Cyclists have been riding without helmets across Australia today in protest at mandatory helmet laws they believe are discouraging people from cycling. The Sydney ride was closed down by New South Wales Police with long-time bike helmet reform campaigner Sue Abbott picking up yet another fine.
In 1991 Australia became the first country to require cyclists to wear helmets.
Alan Todd, the president of Freestyle Cyclists, which organised the protests, told the Guardian: “We find that the mandatory helmet law is the single greatest barrier to the uptake of bicycle use in Australia. It has created an image of cycling as a high-risk activity, and practically killed off the casual everyday use of the bike.”
On its Facebook page, Freestyle Cyclists reported: “A tale of two cities. In Melbourne, the Freestyle Cyclists Helmet Optional Bike Ride attracted zero police activity. Meanwhile in Sydney today, the bike hating capital of Australia (maybe the world), the police closed it down. Threatened with a $330 fine two people including long time bike helmet reform campaigner Sue Abbott took one for the team.
“Rides also took place in Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and across the ditch in Wellington where police no longer prioritize the helmet law.”
There’s some Ten News footage of the Sydney ride.
Rudy Botha, who co-ordinated it commented: “With Sydney facing a lot of transport challenges, we need to be encouraging people to look at riding a bicycle as alternative.
“Threatening them with one of the world’s highest fines for something that is considered normal in most countries, is having the opposite effect.”
Todd added: “We accept that a helmet might help in the event of an accident … [but] you must distinguish between crash data and population data. It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling.
“It beggars belief that in the 21st century we take something as benign and beneficial as bike riding and we punish people.”
Edward Hore, the president of the Australian Cycle Alliance, expressed support for the protests.
“We think helmets should be a choice. We’re not talking about banning helmets, we’re talking about making them optional.
“If you’re in a peloton down a beach road, and you’re not wearing a helmet, you’re a bloody idiot, let’s be frank. But we’re talking about the rider in the park with a family, the local commuter, the gentle ride down the street. Once you’ve measured your risk you can decide whether or not you want to don a helmet.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
240 thoughts on “Aussie cyclists protest mandatory helmet laws with helmet-optional rides”
Just thought my many fans
Just thought my many fans would expect me to post, so here goes.
“It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling.”
And that is why helmet propaganda and promotion is so pernicious. No benefit, massive unintended consequences and costs borne by individuals.
Helmet laws and propaganda have two proven effects: a fall in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets, there is no safety benefit. Anyone promoting helmets, demanding helmet laws or having helmet rules for their leisure rides is doing harm to cycling generally.
burtthebike wrote:
I suggest that you have a word with trauma and neuro surgeons. See what they have to say about it.
Although I agree it should be personal choice for (adult) cyclists as opposed to being mandatory. And those cops sound like complete redneck busybodies.
Also if it didn’t work I don’t know why motorcycle riders, all sorts of rock climbers, paraglider pilots, even some windsurfers and kitesurfers bother with having a helmet. Just saying.
MoominPappa wrote:
“It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling.”
And that is why helmet propaganda and promotion is so pernicious. No benefit, massive unintended consequences and costs borne by individuals.
— MoominPappa I suggest that you have a word with trauma and neuro surgeons. See what they have to say about it. Although I agree it should be personal choice for (adult) cyclists as opposed to being mandatory. And those cops sound like complete redneck busybodies. Also if it didn’t work I don’t know why motorcycle riders, all sorts of rock climbers, paraglider pilots, even some windsurfers and kitesurfers bother with having a helmet. Just saying.— burtthebike
..and StormTroopers.
Don’t forget the StormTroopers.
MoominPappa wrote:
Neuro surgeons tend to talk about their own personal experiences., or anecdotes, as opposed to statistical data. Statistical data at the population level is the only reliable way to measure the effect of something like helmet compulsion. Read what Alan Todd said in the article.
As for the idea that because helmets are appropriate for other activities therefore they must be appropriate for cycling, I’m not sure what listing a bunch of completely unrelated activities where people may or may not wear helmets proves. Wearing a helmet when rock climbing is obviously a good idea for at least a couple of reasons 1 – because falling rocks are quite common and 2 – a climbing helmet provides very effective protection in that situation. On the other hand I struggle to see why anybody would need a helmet when wind surfing, but then I’ve never tried it. I suppose it could protect against seagul attacks
.
I agree with the personal choice depending on the circumstances. Also, having lived in New South Wales for 12 years I agree with you about NSW cops. This guy is typical of them in my experience. I lived there when helmets became compulsory. Ironically the law was introduced as a result of campaigning by cycling groups for increased safety for cyclists. In typical lazy, dishonest fashion the politicians brought in the compulsory helmet law then congratulated themselves when the number of deaths and injuries were reduced in exactly the same proportion as the reduction in cyclists on the roads.
portec wrote:
Neuro surgeons tend to talk about their own personal experiences., or anecdotes, as opposed to statistical data. Statistical data at the population level is the only reliable way to measure the effect of something like helmet compulsion. Read what Alan Todd said in the article.
As for the idea that because helmets are appropriate for other activities therefore they must be appropriate for cycling, I’m not sure what listing a bunch of completely unrelated activities where people may or may not wear helmets proves. Wearing a helmet when rock climbing is obviously a good idea for at least a couple of reasons 1 – because falling rocks are quite common and 2 – a climbing helmet provides very effective protection in that situation. On the other hand I struggle to see why anybody would need a helmet when wind surfing, but then I’ve never tried it. I suppose it could protect against seagul attacks
.
I agree with the personal choice depending on the circumstances. Also, having lived in New South Wales for 12 years I agree with you about NSW cops. This guy is typical of them in my experience. I lived there when helmets became compulsory. Ironically the law was introduced as a result of campaigning by cycling groups for increased safety for cyclists. In typical lazy, dishonest fashion the politicians brought in the compulsory helmet law then congratulated themselves when the number of deaths and injuries were reduced in exactly the same proportion as the reduction in cyclists on the roads.— MoominPappa
Physics 101:
The kinetic energy of an object is a function of mass and speed.
I am not expecting car to fall from a cliff on me, but being hit by a hard object (car, lamppost, etc) is functionally in the same ballpark – dissipation of energy.
MoominPappa wrote:
As it happens I did physics 101 in my university days so I know what kinetic energy is and it’s proportional to mass and the square of velocity (not speed, it’s an important difference).
Do you really expect your bicycle helmet to protect you in a collision with a car? I suppose in some circumstances it might provide some amount of protection but no bicycle helmet manufacturer will claim that it does. Simplifying it, bicycle helmets are designed to provide a certain level of protection in a fairly specific type of impact. The forces involved in motor vehicle collisions are far outside the bounds, in magnitude and direction, of what bicycle helmets are designed for. Any protection it offers in a collision with a car is purely incidental. As I said, this is very different to a rock climber wearing a climbing helmet (I own one of those too) because the possibility of a falling rock is far greater than crashing a bicycle (for most of us on the road, anyway) and, most importantly, climbing helmets are actually very effective at protecting against falling rocks up to a certain size.
MoominPappa wrote:
Working as a clinical scientist in a Medical Physics department I’m probably as far ahead as Physics 102 by now.
KE is indeed a function of mass and speed, and the sort of KE an EN1078 lid is built to deal with is about falling over and hitting one’s head on the floor. After car crashes, trips and falls are the most popular way to get a serious head injury, so I take it you wear a helmet for stuff like walking around on hard ground, getting in and out of the bath (slippy bathroom floors are a genuine risk issue in causing head injuries) and using the stairs (rather more killed falling down the stairs in the UK than on bikes)? Probably not, because doing all of those things you feel psychologically safe, but on a bike you’ve bought in to the hype it’s all terribly dangerous despite it not being much (if any) worse than the potentially lethal things you’re happy with.
The much vaunted Dutch infrastructure doesn’t stop anyone riding in to lamp posts, falling off and banging their heads etc., yet with a very low rate of helmet wearing they have a very low rate of serious head injury (being hit by a car is way past the design spec of a cycle helmet, by the way), despite the ground being generally just as hard and the force of gravity much the same.
The context of a cycle helmet is getting back on your bike and finishing your race rather than sitting down holding your head going “ow” and abandoning. The design spec is not that high: they should mitigate minor injuries, they will very probably not save you from serious or fatal ones.
For your next science session it’s Cognitive Bias 101, all those ways you can convince yourself that your existing choice must have been the best one…
pjclinch wrote:
an overall excellent response, but I’m afraid I have to pick you up on one small, but important point. The Netherlands is / are? very flat, so on average they are closer to the ground than everywhere else, and therefore gravity is heavier, pound for pound.
ConcordeCX wrote:
Tuts! Euro for Euro. I expect more.
Or is it Euro for pound or pound for euro?
portec wrote:
Neuro surgeons tend to talk about their own personal experiences., or anecdotes, as opposed to statistical data. Statistical data at the population level is the only reliable way to measure the effect of something like helmet compulsion.— MoominPappa
Yes, but. Neurosurgeons are well known as experts on everything which lies outside of their specialized domain of knowing how to cut which bits out. If you don’t believe me then you haven’t been paying to this man:
https://www.salon.com/2015/09/30/the_7_most_impressively_stupid_things_ben_carson_has_said_partner/
MoominPappa][quote
You mean like this one?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cycle-helmets-dont-provide-protection-says-neurosurgeon-9465257.html
In the interests of balance I should add that it’s equally easy to find ones that hold counter views.
MoominPappa wrote:
I suggest that you have a word with trauma and neuro surgeons. See what they have to say about it. Although I agree it should be personal choice for (adult) cyclists as opposed to being mandatory. And those cops sound like complete redneck busybodies. Also if it didn’t work I don’t know why motorcycle riders, all sorts of rock climbers, paraglider pilots, even some windsurfers and kitesurfers bother with having a helmet. Just saying.[/quote]
I suggest you have a chat with trauma and neuro surgeons about all those cases they see from car accidents. Despite air bags etc, auto accidents cause the greatest amount of head trauma – no great call to make helmets compulsory in cars is there?
MoominPappa wrote:
“It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling.”
And that is why helmet propaganda and promotion is so pernicious. No benefit, massive unintended consequences and costs borne by individuals.
— MoominPappa I suggest that you have a word with trauma and neuro surgeons. See what they have to say about it. Although I agree it should be personal choice for (adult) cyclists as opposed to being mandatory. And those cops sound like complete redneck busybodies. Also if it didn’t work I don’t know why motorcycle riders, all sorts of rock climbers, paraglider pilots, even some windsurfers and kitesurfers bother with having a helmet. Just saying.— burtthebike
You’re looking at the data in the wrong way.
If you have an accident and hit your head a helmet will very likely reduce the severity of that injury. No one denies that. But if drivers treat you like a motorcyclist because you wear a helmet then that negates the risk reduction. And that is the measure, a reduction in risk, a reduction in the number of incidents per mile cycled, not a reduction of severity of injury per occurrence of injury.
If you look at the ratio of helmet wearing in cyclists who get knocked off bikes, over 60% wear helmets, so on that basis wearing a helmet is a risk factor in being knocked off.
So it should be up to the individual to choose for themselves, children excluded.
MoominPappa wrote:
“It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling.”
And that is why helmet propaganda and promotion is so pernicious. No benefit, massive unintended consequences and costs borne by individuals.
— MoominPappa if it didn’t work I don’t know why motorcycle riders, all sorts of rock climbers, paraglider pilots, even some windsurfers and kitesurfers bother with having a helmet. Just saying.— burtthebike
You forgot cricket batsmen, NFL stars, ice hockey players and porn stars that haven’t passed an AIDS test.
burtthebike wrote:
You’ve taken the well known negative effects of compulsory helmet laws and extrapolated wildly.
Where is your evidence that requiring helmets on a sportive or leisure ride damages cycling?
Where is your evidence that any form of helmet promotion damages cycling?
Rich_cb wrote:
Admittedly I haven’t found any evidence that, since legal compulsion results in the unintended consequence* of reduction in cyclist numbers, their promotion and mandating in some events also has unintended consequences of a similar nature.
But I think it’s pretty logical to assume that it’d be a sliding scale (ie. somewhere between zero effect and full-on Aussie) and there are examples on here of people who won’t consider certain events because helmets are mandatory.
Do you think it’s logical, in the face of evidence that legal compulsion reduces numbers of cycling, that other forms of promotion and mandating have zero consequences of similar nature?
* You have to wonder, when there is a fair amount of evidence regarding unintended consequences, whether the consequences are actually unintended.
davel wrote:
Just thought my many fans would expect me to post, so here goes.
“It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling.”
And that is why helmet propaganda and promotion is so pernicious. No benefit, massive unintended consequences and costs borne by individuals.
Helmet laws and propaganda have two proven effects: a fall in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets, there is no safety benefit. Anyone promoting helmets, demanding helmet laws or having helmet rules for their leisure rides is doing harm to cycling generally.
— davel You’ve taken the well known negative effects of compulsory helmet laws and extrapolated wildly. Where is your evidence that requiring helmets on a sportive or leisure ride damages cycling? Where is your evidence that any form of helmet promotion damages cycling?— Rich_cb Admittedly I haven’t found any evidence that, since legal compulsion results in the unintended consequence* of reduction in cyclist numbers, their promotion and mandating in some events also has unintended consequences of a simar nature. But I think it’s pretty logical to assume that it’d be a sliding scale (ie. somewhere between zero effect and full-on Aussie) and there are examples on here of people who won’t consider certain events because helmets are mandatory. Do you think it’s logical, in the face of evidence that legal compulsion reduces numbers of cycling, that other forms of promotion and mandating have zero consequences of similar nature? * You have to wonder, when there is a fair amount of evidence regarding unintended consequences, whether the consequences are actually unintended.— burtthebike
I’m sayin’ nuffink!
davel wrote:
So there’s no evidence for Burt’s assertions.
I am shocked. Shocked.
I don’t think its logical to assume that promotion will have the same or similar effect as (strictly enforced) compulsion.
Helmets have been quite widely promoted in the UK for years and the number of sportives grows every year.
Despite this cycling is growing in popularity.
Rich_cb wrote:
So there’s no evidence for Burt’s assertions.
I am shocked. Shocked.
I don’t think its logical to assume that promotion will have the same effect as (strictly enforced) compulsion.
Helmets have been quite widely promoted in the UK for years and the number of sportives grows every year.
Despite this cycling is growing in popularity.— davel
I didn’t say ‘the same effect’, did I?
Do you think there’ll be zero effect?
If you think, as I do, that there’ll be negative effects, then it just becomes an ideological evidence-less bunfight about where exactly on the scale you put it. And that goes for you and me.
davel wrote:
I actually edited the post straight after I wrote it to say ‘Same or similar’.
As I said compulsion produces a large drop in participation.
Promotion and sportives don’t appear to produce any drop in participation.
Any effect, if there even is one, is therefore likely to be quite small and certainly nowhere near the magnitude of the effect of compulsion.
The onus is really on Burt to provide the evidence for his claim.
Rich_cb wrote:
All relative and immeasurable.
We probably disagree on the scale, but you can no more back up the ‘closer to zero on the scale’ claim anymore than I can the ‘closer to Oz on the scale’ claim.
Evidence for an increase in cycling participation isn’t the same as evidence that participation is unaffected – we have really shitty modal share compared to civilised countries that wear helmets much less than we do (I know there are loads of other factors, which is why I’m not staking my claim on that – or anything, as I’m admitting it won’t be ‘proved’ [as in, it causes n% impact] either way).
What we do agree on, seemingly, is that it’ll be on that scale somewhere, as does Burt.
So why is the onus on Burt to provide evidence any more than it is on you or me?
davel wrote:
Because Burt made the claim.
