Cyclists in Cyprus have called for a law that came into force this week making cycle helmets compulsory to be repealed.
The Mediterranean country joins Argentina, Australia and New Zealand as the only countries in the world that currently have a mandatory helmet law for people riding bikes.
After the law came into effect on Wednesday, news website In Cyprus reported that cycling campaigners want it overturned immediately, saying that it will discourage people from riding bikes.
One source quoted on the website said: “We believe that all cyclists should be able to choose what they wear on their bikes, and should be respected if they choose to wear a helmet of if they choose not to.”
Under the new law, cyclists riding without a helmet will face a fine of €50, although according to traffic police officer Harris Evripidou, a light touch will be taken towards enforcement, although he added that the legislation had been brought in to protect people riding bikes.
“We will be lenient,” he said. “Where we see cyclists riding in places where their lives are endangered, namely on highways and busy roads where they mix with vehicles, then they will be fined.”
He also said that four cyclists had been killed on the island’s roads last year, of whom two who were not wearing a helmet died due to head injuries.
“These figures, show us that not wearing one has that effect, whether the cyclist is at fault or not. So, our recommendation is that helmet use should be enforced to protect cyclists,” he added.
Cycle helmets within European Union member states, including Cyprus, must meet the EN 1078 standard, which requires a deceleration of no more than 250g to be transmitted to the head in an impact at 5.42-5.52 metres per second (a little over 12 mph).
While that would be equivalent to, say, a fall to the ground from a standing position, under the EN1078 standard, the specification does not require cycle cycle helmets to be able to withstand angled or oblique impacts, nor to provide protection in collisions in which a motor vehicle is involved.
In December, Japan announced that it would make helmets compulsory for bike riders with effect from 1 April, although there will be no sanction for anyone found riding a bicycle while not wearing one.
> Japan to make cycle helmets compulsory for all cyclists from next April
While it is only Argentina, Australia and New Zealand, and now Cyprus and within the next two months Japan, that have compulsory helmet laws for all cyclists, regardless of age, many other countries have some form of mandatory legislation in place.
In Spain, for example, helmets are compulsory for people riding bikes outside urban areas, while many countries have age-specific laws that require children below a certain age to wear a helmet when they are on a bicycle.
In the United States, helmet laws vary by jurisdiction and age, with some states making them mandatory for all riders, others for children only, while some states have no such legislation at all.
Within the UK, transport minister Jesse Norman confirmed in November that the government has no plans to make cycle helmets compulsory here.
Mark Pritchard, Conservative MP for The Wrekin, had raised the issue in a written question, asking whether the Secretary of State for Transport would “hold discussions with road safety and cycle representative groups on making it a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets on public roads?”
> Government shuts down mandatory cycling helmets question from Conservative MP
He asked whether the Secretary of State for Transport would “hold discussions with road safety and cycle representative groups on making it a legal requirement for cyclists to wear helmets on public roads?
In response, Norman said that the subject had been considered “at length” but rejected as part of the government’s cycling and walking safety review in 2018.
“The safety benefits of mandating cycle helmets for cyclists are likely to be outweighed by the fact that this would put some people off cycling, thereby reducing the wider health and environmental benefits,” he said.
“The Department recommends that cyclists should wear helmets, as set out in the Highway Code, but has no intention to make this a legal requirement,” the minister added.





















149 thoughts on “Cyclists in Cyprus call for repeal of compulsory helmet law”
You can’t argue with the fact
You can’t argue with the fact that helmets save lives, but I don’t think people should be forced to wear one. All laws like this do is discourage cycling because people don’t want to mess up their hair
Bingo!
Bingo!
chrisonatrike wrote:
To be fair, I don’t think you can shout bingo when they had left out the one about personal responsibility. Oh, and the one about racing cyclists wearing them. Oh, oh, and how much peer-reviewed evidence there is, authored by such unimpeachable, independent, unbiased, objective researchers such as Thompson, Rivara and Thompson; long may their names rot in the pit of the ninth circle of hell for their worst of bad science.
My defence – everyone else on
My defence – everyone else on the thread (1) was making sweeping generalisations… I thought “if they can do a Trump I can’t be blamed for finally giving in to temptation, crossing off the rest of the line on my bingo card and shouting ‘HOUSE’?”
Besides – can you prove that in their 51 informative posts they didn’t come out with some or all of that?
I don’t know who those people
I don’t know who those people are and I certainly don’t know why you’re so upset about them. What did they do to hurt you?
ChuckSneed wrote:
You’ve just admitted you know absolutely nothing about helmets.
eburtthebike wrote:
You know just because you keep spouting the ‘bad science’ rhetoric doesn’t actually make it any more true, right? Sure there were shortfalls in the scope and size of available datasets, but short of driving around and taking out cyclists (an even ratio split between those wearing helmets and those not, of course) I don’t see what you could do about it.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
— ShutTheFrontDawes You know just because you keep spouting the ‘bad science’ rhetoric doesn’t actually make it any more true, right? Sure there were shortfalls in the scope and size of available datasets, but short of driving around and taking out cyclists (an even ratio split between those wearing helmets and those not, of course) I don’t see what you could do about it.— eburtthebikeThe original TRT study was abysmal, poor methodology, low reliability and blatantly biased researchers, condemned on peer review and no-one else has been able to repeat their findings. One academic said that he could use it to demonstrate to his students how not to do research. It is beyond doubt that it was the worst of bad science.
I can only presume from the first phrase of your second sentence “Sure there were shortfalls in the scope and size of available datasets,…..” that you are referring to the Cochrane Review done by TRT, which broke every rule for Cochrane reviews and has seriously damaged their reputation.
I’ve no idea what this “….but short of driving around and taking out cyclists (an even ratio split between those wearing helmets and those not, of course) I don’t see what you could do about it.” means though.
Honestly the “ThE wOrSt Of
Honestly the “ThE wOrSt Of BaD sCiEnCe” chorus is tiresome. Change the record.
It is very likely that helmets have prevented deaths that would otherwise have happened. Of course, we cannot know that for sure because we cannot peer into the alternate universe where the exact same things have happened but without a helmet.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Sorry, but I’m going to keep on repeating that the original TRT research was the worst of bad science, because it was; I won’t be adopting your random capitals though.
Since the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase, rather the opposite seems to be true, it is not “…very likely that helmets have prevented deaths that would otherwise have happened.” If they did prevent some deaths, they must also have caused other deaths, but in at least equal or greater quantity; not exactly a glowing testimony to their efficacy.
We may not be able to peer into alternative universes, but we can examine the effects on cyclist deaths, the only reliable metric, of helmet laws and helmet propaganda campaigns, and we know that they are not effective. We can also examine places which have a much lower death rate than places with helmet laws and find out what does work, because it definitely isn’t helmets.
eburtthebike wrote:
What makes me suspicious about cycle helmets is that it should be easy to demonstrate that they work well. It seems obvious that putting protective foam around someone’s head would provide protection and reduce head injuries and yet the statistics don’t demonstrate that clearly. Australia was a prime example to investigate the before and after of helmet laws and again we don’t see a clear beneficial effect.
Now, as I wear a bike helmet anyway (Mrs HawkinsPeter used to get anxious if I cycled without one), it makes little difference to me personally, and yet the evidence for bike helmets being effective is mixed. If there was clear evidence for them being effective, I’d be happy to recommend them as protective gear as I am happy to recommend wearing gloves whilst cycling. It seems very suspicious to me that even with well funded interests, the evidence is so shoddy.
You’re happy to recommend
You’re happy to recommend gloves while cycling? I haven’t seen a single peer-reviewed study that concludes that gloves protect against brain injury. What could possibly be the point?
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
There’s a reason for the lack of that study.
