Malta is to scrap its compulsory cycle helmet laws after finding that it hinders efforts to get people riding bikes and discourages uptake of bike-sharing schemes, reports Malta Today.
A number of European Union member states have laws requiring children below a certain age to wear a cycle helmet, including France, which introduced such a law for under-12s last year.
Meanwhile, Spain requires all riders outside towns and cities to wear a cycle helmet, except in extremely hot weather or when they are going uphill.
However, Malta is the only European Union member state that has a blanket helmet law that requires all cyclists to wear a helmet, irrespective of their age or the type of area they are riding in.
That is set to change, however. A spokesperson for Transport Malta said it is currently drafting legislation that will “bring Malta more in line with countries where bicycles are regularly used as a commuting mode of transport.”
The spokesperson continued: “Transport Malta has been at the forefront in promoting bike sharing, enacting legislation to make this possible and is in constant dialogue with potential service providers to make this service more popular,” he said.
“The Authority recognises the fact that obligatory helmets can be of hindrance to the promulgation of such initiatives.”
Other legislative changes are also being introduced to encourage sales of e-bikes with a power output of up to 250W.
At present, such bikes need to be registered due to an existing law that was primarily aimed at people who converted push bikes with the aid of a petrol-fuelled motor.
“A number of individuals had resorted to install small fuel engines on regular bicycles, endangering themselves and other road users,” said Transport Malta.
“The legislation was in fact very effective in removing these potentially dangerous irregular bikes from our roads.
“Pedelec and e-bike owners can ride them on our roads without registering them or paying any licence fees, the same as one would with a traditional bicycle.”
-1024x680.jpg "“Clear anti-cyclist bias”: Lawsuit filed against Toronto police after cop doored cyclist… before ticketing rider over incident")
74 thoughts on “Malta to scrap compulsory cycle helmet law since it hinders efforts to get more people cycling”
So if Malta can do it, having
So if Malta can do it, having apparently realised that they don’t improve the safety of cyclists and the unintended consequences are huge and negative, when are Australia and New Zealand going to wake up?
And could all the helmet zealots please give it a rest.
And who is the Government to
And who is the Government to tell people that they must wear a seatbelt in their own vehicle? Or a helmet on their own motorbike (Sikh’s excepted, I believe – turbans, you see)?
Valbrona wrote:
You might be very surprised at the data about seat belts and motorcycle helmets. Basically, exactly the same myth, rumour and fairy stories we get about cycle helmets were spread liberally around, but the actual evidence shows either no benefit or a reduction in safety.
You might google for the Isles Report about seat belts, which was commissioned by Parliament to investigate what had happened in other countries which already had a law, but although it was completed before the vote, it was never issued. It found that although some car occupants would be saved, because of risk compensation, drivers taking more risks because they felt safer, more pedestrians and cyclists would die, more than the number of car occupants.
The motorcycle helmet law has never been shown to reduce risks to motorcyclists. There was a signficant drop in motorcycle fatalities when it was introduced, so all the zealots did a victory dance and celebrated. Then someone dug a little deeper into the data and found that almost all of the reduction was during the hours of 2200-0200, so unless the helmets became magically effective during those hours, something else was responsible, and in this case, a whole raft of road related laws were enacted at the same time, including drink driving and the breathalyser, which are far more likely to be the cause of the fall in deaths.
burtthebike wrote:
Top marks burt the bike.
And for someone like me, a strong advocate of personal freedom, there is also the notion that adults should be free to make their own decisions about personal safety.
burtthebike wrote:
Compulsory seat belt legislation came into force in the UK in 1983.
If the risk compensation theory were correct you would expect to see a large increase in the pedestrian and cyclist fatality rate after this date.
There was no significant increase in the pedestrian or cyclist fatality rate after 1983.
Rich_cb wrote:
The motorcycle helmet law has never been shown to reduce risks to motorcyclists. There was a signficant drop in motorcycle fatalities when it was introduced, so all the zealots did a victory dance and celebrated. Then someone dug a little deeper into the data and found that almost all of the reduction was during the hours of 2200-0200, so unless the helmets became magically effective during those hours, something else was responsible, and in this case, a whole raft of road related laws were enacted at the same time, including drink driving and the breathalyser, which are far more likely to be the cause of the fall in deaths.
— Rich_cb Compulsory seat belt legislation came into force in the UK in 1983. If the risk compensation theory were correct you would expect to see a large increase in the pedestrian and cyclist fatality rate after this date. There was no significant increase in the pedestrian or cyclist fatality rate after 1983.— burtthebike
Bloomin’ ‘eck, I feel a thread with graphs about to kick off
Rich_cb]
If there was a step change in seat belt use in 1983 from 0 to 100%, you might have a point, but the government had been running a seat belt campaign, using the odious Jimmy Saville, for years, and the wearing rate was probably already 75% and didn’t change much when the law came in, with many people still driving without one. Therefore there would not have been much, if any change in pedestrian/cyclist fatalities.
burtthebike wrote:
If the seat belt wearing rate really was 75% by 1983 then it must have risen pretty quickly in the previous two decades.