Not hard to figure out that the person making the claim should provide the evidence.
All I did was ask him for the evidence. It turns out it’s spurious at best.
Rich_cb wrote:
Isn’t it odd that it’s only the people against helmet compulsion and propaganda who have to provide proof? If only that applied to the helmet zealots.
Rich_cb wrote:
Claim vs counter-claim.
Not hard to figure out that if there was sufficient evidence to the contrary, you’ve shot his argument down by now.
And before we get all semanticsey, I’m not asking you to prove a negative, here. Like I said, we’re all arguing ideologically over our largely unprovable stance on the scale of how much damage enforcing helmets on sportives etc does. That’s why it’s a bit much to demand evidence without any of your own.
davel wrote:
It’s really nothing like what you’re describing.
Burt has made several claims.
I’ve asked for the evidence that support those claims.
That’s it.
If it’s unprovable then Burt should really not be making his claim in the first place as it’s a hunch at best and a lie at worst.
Rich_cb wrote:
You keep asking for evidence and when I supply it, you either ignore it or deny it. Nowt so blind…….
Try googling for cognitive dissonance.
How many shares do you have in helmet manufacturers?
burtthebike wrote:
You’ve provided no evidence for your sportive/leisure ride claim.
You’ve provided 1 table from 1 paper published 22 years ago to back up your helmet promotion claim.
That table only shows a correlation. Multiple alternative explanations for that correlation exist.
The rest of the paper isn’t freely available so it’s impossible to scrutinise method or even read the authors’ comments about the correlation.
Forgive me if I’m a tad sceptical especially given your track record for evidence free statements.
Rich_cb wrote:
So there’s no evidence for Burt’s assertions. I am shocked. Shocked. I don’t think its logical to assume that promotion will have the same or similar effect as (strictly enforced) compulsion. Helmets have been quite widely promoted in the UK for years and the number of sportives grows every year. Despite this cycling is growing in popularity.— davel
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1020.html
You must be in a perpetual state of shock.
Rides such as sportives may be growing, but utility cycling isn’t, and I personally think it is rather more important to get non-cyclists riding to the shops, school, college and work than it is to have a few hundred people pretending to race on a weekend.
burtthebike wrote:
I am actually quite shocked that you have any evidence at all. Makes a welcome change.
What you’ve got is a fairly weak correlation to back up the helmet promotion claim.
Sharks and Ice Cream springs to mind.
Anything to back up the sportive claim?
Rich_cb wrote:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1020.html
You must be in a perpetual state of shock.
Rides such as sportives may be growing, but utility cycling isn’t, and I personally think it is rather more important to get non-cyclists riding to the shops, school, college and work than it is to have a few hundred people pretending to race on a weekend.
— Rich_cb I am actually quite shocked that you have any evidence at all. Makes a welcome change. What you’ve got is a fairly weak correlation to back up the helmet promotion claim. Sharks and Ice Cream springs to mind. Anything to back up the sportive claim?— burtthebike
Well, as I suggested, you must be in a permanent state of shock if someone providing proof induces that state in you. Have you considered minfullness or yoga?
“Anything to back up the sportive claim?” What claim? I claimed nothing about sportives. I’m shocked that you can ask a totally baseless question.
burtthebike wrote:
You’ll probably claim that sportives aren’t leisure rides so I’ll rephrase to avoid that tedium.
Any evidence for your leisure rides claim?
Rich_cb wrote:
Well, as I suggested, you must be in a permanent state of shock if someone providing proof induces that state in you. Have you considered minfullness or yoga?
“Anything to back up the sportive claim?” What claim? I claimed nothing about sportives. I’m shocked that you can ask a totally baseless question.
Anyone promoting helmets, demanding helmet laws or having helmet rules for their leisure rides is doing harm to cycling generally.— Rich_cb You’ll probably claim that sportives aren’t leisure rides so I’ll rephrase to avoid that tedium. Any evidence for your leisure rides claim?— burtthebike
Since the point of the third sentence of mine that you quoted is that sportives are leisure rides, I am totally baffled by your assertion that I would claim that they aren’t. And shocked, of course.
Having helmet rules for leisure rides is part of the helmet culture and dangerises cycling, implying that it is far riskier than other activities like walking, for which no special safety gear is required. Sportives are just fantasists pretending to be professional racers, so they have to have a helmet rule to maintain the illusion and get the dreamers to cough up the exorbitant fees.
burtthebike wrote:
So that’s a no to evidence then?
Rich_cb wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY&vl=en
It is worth watching the whole video, but your evidence is at 13 minutes.
Experious wrote:
Correlation is not causation.
There’s a really good correlation between the voluntary increase in bicycle helmet wearing in the UK and a decrease in cyclist KSIs and serious head injuries.
As has been extensively discussed on another thread that doesn’t prove causation either.
Rich_cb wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY&vl=en
It is worth watching the whole video, but your evidence is at 13 minutes.
— Rich_cb Correlation is not causation. There’s a really good correlation between the voluntary increase in bicycle helmet wearing in the UK and a decrease in cyclist KSIs and serious head injuries. As has been extensively discussed on another thread that doesn’t prove causation either.— Experious
Doesn’t stop you arguing for causation there, though.
And, weirdly, against it, here.
Your stance (simplified massively) is:
More helmets; fewer KSIs = causation.
More helmets; fewer cyclists ≠ causation.
What I think that gives us is strong evidence of Rich_cb’s bias.
davel wrote:
Misrepresentation as usual.
I never argued that it proved causation.
In fact I explicitly stated that it did not on multiple occasions.
So my position has been consistent.
As you’re so keen on consistency I’m assuming you refuse to accept that helmet laws and helmet promotion reduce cycling?
Wouldn’t want anyone to accuse you of bias after all.
Rich_cb wrote:
Doesn’t stop you arguing for causation there, though.
And, weirdly, against it, here.
Your stance (simplified massively) is:
More helmets; fewer KSIs = causation.
More helmets; fewer cyclists ≠ causation.
What I think that gives us is strong evidence of Rich_cb’s bias.
— Rich_cb Misrepresentation as usual. I never argued that it proved causation. In fact I explicitly stated that it did not on multiple occasions. So my position has been consistent. As you’re so keen on consistency I’m assuming you refuse to accept that helmet laws and helmet promotion reduce cycling? Wouldn’t want anyone to accuse you of bias after all.— davel
Nice try.
I have never argued that an increase in helmet-wearing didn’t result in a decrease in KSIs. Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t.
I argued that the evidence for a correlation put forward by you was pretty weak.
Now, if you’d like to explain how that’s inconsistent with believing that helmet promotion might just have some negative unintended consequences, I’ve got a few mins free and I’m up for a chuckle at some pictures…
(I think your position is even worse if it is as you say it is. On the one hand, you recognise a correlation that you’re happy to tie to helmets. On the other, you see a correlation that has to be explained away by something other than ‘helmets’.
The difference? One makes helmets look good, the other makes helmets look bad. Total bias.)
davel wrote:
It’s all to do with the strength of the evidence. In this case the correlation is provided via an unverifiable table and a YouTube video.
Forgive me for being sceptical.
In the previous thread there was a huge amount of high quality data over the course of a decade.
Rich_cb wrote:
Nice try.
I have never argued that an increase in helmet-wearing didn’t result in a decrease in KSIs. Maybe it did, maybe it didn’t.
I argued that the evidence for a correlation put forward by you was pretty weak.
Now, if you’d like to explain how that’s inconsistent with believing that helmet promotion might just have some negative unintended consequences, I’ve got a few mins free and I’m up for a chuckle at some pictures…
(I think your position is even worse if it is as you say it is. On the one hand, you recognise a correlation that you’re happy to tie to helmets. On the other, you see a correlation that has to be explained away by something other than ‘helmets’.
The difference? One makes helmets look good, the other makes helmets look bad. Total bias.)
— Rich_cb It’s all to do with the strength of the evidence. In this case the correlation is provided via an unverifiable table and a YouTube video. Forgive me for being sceptical. In the previous thread there was a huge amount of high quality data over the course of a decade.— davel
Valid argument… I haven’t had a look at the sources quoted here.
How do the correlations themselves compare?
davel wrote:
I don’t think they’re anywhere near as convincing.
In both examples the data appears to be limited to one year so it’s impossible to assess the trend.
The raw data isn’t readily available for scrutiny so the method can’t be assessed for either example.
Based on that I’d say it’s pretty poor quality evidence for helmet promotion harming cycling.
By contrast the correlation between mandatory helmet laws and decreasing cycling has been demonstrated in several different jurisdictions with high quality datasets, therefore despite it just being a correlation I’m convinced by that relationship.
Rich_cb]
Indeed. All the long term, large scale, scientific research done by disinterested researchers using robust methodology shows one thing; cycle helmets don’t reduce risk. All the short term, small scale, unscientific research done by blatantly biased researchers using the lowest rated for reliability methodology shows that cycle helmets are fantastically effective.
Yes, it’s the strength of the evidence.
burtthebike wrote:
All evidence that you agree with is high quality and objective.
All evidence you disagree with is poor quality and biased.
You do amuse me Burt.
Its just as well we have a
Its just as well we have a good quality assessment of all the evidence to help us.
The two guys I link to below are scientists, one a medical doctor. They are not neurosurgeons but their specialties, as their job titles indicate, rather more relevant to assessing evidence of this kind. Note the title of the second page I link to.
Indeed. All the long term, large scale, scientific research done by disinterested researchers using robust methodology shows one thing; cycle helmets don’t reduce risk. All the short term, small scale, unscientific research done by blatantly biased researchers using the lowest rated for reliability methodology shows that cycle helmets are fantastically effective.
Yes, it’s the strength of the evidence.
— Rich_cb All evidence that you agree with is high quality and objective. All evidence you disagree with is poor quality and biased. You do amuse me Burt.— burtthebike
Ben Goldacre, the Wellcome fellow in epidemiology, and David Spiegelhalter, the Winton professor for the public understanding of risk, looked at the evidence for cycle helmet efficacy, and published their conclusions in the British Medical Journal.
They write that the direct benefits of helmets are “too modest to capture.” I think this means that the could find no evidence that they work, don’t you?
http://www.badscience.net/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2013-12-13-17.12.05.png
http://www.badscience.net/2013/12/bicycle-helmets-and-the-law-a-perfect-teaching-case-for-epidemiology/
felixcat wrote:
No.
It shows the opinions of two researchers, other researchers have different opinions.
Hence the ongoing debate.
Burt was claiming that all research that has shown benefit from helmets was either poor quality or biased.
I don’t think that’s the case. Do you?
Rich_cb wrote:
Its just as well we have a good quality assessment of all the evidence to help us.
The two guys I link to below are scientists, one a medical doctor. They are not neurosurgeons but their specialties, as their job titles indicate, rather more relevant to assessing evidence of this kind. Note the title of the second page I link to.
Ben Goldacre, the Wellcome fellow in epidemiology, and David Spiegelhalter, the Winton professor for the public understanding of risk, looked at the evidence for cycle helmet efficacy, and published their conclusions in the British Medical Journal.
They write that the direct benefits of helmets are “too modest to capture.” I think this means that the could find no evidence that they work, don’t you?
— Rich_cb No. It shows the opinions of two researchers, other researchers have different opinions. Hence the ongoing debate. Burt was claiming that all research that has shown benefit from helmets was either poor quality or biased. I don’t think that’s the case. Do you?— felixcat
I can see that you are determined to defend your position.
Fair enough, but the research Burt was talking about is bilge like the Thompson, Rivara, Thompson paper which claimed to show that helmets would prevent 85% of head injuries. If this happened in the real world there would be no argument. Helmeteers often quote this 85% figure though. It can be taken as a sure sign that they don’t know what they are talking about.
The sort of studies which support helmet efficacy are often case study types. That is, they look at cyclists with injuries and how they came by them. Trouble is, wearers are often nice middle class families riding in pleasant parks. Non wearers though, tend to be more of the urban outlaw type.
R
Using Rivara’s methodology and figures you can show that helmets protect against leg injuries.
The studies which show helmets don’t work are whole population studies, like the “experiments” in Oz and NZ. They require less statistical manipulation.
When the wearing rate in Oz went from about a third to near 100% overnight because of the law, the injury and deathg rate should have tumbled. In fact it went up slightly. Figures from Oz. Gov.
In NZ. the injury rate near doubled against a big decrease in cycling numbers. I don’t think this was because the sheep turned nasty. According to Rivara et al. the rate should have dropped, because wearing rates went up to near 100% when the law came in. Figures from NZ. Gov.
felixcat wrote:
You can’t extrapolate data from compulsory helmet use countries to non compulsory use countries.
Compulsory helmet laws reduce the numbers of cyclists (strong correlation) but they are not likely to do so uniformly. Those groups with high helmet wearing rates prior to the law, eg road cyclists, are likely to be far less affected by it and therefore suffer less of a drop.
Road cyclists are a higher risk group so the overall risk profile of the cycling population will change.
If you look at the UK data you can see a voluntary increase in helmet wearing that correlates very strongly with a drop in cyclist KSIs and head injuries.
At the moment all we have is case control studies so we have to interpret them as best we can given, as you pointed out, the large amount of caveats attached to such studies.
Until somebody does a randomised control trial we’ll never know for certain if helmets produce benefits at the individual level so it’s up to each person to look at the evidence and make their own decision.
Rich_cb wrote:
You can’t extrapolate data from compulsory helmet use countries to non compulsory use countries. Compulsory helmet laws reduce the numbers of cyclists (strong correlation) but they are not likely to do so uniformly. Those groups with high helmet wearing rates prior to the law, eg road cyclists, are likely to be far less affected by it and therefore suffer less of a drop. Road cyclists are a higher risk group so the overall risk profile of the cycling population will change. If you look at the UK data you can see a voluntary increase in helmet wearing that correlates very strongly with a drop in cyclist KSIs and head injuries. At the moment all we have is case control studies so we have to interpret them as best we can given, as you pointed out, the large amount of caveats attached to such studies. Until somebody does a randomised control trial we’ll never know for certain if helmets produce benefits at the individual level so it’s up to each person to look at the evidence and make their own decision.[/quote]
One of the problems is that in Oz and NZ, certain USA jurisdictions and UK if certain politicians get their way, is that it is not up to each person to make their own decision, and, as you concede, laws reduce cycling which I think we all see as a bad thing.
The point about using compulsory studies is that a law produces a sudden large jump in wearing rates which makes it much easier to seperate the effect of wearing from general noise and more gradual changes in behaviour of drivers and cyclists and other changes in the law.
I don’t think that your guess about different kinds of cyclists can account for the NZ changes. It seems odd to suggest that more expert cyclists are more accident prone. In any case, deterence of more casual, less commited cyclists is one of the reasons that laws are a bad thing. We are left with a cycling population like Oz’s, young men, intrepid and somewhat inurred to the risks. Not like the Dutch, where nearly everyone cycles, and the population are tall and healthy, unlike Australia which is one of the most obese countries in the world.
I return to my original observation. Some countries have helmet laws, and /or cyclists called by the non cycling population, “lycra louts.” They have low levels of cycling, high rates of helmet wearing and high rates of injury (and obesity). Other countries have high levels of cycling, done by unhelmetted people in ordinary clothes, low injury rates and healthy people.
Now I would not claim, of course, that wearing a helmet or not will make all the difference, it is clearly a question of cycling culture and road conditions. I would claim that putting most of the pressure on cyclists to wear polystyrene distracts from the things which need to be done, and which would make a difference.
I also appreciate that this website is not a place likely to give an unbiased hearing to my views. Most of its inhabitants want nothing more than to be taken for a professional. It was a shrewd move by the helmeteers to make the pros wear helmets.
felixcat wrote:
I’m completely opposed to mandatory helmet laws for the same reasons as you.
