Reductions like these should be unmistakable
And then there's the statistic that is frequently used that cyclist numbers declined dramatically
Regards
tim-b
Reductions like these should be unmistakable
Mike Sales wrote:I would have thought that if helmets saved a detectable number of lives, we shoild be able to tell.
Jdsk wrote:What type of study would you expect to tell us. please?
Mike Sales wrote:I guess whole population studies, where a law mandating helmets has produced a large and sudden increase in wearing, by all sorts of cyclists.
It is difficult to reconcile the results of laws in Oz and NZ with estimates published by some reserarchers, that helmet wearing would save 85% of cyclist head injuries. Did not an earlier contributor to this thread claim a 50% reduction?
https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1242.html
Reductions like these should be unmistakable.
The enduring popularity of helmets as a proposed major intervention for increased road safety may therefore lie not with their direct benefits—which seem too modest to capture compared with other strategies—but more with the cultural, psychological, and political aspects of popular debate around risk.
Jdsk wrote:I'd apply exactly the same evidence-based approach to all other safety issues in transport: vehicles, roads, drivers, devices...
Jonathan
philg wrote:Presumably the collisions where the helmet did make a large difference didn't show up in A&E?
tim-b wrote:HiReductions like these should be unmistakable
And then there's the statistic that is frequently used that cyclist numbers declined dramatically
Regards
tim-b
Jdsk wrote:And it's so important to know that we should be setting up these experiments as soon as possible and they should be designed to produce the highest level of evidence possible.
Jonathan
philg wrote:simonineaston wrote:Donks ago, I knew an A&E consultant who simply remarked that she'd not seen a single serious injury resulting from cyclist v motor vehicle, where the helmet had made the tiniest bit of difference...
Presumably the collisions where the helmet did make a large difference didn't show up in A&E?
Anecdotes, even relevant ones, can slice many ways depending on your PoV.
mjr wrote:philg wrote:simonineaston wrote:Donks ago, I knew an A&E consultant who simply remarked that she'd not seen a single serious injury resulting from cyclist v motor vehicle, where the helmet had made the tiniest bit of difference...
Presumably the collisions where the helmet did make a large difference didn't show up in A&E?
But then we'd see the number of cyclists showing up in A&E varying with changing helmet use. And we don't. It varies by cycling prevalence.Anecdotes, even relevant ones, can slice many ways depending on your PoV.
Or be twisted. That's a problem with anecdotes instead of data.
Mike Sales wrote:Jdsk wrote:And it's so important to know that we should be setting up these experiments as soon as possible and they should be designed to produce the highest level of evidence possible.
Jonathan
I have argued this before here.
Neither helmeteers nor sceptics place enough emphasis on this. It needs work done on gathering figures before any law change, as well as after.
I would hope that it could be agreed that if a law did not have the required effect, it would be repealed.
The utility cyclist wrote:[Since the mid 00s there has been a 50% increase in cycling KSIs but no increase in modal share, small % of increase in distance travelled but actually no increase in journey numbers.
The utility cyclist wrote:The only significant thing to change is the amount of helmets being worn by those riding bicycles and the push by police, local authorities and cycling clubs/orgs for people to wear them.
Mike Sales wrote:tim-b wrote:HiReductions like these should be unmistakable
One assumption is that all riders in Oz and NZ wear the helmets, and those that do fit and wear them correctly. It's a bit like saying that drivers in the UK don't use hand-held mobile phones when driving
Regards
tim-bThe wearing rate went up to close to 100% from about a third. It is easier to spot and catch a bare headed cyclist than a phoning driver. The large sum imposed in fines shows that enforcement is not neglected.
The idea that wearing helmets poorly fitted must be the reason for no detectable improvement in injury rate is a bit desperate, and certainly unevidenced.
Will the police not check fitting?
Mike Sales wrote:tim-b wrote:HiReductions like these should be unmistakable
And then there's the statistic that is frequently used that cyclist numbers declined dramatically
Regards
tim-b
That is why the rate is calculated. The figures are taken from traffic surveys.