helmets from Why wear black?

[Mike Sales]

I can't find the link just now, sorry. I'll see if I can dig it out. As I said, I was just surprised that nobody mentioned what happened when helmets were actually banned.

I had never heard of it, or even that Singapore had banned them, which is surprising.

Yes, it is surprising, isn't it? That's because I lied.

Perhaps my point is made.

Sorry, you will have to make your point clearly. Is it about the unlikelihood of a ban?

[Vorpal]

Singapore introduced a new law 1 feb 2019, that requires cyclists to wear helmets on the road, and introduced a reduced speed limit for bicycles on shared use facilities.
The proposal is here.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/ ... t-proposal

A little information about the introduction https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/n ... kick-feb-1

I have not seen any studies about the impact on cyclists safety, but if they are obeying the speed limit, that is likely to have more influence on safety than the introduction of helmets.

I'm not sure what point is made by saying they had banned them.

[mikeymo]

That (probably) the wearing of helmets by cyclists has NEVER been banned.

Therefore the comparative study to the ENFORCEMENT of helmet wearing has never happened.

Studies about the efficacy of helmet wearing often are based upon those situations where there wasn't enforcement, then there was.

Whereas beagles in labs HAVE been forced to smoke cigarettes, for instance.

[The utility cyclist]

My own feelings are that helmets are only a good thing, especially so with young children and i feel the rewards of wearing them outway any percieved risk (especially so for children).

And yet childhood risk specialist Tim Gill didn't reach the same conclusion despite a much more thorough analysis when he produced a consultancy report for a children's charity. It's a lucidly argued, evidence based analysis that you'd do well to read: https://timrgill.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/cycling-rpt-gill-05.pdf


it's interesting that the author fails to acknowledge that increasing the weight of a child's head (and thus kinetic energy of the head in any incident) and additional circumference are valid reasons that helmets work in a negative way with regards to safety
Also using out of date data from best part of 20 years ago is somewhat puzzling when there is lots of data regards to child cycling death numbers. 2016 the reported numbers of child deaths by all injury types were low single digits, fewer than that for child deaths solely by head injury in motor vehicles for a smaller cross section of the population -England and Wales for child as motor passengers against whole UK for child cyclists.

I haven't read all the document but does he mention the differential between pedestrians and cyclists post the wave/increase in helmet wearing in terms of in jury numbers/% rate. We already know that pedestrians have had significantly improved rates of KSI compared to those on bikes despite wearing at all/huge increases in helmet wearing in only one group, so the reductions in KSIs cannot be applied to helmets in any case surely?

[mikeymo]

It turns out that one can find a single study that supports the point of view one already holds. Let me have a go. Yes, here we are:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796827?dopt=Abstract

[mattheus]

It turns out that one can find a single study that supports the point of view one already holds. Let me have a go. Yes, here we are:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796827?dopt=Abstract

For those new to the field, it might be helpful to read about subsequent analysis of this much-discussed study-of-studies:

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1069.html

...Published peer criticism
Elvik, 2011 has criticised the criteria used for the inclusion of studies in this review, noting that most of the included studies were the work of the reviewers themselves.
...

You don't need to be a scientist to see the problem there. (but it may help ... )

This is how science works - nothing is a given, there is open analysis and discussion. It's not done in an echo-chamber

[Mike Sales]

It turns out that one can find a single study that supports the point of view one already holds. Let me have a go. Yes, here we are:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796827?dopt=Abstract

This study bases its conclusions on a number of case controlled studies.

Goldacre and Speigelhalter discuss the limitations of case controlled studies in their BMJ editorial.

This finding of “no benefit” is superficially hard to reconcile with case-control studies, many of which have shown that people wearing helmets are less likely to have a head injury. Such findings suggest that, for individuals, helmets confer a benefit. These studies, however, are vulnerable to many methodological shortcomings. If the controls are cyclists presenting with other injuries in the emergency department, then analyses are conditional on having an accident and therefore assume that wearing a helmet does not change the overall accident risk. There are also confounding variables that are generally unmeasured and perhaps even unmeasurable. People who choose to wear bicycle helmets will probably be different from those who ride without a helmet: they may be more cautious, for example, and so less likely to have a serious head injury, regardless of their helmets.

A quick reading of your link seems to show that these mistakes are repeated.

There is no acknowledgement that whole population studies fail to show any benefits of wearing.

With regard to your previous question, it seems that cyclists forced to wear a helmet by law will tend to be the risk takers in the cycling population, so helmet efficacy would be overstated in compulsion countries, when before law and after casualty rates are compared. That is, if helmets are efficacious.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Helmet compulsion isn’t the answer. It’s counter productive. If you tell people they must do something, it tends to bring the feet stamping ‘I don’t wanna, it’s not fair’ brigade out, and less people want to / tend to wear them. Just educate people about head injuries, and the consequences, and let them make their own minds up.