I still maintain that data from countries which do have such laws is not applicable to countries without them.
You can get an increase in population risk without any increase in individual risk simply by altering the composition of the population.
Different groups of cyclists clearly have different risk profiles.
Different groups of cyclists also have different rates of voluntary helmet wearing.
It stands to reason that upon the introduction of a mandatory helmet law the groups with high voluntary wearing rates would see a smaller decline in participation than those groups with low voluntary rates.
Therefore the risk profile of the groups with the high voluntary wearing rates would become more prominent in the national risk profile.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’m completely opposed to mandatory helmet laws for the same reasons as you. I still maintain that data from countries which do have such laws is not applicable to countries without them. You can get an increase in population risk without any increase in individual risk simply by altering the composition of the population. Different groups of cyclists clearly have different risk profiles. Different groups of cyclists also have different rates of voluntary helmet wearing. It stands to reason that upon the introduction of a mandatory helmet law the groups with high voluntary wearing rates would see a smaller decline in participation than those groups with low voluntary rates. Therefore the risk profile of the groups with the high voluntary wearing rates would become more prominent in the national risk profile.[/quote]
Your idea that the failure of helmet compulsion to save lives is conjecture, motivated by a belief that there must surely be something wrong. You have no evidence.
For the idea to make any sense you have to suppose that the non-wearers before compulsion, whose removal from the cycling population increases the head injury rate, were, in spite of their lack of a helmet, safer cyclists than the wearers of a helmet. Do you mean this? It does not say a lot for helmet efficacy. Perhaps wearers are led into danger by their feeling of safety.
Incidentally there are other activities which can result in head injury, as you must know.
Pedestrians and car passengers are about as much at risk as cyclists. Why is there no call for helmets all round. There will be more of them in the average head injury ward than cyclists. Why is cycling thought of as uniquely dangerous?
felixcat wrote:
I am trying to emphasise that there is more than one possible explanation for the injury trends seen post mandatory helmet law in Oz/NZ etc.
The lower risk cyclists are not necessarily safer per second merely engaged in a type of cycling farmless likely to cause them injury.
For example, a leisurely cycle around a park could be a low risk activity while a rush hour commute on busy roads could be a high risk activity.
If helmet laws discourage leisurely park cyclists while commuters remained undeterred then the overall injury rate per km will increase even if the commute has actually got ever so slightly safer.
Rich_cb wrote:
I really can’t make out your argument here.
You are saying that when you introduce a law, you mostly deter cyclists who don’t wear a helmet voluntarily, thus changing the population of cyclists.
But would you not expect that to cause the injury rate to go _down_, given that in your view, not wearing a helmet increases risk, therefore choosing not to wear a helmet is a sign of risk-taking behaviour?
By your own logic then, if you deter that kind of risk-embracing cyclist, and only keep the risk-averse ones who already wear helmets, the rate of injury should go down. Yet you seem to be saying this change in composition can explain away the rate going _up_. What is your argument here?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I’m arguing that there are high and low risk types of cycling.
If higher risk cyclists were more likely to wear helmets voluntarily and hence less likely to be deterred by mandatory helmets then the proportion of the cycling population engaged in higher risk cycling will increase post mandation.
The consequence will be an increase in the population risk while the individual risk remains unchanged or even decreases.
Rich_cb wrote:
More unevidenced suppositions.
Are you really suggesting that the risk averse cyclists don’t wear helmets while the risk takers do?
Seems unlikely.
In any case, the result of mandation has proved to be an increase in risk per mile cycled.
You are really scrabbling around now.
felixcat wrote:
There’s no more evidence for the idea that increased helmet use is directly responsible for the increased risk.
Correlation is not causation.
I’m suggesting that helmet wearing among participants in high risk activities is higher than among participants in low risk activities.
That is what you would logically expect.
The increase in risk per mile travelled is what you would expect to see in the scenario I described.
Rich_cb wrote:
More unevidenced suppositions.
Are you really suggesting that the risk averse cyclists don’t wear helmets while the risk takers do?
Seems unlikely.
In any case, the result of mandation has proved to be an increase in risk per mile cycled.
You are really scrabbling around now.
— Rich_cb There’s no more evidence for the idea that increased helmet use is directly responsible for the increased risk. Correlation is not causation. I’m suggesting that helmet wearing among participants in high risk activities is higher than among participants in low risk activities. That is what you would logically expect. The increase in risk per mile travelled is what you would expect to see in the scenario I described.— felixcat
The invariable association of helmet laws and increased casualty rates shows very clearly that helmets are not the answer to the problem. There is no example of laws working.
All cyclists use the same roads, slow or fast, helmet wearing or not, we all have to deal with the same motorists. There is no way in which one sort of cycling is a high risk sport, but another is not.
You really have no basis on which to rest your suppositions.
Cycling is not, should not be, an extreme sport, needing a helmet. If it is given that appearance, as it is in this country, we are all the losers. We should join in making cycling safe enough for your young children to ride to school. Putting them in a helmet does not do it.
Stop der kindermoord!
felixcat wrote:
Seriously?
A trip through central London in rush hour is equally as risky as Sunday ride down a quiet cycle path?
Of course it isn’t.
I’m not arguing.im favour of helmet laws, I’m arguing against the assumption that it must have been the increase in helmet wearing that caused the increased population level risk.
Rich_cb wrote:
The invariable association of helmet laws and increased casualty rates shows very clearly that helmets are not the answer to the problem. There is no example of laws working.
All cyclists use the same roads, slow or fast, helmet wearing or not, we all have to deal with the same motorists. There is no way in which one sort of cycling is a high risk sport, but another is not.
You really have no basis on which to rest your suppositions.
Cycling is not, should not be, an extreme sport, needing a helmet. If it is given that appearance, as it is in this country, we are all the losers. We should join in making cycling safe enough for your young children to ride to school. Putting them in a helmet does not do it.
Stop der kindermoord!
— Rich_cb Seriously? A trip through central London in rush hour is equally as risky as Sunday ride down a quiet cycle path? Of course it isn’t. I’m not arguing.im favour of helmet laws, I’m arguing against the assumption that it must have been the increase in helmet wearing that caused the increased population level risk.— felixcat
And I’m arguing that helmets have failed to make any difference to casualty rates. And that they are a distraction from what would work, and an alibi for the dangerous. Do you see commuting as a high risk activity which demands a helmet, though they have never been shown to reduce casualties? If you are happy for cycling to remain an activity for young, brave young men, I am not, and helmets have no prospect of making cycling safe.
Whereas the Dutch revolted against the casualty rates for the vulnerable, and a few decades ago began a policy which has made cycling safe enough for most children to ride to school, for normal people to shop and commute by bike. It worked.
felixcat wrote:
More unevidenced suppositions.
Are you really suggesting that the risk averse cyclists don’t wear helmets while the risk takers do?
Seems unlikely.
In any case, the result of mandation has proved to be an increase in risk per mile cycled.
You are really scrabbling around now.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
In fairness, I can think of a charitable take on CB’s argument. Even if it’s not the one he himself went on to use.
Rather than ‘safe’ park-riding vs ‘dangerous’ commuting (just how much park riding is there, really? Is there even enough to affect the figures?), I was about to assume he meant ‘risky, helmet-using, mountain-biking and fast cross-country trail-riding’, vs ‘commuting and other utility cycling, where helmets are far less likely to be of any help in the kind of accidents users are likely to be involved in, and where people are more likely to find it a nuisance to wear them’.
Ironic that he himself put commuting on the other side of the equation. It doesn’t make sense to me to put utility cycling on the ‘high risk/helmet wearing’ side.
But maybe it could be that the post-law figures include a higher proportion of non-urban ‘sporty’ cyclists? Who are more likely to wear a helmet but also fall off mountains and cycle into trees more frequently?
Even so, if that’s the case, then it means the law has deterred the very kind of cycling that is most important to overall health.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Look at the accident statistics for KSI by time of day.
Commuting is relatively high risk.
Also commuters are.less.likely to be deterred by a helmet law as they still need to get to work.
So a relatively high risk group who are less.likely to be dissauded from cycling by a helmet law.
As I’ve said before I’m not arguing in favour of mandatory helmet laws, I’m simply challenging the assumption that it was the increase in helmet wearing that led to the increased population level risk.
An alternative explanation is that it was change in the risk profile of the population itself.
Rich_cb wrote:
Commuting is relatively high risk. Also commuters are.less.likely to be deterred by a helmet law as they still need to get to work.
So a relatively high risk group who are less.likely to be dissauded from cycling by a helmet law.
As I’ve said before I’m not arguing in favour of mandatory helmet laws, I’m simply challenging the assumption that it was the increase in helmet wearing that led to the increased population level risk.
An alternative explanation is that it was change in the risk profile of the population itself.— Rich_cb
I’ve looked at the statistics for KSI by time of day (see link at the bottom) and it says the following:
‘The weekday peak time for pedal cyclist KSIs is from ‘7am to 10am and from 4pm to 7pm. Collisions during these hours account for around 40 per cent of all pedal cyclist KSIs. This is generally in line with the timing of activity data recorded in the National Travel Survey (NTS).
This would suggest that the increased number of KSIs at peak commuting times is in line with the increased number of cyclists who happen to be commuting at those times. This would mean that they are not a particularly high-risk group after all.
What you have done is to make an assumption and in the absence of evidence to support your claim, you have presented it as a self-evident truth
You say you are challenging assumptions, yet you are doing so with a whole load of assumptions of your own (some of which are in the quoted text above, highlighted in bold).
Given that you have previously said ‘That is what you would logically expect’ to support your argument, allow me to present another logical explanation to support not only the idea that helmet promotion can lead to a decrease in participation but also explains (one reason) why some women choose not to cycle, resulting in fewer women cycling when compared to men.
Women are far more likely to be affected by helmet-hair and also more likely to be concerned about helmet-hair in the first place. They have 3 choices:
The mere promotion of a helmet being necessary to keep oneself safe could deter someone from choosing option 2. So then the choice boils down to cycle and suffer helmet-hair or to not cycle. If the desire to avoid helmet hair is strong enough, the result would be to choose to not cycle.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/686969/pedal-cycle-factsheet-2017.pdf
Pudsey Pedaller wrote:
You’re assuming that there are no periods/activities when the accident rate per mile is lower. Welcome to the assumption club.
Commuters were merely given as an example, the point is that helmet laws can change the risk profile of the cycling population as they do not affect all groups of cyclists equally.
You’ve actually provided evidence for that argument by highlighting a group who are more likely to be dissuaded by helmet legislation.
Rich_cb wrote:
This is why it’s hard to take you seriously. If you think it supports your case, it’s evidence, if you think it harms your case it isn’t. I’ve looked at the KSI statistics as you suggested and there is nothing in there to indicate commuting is higher risk activity. You implied the statistics would support your case but they don’t. Now you’re saying they don’t disprove your case. Fine, but that still leaves you lacking any evidence other than ‘it stands to reason’.
Also, what I presented wasn’t actually evidence (though there is evidence to support it), it was a logical assumption.
Likewise, if it supports the ‘compulsion’ argument, you agree, if it supports the ‘promotion’ argument you disagree, yet if we use logical assumptions as you have done, there would still be a negative effect of cycling participation when promoting helmet use.
Compulsory helmet use
Promotion of helmet use
Z% non-cyclists don’t start cycling because the choice is between wearing a helmet or the exaggerated risk of being KSI’d
In each case, the figures for X, Y and Z may differ based on when and where the scenarios play out and based on how heavy the promotion is / how strict the compulsion is enforced. This is why it was put to you that the effect of promotion would be impossible to quantify but would still sit somewhere on a sliding scale.
Pudsey Pedaller wrote:
Additionally, compulsion laws are usually preceded/accompanied by pretty heavy promotion/propaganda, so it’s already in the compulsion mix.
Pudsey wrote:
You seem to be missing my point.
I’m saying that after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws it is highly unlikely that the cycling population will have the same composition as it did pre mandation.
The commuter example was just to demonstrate that different groups have different risk profiles, commuting will be relatively high risk compared to some activities.
The evidence against helmet promotion is pretty weak, the one table that is bandied around is difficult to verify as the original paper is hard to obtain.
Rich_cb wrote:
Promotion doesn’t work? A culture has little effect?
So other road-related campaigns, like the drink driving ones, and the clunk click one, or those not connected to specific laws such as ‘think bike’ or the green cross code… they’re ineffective?
Or do bike helmets also protect you from peer pressure and catchy slogans?
Rich_cb wrote:
Compared to what activities though? And where is your evidence, because the KSI statistics by time of day you alluded to don’t support this claim? My point, which you appear to be missing, is that you are supporting your position with logical assumptions about what you feel should be true, in this case that commuting is a relative high risk activity. I expanded on this point by demonstrating how logical assumptions can lead us to conclude that merely promoting helmet use can negatively affect participation in cycling.
Pudsey Pedaller wrote:
It’s just an example.
Do you think that all types of cycling have the exact same level of risk associated with them?
Rich_cb wrote:
Compared to what activities though? And where is your evidence, because the KSI statistics by time of day you alluded to don’t support this claim? My point, which you appear to be missing, is that you are supporting your position with logical assumptions about what you feel should be true, in this case that commuting is a relative high risk activity. I expanded on this point by demonstrating how logical assumptions can lead us to conclude that merely promoting helmet use can negatively affect participation in cycling.
— Rich_cb It’s just an example. Do you think that all types of cycling have the exact same level of risk associated with them?— Pudsey Pedaller
Just living has a risk, and the evidence shows that people who ride bikes live longer and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than average. A proven effect of helmet laws and propagands is to deter some people from cycling, thus losing the overwhelming health benefits.
Splitting hairs by trying to differentiate which type of cycling is more or less dangerous is frankly an admission that you’ve lost the argument and are clutching at straws.
burtthebike wrote:
The point of this thread is that it’s not a proven effective of either.
With helmet laws the correlation with a drop in participation is strong enough to satisfy most people that the two are directly related.
That is definitely not the case with helmet promotion.
The discussion about different levels of risk in different groups of cyclists is completely separate.
How did your ranking of study evidence go by the way?
Funny that after all that work you didn’t realise case control studies are considered higher quality than population level studies.
Rich_cb wrote:
This is a bit silly, isn’t it?
How do you propose to compare the two? You realise, of course, that with laws we have public implementation dates, and people interested in the effects of those laws collecting data on them. Not so with promotion.
So you’re happy that compulsion laws introduce the unintended consequences that dissuade people from cycling. Compulsion laws that carry a heavy degree of promotion, campaigns, awareness alongside them.
But mere promotion, without the laws, doesn’t have those unintended consequences? Simply removing the legal aspect removes the unintended consequences? Do you even know that the unintended consequences seen in NZ or Oz haven’t been brought about mainly through the promotion?
Or is it that the promotion of helmets in the UK hasn’t been effective, so hasn’t had any consequences, intended or unintended, positive or negative (you’ve got a cheeky graph that shows that that isn’t the case, haven’t you)?
Please explain.
Rich_cb wrote:
Just living has a risk, and the evidence shows that people who ride bikes live longer and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than average. A proven effect of helmet laws and propagands is to deter some people from cycling, thus losing the overwhelming health benefits.
Splitting hairs by trying to differentiate which type of cycling is more or less dangerous is frankly an admission that you’ve lost the argument and are clutching at straws.
— Rich_cb The point of this thread is that it’s not a proven effective of either. With helmet laws the correlation with a drop in participation is strong enough to satisfy most people that the two are directly related. That is definitely not the case with helmet promotion. The discussion about different levels of risk in different groups of cyclists is completely separate. How did your ranking of study evidence go by the way? Funny that after all that work you didn’t realise case control studies are considered higher quality than population level studies.— burtthebike
JHC, where to start?
