firstly, *again*, I’m not advocating compulsory usage. And secondly, the point about the base rate fallacy is that looking at absolute numbers in isolation is misleading. So nothing there shows what you claim.
You want evidence? Okay, here are some of the many studies published in peer-reviewed journals, rather than on the webpage of an anti-helmet lobby group:
Regression analysis shows that head injury is significantly reduced in age groups with increasing helmet use: http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/3/191.full
Systematic review of 22 different peer-reviewed studies indicates between 63 and 88% reduction of head-injury risk among helmet users: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2598379/
Statistical analysis of coroners’ data shows that not using a helmet results in significantly elevated risk of fatal injury:
http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2012/10/15/cmaj.120988.full.pdf
Epidemiology indicates helmets are highly effecive at reducing crash impact and preventing injury: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145751400061X
Aside from statistical and epidemiological studies, dynamic modelling simulation of cranial impacts under a range of accident scenarios shows protective effect of helmet use: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24005027
That’s a few minutes’ googling. All, as I say, peer-reviewed scientific studies. Not some guy with a website and an opinion.
Cochrane’s report is
Cochrane’s report is criticised here:
Cochrane review of bicycle helmets
Personally I don’t like wearing a helmet because the evidence is that drivers drive closer when they see you wearing one – drivers driving too close is something I find extremely off-putting.
But regardless, it’s all a big red herring, you should read this:
Cycle Helmets: the evidence – CTC
Can someone please call
Can someone please call someone else a helmet Nazi so this thread can die?
Well, I didn’t cite the
Well, I didn’t cite the Cochrane study, so it’s not clear why that would be relevant.
But again, the gold-standard here is peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals; [i]not[/i] opinion pieces on the website of lobby groups.
In any case, AGAIN the CTC report is about compulsory helmet legislation and/or pro-helmet publicity campaigns. It is [i]not[/i] about the safety effect of [i]wearing[/i] helmets.
It is really bizarre that people keep confusing these things.
Ok then, It’s my belief that
Ok then, It’s my belief that the safety effect of wearing helmets is cancelled out by helmet wearers having more accidents due to drivers driving worse around them and ‘risk compensation’ by cyclists – they cycle slightly more dangerously because they feel safer with a helmet on their head.
Many of the accidents that cyclists have don’t involve the head.
Some of the accidents have they wouldn’t of hurt their head but the helmet gets damaged because of the increased contact area.
Many of the accidents cyclists have they will bang their head at over 12mph and the helmet will simply transfer the force of the accident to the cyclists head providing no safety.
In very few accidents will a helmet make a difference – supposedly slow accidents at under 12mph, if I have an accident at under 12mph then it is highly unlikely given my skill that I will hit my head off of the ground.
And thus I do not want to encourage drivers to pass too close and I do not want what is mostly a false sense of security that a flimsy rubbish bicycle helmet gives.
These are some of the issues brought up in the CTC report and they reference dozens of peer reviewed studies – several pages of references.
(The 2nd link you provided cites Cochrane studies/Cochrane database several times.)
kie7077 wrote:Ok then, It’s
As felixcat will no doubt tell you, personal beliefs and anecdotes are not evidence. Peer-reviewed scientific studies, please.
Helmets will probably not help with these. I’m not sure why anyone would think differently.
Some, no doubt. However, numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies show that this effect is tiny compared to the number of head injuries that helmets do prevent.
This is not how helmets work, and the claim is belied by any number of – you guessed it – peer-reviewed scientific studies.
Even if it were the case that helmets were completely useless for impacts of over 12mph, which it isn’t, it makes no sense to use that as a reason not to wear one for its protective benefit below 12mph.
The 12mph figure is not the speed of the bike, it’s the velocity with which the head impacts whatever it impacts. Comparatively few impacts are full-speed head-on collisions.
In any case, your unsupported claim is simply false, as numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies attest.
Again, this is completely unsupported by evidence. One small study has indicated that there is a small increased risk of close passes by drivers, yes. But *once again*, any number of peer-reviewed epidemiological studies indicate that this is far more than outweighed by the protective effect of helmets.
It mentions it as another study that has been done in the area, yes. However, it doesn’t rely on the Cochrane study, and an article by a lobbyist on the internet purporting to refute the Cochrane study wouldn’t really affect it in any way, even if his criticisms of that study were devastating.
There are studies related to
There are studies related to risk compensation, I’ve read enough about it to be convinced – and this is about my choice based upon what I’ve read. If you want to search for such studies then feel free.