[Mike Sales]

Helmet compulsion isn’t the answer. It’s counter productive. If you tell people they must do something, it tends to bring the feet stamping ‘I don’t wanna, it’s not fair’ brigade out, and less people want to / tend to wear them. Just educate people about head injuries, and the consequences, and let them make their own minds up.

The Australian law worked insofar as wearing went from about a third to nearly 100%. The foot stampers have contributed a large amount in fines to the government. It is, after all, easy to spot bareheaded cyclists, and not difficult to catch them.

Heavy helmet promotion seems to be counterproductive in that it puts people off cycling. Laws do the same. This is counterproductive in public health results.

[Cunobelin]

Meaningless whataboutery.

So you have no answers? Come on, these are simple questions. Their meanings are clear.

For any head injury, I would always want to wear a helmet. Why on earth wouldn't You?

Oh, wait, you guys think they make head injuries worse lol

Excellent. Given that 60% are alcohol-related, do you wear one in the pub?
Waking to the pub, what do you wear?

Is it a cycle helmet, or something more suited like a riding helmet?

Secondly, we don't think anything - we have read the research, triangulated that research, and KNOW that in many cases they make injuries worse

[Cunobelin]

Helmet compulsion isn’t the answer. It’s counter productive. If you tell people they must do something, it tends to bring the feet stamping ‘I don’t wanna, it’s not fair’ brigade out, and less people want to / tend to wear them. Just educate people about head injuries, and the consequences, and let them make their own minds up.

Which brings us nicely to.... the THUDGUARD

[Cunobelin]

Helmet compulsion isn’t the answer. It’s counter productive. If you tell people they must do something, it tends to bring the feet stamping ‘I don’t wanna, it’s not fair’ brigade out, and less people want to / tend to wear them. Just educate people about head injuries, and the consequences, and let them make their own minds up.

The Australian law worked insofar as wearing went from about a third to nearly 100%. The foot stampers have contributed a large amount in fines to the government. It is, after all, easy to spot bareheaded cyclists, and not difficult to catch them.

Heavy helmet promotion seems to be counterproductive in that it puts people off cycling. Laws do the same. This is counterproductive in public health results.

The Australian Law is difficult to assess as there was a whole raft of legislative clampdowns the should have shown a decrease in cyclist injuries anyway.

The ironic thing was that head injury unequivocally dropped. Trouble was that so did the number of cyclists. The unfortunate reality was that when you link the two and correct the head injury statistics for the decrease in cyclists, the head injuries ROSE after compulsion

[fastpedaller]

[quote="Cunobelin"
The ironic thing was that head injury unequivocally dropped. Trouble was that so did the number of cyclists. The unfortunate reality was that when you link the two and correct the head injury statistics for the decrease in cyclists, the head injuries ROSE after compulsion[/quote]

Which (maybe?) brings us back to the conclusion that risk compensation is a factor - ask most people "how will a helmet affect a cyclist" and they'll say "it will protect them" either because they believe that, or they have been told it and accept it as fact. I for one think this immediately puts us (cyclists) in danger. Turn the question around "what about the cyclist without a helmet" the answer is likely to be "they aren't protected" - which could encourage more care when overtaking? for an example.

[mikeymo]

Helmet compulsion isn’t the answer. It’s counter productive. If you tell people they must do something, it tends to bring the feet stamping ‘I don’t wanna, it’s not fair’ brigade out, and less people want to / tend to wear them. Just educate people about head injuries, and the consequences, and let them make their own minds up.

The Australian law worked insofar as wearing went from about a third to nearly 100%. The foot stampers have contributed a large amount in fines to the government. It is, after all, easy to spot bareheaded cyclists, and not difficult to catch them.

Heavy helmet promotion seems to be counterproductive in that it puts people off cycling. Laws do the same. This is counterproductive in public health results.

The Australian Law is difficult to assess as there was a whole raft of legislative clampdowns the should have shown a decrease in cyclist injuries anyway.

The ironic thing was that head injury unequivocally dropped. Trouble was that so did the number of cyclists. The unfortunate reality was that when you link the two and correct the head injury statistics for the decrease in cyclists, the head injuries ROSE after compulsion

I'm sorry, maybe I'm being really stupid, but:

"head injury unequivocally dropped"

and

"the head injuries ROSE after compulsion"

Seem to be contradictory to me. Aren't "dropped" and "rose" opposite things?

[Mike Sales]

I'm sorry, maybe I'm being really stupid, but:

"head injury unequivocally dropped"

and

"the head injuries ROSE after compulsion"

Seem to be contradictory to me. Aren't "dropped" and "rose" opposite things?

He omitted to insert the word "rate".

i.e. Head injury rate rose after compulsion.

I spotted this when I first read his post, both from knowledge of events in Oz, and from making sense of the his argument.

Edit. It has occurred to me that the sense of this might need to be made more explicit.

A smaller number of cyclists had a higher rate of injury. So that while the absolute number of head injuries declined, any one who continued cycling had a higher risk of injury. I hope that you agree this is a bad thing for two reasons.