“The point of this thread is that it’s not a proven effective of either.” Literally doesn’t make sense.
“With helmet laws the correlation with a drop in participation is strong enough to satisfy most people that the two are directly related. That is definitely not the case with helmet promotion.” Actually that is definitely the case for some people, who do believe that helmet propaganda reduces the level of cycling.
“The discussion about different levels of risk in different groups of cyclists is completely separate.” A subject you introduced to distract from your complete failure to prove anything.
“How did your ranking of study evidence go by the way?” Since I have absolutely no intention of doing one, it is complete. Yet another example of you introducing some random concept to distract from your failure to prove your case.
“Funny that after all that work you didn’t realise case control studies are considered higher quality than population level studies.” Very funny, since intenational scales for the reliability of research rates case control studies lowest, and whole population studies much higher. You’re not clutching at straws any more, you’re rambling off into some parallel universe.
burtthebike wrote:
Effective is an erroneous autocorrect from effect.
Some does not equal most.
If some people are happy with a single data point with unclear methodology from 22 years ago that’s up to them.
You implied earlier that all the helmet research had been assessed and ranked according to established hierarchies of evidence. I assumed you meant that was done by yourself. If not, by whom?
Which hierarchy of evidence are you using which places population level studies above case-control studies?
Please provide a link or a reference to this system of classification.
Just to clarify a cohort study is not, by definition, a population level study.
The standard hierarchy of evidence is RCT> Cohort>Case Control> Observational/Cross Sectional (These are population level studies).
Rich_cb wrote:
Your argument doesn’t make any sense to me. As previous poster pointed out, the ‘time of day’ figures don’t show that commuting is ‘high risk’.
It also says nothing about whether the nature of the risk for commuters is of the type that a helmet might help with. My own doubts about helmets are partly down to the fact that what I fear most when cycling on busy roads is being crushed by a lorry or being hit by a vehicle travelling at very high speeds, and I don’t think a helmet will help at all in those cases. (I think it might if I’m doored, I concede that, and that’s a major part of why I usually wear one, along with wimpishly bowing to social pressure).
Furthermore, I disagree 100% that commuters are unlikely to be deterred – they are likely to adopt a different mode of transport (as the vast majority of commuters already do, so you can hardly argue it’s hard to imagine!)
It’s sports/serious recreational cyclists, for whom cycling is something they make a special effort to do anyway (e.g. putting the bike in the 4×4 and driving off to the country), who are less likely to be put off by having to have a bit of extra equipment – needing special kit is common to sports of all kinds. People engaged in those kinds of activities seem to _like_ buying specialist bits of kit.
Though I would have thought there would be data out there somewhere to show what happens in each case.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
You seem to have ignored my use of the word ‘relative’. Unless you believe commuting to be the safest form of cycling available then it will be relatively high risk compared to another type.
I’m not arguing that helmets would be effective in a commuting accident.
I’m arguing that you cannot extrapolate data from countries with mandatory helmet laws and apply it to countries without.
Helmet promotion necessarily
Helmet promotion necessarily entails painting cycling as dangerous. More dangerous than walking or driving. This is not so.
You seem to have ignored my use of the word ‘relative’. Unless you believe commuting to be the safest form of cycling available then it will be relatively high risk compared to another type. I’m not arguing that helmets would be effective in a commuting accident. I’m arguing that you cannot extrapolate data from countries with mandatory helmet laws and apply it to countries without.— Rich_cb
Have you seen that poster for children from BeHIT, the helmet pushing charity? It shows a skull X-rayed in a helmet. Have a look at the propaganda if you don’t believe that the helmeteers focus on endangerising cycling. They routinely vastly overstate the chances of a head injury whilst riding. This sort of thing is bound to dissuade some people from cycling.
To persuade cyclists into helmets you have to convince them that cycling is uniquely dangerous, but this is untrue. Walking and riding in a car are about as productive of head injuries as cycling. (It depends on the country: in some cycling is a bit safer, in others more dangerous.)
felixcat wrote:
My MSc dissertation was on the subject of people’s perceptions of the risks of cycling and their perceptions of the effectiveness of helmets, and the data showed that most people thought that cycling was much more dangerous than it really is, and that helmets were much more effective than they really were, and that the views were linked. If you thought cycling was very dangerous, it was likely that you thought that helmets were extremely effective.
I could see no other cause for this than the propaganda put out by BHIT and the media, with thousands of “helmet saved my life” stories, usually with a picture showing a helmet which had shattered, not deformed, and a medic/police/road safety officer confirming that it had indeed saved their life.
Rich_cb wrote:
Your argument doesn’t make any sense to me. As previous poster pointed out, the ‘time of day’ figures don’t show that commuting is ‘high risk’.
It also says nothing about whether the nature of the risk for commuters is of the type that a helmet might help with. My own doubts about helmets are partly down to the fact that what I fear most when cycling on busy roads is being crushed by a lorry or being hit by a vehicle travelling at very high speeds, and I don’t think a helmet will help at all in those cases. (I think it might if I’m doored, I concede that, and that’s a major part of why I usually wear one, along with wimpishly bowing to social pressure).
Furthermore, I disagree 100% that commuters are unlikely to be deterred – they are likely to adopt a different mode of transport (as the vast majority of commuters already do, so you can hardly argue it’s hard to imagine!)
It’s sports/serious recreational cyclists, for whom cycling is something they make a special effort to do anyway (e.g. putting the bike in the 4×4 and driving off to the country), who are less likely to be put off by having to have a bit of extra equipment – needing special kit is common to sports of all kinds. People engaged in those kinds of activities seem to _like_ buying specialist bits of kit.
Though I would have thought there would be data out there somewhere to show what happens in each case.
— Rich_cb You seem to have ignored my use of the word ‘relative’. Unless you believe commuting to be the safest form of cycling available then it will be relatively high risk compared to another type. I’m not arguing that helmets would be effective in a commuting accident. I’m arguing that you cannot extrapolate data from countries with mandatory helmet laws and apply it to countries without.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
Relative to _what_ though? Is there really a large enough number of cycle miles that consist of ‘cycling round the park on a Sunday’ to be a meaningful comparison? I find that hard to believe, most parks aren’t that large and most people don’t have that much spare time.
What are you comparing commuting to, if not mountain-bike/sports cycling?
You just seem to me to have an attachment to your conclusion and invent unconvincing arguments to support it. It seems quite convenient that you aprioiri discount any form of evidence one might find that undermines your argument. You say you can’t compare juristrictions with compulsion with those without, and you also reject comparisons betore-and-after compulsion. Which, conveniently, makes it forever impossible to determine the truth.
It’s akin to how homeopaths insist their treatments can’t be studied by normal scientific methods.
Edit – is your argument then, that helmet promotion (and social pressure, and propaganda consisting of lurid posters of brain injuries) is somehow good, while acknowledging that legal compulsion is bad? Because it seems clear to me that it’s a continuum – strong social pressure and state-funded propaganda is not qualitiatively different from a law. The only stance that isn’t likely to be counterproductive is to do neither, neither mandate nor ban the things, neither promote them nor stigmatise them. Just leave it up to invididuals.
Compulsion by cycle clubs and
Compulsion by cycle clubs and sportif organisers is one of the steps on the way to full compulsion.
It has been said by a civil servant, I think, that compulsion would be difficult to bring in if few cyclists wear helmets, but that they are watching the situation. The clear implication is that the more cyclists who wear helmets voluntarily, the more likely compulsion is.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
You’re getting fixated on the examples and missing the broader point.
The reason you can’t compare the population risk level before and after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws is that the cycling population has changed so drastically.
Unless the 30% drop in participation was spread evenly across all cycling groups then it’s inevitable that the risk profile of the cycling population will change.
That is due to different groups of cyclists having different levels of risk.
It is because you can’t make an accurate before and after comparison that you can’t apply the findings to other countries.
I’ve yet to see convincing evidence that cycle helmet promotion produces a marked drop in participation.
The local authority figures quoted earlier are for one year only so can’t be compared to trend and the paper they are supposedly from is inaccessible so method etc can’t be scrutinised.
If I see convincing evidence I am happy to change my mind.
Rich_cb wrote:
We’re fixated on the example because it’s the only attempt you’ve made to support your claim that there are different levels of risk across different cycling groups. The KSI figures for different times of the day don’t show this to be true, let alone which groups are higher risk and by how much.
Beyond that, we are left with the fact you are relying on it being a logical assumption that this is the case even with the absence of evidence, yet you seem ready to dismiss logical assumptions when they don’t support your position, even when there is supporting evidence.
Rich_cb
You seem to be backtracking, in that you are retreating to the idea that the population is ‘different’ therefore one can’t conclude anything from an increased accident rate. But the validity of that argument depends on in what _way_ the population is different. Your original claim about ‘dangerous commuting’ just isn’t plausible.
But, in the absence of any data to determine what the change is exactly, I’m happy to make your argument for you and agree that it’s possible there might be fewer commuters (mostly safe) and more mountain-bikers (prone to catapult themselves over rocks while being gnarly?) and failed Danny Mcaskill wannabes.
What I don’t get is how you can claim strong social pressure and moral blackmail by the state and other groups with financial power, is qualitatively different from an actual law (which might not be rigorously enforced anyway). Why is that not a continuum? In most other domains socail stigma and propaganda can be seen to produce similar, if lesser, effects to legal persecution, so why would it be different in this case?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I’m not sure I can explain it anymore clearly than I did in my last post but I’ll have one last go.
Imagine a country with only 2 types of cyclist.
High risk cyclists and low risk cyclists.
The two groups are of equal size.
The high risk cyclists have a fatality rate of 9 per million miles ridden.
The low risk cyclists have a rate of 1 fatality per million miles.
The population risk is therefore 5 fatalities per million miles ridden.
Imagine a helmet law is introduced.
All the low risk cyclists immediately quit cycling.
All the high risk cyclists continue cycling.
The number of cyclists decreases by half and as it is only the high risk cyclists left the population risk is now 9 fatalities per million miles.
The population risk has increased massively but the individual risk for each high risk cyclist is exactly the same as it was before.
My point is that you cannot assume a rise in individual risk from a rise in population risk unless you have identical populations in your two comparison groups.
That is not the case with pre and post helmet law population comparisons.
Rich_cb wrote:
Imagine a country with only 2 types of cyclist.
High risk cyclists and low risk cyclists.
The two groups are of equal size.
The high risk cyclists have a fatality rate of 9 per million miles ridden.
The low risk cyclists have a rate of 1 fatality per million miles.
The population risk is therefore 5 fatalities per million miles ridden.
Imagine a helmet law is introduced.
All the low risk cyclists immediately quit cycling.
All the high risk cyclists continue cycling.
The number of cyclists decreases by half and as it is only the high risk cyclists left the population risk is now 9 fatalities per million miles.
The population risk has increased massively but the individual risk for each high risk cyclist is exactly the same as it was before.
My point is that you cannot assume a rise in individual risk from a rise in population risk unless you have identical populations in your two comparison groups.
That is not the case with pre and post helmet law population comparisons.— Rich_cb
Yet you haven’t established any groups beyond commuters, haven’t quantified any risk factors, and haven’t pointed to how mandated helmet laws affect different groups.
There is nothing wrong in the concept of risk groups affecting the population risk while the individual risk remains the same, it’s just that you’ve failed to demonstrate that it applies to cyclists when it comes to mandated helmet use let alone by how much. Your only attempt to do so (KSI by time of day) failed.
Pudsey Pedaller wrote:
I used the term relative.
A term you appear to struggle to understand.
I think it’s incredibly unlikely that all groups of cyclists will be affected by mandatory helmet laws in an identical manner.
As different groups have different risk profiles it would be incredibly unlikely that the population risk profile was not changed by the introduction of the law.
Rich_cb wrote:
You keep suggesting people are wrong simply because you believe they haven’t understood your argument when if anything it looks to be the other way around.
You may think it ‘incredibly unlikely that that all groups of cyclists will be affected by mandatory helmet laws in an identical manner’, but your only attempt to demonstrate this, didn’t demonstrate anything of the sort. So much so, that I have to wonder whether you had even looked at the KSI figures before you alluded to them.
My point is that you demand evidence from others, yet dismiss it when given, whilst building your case on what you present as self-evident truths and in doing so absolve yourself of the responsibility to back up your own claims.
Rich_cb wrote:
But I already made clear that I got that point, and , in fact, I’d say I made a better case for it than you did! (As you got bogged down in unconvincingly trying argue that commuting was ‘high risk’).
But what that point doesn’t explain is why you think this is any different in effect from the effect of helmet promotion.
The same thing is likely to happen whether it’s a new law or a propaganda public-shaming campaign. So you _can_ compare the effect of a helmet law with that of a pro-helmet campaign. Whether it results in increased individual risk (due to loss of safety-in-numbers) or in only an increased total risk (due to dissuading the lower-risk cyclists) doesn’t really matter – the net result is an increase in bad outcomes. So looking at countries with such a law _is_ a useful comparison. It doesn’t actually matter whether the mechanism is a change in cycling population or not, what matters is the result.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I’d argue that if the only result is an increase in total risk without an increase in individual risk then there won’t be an increase in bad outcomes by definition.
You may be right about helmet promotion, you may not, we don’t know and we don’t appear to have any decent quality evidence to go on.
I’m happy to accept your argument if there’s some good evidence behind it but until there is I’m guessing we’ll just have to agree to disagree?
Rich_cb wrote:
I’d argue that if the only result is an increase in total risk without an increase in individual risk then there won’t be an increase in bad outcomes by definition. [/quote]
I mistook you for somebody who believed helmets worked. Must have been mistaken.
Rich_cb wrote:
— Rich_cb I’d argue that if the only result is an increase in total risk without an increase in individual risk then there won’t be an increase in bad outcomes by definition.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
Ah, but there is, because you’ll have reduced active travel and so increased bad outcomes for inactivity and pollution related health problems. So the effects of helmet promotion or compulsion will be negative overall.
As for helmet promotion – well, we do have some evidence, we know how in other areas propaganda and social pressure is only different in the strength of its effect from legal sanctions. Certainly if the propaganda is supported by the state (OK, it’s more complicated if it’s purely privately funded propaganda). The default assumption, absent contradictory evidence, would be that state propaganda is only different from state force in the degree of its effect.
Anyway, where’s BTBs? I want to know if the EU is indeed being that devious or if it’s just a conspiracy theory. I genuinly wouldn’t be surprised either way.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
As for helmet promotion – well, we do have some evidence, we know how in other areas propaganda and social pressure is only different in the strength of its effect from legal sanctions. Certainly if the propaganda is supported by the state (OK, it’s more complicated if it’s purely privately funded propaganda). The default assumption, absent contradictory evidence, would be that state propaganda is only different from state force in the degree of its effect.
Anyway, where’s BTBs? I want to know if the EU is indeed being that devious or if it’s just a conspiracy theory. I genuinly wouldn’t be surprised either way.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
Such as when the authorities promote helmet wearing in such a way so as to be easily confused with it being mandatory.
For example, in the ‘vehicles and cycles’ section of the West Yorkshire Police website (link below), we get this piece of ‘advice’:
‘Cyclists should always wear helmets that meet the British Standard (BS EN 1078:1997)’
In addition to this, cyclists are given 10 other safety tips, whilst drivers are simply told:
‘Drivers and motorcycle riders are urged to remain alert to cyclists and keep safety in mind at all times, especially by passing by at a safe distance.’
Oh, and since when is a bicycle not a vehicle?
https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/advice/vehicles-cycles/vehicle-crime/pedal-cycles-cycle-safety
Pudsey Pedaller wrote:
And here’s the legal loophole, define wear, please?
