Helmet discussions in York

[Steady rider]

http://www.euro.who.int/en/data-and-evi ... h/webinars

Looks interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dJ64o9 ... e=youtu.be

[Lance Dopestrong]

No, not really.

We'll hear the same old platitudes, the same old selectively presented "facts" while facts inconvenient to those proposing a position will be ignored. Same old. Mind you, be nice to hear someone bickering about something other than Brexit.

[Ron]

"With the popularity of cycling soaring across Europe"

Not in my part of Europe, the numbers of cyclists are dwindling as far as I can see .
Unless they include mountain bikers, who are out of sight to the rest of us.

[Steady rider]

https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/ ... %20debates

tickets can be obtained. Tuesday next week.

[Samuel D]

If a video or audio recording of the debate ever becomes available, please let us know.

[Brucey]

…. Mind you, be nice to hear someone bickering about something other than Brexit.

I bet someone manages to combine the two into a truly unholy cocktail of misery......

cheers

[The utility cyclist]

"With the popularity of cycling soaring across Europe"

Not in my part of Europe, the numbers of cyclists are dwindling as far as I can see .
Unless they include mountain bikers, who are out of sight to the rest of us.

Not in Netherlands were the modal share has remained static for well over a decade and hence why their government has taken even more steps to increase it.
Those proposing helmets should be shot, they undermine cycling as a whole, they undermine everything regarding safe cycling, they undermine any steps toward changing bias & discriminatory laws/rules and the thinking with respect to responsibility for safety (which we see to the point were police discriminate and victim blame those who have been killed), they aid those that kill and maim and strengthen the absolving of their crimes, it's perverse.

Ever since helmets have been introduced into general cycling it's had nothing but a massively detrimental effect, even in the arena of sports cycling/professional cycling it's done nothing but make that form of cycling less safe.

That this has been replicated in other sports and activities (with various sports backtracking on the helmet/headgear thinking after finding it was having a massive negative effect on head/brain injuries - Lacrosse & boxing for two) will be ignored by these heinous backstabbers

How about a discussion to make it compulsory to not be able to wear a helmet?

[Phil Fouracre]

Sounds like a great idea to me

[Steady rider]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCIr5V31y1E

[Ron]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCIr5V31y1E

I only lasted 8 minutes, amateur videos can be hard work.

[Wanlock Dod]

I found it to be an interesting discussion with three very different presenters. The first took a more epidemiological approach to consider risks to cyclists and how they seem to be adversely affected by helmet laws. The second took an approach more focused on protection at an individual level. The third took an approach based on what seems to be best for the health of society overall, linking cycling, and ill health due to factors such as air pollution and inactivity which would appear to be much bigger public health issues overall.

I thought that the third speaker came across better, it was clear and focused and I don’t recall anybody even questioning the points that were put forward, which was that far more lives could be saved by encouraging more people to cycle more often.

It was both revealing and disappointing that the WHO were more concerned about the safety of the individuals than the health of society overall, and that they were prepared to be selective about the evidence that they consider to be relevant.

[Steady rider]

It may have been clearer if the power point displays for speakers one and three could have been shown in addition to the close up of the speakers.

The 85% claim for the Seattle study is disputed by Zeegers in 2015, Overestimation of the effectiveness of the bicycle helmet by the use of odds ratios.

[Wanlock Dod]

It seems to be a consistent theme for Australians to focus on the reductions in numbers of injuries that resulted from compulsory helmets, whilst at the same time dismissing the effects on numbers of cyclists. As far as I can recall the helmet promoter was the only speaker to admit to not believing particular pieces of evidence, namely the effect of helmet laws on levels of cycling. I have a feeling that there are multiple sources which suggest a negative effect, although I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that helmet promotion increases levels of cycling. To suggest that evidence can be dismissed without giving a robust reasoning, and being prepared to defend it, seems to me to be very unscientific and would not be tolerated in any areas of science that I am familiar with.

I did find it a little disappointing that none of the speakers mentioned a weight of evidence, or tried to draw all of the available evidence together to construct one. However, I appreciate that it would probably be difficult to cover within the time available for the presentations. It is certainly a difficult job to distill a complex issue down into an easy to understand story and three or four easily interpreted slides, but being able to do so certainly makes getting the key messages across a lot easier.

[iRider]

From what I could understand, none of the “studies” had any hard evidence to support their theories. Talking about total a number of deaths over a given period of helmet usage and increases / decreases of bike usage over the same or similar periods quite frankly means nothing unless you invest a considerable amount of time, money and resources into collating all available data.

For example, if the effects of climate change over the same period resulted in much wetter conditions, did that cause an increase in accidents at a time when far fewer cyclists were on the road? Has a wider publicity about risks to children out alone resulted in a vast drop in under 10’s riding bikes whilst a growing awareness of carbon footprint has resulted in an increase of cycle usage amongst the over 60’s? And in doing so has account been taken of the fact under 10’s bounce better than the over 60’s?

I know I have used some pretty wild assumptions to explaine my point, but the point remains, that these studies require far greater investment and analysis to have serious credibility.

[Wanlock Dod]

It used to be widely accepted that smoking was beneficial to health, although it is not a view that many hold these days.

There are countless issues where the evidence is much less clear cut than we might like, and in those cases we (as a society) still need to try to find the most beneficial solution. Whether you feel that protecting a few cyclists from minor injuries is more important than improving public health on a larger scale is more important clearly affects ones view on the usefulness of cycle helmets.

As far as I can see a quarter of a century of increasing helmet use by cyclists has only led to hiviz becoming more popular, and more recently day time lights, although significant improvements in numbers of cyclists, or their safety seem to have eluded us.

In a highly uncertain situation should we really afford the benefit of the doubt to those that do the most damage?