So if the risk compensation theory were true you’d see a big rise in pedestrian and cyclist deaths over the same period?
Edit:
The rate wasn’t 75% pre 1983. It was 40%, it jumped to 93% immediately post legislation.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/8900/seat-belt-rates.pdf)
So my original point stands.
If risk compensation is true why was there no spike in pedestrian or cyclist deaths when the seatbelt wearing rate more than doubled overnight?
Rich_cb wrote:
Unlikely. Can you show us in the form of a graph?
Or interpretive dance if that easier…
Rich_cb wrote:
Change in car design to add more safety features perhaps. If you can stop faster you are less likely to hit someone and kill them.
Plus at the same time they were doing the seat belt thing there was also a massive as campaign to get people, especially kids, to cross the road properly.
Bluebug wrote:
So the spike in pedestrian/cyclist deaths caused by seatbelts just happened to be exactly masked by decreases caused by other factors?
Or, alternatively, there was no spike caused by seatbelts.
Rich_cb wrote:
So the spike in pedestrian/cyclist deaths caused by seatbelts just happened to be exactly masked by decreases caused by other factors?
Or, alternatively, there was no spike caused by seatbelts.— Bluebug
You know the rules … no graph, no evidence. The isles repirt proved seatbelts directly negatively affected the number/rate of injuries. That ongoing reductions elsewhere due to other interventions may have seen overall figures remain same (which have gone on to reduce casualty/incident figures) but the rate and absolute number would have been lower without. The same is seen post helmet law in Australia where people on bikes suffered higher rates of incidents/injuries yet there was already a refuction in incidents for all modes due to specific intervention BEFORE helmets were introduced. This is shown in the data. So rather than just a flatlining of casualties/incidents thus was the negative effect of helmets it actually raised the cadualty/incident rate and only for that one group. Other modes continued to get safer due to those other interventions.
You’re not very good at this understanding basic concepts and data lark are you!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
The seatbelt wearing rate doubled between 1982 & 1983.
Where was the associated rise in pedestrian and cyclist injuries?
The fact that there was no rise despite the dramatic increase in seatbelt wearing shows that the predictions made in the Isles report were incorrect.
How else do you explain the data?
Rich_cb]
Well, one reason is that the increasing numbers of motor vehicles and increasingly dangerous driving deterred walking and cycling, so there were fewer of them to kill. Also, the people transferring walking and cycling trips to driving meant that there were fewer of them to kill because they were driving instead.
burtthebike wrote:
The fatality rate is given per billion miles travelled so is unaffected by the number of participants.
Unfortunately for you the data simply doesn’t fit.
Rich_cb wrote:
Well, one reason is that the increasing numbers of motor vehicles and increasingly dangerous driving deterred walking and cycling, so there were fewer of them to kill. Also, the people transferring walking and cycling trips to driving meant that there were fewer of them to kill because they were driving instead.
— Rich_cb The fatality rate is given per billion miles travelled so is unaffected by the number of participants. Unfortunately for you the data simply doesn’t fit.— burtthebike
You could be right. So why wasn’t the Isles report published? And Professor John Adams says it was right.
burtthebike wrote:
I don’t know why it wasn’t published. Probably because the politicians of the day didn’t like its predictions.
That doesn’t make those predictions right.
How does the good professor explain the unchanged pedestrian/cyclist KSI rate post 1983?
Rich_cb wrote:
You could be right. So why wasn’t the Isles report published? And Professor John Adams says it was right.
— Rich_cb I don’t know why it wasn’t published. Probably because the politicians of the day didn’t like its predictions. That doesn’t make those predictions right. How does the good professor explain the unchanged pedestrian/cyclist KSI rate post 1983?— burtthebike
Well we went through precisely this before. He explains it by pointing out it wasn’t unchanged, it went up for period, but resumed its previous downward trend…except that the upward tick meant the subsequent figures all remained higher than they would have been if the pre-law trend had continued unchanged, and the point where the law was introduced remained as a visible inflection point in the graph.
(He also claims the data doesn’t support the claim that it saved drivers lives
e.g.
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/Seat%20belts%20for%20significance.pdf
But personally I just don’t really care about that question either way, whether he’s right or wrong, I just don’t care, it’s up to drivers if they want to accept a law that may or may not be good for them, I’m only bothered by what it means to those outside the vehicle…[edit] though I can’t help thinking if drivers are quite happy to accept a compulsory seat-belt law, why don’t they just voluntarily wear the things thus making a law unnecessary?)