On you head?
On your arm?
By the straps of the loops on your jeans?
I don’t know what the requirements are in order to wear a helmet correctly.
Pudsey Pedaller wrote:
Well, back to the sliding scale, with one end being, say, Australia, and the other being as oblivious to cycling helmets as, say, walking helmets (this isn’t aimed at you – it’s @Rich_cb, pretty quiet on this).
If there hasn’t been effective promotion, how have we ended up with
– briefs making reference in court to irrelevant wearing of helmets by cyclists squashed by cars and lorries
– headteachers effectively banning cycling to school without helmets (the primary school 2 of my kids attend recently had a storm in a teacup, with the otherwise-logical headmistress applauding a kid cycling with a helmet and ‘now she just needs to get her mum to so the same’ (kid wears helmet, mum doesn’t) )
– every triathlon (racking my brains, pretty sure) I have ever done, around 100 in total, from sprint to ironman, BTF and other-affiliations, in this and 4 other countries (non with mandatory laws) insisting on me wearing a helmet for the cycling bit, and no other safety gear
– BC events mandating helmets
– debates like this for the last couple of decades on cycling forums, with comparably risky activities remaining helmet and debate-free
?
That’s some cultural shift to just ‘happen’.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I think you’re jumping to conclusions about the promotion side of things as we have no real idea of the magnitude of the effect, if any. But agree to disagree.
As for the pollution/active travel point you are correct. I was talking purely in terms of risk to the cyclists.
The drop in participation is one of the best reasons to oppose mandatory helmet laws and could be a strong argument against promotion if it could be proven there was a similar effect.
I imagine BTBS is at the UN protesting about their forced migration master plan or something.
Rich_cb wrote:
Hang on: I thought all we needed was ‘it stands to reason’, as in
It stands to reason that the promotion, PR campaigns, marketing and media associated with helmets have had effects, and
It stands to reason that it is not solely the lawmaking aspect that is responsible for all the unintended consequences associated with mandatory helmets.
Are you saying that campaigns and promotion don’t have an effect, or
It is only once a movement is mandated by law that the unintended consequences occur?
davel wrote:
I’m pretty sure we’ve been over this.
If helmet promotion has a negative effect it’s likely to be small as cycling has continued to grow in countries with effective helmet promotion. For example the UK and pre helmet law Australia.
So without good quality evidence it’s impossible to gauge what effect, if any, helmet promotion has on participation rates.
Rich_cb wrote:
Why does the growth in cycling indicate that is it likely to be only a small effect? Other than ‘it stands to reason’? Could there not be other factors in play?
Rich_cb wrote:
Hang on: I thought all we needed was ‘it stands to reason’, as in
It stands to reason that the promotion, PR campaigns, marketing and media associated with helmets have had effects, and
It stands to reason that it is not solely the lawmaking aspect that is responsible for all the unintended consequences associated with mandatory helmets.
Are you saying that campaigns and promotion don’t have an effect, or
It is only once a movement is mandated by law that the unintended consequences occur?
— Rich_cb I’m pretty sure we’ve been over this. If helmet promotion has a negative effect it’s likely to be small as cycling has continued to grow in countries with effective helmet promotion. For example the UK and pre helmet law Australia. So without good quality evidence it’s impossible to gauge what effect, if any, helmet promotion has on participation rates.— davel
Actually I remember seeing something recently that said that cycling in the UK is not growing in the number of people (it was actually static or falling). It is growing in distance but that is because the same number of people are travelling further by bicycle. So cycling has not continued to grow in the UK as you have stated.
I’ll see if I can find the article
*edit
Here it is:
http://road.cc/content/news/235876-flatlining-cycling-numbers-and-investment-set-fall-interactive-map
The article states:
“The figures also indicate that men cycle three times more often and four times further than women and Cycling UK is particularly concerned that any growth in cycling appears mainly to be among white males, suggesting an ongoing decline among women, children and people of diverse backgrounds.”
As it has been proposed earlier in the thread that helmet wearing is more likely to deter women (for helmet hair reasons) and minorities (for religious headwear reasons) it would indicate that the helmet promotion over the last decade or so could have had a damaging effect on cycling numbers.
ClubSmed wrote:
Well it depends on your definition of growth. Is there more cycling occuring than a decade ago. Yes.
You could assume that the static number of cyclists is due to helmet promotion, without any evidence whatsoever.
Or you could look at the levels of investment and at the cycling rates in areas where there had been investment. London for example.
Rich_cb wrote:
Actually I remember seeing something recently that said that cycling in the UK is not growing in the number of people (it was actually static or falling). It is growing in distance but that is because the same number of people are travelling further by bicycle. So cycling has not continued to grow in the UK as you have stated.
I’ll see if I can find the article
*edit
Here it is:
http://road.cc/content/news/235876-flatlining-cycling-numbers-and-investment-set-fall-interactive-map
The article states:
“The figures also indicate that men cycle three times more often and four times further than women and Cycling UK is particularly concerned that any growth in cycling appears mainly to be among white males, suggesting an ongoing decline among women, children and people of diverse backgrounds.”
As it has been proposed earlier in the thread that helmet wearing is more likely to deter women (for helmet hair reasons) and minorities (for religious headwear reasons) it would indicate that the helmet promotion over the last decade or so could have had a damaging effect on cycling numbers.
— Rich_cb Well it depends on your definition of growth. Is there more cycling occuring than a decade ago. Yes. You could assume that the static number of cyclists is due to helmet promotion, without any evidence whatsoever. Or you could look at the levels of investment and at the cycling rates in areas where there had been investment. London for example.— ClubSmed
If you are talking about helmet promotion not putting people off cycling then growth should be number of cyclists not distance travelled as it is more likely to put off potential cyclists than those who cycle already. It is unlikely that helmet promotion is going to put existing cyclists off cycling further.
Are you are saying that in order to see that helmet promotion has not had an effect on the cycling numbers look at areas that have had infrastructure investment such as cycle lanes that negates the need for helmets as they are removed from motorised traffic?
If helmet promotion makes cycling seem more dangerous than it is and if cycling infrastructure promotion makes cycling seem safer, then it potentially negates the effect of helmet promotion.
ClubSmed wrote:
No. That’s not what I’m saying.
I’m saying there are many variables at work. We can isolate the effect of funding far more easily than the effect of helmet promotion.
If there is a trend of increased cycling growth in areas with increased funding and not in areas with decreased funding then it suggests funding is an important factor. If the effect of funding changes is large enough it may explain the entire overall trend.
As I’ve said several times I’m happy to accept the argument on helmet promotion if there is some decent evidence behind it.
As was discussed on a previous thread cycle helmet use grew strongly in the UK from 1994, so it can be assumed that helmet promotion was also present. I believe cycling numbers and distance grew during this time.
If so, what changed with helmet promotion from 1994-2004 to 2004 onwards?
Rich_cb wrote:
Actually I remember seeing something recently that said that cycling in the UK is not growing in the number of people (it was actually static or falling). It is growing in distance but that is because the same number of people are travelling further by bicycle. So cycling has not continued to grow in the UK as you have stated.
I’ll see if I can find the article
*edit
Here it is:
http://road.cc/content/news/235876-flatlining-cycling-numbers-and-investment-set-fall-interactive-map
The article states:
“The figures also indicate that men cycle three times more often and four times further than women and Cycling UK is particularly concerned that any growth in cycling appears mainly to be among white males, suggesting an ongoing decline among women, children and people of diverse backgrounds.”
As it has been proposed earlier in the thread that helmet wearing is more likely to deter women (for helmet hair reasons) and minorities (for religious headwear reasons) it would indicate that the helmet promotion over the last decade or so could have had a damaging effect on cycling numbers.
— Rich_cb Well it depends on your definition of growth. Is there more cycling occuring than a decade ago. Yes.— ClubSmed
If people are put off an activity by safety concerns then it is more likely to effect those who are yet to take it up rather than those who already do it. Therefor it would effect the number of people doing it (not increasing) rather than the amount of times the people who are already doing it continue to do it.
Rich_cb wrote:
Hang on: I thought all we needed was ‘it stands to reason’, as in
It stands to reason that the promotion, PR campaigns, marketing and media associated with helmets have had effects, and
It stands to reason that it is not solely the lawmaking aspect that is responsible for all the unintended consequences associated with mandatory helmets.
Are you saying that campaigns and promotion don’t have an effect, or
It is only once a movement is mandated by law that the unintended consequences occur?
— Rich_cb I’m pretty sure we’ve been over this. If helmet promotion has a negative effect it’s likely to be small as cycling has continued to grow in countries with effective helmet promotion. For example the UK and pre helmet law Australia. So without good quality evidence it’s impossible to gauge what effect, if any, helmet promotion has on participation rates.— davel
But the ‘growth’ in those countries has been tiny. Involving cycling’s modal share growing from negligable to insignificant. Which suggests there are many factors supressing cycling in those countries. Helmet promotion could be a significant force to reduce cycling, but still be rendered invisible by the size of all the other factors at work. The fact remains that the only countries that have seen growth that is worthy of the name have been ones without such promotion.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
The growth has certainly not been as large in the UK as most cyclists would like but it has still been growth.
That small level of growth followed decades of decline.
The growth in cycling in the UK has occurred at the same time as rising helmet use which suggests that helmet promotion was prominent during the period of growth.
I’m not disagreeing that helmet promotion might be a negative, just stating that there’s no reliable evidence of this.
It would also be difficult to differentiate different types of promotion. When I got a bike through C2W a few years ago there was a lot of promotion of helmets/lights/Hi-Vis alongside the bikes.
Trying to untangle the, possibly negative, effect of the helmet promotion from the, presumably positive, effect of C2W would be pretty challenging.
Rich_cb wrote:
Well yes, that particular BTBS comment was oddly UKIPian or Trumpist.
But, still, the EU did produce an official report with that bizarre misuse of statistics, so I’m not ruling out the possibility that there might be something to what he said on this one.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
This is what I don’t get either. In many ways, if I was told that when cycling there was a chance I would end up being left in a vegetative state or worse still, killed but that a helmet would prevent this, then I’m sure I’d be more willing to wear a helmet than if it was legislated for but not effectively enforced.
Now given the drop in cycling in countries after mandatory legislation was introduced, there are obviously some who feel not cycling is preferable to cycling with a helmet. Why would this not also hold true where people felt there was a significantly greater risk of being KSI’d as opposed to the risk of a fine.
Then it just becomes a question of how much of an effect helmet promotion has which is why others have suggested it would be somewhere on a sliding scale, probably correlating with the amount and extent of the promotion.
Pudsey Pedaller wrote:
This is what I don’t get either. In many ways, if I was told that when cycling there was a chance I would end up being left in a vegetative state or worse still, killed but that a helmet would prevent this, then I’m sure I’d be more willing to wear a helmet than if it was legislated for but not effectively enforced.
Now given the drop in cycling in countries after mandatory legislation was introduced, there are obviously some who feel not cycling is preferable to cycling with a helmet. Why would this not also hold true where people felt there was a significantly greater risk of being KSI’d as opposed to the risk of a fine.
Then it just becomes a question of how much of an effect helmet promotion has which is why others have suggested it would be somewhere on a sliding scale, probably correlating with the amount and extent of the promotion.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
To me there’s a slightly more sutble aspect to it as well. Which is the lurid helmet-promoting campaigns carry a moralising undertone, which say, not only might you be killed or injured while cycling, but that if you are _it will be your own fault_.
It’s not a large step from implying that ‘cycling without a helmet is irresponsible and if you die you deserved it’ to ‘cycling is irresponsible’.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
And there is the emotional blackmail of “what about the people left behind when you die because you didn’t wear a helmet?”
Which is sickening and utterly absurd when you consider that you are much more at risk from not cycling than cycling.
Rich_cb wrote:
It would be very difficult to find evidence, one way or the other, for a change in participation which of its nature would be gradual. As cycling gains an image of danger in the public mind, more and more people will cycle less or not even take it up. But this would not happen sufficiently suddenly to be readily associated with change in the image , and gathering evidence might be a matter of interviewing large numbers. I am sure you can imagine the problems of identifying and reaching the deterred. This is why a sudden change in law producing a sudden, large change in wearing rates is so useful in assessing efficacy.
So I think you are quite safe in being able to carry on believing what you want to believe.
Myself, I find it easy to believe that the propaganda for helmets, which entails painting cycling as a unusually dangerous activity, demanding safety gear which other, equally dangerous activities ( walking or motoring, say, does not demand) has the effect of deterring many people, and leaving only lycra clad, polystyrene wearing young men and mamils. Its good to see them of course, but I would love to see the benefits of mass cycling enjoyed by all ages in their everyday life, like the Dutch.
We would be a fitter, healthier population, breathing cleaner air and making substantially less contribution to global warming. I am sure you would too, but I point out again that the high helmet wearing rate countries are the low cycling rate and high head injury rate ones. We are not going to reach the Dutch paradise whilst helmets are seen as the answer to cyclist safety.
Rich_cb wrote:
And black is white and white is black. You’ll argue yourself into a corkscrew if you keep this up.
Rich_cb wrote:
I wouldn’t want to deny anyone the right to choose for themselves, but last time I checked, no human has been born with a cycle helmet pre-attached to their head. Therefore surely the default position should be, such as it is in most other areas of our lives, not to wear a helmet until there is sufficient evidence in both quantity and quality to show a clear overall benefit in doing so.
The alternative would surely be chaos as you could argue that anything showing correlation should influence decision making until such time as it’s shown not to be causation.
Rich_cb]
Not true; we don’t only have case control studies. The only studies showing massive benefits from helmet wearing are case control studies, so unreliable that scientists have called for their results to be ignored unless supported by other, more reliable data. There are epidemiological studies, much more reliable, which show no benefit.
burtthebike wrote:
Case control studies are a type of epidemiological study Burt.
Rich_cb wrote:
Case control studies are a type of epidemiological study Burt.[/quote]
In a sense, but whole population studies avoid very real problems with the selection of cases, which must be very carefully done. As I have already said, Rivara et. al. fail to avoid these problems.
As you have pointed out, wearers and non wearers are not easily comparable.
felixcat wrote:
Whole population studies also have their flaws as you must ensure that the population remains comparable.
If the population changes markedly over a period of time then any comparisons become meaningless.
For example in Australia post helmet mandation the cycling population effectively dropped by a third, this makes comparing the population before and after the law very difficult as the composition of the population is likely to be significantly different.
Rich_cb wrote:
Not true; we don’t only have case control studies. The only studies showing massive benefits from helmet wearing are case control studies, so unreliable that scientists have called for their results to be ignored unless supported by other, more reliable data. There are epidemiological studies, much more reliable, which show no benefit.
— Rich_cb Case control studies are a type of epidemiological study Burt.— burtthebike
Indeed they are, just not as reliable as whole population, long term studies. In fact, case control studies are not reliable at all.
burtthebike wrote:
Google ‘Hierarchy of Evidence’.
Rich_cb wrote:
Its just as well we have a good quality assessment of all the evidence to help us.
The two guys I link to below are scientists, one a medical doctor. They are not neurosurgeons but their specialties, as their job titles indicate, rather more relevant to assessing evidence of this kind. Note the title of the second page I link to.
Ben Goldacre, the Wellcome fellow in epidemiology, and David Spiegelhalter, the Winton professor for the public understanding of risk, looked at the evidence for cycle helmet efficacy, and published their conclusions in the British Medical Journal.
They write that the direct benefits of helmets are “too modest to capture.” I think this means that the could find no evidence that they work, don’t you?