Toro, there are plenty of
Toro, there are plenty of rubbish low grade peer reviewed studies out there that are later heavily criticised. I am not convinced by anything I have read yet so far that helmets provide a benefit overall to cyclists, if there is a benefit then it’s my belief that that benefit is marginal.
As others have mentioned, people receive head injuries in lots of ways like being drunk, playing football, taking a shower, walking, going downstairs and driving, but you don’t advocate helmets for these things even though the level of risk is similar.
Quote:Per mile travelled as I
While we’re waiting, it’s worth pointing out an obvious problem with the “per mile travelled”, which makes it look like a cherry-picked datum. The average bike journey will cover a significantly longer distance than the average pedestrian journey, so it’s not clear at all that the comparison is like for like.
The principal reason for the disparity in journey length is the comparative speed; I wouldn’t walk the distances I cycle, because it takes much longer. So, suppose for argument’s sake that I travel five times faster on my bike than on foot. That means that to cover the same number of miles, I will have to spend five times as long walking.
If the injury rate in two-and-a-half hours of walking turns out to be slightly higher than the injury rate in half an hour of cycling, it’s far from obvious that that indicates that walking is more dangerous. The comparison just isn’t like for like.
(Put another way; I commute
(Put another way; I commute about 17 miles, mostly along main roads with no footpath, much of it overhung by trees. Were I walking that every day, it probably would be sensible to wear protective gear, yes. At a minimum, the much-maligned hi-vis vest, which I don’t usually wear on the bike.)
The usual argument about
The usual argument about helmet laws is in regard to the cost to the State for health services to the injured. But if helmets actually work – have studies shown that the cost from those who don’t wear them is actually greater?
I mean, shouldn’t non-helmet-wearers just be dead? Or at least dead in greater proportion? That costs the state nothing. It’s injured cyclists that cost the state money, and no one claims that helmets *prevent* injury.
And in these days of unemployment, it frees up a position for another person. These are the difficult studies no-one wants to do. (Credit -Jonathan Swift)
I said at the start; people
I said at the start; people who are determined not to wear a helmet will go to just about any lengths to cherry-pick, distort, and dismiss evidence to convince themselves in the face of reason that they are correct. And here’s a perfect example.
Yes, some peer-reviewed articles later come in for criticism. If it’s scientifically sound – even scientifically *literate* – criticism, you would expect it, in turn, to be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. It isn’t.
It’s criticised in blog-posts on anti-cycling websites. And people who don’t want to wear helmets convince themselves on that basis that the studies are “low grade rubbish”. Never mind that they have no scientific competence whatsoever to make that judgement; some guy on the internet has told them something they want to hear, and that’s what they’re damn well going to believe.
And then they get annoyed when someone makes cracks about their cognitive capacity.
Hey, felix, I’ve cooked two meals for myself in that time. Do you want me to call over and feed you? You can dig out those stats while I’m doing it. I’m sure you weren’t just making them up.
Fucks sake. Toro … just
Fucks sake. Toro … just bring us back to where you stated that “anyone who doesn’t wear a helmet is an idiot” … and therefore why, in your view, pretty much the entire populations of the Netherlands and Denmark are all “idiots”.
How is it that all these “idiots”, to use your description of them, happen to have the fewest deaths and injuries due to cycling, per Km ridden, in the Western world?
What advice would you offer to the “idiots” of the Netherlands and Denmark, apart from wearing cycling helmets, to make their cycling even safer?
We’re all sitting on our hands waiting for the pearls of wisdom that you will undoubtedly provide.
Hi Joe. If you’re going back
Hi Joe. If you’re going back that far, you might actually see where I’ve replied to those questions already.
I said that yes, this didn’t apply in Denmark and the Netherlands, since their cycling environment was far safer.
However, I also pointed out that, since we did not share that environment – since we rode with British drivers and British road infrastructure rather than Danish or Dutch drivers and Danish or Dutch road infrastructure – it was the height of stupidity to extrapolate from the low rate of injury in those countries to the safety of helmetless riding in this one.
You can think of it this way; imagine we are running a game reserve in Tanzania, and are worried that lions are attacking the tourists. I recommend giving tourists a lion repellent spray which numerous studies have shown to work. You point out that nobody in Denmark or Holland uses the spray, and that very few of them get mauled by lions. I agree. I say that’s because there are far fewer lions in Denmark and Holland than there are in our Tanzanian game reserve; they are low risk-of-mauling environments. You say it’s because all the studies are obviously wrong, and the spray is ineffective. Can you see why that would be spurious?
I also said that helmets did in fact make cycling even safer in those countries, but that given the safer cycling environment there the improvements were marginal enough to be disregarded.