In honestly I have to point out this document mentions John Adams claims (not by name) but goes on to say “However, extensive statistical work disproved this.”. But annoyingly, that claim is one of the only such in the report that has no reference given to support it. I for one would be interested to see this extensive statistical work.
https://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/aa-seat-belt-report.pdf
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I don’t know why it wasn’t published. Probably because the politicians of the day didn’t like its predictions. That doesn’t make those predictions right. How does the good professor explain the unchanged pedestrian/cyclist KSI rate post 1983?[/quote]
Well we went through precisely this before. He explains it by pointing out it wasn’t unchanged, it went up for period, but resumed its previous downward trend…except that the upward tick meant the subsequent figures all remained higher than they would have been if the pre-law trend had continued unchanged, and the point where the law was introduced remained as a visible inflection point in the graph.
(He also claims the data doesn’t support the claim that it saved drivers lives
e.g.
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/Seat%20belts%20for%20significance.pdf
But personally I just don’t really care about that question either way, whether he’s right or wrong, I just don’t care, it’s up to drivers if they want to accept a law that may or may not be good for them, I’m only bothered by what it means to those outside the vehicle…[edit] though I can’t help thinking if drivers are quite happy to accept a compulsory seat-belt law, why don’t they just voluntarily wear the things thus making a law unnecessary?)
In honestly I have to point out this document mentions John Adams claims (not by name) but goes on to say “However, extensive statistical work disproved this.”. But annoyingly, that claim is one of the only such in the report that has no reference given to support it. I for one would be interested to see this extensive statistical work.
https://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/aa-seat-belt-report.pdf
[/quote]
Thanks.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I’m not sure where the Professor is getting his data from.
I had a look at the Government statistics.
1982-1983 saw pedestrian deaths up by 2.5% and Cyclist deaths up by 10%.
As cycling fatalities are a much smaller number larger fluctuations are more common and this was not an abnormal change.
For comparison the cyclist fatality rate also rose in 77-78, 78-79, 80-81, 83-84, 86-87 and 88-89.
The pedestrian change was also not abnormal, similar increases had occurred in 71-72, 77-78, 85-86 + 87-88.
Looking at the KSI figures there was actually a decrease for pedestrians in 82-83. Whilst there was an increase in cyclists in 82-83 it was almost identical to the increase in 81-82.
Overall the fluctuations seen in 82-83 were similar to those seen in other years and certainly not what would be expected if there had been a seismic change in risk taking.
Finally there was a decline in the overall number of car accidents 82-83 which seems odd if risk taking really did increase.
Data:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/568484/rrcgb-2015.pdf
Rich_cb wrote:
Well we went through precisely this before. He explains it by pointing out it wasn’t unchanged, it went up for period, but resumed its previous downward trend…except that the upward tick meant the subsequent figures all remained higher than they would have been if the pre-law trend had continued unchanged, and the point where the law was introduced remained as a visible inflection point in the graph.
(He also claims the data doesn’t support the claim that it saved drivers lives
e.g.
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/Seat%20belts%20for%20significance.pdf
But personally I just don’t really care about that question either way, whether he’s right or wrong, I just don’t care, it’s up to drivers if they want to accept a law that may or may not be good for them, I’m only bothered by what it means to those outside the vehicle…[edit] though I can’t help thinking if drivers are quite happy to accept a compulsory seat-belt law, why don’t they just voluntarily wear the things thus making a law unnecessary?)
In honestly I have to point out this document mentions John Adams claims (not by name) but goes on to say “However, extensive statistical work disproved this.”. But annoyingly, that claim is one of the only such in the report that has no reference given to support it. I for one would be interested to see this extensive statistical work.
https://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/aa-seat-belt-report.pdf
— FluffyKittenofTindalos I’m not sure where the Professor is getting his data from. I had a look at the Government statistics. 1982-1983 saw pedestrian deaths up by 2.5% and Cyclist deaths up by 10%. As cycling fatalities are a much smaller number larger fluctuations are more common and this was not an abnormal change. For comparison the cyclist fatality rate also rose in 77-78, 78-79, 80-81, 83-84, 86-87 and 88-89. The pedestrian change was also not abnormal, similar increases had occurred in 71-72, 77-78, 85-86 + 87-88. Looking at the KSI figures there was actually a decrease for pedestrians in 82-83. Whilst there was an increase in cyclists in 82-83 it was almost identical to the increase in 81-82. Overall the fluctuations seen in 82-83 were similar to those seen in other years and certainly not what would be expected if there had been a seismic change in risk taking. Finally there was a decline in the overall number of car accidents 82-83 which seems odd if risk taking really did increase. Data: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/568484/rrcgb-2015.pdf
Well, he makes his argument in the paper I linked to. As I say, it’s cycle helmet laws I’m bothered about, I don’t particularly care about the seat belt law as such, and certainly I’ve always accepted it did good overall in terms of total death rates (even if it _might_ have redistributed risk from drivers to those outside)…but actually, having read his take on it linked to above, I’m wondering whether that law itself might have been oversold.