Gloves are ideal to prevent minor abrasion injuries to your hands and they also have a benefit of providing extra comfort whilst cycling due to shock absorption (for some gloves, anyway) and keeping your hands warm. I’ve found that when I’ve come off my bike, I have an instinctive reaction to use my hands to protect myself, so they’re often the first point of contact with the ground. As I work on computers, minor hand injuries can be really annoying, but luckily a pair of gloves works really well.
Now gloves aren’t being pushed by any organisations that I know of, so there’s little reason to go looking for evidence one way or another as gloves aren’t used as a victim-blaming device.
hawkinspeter wrote:
There’s a reason for the lack of that study.
Gloves are ideal to prevent minor abrasion injuries to your hands and they also have a benefit of providing extra comfort whilst cycling due to shock absorption (for some gloves, anyway) and keeping your hands warm. I’ve found that when I’ve come off my bike, I have an instinctive reaction to use my hands to protect myself, so they’re often the first point of contact with the ground. As I work on computers, minor hand injuries can be really annoying, but luckily a pair of gloves works really well.
Now gloves aren’t being pushed by any organisations that I know of, so there’s little reason to go looking for evidence one way or another as gloves aren’t used as a victim-blaming device.— ShutTheFrontDawes
So you admit that there is no evidence that gloves reduce brain injuries, and provide no evidence of their efficacy other than your own anecdotes, and you still recommend them?
If that’s not BaD sCiEnCe, I don’t know what is.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I don’t recall anyone making such a claim and if they did, then they should provide the evidence to support that claim. I recommend gloves for preventing minor hand abrasion injuries – they’re unlikely to prevent broken bones in bigger collisions, so I don’t think they’re particularly helpful with collisions with motor vehicles.
I don’t shout at other cyclists and call them idiots if they choose to not wear gloves and I certainly wouldn’t consider that a gloveless cyclist should be considered negligent in court cases. I also don’t think that police should be spending time recommending that cyclists wear gloves and I certainly don’t think that road safety campaigns should waste time mentioning them at all.
Now, if you’re claiming that gloves help mitigate brain injuries, then you should provide decent evidence to support that view.
Yes I would recommend gloves
Yes I would recommend gloves as well, they keep my hands warm and toasty when cycling. I have three pairs – Castelli fingerless, Altura and Galibier which are by far the warmest of the three. I wouldn’t wear them on my head though, that’s where I put my helmet. Sometimes I’ve got home and forgotten to take my helmet off. It would be nice if my wife would let me know but she never does, so I just sit there looking like an idiot.
They also provide grip. I
They also provide grip. I sweat when I ride so they enable more traction on the grips than not. Full finger and I’m up to a choice of 10 pairs at the moment.
I’d say they have prevented more minor injuries than my shockingly expensive and constantly worn helmets ever have. And frostbite.
Indeed, I have noticed that
Indeed, I have noticed that as my hands are not frozen I am able to use the brakes properly.
Doubtless this has saved countless lives, if only we could peer into the gloveless alternate universe.
perce wrote:
Well I don’t think you’re an idiot for wearing a helmet at home. As commenters like HP and Eburt frequently tell us, pedestrians are much more likely to be injured than cyclists, so it’s actually pedestrians that should have mandatory helmets.
You’re just ahead of the curve 🙂
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I mainly recommend the pedestrian helmets for dangerous activities such as showering, using stairs/ladders and replacing light bulbs. It’s surprising how many head injuries those activities cause.
I’m not above average height
I’m not above average height but a pedestrian helmet could have saved me from a lot of dangerous doorways, cupboard doors etc. And I often wear a hat indoors too… If only there was a purpose-designed head covering for “overhead” environments…
chrisonatrike wrote:
If you’re going to be wearing that hat you might as well go the whole hog and deal with dangerous drivers with this
Well I’ve mostly banged my
Well I’ve mostly banged my head indoors. So that addition looks useful outside but for indoor hat use I think the wheels would scuff the floor. And make it harder to get the bicycles out of the flat.
Guaranteed to save your life!
Guaranteed to save your life!
In order to prove that helmet
In order to prove that helmet are beneficial you must compare two similar populations, one helmeted, one not and then compare injury rates.
We know that the cycling population, that is people who cycle, changes dramatically after compulsory helmet laws. Fewer cyclists in general but the reduction is more concentrated I some groups than others so there groups become overrepresented. As such, a comparison of injury rates pre and post law is misleading.
A randomised control trial where cyclists were randomly assigned to helmet/no helmet groups and then knocked off their bicycles in various ways would likely provide that proof but would struggle to get past the ethics committee.
Given that, the best, feasible, option is a case control study.
Many of these have been done and whilst some, like TR&T, have been correctly criticised for methodology failures others have produced robust, reliable results that show a clear benefit from wearing helmets.
Should helmets be compulsory? Definitely not.
Are they beneficial? According to the best evidence available, they are.
Example of case control study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51159929_Bicycle_helmet_wearing_and_the_risk_of_head_face_and_neck_injury_A_French_case-control_study_based_on_a_road_trauma_registry
Rich_cb wrote:
Very interesting, thank you for sharing.
Does this conclusion take into account the killer helmets that I have been told cause so many deaths per year that they actual outnumber the lives saved per year? Asking for a friend.
I assume you’re referring to
I assume you’re referring to that old chestnut of ‘risk compensation/homeostasis’?
The Wikipedia page on the subject has a great quote.
” It commands about as much credence as the flat earth hypothesis”
I couldn’t put it better myself.
Rich_cb wrote:
Well I initially thought that too, but some commenters on here have told me about helmets that actually cause deaths.
I’d never heard of such a thing myself, but that’s possibly because ‘big helmet’ have suppressed publicity of the issue. I hear that ‘big helmet’ has lots of governments in their pocket, including of course the Cypriot government. The Cypriot government are actually only bringing in mandatory helmet use because ‘big helmet’ have made them do it.
If you don’t hear from me in the future, it’s probably because ‘big helmet’ have gotten to me.
Watch your back, they could be anywhere. Even in our helmets.
Rich_cb wrote:
No.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation
The quote is right there in
The quote is right there in your link.
Rich_cb wrote:
You forgot to mention that the statement is the opinion of one person and is specific to risk homeostasis.
The idea of risk homeostasis is disputed. One author claimed that it received “little support”,[n 10] another suggested that it “commands about as much credence as the flat earth hypothesis”
There is a wealth of evidence and data supporting risk compensation.
I think I specifically stated
I think I specifically stated that it was a quote.
The fact that said quote reflects somebody’s opinion shouldn’t need a separate explanation.
You’ve previously stated that helmets lead to more harm as increased risk taking negates any and all additional impact protection.
Is that still your view?
No the earth isn’t flat. I
No the earth isn’t flat. I think I’ve mentioned De Selby’s theory before – he believed that the earth is sausage shaped and if we were able to travel along the “barrel” of the sausage we would be able to experience more dimensions than are currently available. A visionary man, well ahead of his time. Possibly.
Just make sure you’re wearing
Just make sure you’re wearing appropriate interdimensional head protection when traversing the sausage of reality.
chrisonatrike wrote:
That doesn’t just cut the
That doesn’t just cut the mustard, it positively purees it.
Rich_cb wrote:
That quote is specifically about risk homeostasis – that people adjust behaviour so that risk reduction measures end up with the same level of risk overall. I’d agree that doesn’t seem realistic as usually there’s some overall effect e.g. when urban speed limits of 20mph are introduced, drivers seem to reduce their speed by a few mph (2-3?) and there are less fatalities (I believe – haven’t checked the actual figures).
Risk compensation is a less demanding hypothesis – that people take more risks when they believe themselves to be better protected and take more care when they think it’s more dangerous. That effect has numerous examples in real life, but the size of that effect is certainly up for debate.
Helmet mandation changes the
Helmet mandation changes the cycling population.
High risk activities, eg time trialling, would be almost unaffected by a law change as helmets are almost ubiquitous in this area already.
Relatively low risk activities, with lower existing rates of helmet wearing, like cycling to the shops would be far more likely to be reduced by mandation.