— Rich_cb No. It shows the opinions of two researchers, other researchers have different opinions. Hence the ongoing debate. Burt was claiming that all research that has shown benefit from helmets was either poor quality or biased. I don’t think that’s the case. Do you?— felixcat
Having looked at a very great deal of the evidence, it is clear to me that the evidence showing huge benefits is rated much lower on international scales for the reliability of research, most of which is small scale, short term with blatantly biased researchers, and is frequently of the case control type, which is rated lowest for reliability of any research methodology. Some researchers do meta-studies and put lots of this unreliable research together and claim that it is magically transformed into reliable data; it isn’t.
burtthebike wrote:
Did you systematically review all those studies before or after you rang all those insurance companies?
Rich_cb wrote:
Spiegelhalter and Goldacre are not doing research. They are looking at the research into helmet efficacy and assessing it. They are thought by their employers to be good enough at epidemiology and helping the public understand risk that they have been appointed to a chair and a fellowship, so it is probable that they have done a thorough job.
The work that they have done on helmets is thought good enough to be published by the British Medical Journal as editorial matter.
My own interest is in risk homeostasis. The book which focussed my ideas and extended my understanding is Risk by John Adamd published by the University College London Press.
I strongly recommend it to any cyclist interested in the subject.
Some review quotes.
extremely counterintuitive…stimulating and rewarding , Nature.
I was asked to review a new book…and I have utterly changed my mind about the benefits of seat belt legislation, Sunday Telegraph.
An invigorating book that deserves to be widely read, Philosophy.
Adams is a gentle and accessible giant in the field of risk, New Statesman.
felixcat wrote:
Totally agree with everything you’ve said there, especially about Risk by John Adams. Despite all the dust jacket recommendations, most books don’t change your life, but Risk probably would.
felixcat wrote:
I’m not going to get involved in pointless semantics.
Many of the authors of pro helmet studies have fantastic qualifications/credentials so I’m not sure that’s really relevant either.
Further to that an editorial is essentially an opinion piece.
I will take a look at that book when I get the chance though, thanks for the recommendation.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’m not going to get involved in pointless semantics. Many of the authors of pro helmet studies have fantastic qualifications/credentials so I’m not sure that’s really relevant either. Further to that an editorial is essentially an opinion piece. I will take a look at that book when I get the chance though, thanks for the recommendation.[/quote]
Don’t get your pointless semantics line.
Would you like to give us the fantastic qualifications you assert?
I am sure Goldacre and Spiegelhalter would not write a frivolous piece, and I am sure the BMJ would not publish one.
If all I get from my efforts here is that one person reads Risk I will not think my time wasted.
Rich_cb wrote:
Indeed. All the long term, large scale, scientific research done by disinterested researchers using robust methodology shows one thing; cycle helmets don’t reduce risk. All the short term, small scale, unscientific research done by blatantly biased researchers using the lowest rated for reliability methodology shows that cycle helmets are fantastically effective.
Yes, it’s the strength of the evidence.
— Rich_cb All evidence that you agree with is high quality and objective. All evidence you disagree with is poor quality and biased. You do amuse me Burt.— burtthebike
I’m so glad I bring joy to someone’s life, makes it all worthwhile somehow.
However, if you look at the studies using international scales of reliability of research, then yes, the studies showing no benefit from helmet wearing are rated much more reliable than those showing huge benefits.
The ones showing no benefit are more likely to be large scale, long term and done by objective researchers, while those showing huge benefits tend to be short term, small scale with blatantly biased researchers.
The strength of the evidence is clear, but I guess you don’t want to acknowledge that.
Rich_cb wrote:
Indeed. All the long term, large scale, scientific research done by disinterested researchers using robust methodology shows one thing; cycle helmets don’t reduce risk. All the short term, small scale, unscientific research done by blatantly biased researchers using the lowest rated for reliability methodology shows that cycle helmets are fantastically effective.
Yes, it’s the strength of the evidence.
— Rich_cb All evidence that you agree with is high quality and objective. All evidence you disagree with is poor quality and biased. You do amuse me Burt.— burtthebike
isn’t that the way things should be? I mean, why would anyone agree with the bad evidence, and disagree with the good stuff?
davel wrote:
*
Rich_cb wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY&vl=en
It is worth watching the whole video, but your evidence is at 13 minutes.
— Rich_cb Correlation is not causation. There’s a really good correlation between the voluntary increase in bicycle helmet wearing in the UK and a decrease in cyclist KSIs and serious head injuries. As has been extensively discussed on another thread that doesn’t prove causation either.— Experious
Experious didn’t say it was causation, he said it was evidence of the claim that promotion of the wearing of a cycle helmet actively discourages participation in cycling, which it is. You seem to be confusing evidence with proof. Proof is the result of a body evidence that is sufficient in both quantity and quality and has shown to hold true when tested. So while the correlation is not in and of itself proof of causation, it is evidence that supports causation. You asked for evidence of a claim and that evidence has been given.
Rich_cb wrote:
You’ve taken the well known negative effects of compulsory helmet laws and extrapolated wildly. Where is your evidence that requiring helmets on a sportive or leisure ride damages cycling? Where is your evidence that any form of helmet promotion damages cycling?[/quote]
Plenty of evidence if you care to look. There’s the TRL286 report that found cycling declined by 3% in local authority areas that promoted helmets against a background of 5% growth in those that didn’t (Table 16). There’s the Australian data that showed a 30% drop in cycling on the introduction of a compulsory helmet law (and up to 90% in female teenagers). And then there’s the well known NZ graph on what happened to cycling numbers and head injuries when they introduced a helmet law (they went down and up respectively)
Tony wrote:
Already been covered.
burtthebike wrote:
I still don’t believe the ‘profits for those making and selling helmets’ is a significant issue. It hardly seems that helmet-making is a rich and powerful industry (as opposed to to, say, the car industry). I don’t believe anyone with any power cares very much about those guys.
(Indeed, if the number of cyclists drops with such a law, the helmet-makers profits might actually not increase, or even go down)
I’d instead cite the effect of ‘a small feeling of satisfaction and victory on the part of cyclist-resenting motorists at having managed to impose a marker of submisson onto their peceived enemy’. Of course, that effect will wear off and they’ll start looking for another way to scratch that itch, at lest until they’ve imposed sufficient indignities or restrictions on cyclists to get almost all of them off the roads.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
A wise man once said “If you don’t understand what’s going on, follow the money.”
There is no reliable evidence that cycle helmets reduce risk and quite a lot that shows they don’t, but we still have massive helmet propaganda and constant calls for helmet laws; why? I can’t see any other reason than money. Helmets are probably more profitable than drugs with none of the risks, and an absolute guaranteed huge profit margin if you can get your tame politicians to pass a law.
If you can sell something that costs £1 to make for £150, you aren’t going to worry about being factual or accurate, which is why all helmets are sold on style, aerodynamics and anything else except their protective capabilities. All helmets come with a disclaimer that they won’t protect you in forseeable circumstances, which no-one ever reads.
burtthebike wrote:
I don’t think this is a major issue, but I suggest that (a) it’s not always about money, there are other forms of gain people can get from something, and (b) if you insist it has to come down to money it’s more about the money around the car industry than the helmet industry – the former is a way more powerful lobby, and clearly has a vested interest in pushing responsibility for RTC KSIs onto the victims.
The helmet-makers might _want_ to make their products compulsory, but I don’t think they’d get very far with that on their own, with their limited resources (plus, as I said, how much extra profit would they really make, if the number of cyclists goes down?). I think the car-lobby is far more of a significant factor.
burtthebike wrote:
“It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling.”
Probably correct
“Helmet laws and propaganda have two proven effects: a fall in the number of cyclists “
Where has this been proven ??
“and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets,”
What profit level do helmet makers make (not just cost of production, but compliance, distribution, R&D etc,) and define “obscene”?
“there is no safety benefit. “
That is patently bullsh*t. There are well documented safety (injury reduction outcomes) for individuals wearing helmets in some accidents
“Anyone promoting helmets, demanding helmet laws or having helmet rules for their leisure rides is doing harm to cycling generally. ”
Like wacka-mole that’s a mixture of lies, damned lies and half truths.
Anyone promoting helmets is not doing harm to cycling. Wearing helmets is not proven anywhere to do harm to cyclin. Mandatory cycle wear accross a population may fail to improve cycling safety, and may even increase risk, but I believe this is far from proven
Having helmet rules for leisure rides also, unless you can prove otherwise, is unlikely to be doing harm to cycling.
Burt, you seem wilfully unable to separate the issues of helmet wearing in the individual, injury reduction for the individual, safety in cycling in general and helmet laws. They are all separate issues which don’t necessarily have a bearing on each other. It’s called a paradox.
If helmets can’t be proved to
If helmets can’t be proved to have a safety effect, then why do all the StormTroopers wear them?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Mind you, stormtrooper armour always seems like a waste of time. If you were running the Imperial military, you spend most of your time fighting soldiers shooting at you with blasters. So wouldn’t you want your armour to protect you from blaster fire as a minimum? Otherwise whats the point? Yet it really doesn’t seem to…
Sorry, OT, but y’know…
brooksby wrote:
I find your lack of faith disturbing!
With StomTroopers, their helmet and armour is for general protection against all kinds of mishaps (e.g. slipping on banana skins). Obviously, a helmet isn’t going to protect against a full-on blaster strike – that’s ridiculous to expect that. StormTrooper helmets are designed to protect against a 1-2 metre drop onto a flat surface at speeds of up to 12mph – the empire deems that any impact more than that isn’t cost-effective to protect against.
hawkinspeter wrote:
One stormtrooper bangs his head boarding a rebel ship so now you want all stormtroopers to wear helmets, is that it?
Beatnik69 wrote:
That was Carl – he’s such a klutz.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Saved his life though.
davel wrote:
That was Carl – he’s such a klutz.
— Beatnik69 Saved his life though.— hawkinspeter
He gave up chasing down the rebel scum and instead took up track cycling with some success.
hawkinspeter wrote:
It’s encouraging how he turned his life around after suffering through a bout of depression.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Have you _seen_ the KSI rates for Imperial stormtroopers? Clearly those things affect their ability to see what they are shooting at, at the very least. As a bonus, they also make it simple for subversives to pass unnoticed – very much like high-viz vests, slip one of those on and nobody pays attention to you, making you effectively invisible, and allowing you to rescue princesses to your heart’s content. Even if you’re suspiciously short.
Come to think of it, they should have attacked the deathstar on bicycles. Never mind the force, use the power of SMIDSY.
A quick Google shows over 400
A quick Google shows over 400 deaths and over 12000 serious injuries in NSW from motor crashes in the past 12 months…and it seems that what will save lives, from that video, is to give a ticket to a middle aged woman wearing a floppy hat riding a shopping bike at walking pace. Crazy.
Bingo!
Bingo!
MoominPappa wins the contest to provide the first ill-informed, worthless contribution.
Will anyone else chip in and give us the benefit of their ignorance? Come on compulory helmet fans, don’t hold back, you know you want to deliver your patronising little lectures…
Simon E wrote:
Does this have to include a personal story of a helmet saving a life thus elevating the wearer/victim into a global expert?
don simon wrote:
— don simonI don’t think so but the smugness invariably goes up a couple of notches.
No thanks, once was more than enough.
Simon E wrote:
Simon, read again what I said. Might help. Also I am expressing opinion.
And who proclaimed you to be the expert?
MoominPappa wrote:
Am you troll?
Ush wrote:
Am you troll?— MoominPappa
Obs, the clues in the name…
sq225917 wrote:
The moomins are not trolls.
felixcat wrote:
Not wanting to get drawn into such a heated discussion about such a contraversial subject but…
The moomins are trolls.
Evidence: A study by Buzzfeed….
https://www.buzzfeed.com/robynwilder/things-you-may-not-know-about-the-moomins?utm_term=.sqyQeK0Qd#.hvxP0GnPX
Plus, like, the main character is called Moomintroll.
(and helmets make me sweaty 🙁 )
Deeferdonk wrote:
My mistake. Sorry.
And presumably also my mistake that this got in completely the wrong thread. Don’t know how that happened.
No one is stopping you wear a
No one is stopping you wear a helmet if you want to.
If bike use declines with the introduction of such measures then I’d speculate that heart disease, obesity etc increases as a result.
A bit like a fat car driver telling me it’s unsafe to ride a bike, but 160000 people/year in the UK die from heart and cirulatory disease. The number one killer.
I wear a helmet most of the time but it’s my choice.
I’m sure you have read this
I’m sure you have read this before but you are better off wearing a long haired wig.
http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/news/2016/01/25/helmet-wearing-risk-taking/
Plasterer's Radio wrote:
I find wearing a skirt or pink generally sufficient.
Rather than asking trauma and
Rather than asking trauma and neuro surgeons about wearing helmets, I decided to ask a dentist, an undertaker and a small dog. Unfortunately, I didn’t bother listening to their answers, so there you go – undeniable proof that a helmet WILL save your life even if you don’t ride a bike.
As a cyclist on the road we
As a cyclist on the road we are highly exposed to all manner of risks, not least from other road users. A helmet will have little benefit in a collision with a motor vehicle. However, if I may use a specific event, my son came off his bike at about 30 mph (whatever that translates in kph). His head hit the kerb and split his helmet. However, his head was fine (if it was in the first place). Three broken ribs healed in time, but it begs the question as to what head injury he might have suffered.
Please don’t just use the example of a collision with a car to justify this argument. I agree that nothing will save you from injury. Just ask yourself what happens if your head impacts with a hard surface. You can mend a broken bone, but not a broken brain. At the end of the day we must all weigh up the risks, consequences and responsibilities. Who will be affected by you brain injury apart from you.
However small we might say are the benefits of wearing a helmet, I choose to wear one, as I also do with skiing. The choice is yours.
Peter1950 wrote:
I choose not to.
Peter1950 wrote:
One post, with anecdata, eh? Hmm…
Peter1950 wrote:
So you choose to wear a helmet when cycling and skiing but not in a car where the danger of serious head injury is much higher?
kevvjj wrote:
Please provide a link to research that demonstrates I am at greater risk of serious head injury driving my car around town, versus cycling.
I only enter cycling events
I only enter cycling events where full body armour is mandated. Yes, bones can heal, but have you seen the price of top quality cybernetic replacements? (You’ve only got one appendix – protect it while you’ve got it).
Something, something, neuro
Something, something, neuro-surgeons, something, something, material scientists, something, something dark side.
hawkinspeter wrote:
this is why it should be compulsory for cyclists to wear a strap-on
Most people appear foolish.
Most people appear foolish. The monetary power via an expensive expiation notice seems to encourage safety much better than powers such as monarchy and monastery.
$330 seems a bit rich!!! Really??
I can’t be arsed looking, but
I can’t be arsed looking, but what exactly is a helmet?
What are the safety levels they have to achieve?
Because I can’t believe that a $5.00 https://whatson.melbourne.vic.gov.au/visitors/transport/bike/Pages/Bike.aspx can offer the same protection as a £150.00+ helmet.
What sort of protection will my 10 yr old helmet provide for me?
And why are the pro helmets more concerned about the helmet itself and not the quality of the helmet? They seem happy for these $5.00 helmets to be sold.
It seems to me that pro helmets don’t actually know what they’re advocating.
don simon wrote:
Actually, it is likely that the $5 helmet protects better than the $150 helmet. The first has been designed solely to pass the tests, with no attention paid to style, vents, aerodynamics or anything else. The latter has been designed to pass the tests, but has been styled, with maximum vents, aerodynamic shape and anything else that might sell it.