His point is based on international comparisons to argue that rates also fell in countries without such a law, plus noting that 1983 also saw a big crackdown on drink driving. He seems to be arguing that almost all the fall in death rates occured during the post-pub hours, while rates at other times of day were hardly affected.
Still it’s only of academic interest to me, I’m not going to be campaigning against seat-belt laws, and I think its a racing certainty that when that paper appeared there were subsequent papers that contested or debunked its claims. But I’m just curious what such papers said.
I’m not a libertarian blindly fixated on ‘personal freedom’, but I’m also not a paternalist liberal who thinks every possible restriction in the name of health and safety is necessarily right. Some are, some aren’t.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
There are huge amounts of experimental data from crash test laboratories showing that seatbelts benefit those who wear them.
The argument is that this benefit is cancelled out by the harm that seatbelt wearing does to other road users.
In order to demonstrate that you’d have to see evidence of harm after the law was introduced.
The evidence is mixed at best, KSIs for cyclists showed an almost identical rise in the year before the law as they did in the year after, KSIs for pedestrians actually dropped in the year after the law.
The Professor ignores this data as they are not as reliable as fatality data, that is a fair point but I can’t help cynically wondering if he would have included it if it had supported his argument.
The fatality data did rise but as I mentioned in my previous post fluctuations are quite normal in smaller data sets and the changes were not abnormal year on year.
Car ownership was increasing rapidly at that point in time, from 19m to 21m between 1980-85. (Data in original link).
Despite this huge increase in car numbers and a massive jump in seatbelt wearing the overall number of accidents went down after the seatbelt law was introduced.
There was also a decrease in pedestrian or cyclist fatalities after rear seatbelts became compulsory in 1991.
Apart from the 1983 fatality data there really isn’t much to support an argument that risk taking increased with increasing seatbelt use.
I’m also not hugely interested in seatbelts per se but the risk modification argument is often wheeled out in regards to cycling safety equipment so I am more interested in that side of the discussion.
burtthebike wrote:
Unfortunately Burtthebike, this kind of zealotry reduces the credibility of your helmet arguments to a Trumpian “zero”. The idea or implication that seatbelts don’t reduce road deaths is quite ridiculous. An enormous amount of highly reliable (crash test and other) data shows that the chance of a driver surviving a 30 mph crash in 1950 was about 50%. In 2018 it is >95%. The relative risk is one tenth. About 60% of this reduction in risk is due to seatbelt technology. The chances of surviving a 60 mph crash in 1950 was about 1%, in 2018 it is about 50%. Per mile covered / fatal accidents rate is less than 20 percent in 2018 of what it was in 1950 taken across all road users. The per mile covered fatality rate for cyclists is lower now than in 1950. Your idea that the rate of driver deaths has been outweighed or matched by pedestrian and cyclist deaths is not borne out, nor is the idea that there is a higher rate of cyclist and pedestrian deaths related to the introduction of seatbelts.
Similar is true of your suggestion about motor cycle helmets where, in racing, the major cause of death in motorcycle races is major head trauma, and this has reduced directly in line with increase in helmet technologies in spite of an increase in accident speeds, where as the protective clothing has had little impact on death rates, but major impact on minor trauma. issues. Other research shows that in the US, states that roll back compulsory helmet laws show an increase in motorcyclist deaths of about 40% (showing amongst other measures, that in a motorcyclist vs car accident, with helmet the motorcyclist is 70 times more likely to die than the car occupant, and without helmet they are > 100 times more likely to die)
As you trawl through your statistics, you should be acutely aware of confirmation bias. Don’t try to prove your preconceived notions correct; Try to prove them wrong.
madcarew wrote:
And listing statistics without references is credible?! At least Trump peddles his unreferenced shit in <140 chars, so this is surely sub-Trump.
Links, both, FFS.
Davel
The source of information for my discussion is David Grant of LTNZ, and Mia Cheun of Statistics NZ, both personal friends. The statistics they use in their work (both rather accomplished statisticians) are globally sourced and not just relevant to NZ. You can find corroborating information with very simple google searches. I don’t pretend to be a statistician or even have any particular depth of understanding of statistics. I’m pretty confident in understanding conclusions of research papers and the limitations contained within the methodology.
Burtthebike makes some extraordinary claims:
Regarding seatbelts
” Basically, exactly the same myth, rumour and fairy stories we get about cycle helmets were spread liberally around, but the actual evidence shows either no benefit or a reduction in safety.”
He makes this claim based (apparently) on a single source which others have pointed out doesn’t match the empirical data shown (and that’s what stastics and studies are for, making accurate(ish) predictions of outcomes). It also flys in the face of a considerable body of evidence (you might start at NCAP descriptions of how crash protocols arose and the history behind them). It’s also a source which wasn’t adopted at the time, possibly because it was realised it failed to match the observable outcomes.