The risk profile of the cycling population therefore changes with high risk activities making up a higher proportion of cycling overall and comparisons between pre and post law injury rates become impossible to make.
Case control studies aren’t perfect by a long way but, in this context, they are the best evidence available and there are multiple such studies showing that helmets reduce the risk of serious head injury and death.
Risk homeostasis is the theory pushed by Burt. That is, helmets increase the overall risk as people modify their behaviour so much when wearing one that they entirely negate the protective effects.
It’s nonsense.
Rich_cb wrote:
Case control studies only demonstrate a reduction of head injuries to the cyclists presenting at hospital. That doesn’t necessarily extrapolate well to the population of cyclists as it’ll only be a tiny sample (I’ve never presented at hospital for a cycling injury). The sample bias could be exaggerating the data either way (i.e. helmets may be much more protective than the studies show or they could be much less effective).
I don’t believe you’ve accurately presented Burt’s position at all.
Ultimately, the question of cycle helmets is just a huge victim blaming distraction and has almost nothing to do with reducing road danger.
Edit: I think I’ve mentioned this before in other discussions, but Berkson’s Paradox can easily come into play with looking at hospital studies. If you consider the two variables being “wearing a helmet” and “having a cycle incident”, then “being hospitalised” is a collider for those two variables. This can lead to unintuitive results that don’t represent the wider population such as the Dutch cyclists being more likely to be injured when wearing helmets: https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html
“Victim blaming” – being as
“Victim blaming” – being as charitable as I can doesn’t it come down to something like:
It may help some people just falling off their bikes. (Although many of the most vulnerable wouldn’t dream of cycling in the UK anyway). It could maybe have some effect in some other collisions. It’s not a major imposition. Why not?
Plus it involves minimal funding! Result! We’re not going to buy helments for people. In fact it costs nothing more than a bit of admin and police time. That’s assuming the police are told to spend much time on it of course. Which otherwise they might well not. Or maybe enforce it sporadically to “send a message” or if they feel that a particular person deserves sanctioning. Like happens in the case of many crimes we have on our books.— An imaginary legislator
As noted before – in the UK we have “made the roads safe” by removing all but the motorised road users* and then working on saving drivers from themselves. So doing something like that here wouldn’t have a giant impact on our head injury stats or indeed cycling. Which – excuse pun – in many places doesn’t have far to fall anyway.
* Non-drivers can choose between safety or convenience. We don’t have jaywalking laws and we normally make it so it’s possible to get about if go the long way round or climb stairs (if you’re lucky there’s a ramp) or wait at some lights. We’re not the USA after all!
It’s a tiny sample yes but
It’s a tiny sample yes but that’s why any evidence is hard to obtain.
Case control studies are the best evidence we have.
They show a benefit.
I’ve had many discussions with Burt on this, he takes a very extreme view on this topic. He’s refused to even read papers in the past because they referenced TR&T in the introduction!
As a result I don’t think I’m misrepresenting his viewpoint.
Rich_cb wrote:
Berkson’s paradox applies to any size of sample and is one of the reasons that the case control studies need to be treated with scepticism and certainly not used as a pretext to put PPE ahead of actual road safety initiatives that reduce danger.
Case control studies are high
Case control studies are high quality evidence and they are widely accepted as being particularly useful when studying rare disease/outcomes which makes them an ideal fit for investigating the efficacy or otherwise of bicycle helmets.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1706071
A small sample size is never as good as a larger sample size but you can still draw valid conclusions with a well designed case control study.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’m not trying to rubbish case control studies but they need to be examined in context. They work really well for diseases as people contracting the disease and those being admitted to hospital with the disease are the same and so it makes sense to extrapolate.
They also work well for
They also work well for cyclists who are involved in accidents/collisions. Both the helmeted and non helmeted will be attending hospital for their injuries.
If you look at otherwise identical cyclists with identical non head injuries, eg a broken arm and broken ribs, and then compare the rate of head injuries for the helmeted Vs non helmeted you would be able to calculate the relative risk of head injury in the helmeted Vs the non helmeted.
It’s obviously not perfect but it’s a well established technique and considered a high quality form of evidence.
Rich_cb wrote:
The problem is with extrapolating the unfortunately injured cyclists to the rest of the cycling population. When you only sample from injured cyclists, then it’s entirely possible that they may be very unlucky, have poorly maintained bicycles, take a lot of risks or ride in areas prone to poor driving. More importantly, the figures will ignore the cyclists that don’t have incidents and the ones with minor incidents that don’t require hospitalisation (both naked and helmetted).
It seems likely that only selecting from hospitalised cyclists is going to bias the result as there’s no easy way to determine that those cyclists are representative of the entire cycling population.
But, as you say, it’s probably the best tool we have apart from population level studies which disturbingly, don’t show much benefit to helmets assuming that helmets are to reduce head injuries and not just reduce the numbers cycling.
I’m not really following your
I’m not really following your point.
If we want to know how well a helmet will protect you in a significant collision/accident then we have to look at cyclists who have been in significant collisions/accidents.
It doesn’t matter how well they maintain their bike etc. All that matters is that they were in a significant collision/accident.
If a helmeted cyclist crashes because he hit black ice and a non helmeted cyclist has an identical crash because they did not maintain their bike they can be compared for the purpose of assessing how much protection the helmet afforded the wearer. The actual cause of the crash isn’t important.
Population level studies are far less reliable than case control studies for assessing the efficacy of helmets as the populations are not matched as they are in a case control study so you cannot be sure that differences are not down to changing population characteristics rather than changes in helmet wearing.
Rich_cb wrote:
It’s to do with possible misleading conclusions from just using hospital admissions. I’m specifically thinking of Berkson’s paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson%27s_paradox
There’s some more detail on specific instances here: https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1740-9713.01413
That’s not really applicable
That’s not really applicable in this instance.
We are assessing the efficacy of helmets in preventing significant injuries from accidents/collisions when cycling.
To assess this we need a population of people who have been significantly injured whilst cycling.
That population will almost inevitably present at a hospital.
The uninjured population are irrelevant to this study.
The only groups who will be missed are those with fatal head injuries who die before reaching hospital and those helemted riders whose helmets prevent an isolated head injury and who therefore don’t present to hospital. In both cases the effect will be to reduce the apparent efficacy of helmets.
Rich_cb wrote:
That seems overly simplistic to me. For a start, those studies don’t even consider the cases where helmets have prevented hospital admissions – that seems a glaring oversight when that’s the topic under discussion.
If the case control studies are accurate, I’m puzzled as to why they show so much discrepancy between them – why wouldn’t they be consistent?
Personally, I’m far more interested in remaining within the uninjured population – that’s where the focus on road safety should be.
Amen! Help yourself, but if
Amen! Help yourself, but if others are positively uninterested in doing anything at the level of the more effective interventions but are just hassling you about you taking the least effective ones…
The cases were helmets
The cases were helmets prevented a hospital admission will be missed so, as I said previously, the studies will likely underestimate the efficacy of helmets.
The difference in results could occur through simple statistical variance or through differences in the local population/environment. Eg a hospital near Whistler may see a very different injury mix to one near Whitstable.
I agree that preventing the accident/collision from occuring in the first place is the best course of action but the same could be said for all manner of research. That doesn’t reduce the value of said research.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’ve pointed out specific issues with hospital admission case studies and I don’t consider them sufficiently accurate to drive policy and yet, that does appear to be what’s happening in Cyprus. What we need is wider studies that aren’t focussed on hospital admissions, but unfortunately it seems that politicians are more interested in cheap, quick, victim blaming “fixes” rather than actually taking road danger seriously.
If you want to know if
If you want to know if helmets actually work at preventing head injuries then case control studies are the gold standard. There are no viable alternatives.
Is it the only thing to consider when devising policy? No, but I’ve never said it was.
Rich_cb wrote:
I think the issue is that trying to push the benefits of helmets when only looking at hospital admissions is missing the bigger picture of people’s behaviour. Ultimately, it’s irrelevant if helmets provide a certain amount of protection (especially when we can’t even agree what that figure is) when the population level studies have indicated that the negative effects seem to be larger. I’d guess that full plate armour would be extremely good at full body protection, but it’s risible to suggest that we should mandate it to improve road safety.
