Cycle helmets for everyone - that will put more people at risk

This sub-forum all discussions about this "lively" subject. All topics that are substantially about helmets will be moved here, if not placed here correctly in the first place.
thelawnet
Posts: 2309
Joined: 27 Aug 2010, 12:56am

Cycle helmets for everyone - that will put more people at risk

Postby thelawnet » 26 Nov 2017, 6:53pm

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/ ... -risk.html

"Daily I risk death or serious injury on the roads, simply because I ride a bicycle. I know the danger, but I’d rather face it than box myself in a car.

I have many reasons for this. I think cars spoil our countryside and our towns, cloud the air with filth and noise, and make us horribly dependent on Middle Eastern despotisms for fuel. I also think there’s no quicker way of transforming a decent person into a power-crazed selfish maniac than to put him behind the wheel of a car."

"Now it seems I am to be punished for my rejection of the sacred car, by being ordered to wear body-armour while I bicycle.

A silly Minister, Jesse Norman, has launched a ‘review’ that will ‘consider’ the mandatory wearing of cycle helmets.

I’ve tried these things. Have you ever looked at one? A bowl of Styrofoam with a thin plastic coating, wildly expensive to buy, easy to leave behind on a train, which might conceivably save you from injury if you fell off at 4mph. Otherwise? Not much.

It’s quite useful in a hailstorm. But it won’t save you if a 45-ton lorry decides to turn across your path, or if a water-filled pothole deeper than it looks (there are more and more of these, and Mr Norman’s Transport Department seems unable to do anything about it) sends you sprawling in front of a bus."

Cyril Haearn
Posts: 12316
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am
Location: Between the woods and the water

Re: Cycle helmets for everyone - that will put more people at risk

Postby Cyril Haearn » 26 Nov 2017, 8:30pm

I think it is unlikely that legislation will come soon

We should be prepared, apart from Chris Boardman who do we have to present arguments for doing nothing (status quo)?

I don't know much about the dangerous dog legislation, apparently it was rushed through (is that right, was it changed later?)

Is there a danger of helmet legislation being rushed through? One imagines our hard-pressed constabularies might be against it because they already have too much to do
Nice one Cyrille, nice one son..
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on 49" fixed
We love safety cameras, we love life "1330"

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 10140
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Cycle helmets for everyone - that will put more people at risk

Postby Cunobelin » 26 Nov 2017, 8:50pm

The danger really lies with the lies and misrepresentations of the pro-compulsion lobby, which are lapped up by the many MPS too lazy to actually check the facts.

BHIT claimed in Parlaiment that cycle helmets would save 20,000 children a year from head injury, 19,600 more than had actually occurred any year previously

They also claimed that a child died every week from a cycle related head injury.... the real number was less than 4

Neither statement was formally challenged, and that it what is needed a number of informed MPS willing to challenge the misleading and untrue statements

Steady rider
Posts: 2187
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Cycle helmets for everyone - that will put more people at risk

Postby Steady rider » 26 Nov 2017, 9:18pm

The two countries with helmet laws for all ages have had evaluations;
Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle law, detailing changes in the proportion of people cycling and changes to the accident rate.
Clarke, CF, Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle law, NZMJ 10 February 2012, Vol 125 No 1349 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/nz-clarke-2012.pdf

Evaluation of Australia's bicycle helmet laws, The Sports Science Summit, O2 venue London UK http://www.cycle-helmets.com/au-assessment-2015.pdf Presented 14 January 2015.

Australia’s helmet law

The law in Victoria, resulted in 30 more teenagers wearing helmets compared with 623 fewer cycling, a drop of 48%.

For New South Wales the law resulted in 569 more children wearing helmets
compared with 2658 fewer cycling, a drop of 44%.

page 28 reports
The societal health cost factor against the laws is calculated at 109, indicating they cause considerable harm.


New Zealand’s helmet law
New Zealand survey data from before their law, 1989-1990 to after 2006-09, showed that average hours cycled per person reduced by 51%.

Research from 2007 reported: "There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand, the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent."

A recent report from the USA detailed that cyclists wearing helmets had more than twice the odds of suffering an injury than cyclists not wearing helmets.