The $5 helmet has no vents and is likely to be stronger than one with lots of vents and other design features designed to sell it rather than be protective.
don simon wrote:
Here in Australia as long as it complies with Australian Standard 2063 and has the little red stick affixed inside the helmet it’s fine to use for the purpose of riding, cost is not a factor. To the pro helmets it is the perceived idea that it will afford 100% protection. I think the Foreword at the beginning of the Standard sums it up
https://www.saiglobal.com/PDFTemp/Previews/OSH/AS/AS2000/2000/2063-2008.pdf
Helmets which comply with this Standard are considered suitable for cycling activities where the wearer may be thrown or fall from a height, particularly while mobile. They are not, however, to be used by motor cyclists on public roads or in other public places where the various State and Territory Traffic Regulations require the use of helmets complying with AS/NZS 1698:2006, Protective helmets for vehicle users, nor are they to be used for high-speed sports such as motor cycle racing and car racing.
The protection given by a helmet depends on the circumstances of the impact and the wearing of a helmet cannot always prevent death or injury. A proportion of the energy of an impact is absorbed by the helmet, thereby reducing the force of the blow sustained by the head. The structure of the helmet may be damaged in absorbing this energy and any helmet that sustains a severe blow should be replaced even if damage is not apparent.
To achieve the performance of which it is capable and to ensure stability on the head, a helmet should be as closely fitting as possible consistent with comfort, and it must be securely fastened, with the retaining strap under tension at all times.
From Melbourne, Australia
Helmets are claimed to reduce
Helmets are claimed to reduce head injuries and deaths. If they work it seems to me that we should be able to tell.
Ben Goldacre, Wellcome research fellow in epidemiology, and David Spiegelhalter, Winton professor for the Public Understanding of Risk, looked for evidence that helmets work. They found that it could not be shown that they do.
This is what they publiushed in an editorial in the British Medical Journal.
In any case, the current uncertainty about any benefits from helmet promotion or wearing is unlikely to be reduced by further research. Equally, we can be certain that helmets will continue to be debated, and at length. The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for road safety may lie not in their direct benefits- which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies- but more with the cultural, psychological and political aspects of popular debate around risks.
Helmets are a major distraction from these other strategies.
Note that these two guys are not neurosurgeons, who have no special knowledge of accident causation and mitigation, but scientists who specialise in analysing data about risk and medical interventions.
Sorry, forgot the link to the
Sorry, forgot the link to the BMJ editorial.
http://www.badscience.net/2013/12/bicycle- helmets-and-the-law-a-perfect-teaching-case-for-epidemiology/
Very well worth reading.
felixcat wrote:
http://www.badscience.net/2013/12/bicycle-helmets-and-the-law-a-perfect-teaching-case-for-epidemiology/
When I clicked on your link, it didn’t find it, but the link above seems no different ???
hirsute wrote:
Ta.
If you imagine neurosurgeons
If you imagine neurosurgeons are the last word on helmets here is one who thinks they are useless.
Cycle Helmets are useless , says brain surgeon.
Leading neurosurgen tells the Hay Festival cycling helmets are too flimsy to be beneficial.
Reported in the Daily Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10866273/Cycle-helmets-are-useless-says-brain-surgeon-html
The big problem with using
The big problem with using neurologists evidence is that they only see people with head injuries, and not those with cuts, grazes, breaks, bumps and bruises (unless head related).
I noted that in my pro race crashes, that they dont to land on their heads, even as a secondary part of crashing, lots of shoulders and arms first, so broken collar bones and wrists, which are common injuries. Even in the pre helmet, hairnet, casquette wearing days.
Similar in motorcycle racing
So stormtrooper armour might do more good?
Just on observation
maviczap wrote:
And the evidence seems to be that the pros have had more fatalities since the helmet rule than before, even if the figures are too small to be conclusive.
I’m not going to bang on
I’m not going to bang on about the efficacy of a cycle helmet, it’s pretty conclusive to all but the indoctrinated, those who refuse to accept the facts and those with an agenda.
What I will talk about is my support for groups like Freestyle cyclists and ‘repeal mandatory bicycle helmet laws’, these people are at the forefront of fighting back (& it is fighting in reality), fighting for basic human rights, fighting against bias and discriminatory acts that not only breach common law (Laws that are celebrated by Australian government in fact in their recognition of Magna Carta) but the policing of people on bikes breaches the oath or attestation of a police officer chasing helmetless cyclists as opposed to criminal motorists and are anti constitutional.
Importantly its support to fight against governments whose actions and inaction have costs thousands of lives as well as hundreds of thousands of life changing injuries.
Discussing ways to defeat local judges to get fines overturned would be useful but not only are you fighting against people who are similarly indoctrinated but like here their magistrates ignore the law and discrimination, they even ignore the Australian constitution itself and will not listen or act fairly when given facts and told about the defence of necessity (that cycling with a helmet actually increases endangerment).
Some areas like Northern Terrotories allow people to cycle on cycle lanes sans helmets but not on roads (where a helmet is even less effective), funnily enough NT have the highest % of cycle use.
NZ also has activists whom are attempting to overturn these unlawful acts by their government, it’s a sad state of affairs all round.
Penalising and even worse criminalising people for doing something that has so many benefits not just for the indiidual, not just a country but the whole planet is a disgusting breach of innate rights, it’s about time it was exposed as an atrocity on a par with others that oppresses and kills minority groups just wanting to go about their business and live their lives free from fear, harm and encumbance.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
[
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
[
I think that helmet laws, and
I think that helmet laws, and strong pressure to wear helmets, are a sign of a cycle hating culture. All the Anglo-Saxon countries funnily enough well illustrate this.
USA, Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand are all low cycling rate countries where helmets are either mandated or pushed hard. Have you ever read the anti cycling venom spewed out in web forums by Australian motorists? It is chilling.
We are somewhere between these countries and the high rate countries, in riding rate, injury rate and helmet wearing. Why we should emulate the dangerous countries beats me.
There is a strong correlation between low cycling rates, high cyclist injury and death rates and helmet wearing.
All the countries I list have cyclist injury rates a multiple of ours.
They all have riding rates a fraction of ours.
In spite of near a hundred percent wearing rates in Australia and New Zealand their injury rates are a large multiple of the Netherlands where only the sort of cyclist who reads this website wears a helmet. For them and those readers a helmet is part of the uniform, but they have a higher injury rate than the shoppers, schoolchildren and other cyclists who use a bike as their everyday transport, and in far larger numbers, and make the difference in cycling rates from us.
Helmets do not seem to be the answer to the fragility of cyclists’ skulls. Cycling should not be an extreme sport for intrepid young men.
felixcat wrote:
I live in one of the US’s fifty states and we don’t even require seatbelts for adults riding in motor vehicles, let alone helmets for cyclists or motorcyclists.
I don’t see this as being anti-cyclist. You can find posts that are just as repugnant by cyclists. Don’t believe me? Two words: “Critical Mass”. In some places, it’s peaceful and orderly. In others, the exact opposite, the type of thuggery and venom that motorists tend to post whenever they get the chance. Don’t tell me you’ve never seen comments about using d-locks as weapons.
This is more about over-reaching governments, control, and the end of civil liberties. Why do you think so many Australian police responded to this ride? It had nothing to do with the law that was being broken. Those Aussies chose to not only challenge the law, but to defy it openly. The government doesn’t want to risk having people feel as though they have free will or any control over their lives. They commited the ultimate crime of choosing for themselves.
velo-nh wrote:
When you say “we don’t even …” are you referring to your own state? My information is that more than 20 states require youths to wear helmets. I am aware USA is a federal country and laws vary from state to state and that some cities do encourage cycling. In others the roads are, I believe, quite unfriendly, and quite a few jurisdictions require all riders to wear a helmet.
As regards rates and injuries I find
Netherlands 864 Km. cycled p.a. per inhabitant. 10.7 deaths per billion Km. ridden
UK 75 Km. 28.1 deaths
USA 47 Km. 44 deaths.
CH 261Km. 18.4 deaths.
Even Hilly Switzerland does better than USA and UK
You see the difference from countries which actually encourage cycling and those where the road environment is, for some reason, more dangerous.
felixcat wrote:
Yes, it’s a state issue. I can’t speak for all of them, but the three I ride in most often aren’t “against” cycling. They don’t spend a ton of money on infrastructure for us, but they’re slowly getting better at supporting road users other than motor vehicles.
My own experience is the exact opposite of this story. I can cross an intersection on a red light after slowing and looking both ways right in front of the police and they have zero interest. Perhaps it’s because cyclists are so outnumbered by motor vehicles that they don’t consider it worth the effort to cite them. They’re neither pro-cycling nor anti-cycling, they just don’t even think about cyclists. We’re invisible to them.
There are a whole lot of variables involved. Far too many for that kind of generalization, IMO.
I realy don’t get this.
I realy don’t get this. Helmets are great. They stop your brain from being crushed. Not wanting to wear one is like not wearing a seatbelt in a car at 110kph while saying no thanks to airbags as well.
Just dumb.
martybsays wrote:
Why do they not demonstrably reduce cyclists’ head injuries then?
See Goldacre’s and Spiegelhalter’s BMJ editorial I refer to above.
Did you know that when seat belt use was made mandatory that cyclist and pedestrian deaths and injuries increased?
martybsays wrote:
Given the known facts you wear a helmet for motor travel and walking right, more so for going down the pub on a Friday or Saturday night, make sure to advise your oldies they need to wear a helmet too. Also I hope you aren’t so dumb as to allow your kids/child relatives to travel without helmets in motors and insist on helmets for PE and in the playground at school?
If they are so great why don’t governments force adults and children to wear them 24 hours a day?
There are approx 1,400,000 head injuries reported to hospitals in the UK, around 160,000 admittances (so the number of serious head injuries are much greater than this), the majority of these by a massive amount are NOT people on bikes. Serious injuries of ALL body parts for people on bikes is circa 3000 annually, the majority caused by motorists and from that something that a helmet cannot prevent serious injury from.
More children die solely of head injuries in motor vehicle incidents (In just E&W) than the total number of child deaths by all injuries in the UK UK government stats for 2016..
More children suffer death by head injury in playgrounds, not to mention other activities than children on bikes.
Clearly if you don’t wear a helmet everywhere else in your life you’re just dumb!
Let’s not even get on to the dumbness of trying to compare to seatbelts and airbags on top of how these things have not worked that well for road safety.
martybsays wrote:
Do they?
Do they really?
I’ve got a fiver that says they don’t.
martybsays wrote:
I got a nice concussion from slipping on an icy walkway a few weeks ago. Should I wear a helmet when walking? They protect your brains, not wanting to wear one while walking is just dumb.
We’re all adults, this is a choice we should make for ourselves. I did ride helmetless for a while because ironically, due to a head injury when I was wearing a helmet, my head is extremely sensistive to pressure in certain areas. It took a while to find a style of helmet I could tolerate. While that’s uncommon, I’d hate to think the law should force me to stop riding because of it.
Do what you want but if you
Do what you want but if you happen to smash your head into the tarmac(and shit happens) then your gonna wish your wearing a helmet and you aint gonna be thinking thank fuck im not wearing one.
Much as I enjoy decending
Much as I enjoy decending into the helmet debate, can we do some more of the stormtrooper thing, that’s funny.
ktache wrote:
No.
Meanwhile, in NZ, where we
Meanwhile, in NZ, where we all have our heads screwed on straight, and our helmets on slightly crooked….
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/102357890/meagre-turnout-for-helmet-ride-for-choice-protest
madcarew wrote:
Judging by the comments and their ‘likes’, it seems you have that the wrong way around.
davel wrote:
Meanwhile, in NZ, where we all have our heads screwed on straight, and our helmets on slightly crooked….
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/102357890/meagre-turnout-for-helmet-ride-for-choice-protest
— davel Judging by the comments and their ‘likes’, it seems you have that the wrong way around.— madcarew
I was frankly astonished by the comments, I thought Kiwis were generally more intelligent. Perhaps in future years, cycle helmets will be used as a classic case of indoctrination.
burtthebike wrote:
JCHL reminds me of someone, I just can’t think who at the moment….
burtthebike wrote:
wearing a helmet prevents traumatic brain injury. Wow, you learn something new everyday.
davel wrote:
Meanwhile, in NZ, where we all have our heads screwed on straight, and our helmets on slightly crooked….
https://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/102357890/meagre-turnout-for-helmet-ride-for-choice-protest
— davel Judging by the comments and their ‘likes’, it seems you have that the wrong way around.— madcarew
In which case the comments were probably mostly from Australians 🙂
The data on the effects of
The data on the effects of New Zealand’s helmet compulsion law is very clear. As BurttheBike says, it requires almost wilful ignorance to imagine that the law had a positive effect. Take a look at the graph on this website. It is drawn using NZ Government figures.
https://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/17/the-effects-of-new-zealands-helmet/law/
The website is well worth reading.
A graph is a very effective way of presenting information clearly. For those who cannot cope with graphs, here is a rough summary of what it shows.
When helmets were mandated numbers cycling went from about 250,000 down to about 150,000.
Injuries per 100,000 cyclists went up from about 500 to about 900.
Helmeteers claim this shows the law was a good idea.
felixcat wrote:
What your graph and interpretation is missing is any indication that the helmet law was responsible for the drop in numbers of cyclists, and that the increase in injury levels were in any way not related to the reduced numbers of cyclists. You need to show both these links before your graph can be considered to represent any kind of causative link. Otherwise it could be related to the number of sheep in New Zealand which showed a similar drop in numbers across that period. Or inversely related to the amount of autism, which showed a corresponding increase over the time…..
madcarew wrote:
Cognitive dissonance. Look at the slopes, and the timing. Its one hell of a coincidence, and one repeated anywhere helmets have been mandated.
Its clear that something caused a step change in both figures. What is your candidate? You suggest that the 40% decrease in numbers cycling caused ( perhaps you think by the safety in numbers effect ) the 80% increase in casualty rate, but you don’t suggest any reason for the decrease in numbers.
Perhaps the deterrent effect of a helmet law (also repeated in Oz ) ultimately causes injury rate to increase, because numbers on the road decrease. Not a lot of consolation for those who don’t give up cycling.
felixcat wrote:
Felix, I don’t have an axe to grind in this argument, I’m pro personal choice, anti-mandate. However, Burt continually makes unsubstantiatable remarks and resulting conclusions which just are not possible to make from the available data. He then accuses everybody else of assumption and jumping to conclusions.
In asnwer to your question, I gave 2 possibilities in my earlier response. It is impossible to draw conclusions without providing a causative mechanism. Perhaps the drop in sheep numbers reached a certain threshold, which altered conditions in the road environment (less sheep wandering on the road, fewer pretty sheep to look at in the paddocks, less itchy wool jerseys to irritate and distract drivers in town at critical moments) and as a result there were less cyclist injuries. As you haven’t suggested a plausible mechanism (nor has Burt) this holds just as much water as anything else said so far. The rise in Autism could also suggest various threshold scenarios that could be projected on to the cycling figures and provide a vaguely credible alternative hypothesis
Again, Burt continues, willfully, to conflate individual choice in helmet wearing and the concommitant demonstrable injury preventions, and the sociological effects of mandatory helmet wearing. The two things are probably not related. Again, it’s called a paradox. No amount of graphs, statistics or (probably) stormtroopers will reconcile that.
The BMJ link referenced
The BMJ link referenced earlier is really worth a read. It sums up a lot of the factors and studies and then shrugs its shoulders, but comes out firmly against mandatory helmets, as, I think, everyone on this thread does.
It also says it’s an unresolvable micro vs macro muddle. Individually, if you have a classic ‘bang my head, look at the state of my helmet’ spill, that’s all that matters to you. If you have the same spill and get whiplash and blame your helmet (and this is a factor – see the BMJ link) then that’s all that matters to you. It saved your life, or hurt your neck – you think. This is a classic individual response and deals with the micro aspects of this argument.