If you want to ask me the same questions again in another forty posts’ time, the answers will still be the same.
Toro … just out of
Toro … just out of interest.
Imagine that you had an 18-year old daughter who decided that she wanted a new leisure activity and assuming that her good health was your main concern.
Would you rather that said daughter went horse-riding once per week or took an Ecstasy pill once per week?
This should be fun.
Went
This should be fun.
Went horse-riding. Assuming she was wearing a helmet. She might get a better workout dancing, but teenagers on ecstasy are very tedious.
If she were to take ecstasy, I would prefer it to be in a comparatively risk-free environment; pill-testing, medical assistance available, working toilet taps…
Toro Toro wrote:This should
… *is* the wrong answer. Horse riding is an extraordinary dangerous activity with one serious adverse event per every 350 exposures. In contrast, taking ecstasy is a comparatively safe activity with only 1 serious adverse event per 10,000 exposures.
Source; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt
That’s just one example of how your own assumptions (and lack of knowledge of both the facts and the science) has led you to the wrong conclusions.
In my view you are similarly wrong in the value you give to the effect of cycling helmets. There is no evidence whatsoever to support your view. None at all.
cheers nb – that’s pretty
cheers nb – that’s pretty much how I thought things are over in the Sunshine State
for those interested in the debate and with time on their hands….here’s a link to the Mandatory Helmet Law thread on the
Aus’ Bicycle Network forum 8000+ posts and growing
http://bicycles.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=31309&sid=6666eb35bda44a2a198b3edc1db79014
I have worn a helmet when
I have worn a helmet when cycling since my bell image of the 90s. I believe they reduce the risk of head injury. That my opinion, it’s in part based on evidence both quantitative and antidotal from personal experiance. I don’t care if people agree or not. It’s my choice.
However last week I rode along the Keswick disused railway line cycle track with no helmets, I was at a slow pace and I have to say felt great with no helmet. Surley this debate is missing the point, If a person has mental capacity surley they should be allowed to make there own choice it’s there head.
What is Felix cooking, a
What is Felix cooking, a bear?
Joe, what happens to my imaginary daughter? Is she thrown from a horse, or does she go on to harder drugs?
These are important questions, because YOU CAN’T MAKE ME WEAR A HELMET, SCIENCE!
Right. I said my major
Right. I said my major objection to ecstasy was that teenagers taking it were really boring.
What has this to do with helmets, exactly?
If she goes horse riding on
If she goes horse riding on ecstasy there will be no need to wear a helmet. Very few incidents of trauma to pilled-up equestrians have been recorded.
Hi Toro Toro,
Is there
Hi Toro Toro,
Is there anywhere that those links are freely available? At $42 a pop they get expensive after opening a couple.
I had a look at the bottom two and I am not convinced by the speeds they are using. 6m/s is less than 14 MPH, I am not a fast rider but that is close to my commuting speed, add in an impact and the combined speed will be more than the trial was designed for.
It would also be preferable if the AIS were more specific in their abstract, I accept that it is a cosmetic preference but it should have been clearer if they referred to region and severity.
Ta,
Bill
Emm, access to scientific
Emm, access to scientific papers is actually a bit of a political issue at the moment! In future, the pre-publication versions of papers should always be available on the authors’ university/institutional websites. But that’s not much help for previous research.
You should be able to access them through a University library, if that’s any help.
On the speed, remember that
On the speed, remember that in most cases the impact speed will be less than the travelling speed of the bicycle. Unless you go pretty much straight into a fall at full speed, you’ll decelerate through the air.
Impact from other vehicles does complicate this, of course.
Toro Toro wrote:On the speed,
the impact speed is the same regardless of travelling speed as the impact speed is the vertical component as the head accelerates towards the ground under gravity, the helmet will then all protect against the sliding across the ground with no further compression required.
velocity only matters if you hit a stationary object such as street furniture head first or, as you mention, other vehicles.
Sorry Torro Torro, I may be
Sorry Torro Torro, I may be misinterpreting your second comment but assuming that we are both cycling on planet Earth how can impact speed be less than traveling speed?
I left university some decades ago but I don’t think that Newton’s Laws have been disproved that much.
Because you slow down. Throw
Because you slow down. Throw a ball through the air; if it maintains the original speed it is travelling at, it will keep going forever or until it hits something. Obviously that’s not what happens.
If you’re thrown from the bike, you lose your velocity very quickly. That’s *why* you hit the ground, because your velocity quickly declines below that of gravity.
In any case, note wycombewheeler’s comments about the velocity of impacts with the ground.