Refer;
Weaknesses with a meta-analysis approach to assessing cycle helmets. Feb 2017 http://worldtransportjournal.com/wp-con ... eb-opt.pdf

pages 28/29 refers to;
In New Zealand, from 1989 to 2011, average time spent cycling (on roads and footpaths) fell by 79% for children aged 5-12 (from 28 to 6 minutes per person per week) and 81% for 13-17 year olds (52 to 10 mins/person/week).
Adult cycling declined from 8 to 5 minutes/person/week then trended back up to 8 minutes. Graphs of cycle use over time provide strong evidence that the requirement to wear a helmet discouraged cycling.
and
The reductions in cycling were accompanied by increased injury rates. Between 1989 and 2012, fatal or serious injuries per million hours of cycling increased by 86% for children (from 49 to 91), 181% for teenagers (from 18 to 51) and 64% for adults (from 23 to 38).

colinclarkecycling@hotmail.co.uk can be emailed if required to assist.

Some changes needed to improve cyclists safety, 'a passing law', more use of 40 mph limits on windy country roads, more passing places and better training in how to interact and share the road. Safety on main A roads needs also to be improved.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-28/w ... ts/9096024

User avatar
pjclinch
Posts: 3872
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact:

Re: Cycle helmets for everyone - that will put more people at risk

Postby pjclinch » 27 Nov 2017, 12:24pm

Cyril Haearn wrote:
We should be prepared, apart from Chris Boardman who do we have to present arguments for doing nothing (status quo)?


Cycling UK is the obvious answer. Sustrans have changed their tune on helmets over the years and are now specifically pro-choice. Both seem higher up the cycling evidence pecking order than the likes of Headway, thank the lord.

But rather than do nothing, I'd like the actual lack of clear evidence to underpin a revision of the Highway Code, removing the advice that we should wear them, and the same for Hi-Viz. And that might open the way for less widespread recommendation and requirement, much of which is based on fear of litigation.
Get Britain Cycling recommended promoting cycling as reasonably safe and normal to riders of all ages. It would be nice if the great majority of school cycle training didn't force it to be portrayed to young riders as weird and dangerous.

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...

User avatar
bovlomov
Posts: 4202
Joined: 5 Apr 2007, 7:45am
Contact:

Re: Cycle helmets for everyone - that will put more people at risk

Postby bovlomov » 27 Nov 2017, 1:20pm

pjclinch wrote:Cycling UK is the obvious answer. Sustrans have changed their tune on helmets over the years and are now specifically pro-choice. Both seem higher up the cycling evidence pecking order than the likes of Headway, thank the lord.

I'm not aware of anyone BELOW Headway in the evidence pecking order.

Disagreement is OK, as are different interpretations of evidence. But Headway (I mean all their representatives) are prepared to repeat untruths even after being corrected, and seem to put their collective fingers in their ears when they hear anything that doesn't fit their agenda. As I said upthread, McCabe's hesitation and non sequitur in response to Wark's question - 'why isn't there conclusive evidence?' - suggests he knows the truth but is unwilling to face it.

User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 2919
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Cycle helmets for everyone - that will put more people at risk

Postby The utility cyclist » 27 Nov 2017, 6:53pm

Cunobelin wrote:The danger really lies with the lies and misrepresentations of the pro-compulsion lobby, which are lapped up by the many MPS too lazy to actually check the facts.

BHIT claimed in Parlaiment that cycle helmets would save 20,000 children a year from head injury, 19,600 more than had actually occurred any year previously

They also claimed that a child died every week from a cycle related head injury.... the real number was less than 4

Neither statement was formally challenged, and that it what is needed a number of informed MPS willing to challenge the misleading and untrue statements

it's not just misrepresenting facts, it is lying to parliament and as such 'contempt of the house' and punishable by fine or imprisonment ... if only!
these are stats from 2009-10, a 6 month period (12 months apparently too costly!) that were printed in the BMJ in 2015.
from the last set of figures I found there were 6 child cycling deaths in 2016 of all injury types in the UK, in England and Wales only there were 12 child deaths in motor vehicles solely due to head injury (I'll dig the link out if I can find it.)

Given a snapshot of what we see in BMJ published results it's not only obvious that BHIT were lying but their ignorance of other causes of head injuries in children is there to see not to mention that the efficacy of helmets is pitiful and that encouraging children to take more risks wearing helmets on bikes ends up with greater incident rates all the whilst ignoring the big boxes that do most of the harm when children are involved thus a helmet won't do dick!

Hospital admissions for head injuries in the UK number some 160,000 from a reported 1.4million head injuries of any type.
cycling is way down the list
head injury cause in children 2009 to 2010 6 month.JPG

child head injuries.JPG