“The motorcycle helmet law has never been shown to reduce risks to motorcyclists. “
No safety law is necessarily about reducing total risk. What is clear is that motor cyclists are more likely to die in an acident if they are not wearing a helmet (https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/156/5/483/158023 ) and that long term head injuries are significantly reduced (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4779790/, ) and the MAIDS report, an enormous survey, showed that in over 2/3rds of cases helmet significantly reduced the severity of head injury, where as (in support of BurtThe bike’s position) the helmet had no effect in 3.6% of cases. From the same report we see that serious accidents are on the increase, but deaths and serious head injuries remain static (suggesting that either motorcyclists are getting better at bouncing, or cars are becoming less damaging, and just possibly protective equipment is becoming better.)
These examples of studies are not the be-all and end all of my assertions, but they are a miniscule part of “the large body of evidence” I referred to.
And, taking my own advice, trying to prove this position wrong has thrown up literally thousands of studies and reports that back up the argument that seatbelts and motorcycle helmets both prevent deaths and reduce some injury rates, and rather fewer reputable, narrower, smaller, more sepcific studies that show it has no effect, and even less that it has a detrimental effect on over all safety outcomes for motorcyclists.
Burtthebike has referenced a single 30 year old report that was unadopted at the time. Trying to conflate this argument with the bike helmet argument, and use it as supporting evidence for his general position does indeed reduce his credibility on the matter to a Trumpian zero.
For the record, I am against mandatory cycle helmet wearing, but I consistently wear one safe in the knowledge it will help reduce or even prevent some injuries, and almost as secure in the knowledge that wearing it is unlikely to make any potential outcomes worse. I take personal responsiblity for my level of risk taking whilst on a bike, which ,it has to be said is considerably higher than that of the general population.
Valbrona wrote:
Who are the government to tell you not to stab people, incite racial hatred etc.
alansmurphy wrote:
The government tells me not to hurt other people, I’m OK with that (even though I don’t need telling, some people do).
The government tells me to do or not to do something that can only hurt me, that should be no business of the government. It’s not what I pay them for.
FrankH wrote:
You seem to think the Government is your employee. They are quite interested in the things you do that could harm their tax-paying-unit. They want you fit and healthy and working until 67, then you can do whatever you sodding well want. So drink less, get regular exercise and eat your greens, but don’t smoke and we would prefer it if you wore your helmet when cycling, but we won’t make you because that might be expensive and make some of you shouty, and shouty people aren’t busy working. Fitter, happier, more productive.
Leviathan wrote:
Most of those points make sense to me, but I want to know why the government doesn’t do more to get people cycling as that’s the easiest way to improve the population’s health.
Leviathan wrote:
I don’t think the government is my employee, that isn’t what I said. What I said is that I pay them. Not all by myself of course, I do get a little help from all the other tax payers.
And I’m 68, I already do as I sodding want.
Valbrona wrote:
You don’t understand very much about society do you?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Or apostrophes.
davel wrote:
You don’t understand very much about society do you?
— hawkinspeter Or apostrophes.— Valbrona
Well, I grew up in a Council house, went to a sink comprehensive school and where I rarely saw a proper English teacher or a new book in all the time I was there becasue the school didn’t have two pennies to rub together during the time that Thatcher was in power after lots of people exactly like your parents voted for her hand over fist.
You middle class tit.
Valbrona]
Ahhh, the mask is starting to slip.
Fast approaching 50, balding, over-weight, in a dead end job with a female boss who has a name you can’t quite pronounce. After 2 failed marriages, because she just couldn’t stop walking into doors, you’re nothing more than a Facebook stalker using ‘friends’ holiday pictures to try and rouse the pathetic little todger.
But it’s all them bloody foreigners fault!
I grew up on a council estate too Valerie, and I’m not a total c*nt!*
* I’m a selective one
alansmurphy]
[quote=davel][quote=hawkinspeter]
[quote=Valbrona]
Well, I grew up in a Council house, went to a sink comprehensive school and where I rarely saw a proper English teacher or a new book in all the time I was there becasue the school didn’t have two pennies to rub together during the time that Thatcher was in power after lots of people exactly like your parents voted for her hand over fist.
You middle class tit.
— alansmurphy Ahhh, the mask is starting to slip. Fast approaching 50, balding, over-weight, in a dead end job with a female boss who has a name you can’t quite pronounce. After 2 failed marriages, because she just couldn’t stop walking into doors, you’re nothing more than a Facebook stalker using ‘friends’ holiday pictures to try and rouse the pathetic little todger. But it’s all them bloody foreigners fault! I grew up on a council estate too Valerie, and I’m not a total c*nt!* * I’m a selective one— Valbrona
Valbrona wrote:
Judgemental bigot
Valbrona wrote:
We can go all ‘Python Yorkshiremen’ if you like, but it’ll only bore the others.