You may consider that case control studies are the gold standard (and I’d agree with you for medical trials etc), but they are misleading people to think that mandatory bike helmets are a good idea and as I’ve stated, there’s good reasons to think that they include bias when extrapolating from hospital admissions to all cyclists.
The only bias they could
The only bias they could introduce is underestimating the efficacy of helmets at preventing injury.
I agree that helmet efficacy is only one part of the debate around mandatory helmet laws (which FWIW I oppose) but there is a lot of good evidence for the effectiveness of helmets at preventing and it makes no sense to dismiss that evidence on the basis that mandatory helmet laws are harmful.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’m not dismissing the evidence, but suggesting that it’s not rigorous nor conclusive when it’s only looking at part of the picture. The bias could easily go both ways as the naked cyclists that don’t present at hospitals aren’t being counted either. I do believe that bike helmets provide some level of protection – I just think that level is hugely exaggerated for commercial and political reasons and in the real world, helmet mandates decrease safety.
In terms of helmet efficacy
In terms of helmet efficacy what part of the picture is being missed?
Cyclists who aren’t involved in collisions/accidents are entirely irrelevant when it comes to assessing the efficacy of helmets at preventing injuries in the event of collisions accidents.
The only meaningful data being missed is those cyclists for whom a helmet prevented a hospital admission and those cyclists who died pre hospital of head injuries that would not have been fatal with a helmet on. Those omissions will reduce the measured efficacy helmets so won’t change the conclusions.
Rich_cb wrote:
But population level data (that has no/minimal correlation between helmet usage and injury rates between different countries or different time periods) puts a likely range of effectiveness of helmets.
That control group studies get drastically different results suggests that the groups aren’t representative (easiest explaination). (e.g. Some early studies had issues where it was proven that original data showed helmets were more effective against leg injuries than head injuries… turns out white middle/upper class riders who could afford helmets fell over cycling in parks recreationally while black poor riders who couldn’t afford them were hit by cars when riding on roads for transport…)
Basically it is impossible to get precise and accurate data on how effective helmets are because ethics forbid studies that can actually measure it reliably (can’t require people ride without helmets to provide control + study groups not subject to selection bias) and injury rates are low enough that we would need huge study groups over long time periods to get enough incidents for statistical significance (~11 deaths per billion km cycled according to https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10053381/1/Mindell_Cause%20of%20death%20ppr%20R2_18Jun2018_Accepted.pdf). (Of course cycle helmets aren’t alone in this – a huge proportion of control group research tells us the effects of X on students, not the population as a whole because the researchers have access to uni students…)
Of course the far more important point is the data suggesting that mandating cycling helmets is bad for public health overall – Even if helmets prevent 100% of head injuries, the expected reduction in cycling rates causes more harm to average health because it reduces regular exercise when some people decide they won’t cycle rather than using a helmet (even just for rental bike schemes that are no longer practical because people won’t carry helmets just in case). I expect the law only applies on roads/cycle paths (ignoring the much higher risk for mountain biking because helmets are heavily used and enforcement would be difficult) and even then will be focused on major routes (where head injuries from falls are lower (smooth maintained tarmac) than minor routes (muddy, potholed tracks with overhanging branches, tree limbs etc)
The leg injuries error is
The leg injuries error is simply inadequate matching of cases to controls.
I agree that a randomised controlled trial is ethically impossible and cohort studies would be prohibitively expensive. Which leaves case control studies as the best we’ve got.
Population studies have the same problem as a badly matched case control series. Dissimilar groups make for unreliable data.
In the UK, deaths from cycling have fallen quite rapidly over the last few decades whilst helmet wearing has increased.
Unfortunately traffic, health care, population density etc etc have all changed massively over the same period making any attempt to weedle out the effect of increased helmet wearing virtually impossible.
Rich_cb wrote:
So would I.
Tell me you don’t understand
Tell me you don’t understand research without telling me you don’t understand research.
Rich_cb wrote:
Helmets were made compulsory in UK time trials – at least, events run by CTT – at the 2021 AGM. They were already compulsory in all events run by BC, including on closed circuits.
The number of people riding TTs without a helmet before the rule change was already vanishingly small. I can think of just 1 individual out of hundreds I have seen, either in person or via photos or discussions online.
What is ‘high risk’ and on what basis do you class UK road TTs as ‘high risk’?
How do you assess any risk profile change when TTs are such a tiny proportion of bicycle journeys?
And can you factor in that TT participation has dropped significantly since the covid lockdowns, possibly as much as 50%? In a typical year pre-2020 would have ridden 10~15 TTs alongside 250 or more commute and leisure rides. Since March 2020 I’ve ridden 1 time trial. I’d argue that I feel more at risk riding to work than during a 10 mile TT.
I think you’ve misunderstood
I think you’ve misunderstood my post.
Rich_cb wrote:
I’m sure you’ve seen comments on here about people who won’t ride their bike without a helmet or you know people with that attitude, that is risk compensation, they put on the helmet and then they take part in a “risky” activity that they would not do without the helmet.
Rich_cb wrote:
I agree with the overall picture that bike helmets do provide some protection against head injuries, but I do think their benefits are oversold and thus we end up with situations like this where politicians think that mandating helmets is a good idea.
Case control studies do have their limits. That study you link to has an interesting way to get around the issue of self selection (by being involved in an incident that needs medical attention) by comparing the cyclists with head injuries to those without head injuries. One issue with that is that it also has the effect of separating the smaller incidents from the more serious ones (e.g. slipping on some ice may lead to just a fractured wrist but being hit by a car may result in head injuries and a fractured wrist).
The main problem with the case control studies is the limited selection – it’s not sampling against all cyclists, but just those cyclists involved in incidents. That can easily introduce bias and also means that they miss out the social effects of cyclists wearing helmets.
What makes me suspicious about a lot of these studies is that the results don’t seem to be replicated when helmets are mandated. Unfortunately the entire (stated) point of mandating bike helmets is to reduce cyclist head injuries, but that doesn’t seem to be replicated when mandates are introduced. To make matters worse, the behaviour of police around helmet mandates is often to selectively enforce the laws against the disadvantaged and minorities.
I think there is an important
I think there is an important distinction between helmet efficacy on their own and when combined with mandatory helmet wearing, whihc skews behaviour. I don’t think there are many people on here saying that it should be made mandatory to wear them in the UK.
The bit of science you can’t argue with is that they do help cushion the blow IF you have an accident (even if it’s faster than they are designed for). So in most instances they will reduce brain damage, so perhaps where it wouldn’t have been survivable, you could live, albeit with serious concussion.
The bit where there is grey areas is the behaviour change a helmet can cause (either from car drivers, or superman syndrome for the rider), which may be where the data gets very questionable either way, especially when combined with helmet laws causing additional behaviour changes, like less riders etc.
But please don’t be confused about the efficacy of having some impact protection if your head is heading towards tarmac, as thinking they are completely useless because burtthebike says so, is just as dangerous as assuming they are making you safer and therefore taking more risks. Just treat them the same as you would insurance, i.e. you still don’t want to have an accident!
AndyRed3d wrote:
I think that’s fair enough as long as that includes “… which you will often find doesn’t cover what you are expecting”.
Many cyclists have a sensible (eg pretty conservative) view of the protective properties of helmets. Their manufacturers are certainly cautious in their claims! I bet most non-regular cyclists(eg. most people) have either never actually thought about this or are misinformed / wildly optimistic about their possible effects.
Anyone outside of Zwolle (or Sark etc.) proposing legislating on the subject is anti-cycling. They almost certainly haven’t realised they are but it’s true. It’s choosing to focus on the least effective safety intervention – PPE – and not fix systemic issues or even modify the behaviour of those causing danger but instead their potential victims. (They could do both – but are they doing so…?)