However, throw in the macro factors and things get really messy.
1. What’s going to kill you is another vehicle, not an under-judged bend, right?
2. We’re all safer if there are more cyclists: safety in numbers, right?
3. Cycling appearing the dangerous preserve of sporty daredevils (with safety equipment that is promoted and mandated in certain events) puts off non-cyclists from cycling, right?
4. That reduces the safety in numbers aspect and makes us more at risk from real threats (see 1), right?
There’s ‘evidence’ (statistics that can be bent, or limited surveys) to support all of these points, but there’ll never be an all-encompassing conclusive study threading it all together like I have. I happen to like the logic and follow that argument – I think the insistence on helmets in events probably is, on balance, A Bad Thing, but I can’t possibly back that up or even quantify it. Nor can those that claim it’s Not A Bad Thing.
And all it takes is for you to be the poor bastard who nuts a lamppost and the macro arguments go out of the window. On a micro level, it saved your life, didn’t it?
We should really split these debates into a micro ‘helmet saved my life’ type one, and a macro ‘stop making people wear helmets’ one, but normally when I make that plea the immediate following post is a ‘shut up yous, a helmet saved my life’.
“Is this what Australia is
“Is this what Australia is coming to? Man fights $330 fine in court after seven police cars were sent to a quiet park to catch cyclists without a helmet”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5517259/Cycle-rules-nanny-state-NSW-police-fine-riders-no-helmet-Sydney.html
burtthebike wrote:
When is our (UK) Great Government Road Safety Review being done? Coming soon, to a park near you… 😉
burtthebike wrote:
They must have so little crime if this is the best use of their police.
burtthebike wrote:
What the ?
That seems like a sensible non-rabid article on the DailyFail featuring cyclists. Is it April 1st?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Come on, it’s always been obvious the Mail has various prejudices that quite often work at cross-purposes. Clearly this was a ‘nanny state’ and ‘police wasting resources’ story and that trumped cycle-hate.
Its up there with “violent young unemployed yob attacks elderly Muslim” or “asylum-seeking unlicenced driver runs over cyclist” and such-like.
The comments don’t always fall the same way as the editorialising though. Clearly different Mail-readers have different heiarchies of hate.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Yeah, it’s similar to a broken clock.
Those comments were atrocious, even for Australians (sorry for the bad generalisation, but a lot of Australians living there are fond of their right wing hating of out-groups).
burtthebike wrote:
DailyFail readers, (mostly drivers hating fellow humans on bicycles, especially crazed Aussie drivers); commenting underneath that article, still are fully of hatred & bullsh!t,
despite the article’s slant.
burtthebike wrote:
That website. My eyes!!
Beecho wrote:
I wouldn’t read any of the comments if you want to remain sane.
“No ifs and buts, the law is the law” says one liar, who doesn’t recognise the laws that they have (probably, as no one is perfect) chosen to break.
“You’ll need a helmet” says another advocate of violence in order to stamp out this illegal activity, “if I come across you on the footpaths.”
What is the collective noun for fuckwits?
don simon wrote:
Australia.
Erm, that isn’t ‘a protest’.
Erm, that isn’t ‘a protest’.
That is a crowd of pussies kneeling down before the state and bleating, ‘Please sir … let us go out without helmets!’
In other words, the same cowardly behaviour exhibited across the globe by cyclists confronted with the selfishness and the bigotry of the car lobby. Whether it’s an Australian policeman saying you can’t cycle without a helmet because you might hurt yourself (FFS!), or white van man on the North Circular forcing you to the kerb so he can get to a set of red traffic lights four seconds sooner.
To quote Thomas Jefferson, ‘If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so’. It is painful to contemplate, but there are times when the use of force against agents of the state is not just a right, but a duty.
This is one such occasion.
Helmet saved my life last
Helmet saved my life last year after being smashed off my bike by a car from behind. I suffered a broken (& disclocated) back along with many other fractures but as the sugeons told me it is only because of a helmet that I lived to be able to wake up in ICU. The helmet (Kask) is smashed up a goodun but my goodness it saved my head from suffering that trauma directly which would have been game over. Even with it I still suffered bleeding on the brain so heavy was the impact.
Astonishing some of the flippant, anti-helmet comments written on this thread. Sorry but this is ignorant and naive in the extreme. Unless you have been through what I have been through you ain’t really qualified frankly to cast such negative aspersions on them.
Helmets save lives people!
RTB wrote:
There are some flippant comments on Star Wars, but the comments questioning the evidence for helmet efficacy are serious and considered. I suggest you read them and think about them. You might then retract your “ignorant” aspersion.
The idea that only those who have hit their head are qualified to comment is silly. One example proves nothing. Science proceeds by the accumulation of data. In none of the countries where helmets have been mandated has there been a reduction in cyclist head injury rate.
It has been pointed out that if all the “helmet saved my life” anecdotes were added together the total would far exceed the number of head injuries suffered by cyclists before helmets and by unhelmeted cyclists.
I once hit my head in a fall. Luckily I was wearing a cotton Festina cap, I was uninjured and recommend cotton Festina caps.
felixcat wrote:
Equally, the surgeons treating the ‘helmet saved my life’ patients aren’t exactly qualified to comment on the effectiveness of cycling helmets either. They will likely have an understanding of the injury to the skull and/or brain, but not whether or not a helmet would have made any difference to said injury.
RTB wrote:
Anecdotes are not data, and your anecdote joins all the other thousands of “helmet saved my life” stories so popular in the media. The only problem being that the death rate of cyclists doesn’t fall as helmet wearing rates increase, so either the stories aren’t true, or wearing a helmet increases the likelihood of being in a fatal crash a million times.
Your surgeon may be of the opinion that the helmet saved your life, but most of the “helmet saved my life” stories are based on the same opinions of people not qualified to comment. They aren’t experts in collision mechanics or the protective effects of helmets, they are qualified in surgery. If opinions were facts, the death rate of cyclists would fall dramatically when helmet wearing rates rise, but if anything, it increases. The opinion of a surgeon in the case of cycle helmets is just about as useful as that of a plumber or a computer engineer or a weather forecaster.
RTB wrote:
You appear to be suggesting that unless you have experienced something directly, you are not qualified to criticise it.
Just think that through for a minute.
RTB wrote:
But isn’t the argument in this thread not whether or not helmets save lives (and that argument will run and run), but whether people should be legally obliged to wear one or not. We’re all grown-ups (well, most of us on here), so shouldn’t we be trusted to make our own decisions…?
Quite interesting – in that
Quite interesting – in that you guys actually agree on the pro-choice position!? I was initially interested by the debate but ultimately turned off by the intellectual posturing… Let’s fight for choice, let’s campaign for safer roads and let’s get more people cycling. BTW Stormtrooper’s helmets were scientifically proven to be ineffective in battle – let alone on a bicycle (see evidence in ROTJ and the defeat by Ewoks).
Smartstu wrote:
Nobody wants to ban helmets, Smartstu. All the anti-choice people are those who want to force others to wear a polystyrene hat.
I have never heard or read somebody who doubts that helmets work, and advocates not wearing, propose that they be legally forbidden.
It is only a proportion of the helmeteers who want to remove choice.
I saw this thread kick off
I saw this thread kick off and avoided reading the comments below it for my health, but I am curious… were there any graphs?
CygnusX1 wrote:
Only a couple, I’m quite disappointed (especially after being called “flippant”).
I had a look on Amazon for that “Risk” book by John Adams and the Kindle edition is £30! However, I’ve found an earlier book of his on EBay for a couple of quid, so maybe I’ll have a read of that one instead (Risk and Freedom: Record of Road Safety Regulations).
CygnusX1 wrote:
This thread doesn’t need graphs – it has empirical stormtroopers.
Throw Malta and Bosnia into
Throw Malta and Bosnia into the mix – recently seem to have ‘seen the light’ and repealed their helmet compulsion laws. Reason? Overall they discouraged cycling, and the minor benefits that helmets *might* have (slightly different debate), when you aggregate any effect on a macro level it just isn’t worth putting people off cycling over, helmetless or otherwise.
@Rich_cb – I’ve kind of lost track of positions a bit, so this isn’t walking you into a trap or anything, but is the gist of where you’re coming from:
helmet compulsion doesn’t discourage cycling
?
I used to wear a helmet on my
For a time I used to wear a helmet on my regular 16km cycle commute across central London. Before that I didn’t. And after that I didn’t. The head injuries I received before I started wearing my helmet and after I stopped again were all of exactly the same severity. I didn’t have any.
There’s some anecdotal evidence of no value at all.
The only thing my
The only thing my neurosurgeon said to me about cycling was that I shouldn’t do it in the six months in which I had a large area of brain with no skull to protect it. If we’re after anecdotes from neurosurgeons that’s my offering.
And this is it all in a nutshell – chapeau (cotton, not polystyrene) pjclinch. ‘The context of a cycle helmet is getting back on your bike and finishing your race rather than sitting down holding your head going “ow” and abandoning. The design spec is not that high: they should mitigate minor injuries, they will very probably not save you from serious or fatal ones.’
andyp wrote:
And yet I bet the surgeon wouldn’t dream of saying don’t be driven home or walk home?
As for pro/competitive cycling, this is another bit of wrong thinking. if the helmet acts to increase incidents/crashes and given the data on deaths and casual observance of racing and weekend warriors they tend to crash a hell of a lot more than they did before helmets became a thing.
Thus the overall effect just like it is everywhere else and for all age groups and sexes is that the helmets have put more people out of races than they’ve allowed to carry on because the chances of crashing sans helmet is less than with.
the effects of helmet wearing/safety aids particularly effect negatively the competitive and the risk takers, this applies to all sports and and indeed in the work place AND a seen in multiple studies children. The protection offered is simply not enough to offset the additional risk kids take, even so fewer children die in the UK of ANY injury type in the whole of the UK than do children dying solely of head injuries in motorvehicle incidents in just England and Wales.
Helmets in gridiron whilst they protect in the moment most of the time, they encourage overt agressive behaviour and recklessness which results in severe injuries in play despite the helmets and to other body parts not just the head (same as cycling) but has massive mid to long term effects that have being proven to be catastrophic. Meanwhile rugby of either code adjusted the way one plays the sport, they attempt to modify behaviour of the participants and whilst you cannot eliminate risk unhelmetted/virtually unprotected it is a massively safer sport than gridiron, particularly re head injuries. The scale is off the charts as to how bad helmets have being for participants because all those years back some people just like in Australia, NZ, the UCI etc thought simply putting protection on was the solution to the problem.
The comparisons in safety between two very physical sports and the wearing/non wearing imitate and highlight beautifully the problem with helmets in sport/activities … and still we have people like rich CB banging on deluded as ever with no proof and still maintains that the facts and evidence is wrong and that denounced and state sponsored lackeys like Jake olivier are correct. Despite the fact he and others have been outed, have used not just flawed methodology going against his own advice re meta-analysis but dishonest use of certain injuries to add extras to the head injury total when in fact they are not head injuries at all and certainly not remotely preventable by wearing a helmet.
the sickening thing is that even the EU road safety commission uses flawed study data, they are very keen to push helmet wearing particularly in NL and DK where they see that as a problem for their road safety solution and point the finger at these two low helmet wearing nations as being more dangerous than the UK all the whilst ignoring the modal share and distance travelled, they use the Australia data to prove that helmet wearing states have fewer head injuries but ignore the fact that using absolute numbers is BS when you have a huge drop in actual people cycling.
I’ve written to the ECF to warn them of this prevalence to promote helmet wearing by the EU commission but it seems the ECF aren’t interested in this stealth attack on freedoms and utterly failing to understand safety.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Any links to real evidence for this claim?
I have seen the laughably innumerate EU report on road safety, that did indeed just look at absolute (or per capita) figures while ignoring milage and modal share, and then conclude that NL has a bad record for cyclist accidents. That did indeed make me think the EU is run by morons.
But is there real evidence that there is a serious behind-the-scenes agenda involved, rather than just the stupidity of a handful of report-writing, pen-pushing Eurocrats?
I haven’t seen any such evidence myself, but then, one of the things that makes me a very lukewarm remainer is how little we are told about what the EU actually gets up to.
E.g. we hear the occasional never-expanded-upon references to the Commission pushing France to ‘liberalise it’s labour market’ (e.g. cut pensions and reduce job security) or allusions to Merkal, influenced by the German car industry, having some role in the uselessness of the EU emissions tests, but never anything in any detail.
So I find it impossible to judge whether there’s any truth in what you say or not.
It’s all very well pro-EUniks laughing at tabloid stories about ‘straight bananas’, but the media rarely seem to do any proper investigative reporting on what the EU commission and civil service actually does all day. How can there be accountability or real democracy when there’s so little transparency?
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
here’s an extract that despite the author admitting that helmets are flawed, admited that they reduce cycling numbers, ignored that the protection level of helmets is not that great in motorvehicle/cyclist incidents goes on to say that helmets should be brought in as a general society for riders of bikes.
There are more of these dotted all over the place. It’s clear that the EU commission see wearing cycle helmets as a solution and have a blind spot for looking at data particualrly when jumping from one absolute numbers stat to another. So absolute drops in numbers of injuries is pushed as a good thing but is ignoring a bigger drop in cycling so the rate of injury has actually gone up, and again the author uses absolute numbers of deaths (doesn’t mention head injuries as such) despite the fact that the % of total deaths is less for cyclists than the modal share but again she uses an absolute % of road deaths being from people on bikes without mentioning the fact that that modal share is a bigger number. No mention of the fact that most of the deaths are people on bikes in their 70s and 80s who are also not wearing helmets and would otherwise be in a care home or dead if they had being forced to wear helmets as per other states or made cycling unattractive by pushing for helmet wearing!
She uses this slanted and blind ignorance to catagorically state that NL and DK are less safe than the UK for cycling due to low helmet wearing rates and from that that helmets must be pushed for for general use across the EU. It truly beggars belief!
So, do have any sort of
So, do have any sort of conclusions yet?
I would like to say that I’ve found the debate extremely interesting, no, I really would, I’m struggling, but I would…
don simon wrote:
Yes! The empire has to mandate the wearing of helmets, not because they improve their safety, but because otherwise, they just don’t fit in with the uniform look.
What I want to know is how
What I want to know is how effective the Empire’s helmet is compared to the Rebel Alliance’s speeder helmets…
CygnusX1 wrote:
Are we talking about a standard Stormtrooper helmet or a Scout Trooper helmet (the ones speeder bike Stormtroopers wear)?
(Yes, this is all getting a bit “which sub-species of swallow…” isn’t it?)
And which is more aero –
And which is more aero – Stormtrooper full face or Alliance tear-drop?
.
.
Tommytrucker wrote:
A little known tip for you Tommy. Don’t click on any thread with helmet in the title and then you won’t have to read them.
Road safety charter and ‘good
Road safety charter and ‘good practise’ is littered with victim blaming bullshit and helmet promotion
here’s one from Slovenia
And more
And more
And more, the EU is
And more, the EU is absolutely wanting help countries to promote helmet wearing and have done so for years and despite the increases in wearing there have been no positive results over and above pedestrians or other modes. The whole thing is a fucking sham/victim blaming risk zero load of bullshit.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
True, those are a few snippests of circumstancial evidence that the EU is insitutionally pro-helmet (though I’m not sure where the first ‘cutting’ is actually from), but I was hoping more for a link to a credible site with some convincing analysis and research on the topic demonstrating that the Commission is taking real action to push a determined agenda of pushing for places like the NL in particular to introduce compulsory laws.
I’m not being dismissive about it, because I am genuinely suspicious of what the EU gets up to without getting much media attention (and because it did publish that ridiculous report). But for the time being I’d have to put this one down as ‘unproven’.