Suffice to say if it came to a ‘you should have seen the state of my house/school/estate’-off, I’d beat you one-handed. And then I’d beat you one-handed.
One of the main differences between us is I read a few books. You seem to be proud of being brought up thick and remaining so, you classless, pigshit-thick, troll bitch.
Valbrona wrote:
I suppose you think that the evidence they found with respect to gridiron and the wearing of helmets is all wrong? What about the evidence the ABA found when they looked at concussion rates after they introduced headgear wearing in the amateurs, they then decided to allow males to compete without as the evidence clearly showed massively more concussions with than without?
My brother was a decent level amatuer before they brought about headgear in boxing, we spoke about it and it is very obvious why they are a failure. Bigger target/bigger head circumference (in cycle helmets more likely to hit something), more risk taking because feel you’re more protected and the fact that the headgear didn’t do shit to absorb a blow, oh and specifically to boxing more tegretting of the head because head shots counted as points (changed in 1992) not body shots far more easily to be seen by the judges than a body shot.
I guess you also don’t want to hear about helmet wearing in motorcycle circles in the US, they found that incident rates went up, same as with seatbelt wearing.
Maybe we should be issuing stab vests for when people leave the house and anti rape devices for the vulnerable or people who might have a few too many on a night out? More apt given the near 600 knife deaths in the Uk not to mention thousands of injuries.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
I really don’t think seat-belt or helmet wearing is comparable with the boxing helmet debate – especially when you actually examine the reasons for the initial rate of increase in stoppages (not concussion, that’s infered). There has always been a clear demonstration in reduction in linear acceleration with headgear, and some that show impact reduction in angled strikes, so it’s not just a simple situation. There’s also plenty of to and fro there with a number of more recent discussions seeming to tilt away from complete removal of head protection, and the situation is generally not considering the effect of a single incident.
fukawitribe wrote:
As I explained, yes there is a direct comparison between boxing head gear and indeed seatbelts to cycle helmets.
They all induce more risk taking, such that along with lack of efficacy gives no real term reduction in overall injuries (because seatbelt wearers teansmitted their risk onto at first their unbelted rear passengers and at all times those outside the vehicle as per the isles report).
Boxers heads are increased in size so the target is bigger, a pynch that would have slipped by without actually catches the headguard and transmits a force both percussive and twisting. This contributed to more concussions, just as increasing the size of ones head with a helmet. Head strikes that would miss completely or be a graze/light bruising all of a sudden become a more serious head strike. The extra circumference and indeed weight particularly on children has a huge influence on heads hitting solid objects when wearing, add in the risk taking and this is almost identical to boxing in its effects and to why.
This same effect is found in skiing also with no perceptible benefits from huge increases in helmet wearing on the piste. Cricket, more serious head injuries due to head strikes POST helmet wearing!!
As an ex rugby player who had a dabble at gridiron the increased risks one takes because you feel prorected is very noticeable, it’s exaggerated compared to cycling for sure but the fallout of head injuries even with wearing somethin akin to a motorcycle helmet is absolutely massive. Compare that to rugby where you have more control and take less risks head injuries and latterly permanent damage from such is massively less.
Adding a ‘safety aid’ in any environment changes behaviour, this is a given, whether that be a building site, a professional kitchen or driving a motor vehicle.
If as proven that safety aid not only isn’t enough to actually prevent the injuries it’s said to (just look at the actual reductions in forces in the lab with just a head weight for a helmet, not enough to prevent concussion !!) but in fact can induce others like rotational injuries, plus on top of that increase probability of incident and/or contact where none would have ocured otherwise and we have parity or a negative effect purely on an injury/incident basis ( exvluding the damage helmet wearing has done to victim blame/focus responsibility on vulnerable not the criminal and reduce cycling) then it’s clear tha that safety aid is a complete and utter failure.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
There’s already a built-in head safety aid for boxing, in the frailty of human hands. Fist-head strikes in actual fights often result in hand damage.
One of the common explanations given for some of the old bare-knuckled fights lasting 100 rounds or so is that there were very few head shots – too risky. Put gloves on… particularly 8-12oz gloves (as opposed to 4oz as in MMA)… watch behaviour change.