Actually – it may “make the roads safer”. (A little – most people drive already…) Insofar as it’s an extension of what has been happening most places for decades (discourage all non-motorised road users from much of public space). Just don’t look at health issues like pollution, inactivity, the effects of social exclusion etc…
chrisonatrike][quote
Strangely enough, that was the subject of my MSc dissertation, and I can tell you that most cyclists overestimate the protective effect of a helmet, some ridiculously so.
Well this is a chinstroker
Well this is a chinstroker indeed. I do like my helmet, it’s very comfortable but when the time comes to replace it I don’t know what to do . I think I might wear a pair of underpants on my head with two or three crumpets stuffed inside instead. Just to save money of course.
AndyRed3d wrote:
— AndyRed3dI have never said so; please correct your text.
AndyRed3d wrote:
Well, as I always wear a helmet whilst cycling, this is largely academic to me. There may be some advantage to not having much faith in the use of bike helmets in collisions though, as that may moderate any risk compensation on my part.
eburtthebike wrote:
Sorry, but I’m going to keep on repeating that the original TRT research was the worst of bad science, because it was; I won’t be adopting your random capitals though.
Since the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase, rather the opposite seems to be true, it is not “…very likely that helmets have prevented deaths that would otherwise have happened.” If they did prevent some deaths, they must also have caused other deaths, but in at least equal or greater quantity; not exactly a glowing testimony to their efficacy.
We may not be able to peer into alternative universes, but we can examine the effects on cyclist deaths, the only reliable metric, of helmet laws and helmet propaganda campaigns, and we know that they are not effective. We can also examine places which have a much lower death rate than places with helmet laws and find out what does work, because it definitely isn’t helmets.— ShutTheFrontDawes
I’d love to see the reasoning for helmets causing deaths. You’re not supposed to eat them, maybe that’s where you’ve gone wrong?
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
There are several reasons; risk compensation and rotational injuries to name but two.
The fact that you have to ask clearly demonstrates your lack of knowledge.
eburtthebike wrote:
There are several reasons; risk compensation and rotational injuries to name but two.
The fact that you have to ask clearly demonstrates your lack of knowledge.— eburtthebike
Helmets cause rotational injuries? Walk me through that one. I’ve never suffered a rotational injury caused by wearing a helmet. Perhaps I’ve been lucky.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
You’re clearly being disingenuous now.
I’ve provided links to you previously about some of the problems with helmets, and I remember at least one of the links was to do with rotational injuries. Either you had no interest in reading them (despite you previously asking for information) or you just choose to ignore the info because you’re trying to push your agenda.
hawkinspeter wrote:
You’re clearly being disingenuous now.
I’ve provided links to you previously about some of the problems with helmets, and I remember at least one of the links was to do with rotational injuries. Either you had no interest in reading them (despite you previously asking for information) or you just choose to ignore the info because you’re trying to push your agenda.— ShutTheFrontDawes
I’m not being disingenuous. Eburt said that helmets cause deaths, and that helmets cause rotational injuries.
I wonder how many death certificates say “wearing a helmet” in the section about cause of death. How many death certificates in the history of forever do you think have ever said “wearing a helmet” in that section?
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Okay, in the interest of the discussion, firstly eburtthebike didn’t make that particular claim in the way you’re presenting it:
Now, he mentioned a couple of things that might be happening – risk compensation and rotational injuries. Risk compensation has had a handful of small studies, so it’s difficult to draw conclusions, but it may well have a real world effect. Risk compensation can apply to cyclists taking greater risks as they believe they are protected and also it can apply to drivers leaving less room for helmetted cyclists.
Rotational injuries can happen with non-direct hits that cause a sudden twisting motion of the head. There’s good reason to think that those kinds of impacts can lead to severe brain injuries and here’s a link that discusses it some more: https://www.shponline.co.uk/common-workplace-hazards/understanding-the-risk-of-rotational-head-injury/
There’s been more interest in helmets and rotational injuries and that has led to bike helmets that are designed to ‘slip’ rather than ‘grab’ the road surface and also technologies such as MIPS.
One important point to consider is that helmets increase the diameter of the head and thus will tend to increase the likelihood of rotational injuries. This is a problem as bike helmets are only tested for direct impacts (linear acceleration) rather than oblique impacts (rotational acceleration).
hawkinspeter wrote:
Okay, in the interest of the discussion, firstly eburtthebike didn’t make that particular claim in the way you’re presenting it:
Now, he mentioned a couple of things that might be happening – risk compensation and rotational injuries. Risk compensation has had a handful of small studies, so it’s difficult to draw conclusions, but it may well have a real world effect. Risk compensation can apply to cyclists taking greater risks as they believe they are protected and also it can apply to drivers leaving less room for helmetted cyclists.
Rotational injuries can happen with non-direct hits that cause a sudden twisting motion of the head. There’s good reason to think that those kinds of impacts can lead to severe brain injuries and here’s a link that discusses it some more: https://www.shponline.co.uk/common-workplace-hazards/understanding-the-risk-of-rotational-head-injury/
There’s been more interest in helmets and rotational injuries and that has led to bike helmets that are designed to ‘slip’ rather than ‘grab’ the road surface and also technologies such as MIPS.
One important point to consider is that helmets increase the diameter of the head and thus will tend to increase the likelihood of rotational injuries. This is a problem as bike helmets are only tested for direct impacts (linear acceleration) rather than oblique impacts (rotational acceleration).— ShutTheFrontDawes
They didn’t make that claim? They said that “they [helmets] must also have caused other deaths”.
I’ll ask the question again: How many death certificates in the history of forever do you think have ever said “wearing a helmet” in the cause of death section? It’s a simple question.
If helmets cause deaths, it’d be easy to prove wouldn’t it? You could just tell me the number of death certificates that have “wore a helmet” or similar for cause of death.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
His statement was predicated on helmets saving some lives.
I don’t think that death certificates work in the way that you’re expecting and to be honest your question is a bit childish.
hawkinspeter wrote:
His statement was predicated on helmets saving some lives.
I don’t think that death certificates work in the way that you’re expecting and to be honest your question is a bit childish.— ShutTheFrontDawes
Is that just a petty way of saying ‘zero’?
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I’m not going to go looking for stats on death certificates, but then I don’t expect them to list all possible effects that resulted in death – it’s just going to be the main cause that seems relevant to the doctor/coroner. Identifying death causes by death certificate is a whole topic by itself and certainly there seems to have been some ‘gaming’ of the system with Covid deaths.
I would be very surprised if there’s any death certificates that list ‘smoking’ or ‘sedentary lifestyle’ as a cause of death, so by all means go and have a look at death certificates if you think they’re of any use to this discussion, but don’t expect people to take you seriously if you do.
hawkinspeter wrote:
I’m not going to go looking for stats on death certificates, but then I don’t expect them to list all possible effects that resulted in death – it’s just going to be the main cause that seems relevant to the doctor/coroner. Identifying death causes by death certificate is a whole topic by itself and certainly there seems to have been some ‘gaming’ of the system with Covid deaths.
I would be very surprised if there’s any death certificates that list ‘smoking’ or ‘sedentary lifestyle’ as a cause of death, so by all means go and have a look at death certificates if you think they’re of any use to this discussion, but don’t expect people to take you seriously if you do.— ShutTheFrontDawes
And there we have it. A death certificate might identify lung cancer as the cause of death, and someone might reasonably say “it was all the smoking that caused that”. But if it said “head injury from road traffic collision” is it reasonable to say that “it was the helmet that caused that”? Or even “it was the rotational injury from the helmet that caused that”? Would it not be the cause of the road traffic collision that is considered the cause of death?
We argue a similar point when Martin/Nigel posts their little table purportedly showing that cyclists cause more pedestrian deaths than cars – just because something is involved does not mean than something is the cause.