Stands to reason that headguards would drive behaviour too.
davel wrote:
That’s true, and seen in practice. Boxers stopped shielding their heads so much, butted more (less risk of cuts), and the head was now a larger target as BTBS says – no-ones disputing that. The figure that is often quoted is ‘number of concussions’ but that’s not actually what rose when boxing headgear was introduced. What did rise, apparently, was stoppages due to signs of lack of control and mental faculty. However another change confounds that and the figures most often quoted are for two different styles of boxing. Taking into account all stoppages – knockout and actual or perceived loss of faculty – and there seems to be little or no change, which leads to another point .. the number of knockouts. Anecdotal evidence that there are less KOs but more, repeated heavy blows to the head have been around since it happened; on the surface seems to make sense but what about data ? Digging around there is this, for instance
There is also the issue of who seems more inclined to argue for fights without headgear and who doesn’t. In the former camp there were a number of those from the various boxing associations involved in promoting the sport, and in the other quite a number of physicians, e.g. the Association of Ringside Physicians were countering the AIBA at the time.
There is evidence of a changes, but don’t believe people who tell you it’s clear cut or obvious or thing X has ‘massively increased’ – there is quite a bit of data and it’s not simple at all to form concrete conclusions. FWIW there seem to be a number of more recent studies that indicate headgear is a net benefit but, even if true, that doesn’t mean to say it’s not without risk and those studies themselves may be subject to further scrutiny and counter-claim in the future. Things like this are rarely clear-cut, that’s just the way it is – reality really doesn’t give a shit about people opinions and beliefs.
Someone needs to show this to
Someone needs to show this to The RH Tom Watson, MP:
http://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/4068/labour-party-deputy-shows-support-for-compulsory-helmet-use
My father-in-law, who retired
My father-in-law, who retired about 20 years ago, was an orthopaedic surgeon at a hospital close to a major stretch of motorway and saw many crash victims. While not a rigorously scientific study, his impression was that making motorbike helmets compulsory saved few, if any, lives; it just resulted in people dying several days later in intensive care rather than at the scene.
In the same vein I’ve long been of the opinion that bike helmet anti-compulsionists could do worse that to adopt a slogan from the campaign against compulsory motorbike helmets,
“Let those who ride decide!”
I’m not arguing in favour of
I’m not arguing in favour of mandatory helmet wearing, just pointing out the stupidity of Valerie.
However, speed limits, a massive health and safety exec, building regulations and on and on are all examples of you paying the government to ensure that people don’t hurt themselves…
alansmurphy wrote:
Here’s the perfect helmet for the village idiot, it’s even got a penis protector.
Jesus, if you’re not
Jesus, if you’re not convinced of the potential benefits of wearing a seatbelt and a helmet on your motorbike, you are indeed, an idiot.
Someone please give Burt a lift in your car, slam the anchors on as he sits there no belt, or maybe take him pillion on a motorbike and pull a top wheelie and laugh as he rolls off the back, safe in the knowledge his head WILL NOT get hurt. It’s magic, see.
My mate highsided and his full face helmet ground along the floor. Burt’s face would have ground a hole in the tarmac because he’s a believer and that’s enough to save you.
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Do motorbikes come with seatbelts?
CygnusX1 wrote:
Kickstarter beckons, my friend.
CygnusX1 wrote:
Some do, although hardly any were sold: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_C1
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Tell me, who is the idiot? The one who has read the research about helmets, seatbelts and risk compensation or the one who just opines from a position of blissful ignorance?
Still, if you really are from Yorkshire, presumably a village, that would explain it.
burtthebike wrote:
You’ve clearly never been hit in the face by a fly at 70mph!
I ride a reasonably powerful motorbike and I wouldn’t consider going out on that without at least a helmet, jacket, gloves and boots, because sh!t happens. I once attended an RTI on the M4 where a motorcyclist, doing absolutely nothing wrong, had a rear tyre blow out – could have been anything that caused it, but he went several feet in the air before sliding down the road at about 70mph. He was fortunate not to be hit by any other vehicles and both him and what was left of his bike ended up on the hard shoulder. He was ultimately ok, mainly bruised, but his leathers were pretty scrubbed up and, without a helmet, he wouldn’t have had much face or hair left.
I’ve had an over-the-bars moment on a mountain bike where, had I not been wearing a helmet, I would have made quite a mess of the front of my head.
So, I will ride my various bikes while wearing appropriate helmets, in the full knowledge that they won’t protect me from every eventuality, but will, in some instances, reduce injuries and give me a fighting chance.
And every time I climb aboard the motorbike, draped in ~£1,000 of leather and plastic body armour, it occurs to me that one of the most vulnerable bits of my body, my neck, has nothing more substantial than a Buff wrapped around it – and that’s what keeps me from riding like a complete idiot.
Malta, you must be bloody
Malta, you must be bloody joking! A helmet certainly won’t help reduce injuries in Malta and Gozo as they are the worst drivers in Europe if not the western world and their traffic law enforcement is almost non existent. The state of the roads are appalling to boot. I know this because I go there sometimes twice a year . It’s a great place for a holiday but stick to the buses if you need to get about or return home in one piece !
Batchy wrote:
You are all missing my point . This decision was made by the MALTESE government who can’t be arsed to implement or police the compulsory helmet law. The standard of driving is appalling as is their attitude towards any other road users especially cyclists.
They still shoot everything out of the sky that flies overhead despite it being illegal in the rest of the EU so why should they bother about cyclists.
I guess it’s about time for
I guess it’s about time for shit-posting on another helmet thread.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Your picture reminds me: does Malta still allow nay encourage mass shooting and trapping of migratory wild birds?
Why do Alan and Davel often
Why do Alan and Davel often comment within minutes of each other?
I noticed it on that 400+ thread the other day, whatever time of day it was they’d usually both reply at almost the exact same time.
Do they live together? Do their carers only switch on the WiFi at certain times?
What other explanation could there be…?
Rich_cb wrote:
They take it in turns to come up for air …
Ohh … I get it. THEY ARE THE SAME PERSON.
Rich_cb wrote:
You do like your spurious connections, dontcha, Mulder. Was your sister kidnapped by aliens while not wearing a bike helmet or something? Why go for the simple explanation like we both spend too much time posting on here when there’s a completely unfeasible conclusion to jump to?
Maybe we both just post too much on here. But no, obviously we’re the same person, at least until a mod confirms we’re not via confirming IP addresses. Show us a couple of unrelated graphs, picture boy.
You need a good slicing with Occam’s razor, you do. You’ll never get that, though, because you think you’re a damn sight more intelligent than you actually are.
Also… Almost siding with Valbrona. Bet that makes you feel nice and clean. Oh wait, no… You must BE Valbrona. What other explanation could there be..?
For fuck sake.
For fuck sake.
People who want to wear helmets will wear them. People who do not want to wear helmets will not. Some will be injured. Some won’t be. Some will derive pleasure from berating those from the other camp reagarding thier choices. Some won’t. Some will even go as far as to call those who have an opposing view silly names, like cunt, cockwomble, fuck face and so on. Some will be more civil in their debating. Maybe.
The UK Government will continue to encourage, not legislate, helmet use. Allowing the public in general to make their own choices regading headwear. The Maltese have now assumed the same position. Freedom of choice is a good thing.
Furthermore we have ascertained that seat belts are not bicycle helmets, Malta does some nasty things to small migratory birds, Leviathan has listened to Radiohead at some point, Valbrona is the product of a council estate, BTBS likes to write (but not necesarrily read) and that punching someone in the head will hurt your hand, probably.
Can I just go ahead and mention the Nazis and get it over with?
/thread
Crampy wrote:
they all wore helmets, and where are they now?
Crampy wrote:
We could try that, but then it just tends to chaotically spill over into other threads like a Web-debate version of Blazing Saddles. Better to contain it in here, like a Web-debate version of Fight Club.
By page 7 you’ll have your shirt off and be oiled up.
davel wrote:
Can I just go ahead and mention the Nazis and get it over with?
— davel We could try that, but then it just tends to chaotically spill over into other threads like a Web-debate version of Blazing Saddles. Better to contain it in here, like a Web-debate version of Fight Club. By page 7 you’ll have your shirt off and be oiled up.— Crampy
Already there, old boy.
davel wrote:
The first rule of Helmet Debate Club is do not talk about Helmet Debate Club
Crampy wrote:
Crampy, you’re post was sucking all the fun out of the thread, so I polished it a bit. You’re very welcome, anytime.
Crampy wrote:
Post of the year.
Admittedly it’s early in the year, so might be the same as the first out of the start house being in the hot seat, but still; Post of the year 🙂
Ooooh the statistical genius
Ooooh the statistical genius tag teaming with the racist bigot, wow!
What you might find, Valerie take note, is that people who work may have similar times of the day when they have some down time. Maybe lunch, after work, late evening with a beer. I know bigots operate in a stealth mode just waiting for the next false fact, oh maybe that’s you too Rich; perhaps you’re the same person or heaven foribd eh Val, co-habiting?
There was a 300% increase in
There was a 300% increase in RSCH since headgear was introduced, I’d say that’s pretty good evidence of greater concussions/TBIs due to wearing headgear!
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
That’s perhaps because you’re not looking at the science and focusing on what you want to see. I don’t have an axe to grind either way, maybe that’s why it’s easier to just consider all the evidence.
Quote:
You’ve clearly never had an angry wasp get stuck in the foam keeping it right in the corner of your eye as it tried to sting its way out leaving you with a swollen face, neck and shoulder.
Twice.
The opinion of the Maltese
The opinion of the Maltese government regarding helmet use is not worth the paper it is written on. Road sense in Malta is in very short supply and they are very proud of their reputation of being the worst drivers in Europe !
Batchy wrote:
And mass bird killers. Backwards place.
Well, gosh but the Maltese
Well, gosh but the Maltese government has always been considered as paragons of virtue ready to make the right decision and not take payments from organised crime. Allegedly.
Doesn’t change that this one is a correct decision IMO.
Good response.
Good response.