So how many deaths are caused by wearing a helmet? Zero.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I’m not going to go looking for stats on death certificates, but then I don’t expect them to list all possible effects that resulted in death – it’s just going to be the main cause that seems relevant to the doctor/coroner. Identifying death causes by death certificate is a whole topic by itself and certainly there seems to have been some ‘gaming’ of the system with Covid deaths.
I would be very surprised if there’s any death certificates that list ‘smoking’ or ‘sedentary lifestyle’ as a cause of death, so by all means go and have a look at death certificates if you think they’re of any use to this discussion, but don’t expect people to take you seriously if you do.
— hawkinspeter And there we have it. A death certificate might identify lung cancer as the cause of death, and someone might reasonably say “it was all the smoking that caused that”. But if it said “head injury from road traffic collision” is it reasonable to say that “it was the helmet that caused that”? Or even “it was the rotational injury from the helmet that caused that”? Would it not be the cause of the road traffic collision that is considered the cause of death? We argue a similar point when Martin/Nigel posts their little table purportedly showing that cyclists cause more pedestrian deaths than cars – just because something is involved does not mean than something is the cause. So how many deaths are caused by wearing a helmet? Zero.— ShutTheFrontDawes
Following that logic (that the cause of road traffic collision is the cause of death) then the number of deaths caused by not wearing a helmet would also be zero because not wearing a helmet does not cause road traffic collisions.
Backladder wrote:
Now you’re getting it. A helmet is not a cause of death nor is not wearing a helmet. But it can prevent a death.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
— ShutTheFrontDawes Now you’re getting it. A helmet is not a cause of death nor is not wearing a helmet. But it can prevent a death.— Backladder
But that is another not proven statement, just because 1+1 does not equal 3 does not mean that 1+1 equals 4
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Can guarantee at least 3. As EU helmet regulations for children were changed due to one country having 3 deaths from strangulation by helmet strap (req for childrens helmets to break under force) over a relatively short period…
ChuckSneed wrote:
I can because it’s not a fact.
Have all your 51 posts to date on road.cc been this crap? It certainly feels that way…
Back from your holiday ?
Back from your holiday ?
Got suspended for a week for
Got suspended for a week for calling the author of an article out in a thread where he wrote ‘I’m happy to be called out’. Clearly wasn’t that happy to be called out.
Given your approach to
Given your approach to posting is being offensive, no doubt your ‘call out’ was the equivalent of telling them to eff off.
ChuckSneed wrote:
Well, you managed to get one thing right; helmet laws discourage cycling.
Unfortunately, everything else you say is, not to put too fine a point on it, bolox. If that was slightly too nuanced, too subtle, too fine a distinction for you, then let me say this; it was total, complete and utter drivel, and no data supports your claims, which are nonsense, untrue and existing purely in your imagination.
But because cycle helmets discourage cycling, their overall effect on public health is huge and negative. Ditto for public wealth.
Four deaths, two wearing
Four deaths, two wearing helmets and two not, are they recommending body armour to eliminate the deaths while wearing helmets? Perhaps the ultimate protection is to wrap a car around the cyclist?
Backladder wrote:
What you should be asking is: Is wearing body armour a reasonable control to put in place by law? They would seem to think not, and I for one (not that it matters) would agree with them. And also: is wearing a helmet a reasonable control to put in place by law? They would seem to think so, though I disagree with them (again, not that it matters).
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Four deaths, two wearing helmets and two not, are they recommending body armour to eliminate the deaths while wearing helmets? Perhaps the ultimate protection is to wrap a car around the cyclist?
— ShutTheFrontDawes What you should be asking is: Is wearing body armour a reasonable control to put in place by law? They would seem to think not, and I for one (not that it matters) would agree with them. And also: is wearing a helmet a reasonable control to put in place by law? They would seem to think so, though I disagree with them (again, not that it matters).— Backladder
Actually I would be asking what the other two died of because they could have died of head injuries as well but they’re just leaving out that information.
Backladder wrote:
— BackladderIt is extremely unusual for a cyclist to die of head injury alone, most often they have other extremely serious injuries which would have killed them without the head injury. Yet another reason why helmets are not a rational answer to the question of cyclist safety.
Backladder wrote:
And, assuming for a moment that they did die of head injuries despite wearing a helmet, what conclusion would you draw from that information? If it’s that helmets are ineffective for protecting against head injuries, you would be jumping to a false conclusion. If it’s that helmets are ineffective for protecting against some head injuries, you would of course be correct, but we already knew that, didn’t we.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Four deaths, two wearing helmets and two not, are they recommending body armour to eliminate the deaths while wearing helmets? Perhaps the ultimate protection is to wrap a car around the cyclist?
— ShutTheFrontDawes What you should be asking is: Is wearing body armour a reasonable control to put in place by law? They would seem to think not, and I for one (not that it matters) would agree with them. And also: is wearing a helmet a reasonable control to put in place by law? They would seem to think so, though I disagree with them (again, not that it matters).— Backladder
Actually I would be asking what the other two died of because they could have died of head injuries as well but they’re just leaving out that information.
— ShutTheFrontDawes And, assuming for a moment that they did die of head injuries despite wearing a helmet, what conclusion would you draw from that information? If it’s that helmets are ineffective for protecting against head injuries, you would be jumping to a false conclusion. If it’s that helmets are ineffective for protecting against some head injuries, you would of course be correct, but we already knew that, didn’t we.— Backladder
Yes, we already know that but it might give us evidence to present to the Cypriot governement
Backladder wrote:
And, assuming for a moment that they did die of head injuries despite wearing a helmet, what conclusion would you draw from that information? If it’s that helmets are ineffective for protecting against head injuries, you would be jumping to a false conclusion. If it’s that helmets are ineffective for protecting against some head injuries, you would of course be correct, but we already knew that, didn’t we.— ShutTheFrontDawes
Yes, we already know that but it might give us evidence to present to the Cypriot governement— Backladder
Do the Cypriot government expect helmets to completely prevent all head injuries? I don’t know but I highly doubt it. In my experience some civil servants are at least slightly intelligent.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
— ShutTheFrontDawes Do the Cypriot government expect helmets to completely prevent all head injuries? I don’t know but I highly doubt it. In my experience some civil servants are at least slightly intelligent.— Backladder From what I’ve read, they do think that cycle helmets do protect against death and expect to see a reduction in the death rate of cyclists as a result of their law. This means that they have done no research at all, or are being paid by helmet makers.
There appears to have been no consultation, no public debate, and just one misled but determined minister is apparently sufficient.
eburtthebike wrote:
Ha yes this must be the only 2 possible options. It’s either that they’re stupid or a conspiracy by ‘big helmet’. You’re on a different planet, seriously.
It couldn’t possibly be that they acknowledge that their roads are hazardous for cyclists and they are trying to do something to reduce road-related mortality. Couldn’t possibly be that, could it.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
You’re entirely missing the point. Roads aren’t dangerous – it’s the poor driving that introduces danger and cycle helmets do not at all address dangerous driving.
“it’s the poor driving that
“it’s the poor driving that introduces danger”
I’d go further than that: danger is introduced by the fact that people are allowed to bring fast moving very heavy metal objects onto the roads . It is then further increased by the poor driving of these objects.
hawkinspeter wrote:
You’re entirely missing the point. Roads aren’t dangerous – it’s the poor driving that introduces danger and cycle helmets do not at all address dangerous driving.— ShutTheFrontDawes
No, I’m not entirely missing the point. Their roads are hazardous for cyclists in the same sense that downtown Pripyat is hazardous for humans – I.e. it’s not the location itself, it’s the hazards at the location that are the problem. And continuing the analogy, a CBRN suit does not ‘address’ the radiation, but it does make a human safer.
No, helmets do not ‘address’ dangerous driving but they can provide protection against some of the detrimental outcomes that could occur.
Helmets are not a silver bullet for road safety, but that does not mean that they should be foregone.
And just because some people think that the conclusion of a helmet study is flawed does not mean that the opposite of that conclusion becomes true.
[/quote] Ha yes this must be
[/quote] Ha yes this must be the only 2 possible options. It’s either that they’re stupid or a conspiracy by ‘big helmet’. You’re on a different planet, seriously. It couldn’t possibly be that they acknowledge that their roads are hazardous for cyclists and they are trying to do something to reduce road-related mortality. Couldn’t possibly be that, could it.[/quote]
It is a tenet of improving safety to treat the cause not the symptoms; except for cyclists. The cause of cyclist deaths is almost totally bad driving, and cycle helmets will do nothing to address the cause. Places that have taken steps by reducing the cause are much safer places to ride than places where they have merely treated the symptoms.
Cycle helmets are a massive con on the public, who pay billions for a product that doesn’t work and can’t be taken back when it fails. There’s a reason that helmet manufacturers don’t claim that they will save your life; they’d be sued into bankruptcy in weeks, but that doesn’t stop the helmet zealots saying it.
The Cypriot authorities have taken this decision because they say it will save lives when anyone who has a modicum of knowledge knows that they don’t; perhaps you could tell us why they did it?
eburtthebike wrote:
No it isn’t; don’t pretend that you know what you’re talking about.
Improving safety is achieved in many ways. One method is through Bow Tie analysis where controls and recovery or mitigation barriers work together to reduce overall risk https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/solutions/enablon/bowtie/expert-insights/barrier-based-risk-management-knowledge-base/the-bowtie-method
Controls prevent a bad thing from happening and mitigations reduce the severity of the outcome. Helmets are a perfectly valid mitigator.
Perhaps you’re the one with the BaD sCiEnCe after all.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
— ShutTheFrontDawes No it isn’t; don’t pretend that you know what you’re talking about. Improving safety is achieved in many ways. One method is through Bow Tie analysis where controls and recovery or mitigation barriers work together to reduce overall risk https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/solutions/enablon/bowtie/expert-insights/barrier-based-risk-management-knowledge-base/the-bowtie-method Controls prevent a bad thing from happening and mitigations reduce the severity of the outcome. Helmets are a perfectly valid mitigator. Perhaps you’re the one with the BaD sCiEnCe after all.— eburtthebike
A bow tie analysis is a visualisation tool and it is obvious when using it that preventions (to the left of the event) are more important than mitigations (to the right of the event) so you are confirming eburts position.
Backladder wrote:
Lol, no the stuff to the left is not ‘more important’ than the stuff to the right. Jeez, you people think things are so simple don’t you. The stuff to the left and right are equally important. Cost/benefit analysis tells you which barriers to focus on. The ones with the most benefit per cost should be the most important to bring in. But just because someone has decided to implement a barrier that some perceive (rightly or wrongly) to be less important, does not mean that safety declines. It just means that it has not improved in the most efficient way. But it is still an improvement.
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
I get it now, you’re a bean counter, its just the money that counts not the lives!
Backladder wrote:
a continual evolution of body armour getting heavier and heavier, until the cyclist cannot carry it, and then perhaps the armoud could be fitted with wheels and engine to allow it to be moved around…
Other outcomes of an
Other outcomes of an evolutionary arms race are possible – cyclists could get smaller (they could pass under the car without harm), or accept more destruction but reproduce faster (a bike already involves much less investment than a car; just need to crank out cyclists faster…)
I’ve no idea what Cypress (presumably this is talking about the Republic of Cyprus in the South?) is like for the transport cyclist? It wasn’t on my radar as a mass-cycling nation.
Oh, never mind. (Yes – NL has lots of cars but they tamed them a bit).
chrisonatrike wrote:
I’m thinking of a pair of machine guns duct taped to the sides of the top tube 😉
The old fave as e.g.
The old fave as e.g. practiced by the pufferfish – mutually assured destruction (and what looks like a very uncomfortable ride).
Backladder wrote:
The recoil would be interesting, but the approach is generally correct. I think I’d go for a rocket to avoid that, but then there is the problem of the rather warm exhaust; we need to do tests.
One of the reasons drivers don’t notice cyclists is because they aren’t a threat, so if we very obviously armed ourselves, drivers would tend to notice us more.
eburtthebike wrote:
I thought the recoil energy was used to chamber the next round in a machine gun and that the actual rearward force was fairly light.
Depends! Obviously we’re
Depends! Obviously we’re assuming having gone for arms you wouldn’t want to fart about:
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/m134-minigun-the-modern-gatling-gun-video/
Hmm… clearly effective on trucks but that rotation might lead to chafing and obviously wtjs would be mocking any e-machine guns; how about a classic with a bit more pedigree?
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/browning-m2hb-50-bmg-at-the-range/
Backladder wrote:
I’ve only ever shot an M4 and an AK47. With standard ammo If you were going in a straight line at a reasonable speed I think you could get away with an M4 but the AK would shake your bike to bits. You’d also have a steady stream of spent cases hitting you in the face or legs, at least for the 3 seconds or so before you run out of ammo.
Apparently you can shoot .22 rounds in a machine gun with little recoil but they’d be unlikely to go through the car and hurt the driver.
I imagine if you tried this in real life in the UK all the problems the police apparently have in identifying killer drivers would magically evapourate and you’d be in handcuffs by the end of the day.
Quote:
Wait a minute… double-agent here!
Either that or the
Either that or the notoriously lax gun laws in Nevada. I’ll let you decide . . . .
I’m not sure about “fire AND
I’m not sure about “fire AND movement” but certainly using bike instead of tripod / bipod may be a thing. There’s a military history to the bicycle about as old as “safety bicycles”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_infantry
NOtotheEU wrote:
Impossible, I don’t have a numberplate, how would they tell me from all the other cyclists with guns strapped to their bikes?
…or if you’d cloned a
…or if you’d cloned a numberplate from another bike or altered yours or obscured it (gasp! How did those saucy knaves outfox us again?)
…or if the law came round and you admitted it was your bike but it wasn’t you riding it – could have been anyone. (Or just use a hire bike – problem solved!)
Mind you, a numbered tabard now, that’d have you bang to rights.
Not after 14 days though…
Not after 14 days though…
ChuckSneed wrote:
Although it is very much open to question about just how many thousands or millions of helmets are required to save one life, and whether the investment would be better spent elsewhere.
Of course if we place the requirement for helmets on the cyclists, no state money is wasted on this inefficient safety measure.
wycombewheeler wrote:
And the state makes money in fines and sales tax; double bonus.
It’s complex. One death or
It’s complex. One death or serious injury costs the state a hell of a lot of cash. Often in the millions. That’s money that could otherwise do a lot elsewhere.
It *is* complex – or rather
It *is* complex – or rather it’s quite clear where we are but change is complex. Motoring costs everyone lots of money* and some grief. However any attempt to change gets lots of popular opposition AND goes against extremely well-funded and connected industries – the transport and fuel lobby. So most places tell non-motorised road users that safety or convenience is *their* problem.
* motorists don’t pay to cover all the costs of this expensive activity (“negative externalities” such as health effects, pollution etc). I’m not aware of anywhere that forwards these costs to drivers specifically; generally all taxpayers subsidise this while motorists complain about the tax on fuel, “road tax” etc.
bivvy wrote:
Except that the deaths caused by inactivity because people are deterred from cycling massively outweigh the most optimistic estimates of lives saved by helmets. The only economic analysis I’ve seen showed that helmet laws were a gigantic cost to the state.
eburtthebike wrote:
Come on, you’re just making stuff up as you go now. Are these Schrödinger’s helmets that deter cyclists in their millions but at the same time make cyclists feel so safe they cycle so recklessly they die by their millions, whilst also being paid for out of government coffers?
30 sec search on f… google.
30 sec search on f… google. Do make an effort if you’re on here all day. Or just get lost.
“This study presents a cost-benefit analysis of a law requiring cy-
clists to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle in Germany. The cost
benefit-analysis takes into account the benefit of increased security
when cyclists wear a helmet or use a transport mode that is less
risky than cycling. The analysis also considers the cost of purchas-
ing helmets, reduced fitness when cycling is replaced by a motorized
transport mode, the discomfort of wearing helmets and environ-
mental externalities. The benefits of a helmet law are estimated
at about 0.714 of the costs. A bicycle helmet law for Germany is
found to be a waste of resources”
https://www.cycle-helmets.com/germany-helmet-law-cost-analysis-2014.pdf
On the plus side, this could
On the plus side, this could add to the data about helmet efficacy, but it’ll depend on having good figures for number of cyclists before and after the law.
You seemed to miss that point
You seemed to miss that point in your helmets for peds argument.
There are considerably more peds. So of course more deaths. They may still be at much higher risks cycling in the areas they propose to fine them.
bivvy wrote:
I couldn’t readily find the stats to figure out fatalities per mile travelled per person. There was one site that seemed relevant, but it was all greek to me.
hawkinspeter wrote:
Ha! You smashed it into the back of the (inter)net there!
Though comparing fatalities per mile for pedestrians, cyclists and cars would be false, as they cover vastly different distances. It would be better to compare fatalities per journey, or perhaps per hour.
I did that calculation on the UK data a few years ago and I think if I remember rightly, it showed that cycling was something like 3 times the risk of head injury than driving and 20 times that of walking. I can’t remember the exact numbers as it was probably about four years ago I did that, and some other stuff has happened in the world since then!
Of course that’s not saying we should have mandatory helmet laws, just good understanding of reality.
AndyRed3d wrote:
— AndyRed3dWhich? Per journey or hour?
What is surprising about this
What is surprising about this law is that they claim to be introducing it to protect people on bikes, but the number of pedestrian fatalities is much higher, so wouldn’t it be far more effective to introduce mandatory pedestrian helmets instead?
I’d just like to say I’ve
I’d just like to say I’ve been for a bike ride in the countryside today and it was very smelly. I should imagine it will be just as bad tomorrow so if you are going for a ride think on. Be careful out there.
perce wrote:
How did you notice over your own stench?! I understand that cyclists are a stinky, sweaty mess after cycling even a mile at low effort.
Good point, never thought of
Good point, never thought of that. If anyone does go for a ride and everything smells hunky dunky it’s probably because I’m having a le in.
Two deaths on small island
Two deaths on small island may not sound much.
But the monetary cost will be high. A person no longer able to contribute to the economy. Life insurance payments. And of course for each death many more will be injured. Brain injuries are costly too, inc. teatment costs.
bivvy wrote:
At the risk of looking at the human, as opposed to the economic cost, two deaths “sound” quite important. Two families devastated. And for what?
Wow. That old canard again.
Wow. That old canard again. You worried about road deaths ?
So forbid driving first and foremost: https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cyprus-road-traffic-accidents
marmotte27 wrote:
According to that, Cyprus is doing better than the UK.
Edit: No they’re not, I thought that lower was better for the World Ranking. Cyprus 155 vs UK 173
Judging by my experience of
Judging by my experience of Cypriot driving, there are many other things the government could do to improve personal safety.
Driving standards there are very, very poor.
The trouble with these
The trouble with these discussions are they get fixated on head injuries. The reality is there are two fundamentally different problems, falling off a bike and being in a collision.
Falling off a bike is a relatively common occurrence, often self-inflicted. The forces involved are not usually massive, however, the acceleration of the head to the ground from normal cycling height with no other factors is sufficient to cause serious head injury. Other injuries are common but rarely have the potential long term impact of a head injury. The nature of falling off a bike often makes it difficult to control your fall.
The second form of accident is a collision with a vehicle. These are rarer. However, the likelihood of fatal injuries are much higher. The type of fatal injuries are more diverse, including crushing viral organs, broken necks, loss of blood. Saving the top of your head only affects a small portion of the statistical likelihood of survivability. For example, I would hazard that the typical London left hook by HGV fatalities statistics would be entirely unaffected by helmet, indeed, I would hazard that nearly all the victims would be wearing helmets.
So, would I wear a helmet – absolutely, I’ve had and seen numerous incidents where head injuries have been avoided, none of these have involved collisions. I don’t think I’ve witnessed or been part of a collision that has resulted in a head injury. Just avoiding the pain of a bang on the head and stitches is worth it – from experience 40 years ago.
Helmets as a device to increase safety in traffic interactions? A non-starter. Even if you have statistics which suggest that head injuries are included in a significant proportion of collision serious injuries and deaths, without some deep diving, you are going to struggle to prove that survivability of an accident is significantly improved by a bit of polystyrene on the noggin given the very different forces involved, especially as these days, the majority of KSIs will involve people wearing helmets.
So, I will always recommend wearing a helmet for the first reason – the nature of bicycles mean it is easy to have an uncontrolled fall where you hit your head and receiving or having to deal with such injuries is so unpleasant it is worth the inconvenience even though they are rare occurrences.
So that’s my anecdotal analysis.
Final anecdote. My last serious fall without a bike and without a helmet was ballroom dancing. Mrs S tripped heavily over my foot (during the Quickstep performing a V6 so basically moving fast), she went flying down backwards and was going to smack her head. I held her and broke her fall successfully, which transferred her momentum to me and I then was forced to fall forwards. I was able to roll as I fell, and more or less stood straight up again. All instinctive. Neither of us were even bruised (aside from egos). When you have a bike between your legs, you don’t have the manoeuvrability to protect yourself. I could make a case for the infirm pedestrian wearing helmets – and people with serious epilepsy do wear helmets.
Great comment!
Great comment! Two different scenarios indeed.
Only thing missing from this – and the debate in general is the potential health benefits of also promoting recumbent cycles – for lower head – ground distance and first impact with legs rather than upper body in head-on collisions. And maybe more wheels – to reduce accidents when mounting / dismounting
/ static? Although then fast cornering needs more care.
Of course doing so in many countries might lead to a rash of SMIDSY cases due to different shape – or at least excuses… I’m not aware of large-scale studies (or any studies) on injury patterns in recumbent crashes either.
Oh – wait – apparently if you have a four-wheeler recunbent which is particularly heavy and has roll-protection most governments will help fund it! Great!
Interestingly the study below
Interestingly the study below suggests a range of head impact speeds on falling over from standing as up to about 15mph – coincidentally the pedelec assistance limit. So maybe add “if you’re in a single-bike crash at over 15mph on your own head be it (increasingly with greater speed)! (I dunno if helmet manufacturers already have that in the small print, I never read it).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25608913/
Of course one point this
Of course one point this misses is that the rate of falls is heavily affected by other factors – Age and terrain being the main ones (though weather probably also applies).
I expect your average road cyclist is vastly more likely to suffer a head injury from a collision than a fall, while mountain bikers suffer very few collisions but have an injury rate several orders of magnitude higher.
Given rates of helmet usage in various off road disciplines it is another strong argument against mandation – See the comment about only enforcing on busy roads and highways, the location where they are least likely to make a difference and that usage is basically universal in serious off road riding…
On the second para, my point
On the second para, my point was the opposite. Falling off a bike is relatively common even for a road cyclist, it is easy to catch an edge mounting a kerb, forgetting to unclip, slipping on gravel or smooth road (how I broke my hip), wet roads (stitches for me back in the ’80s pre-helmet), misjudging corners, mechanical failures. For an individual, a collision, especially with a vehicle is rare. When you fall off, you don’t have good control, so protecting yourself by falling correctly (and other helpful suggestions from the Internet) is rarely an option, indeed, my hip fall was instantaneous – one minute on a bike, the next, pedalling in thin air.
A collision has multiple ways of throwing you about, but the main risk is either the momentum of the larger vehicle impacting anywhere on your body, or being crushed beneath the heavy vehicle. So the injury when you collide is more likely to be serious than a fall. However, the probability of a cyclist being in a collision is far less than a cyclist falling off (we could debate what column to put “falling off avoiding a collision).
We could do a survey, but although obviously statistically skewed by non-survivors, I would expect every cyclist here to have fallen off multiple times, and only a proportion to have been in a collision.