Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

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.
KTM690
Posts: 152
Joined: 1 Feb 2011, 8:16pm

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby KTM690 » 5 Feb 2011, 2:06pm

Graham wrote:
kwackers wrote:I should point out I don't wear a helmet for local use, neither would I bother if it became illegal not to. I'm old enough not to care, fast enough not to get caught and believe that since the roads are under policed anyway it'll make no difference. (If we can't catch speeding, phone using, infrastructure ignoring drivers, why should we suddenly be able to catch a load of bicycles?)

The most serious threat of "policing" will be from those (few) psychopathic motorists who will have another reason** ( in their sadly warped brains ) to put your life-at-risk, to cause you serious injury or even kill you to "teach you a lesson" ( which in this case would be for breaking the compulsory helmet law ).

** I draw a close analogy to being herded onto cyclepath that I have choosen not to use.
Cyclists know that they are not compulsory. Unfortunately this does not stop some psychopathic motorists from trying to enforce their use.


I really can't see the point of cyclepaths on roads - are they of any benefit?

Just seems that they paint the bit you normally cycle on anyway.

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 17384
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby Vorpal » 5 Feb 2011, 2:32pm

KTM690 wrote:I really can't see the point of cyclepaths on roads - are they of any benefit?

Just seems that they paint the bit you normally cycle on anyway.


Do you mean cycle lanes? If so, the biggest problem with most of them is that they don't paint the bit I cycle on. They paint the bit they think I should cycle on, which means the foot or two closest to the kerb. That contradicts DfT guidance about where cyclists should position themselves in the road (via Cyclecraft and Bikeability training).
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

SilverBadge
Posts: 577
Joined: 12 May 2009, 11:28pm

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby SilverBadge » 5 Feb 2011, 2:51pm

KTM690 wrote:
SilverBadge wrote:Any more thoughts on which should come first - helmets for car occupants or helmets for cyclists? Have a go at showing you are capable of rational thought.

Helmets for cyclists first. Benefits outweigh possible drawbacks.

So what are the drawbacks and lack of benefits in preventing the deaths of 200 motorists annually?
Why (apart from trolling) do you regard substituting a small number of cyclist deaths with a far larger number of people dying from cardiovascular diseases to be a net benefit?
Your arguments based on selecting/interpretating the research that supports your cause hasn't persuaded me otherwise.
I haven't had to be selective other than ignoring flawed non-random case control studies that show cycle helmets prevent 70% of hip injuries. Wouldn't you do likewise if engaged in rational analysis?

I'm also persuaded by the "expert cyclists" - those that do commute regularly or cycle to a high standard - the majority of them wear helmets.
I can't recall of any studies showing a majority of UK cyclists or subset thereof wearing helmets. Without copious misinformation about their ability to protect and the actual risks faced compared to other non-helmet activities I imagine the percentage that did would be far lower. If you are an "expert cyclist" the only risks you face are those from negligent motorists and here DTp is fully aware that helmets provide minimal benefit.

The main drive to defeat this law is based on the desire to increase cycling at all costs.
Best way to increase cycling would be to clamp down on the illegal driving responsible for around 70% of cyclists' KSI - a real "war on (illegal) motorists". Main reason to oppose any helmet legislation that may arise is that it is a selective near-futile piece of victim blaming by the ignorant and those in power too spineless to confront the real problem.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9555
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby Cunobelin » 5 Feb 2011, 3:08pm

KTM690 wrote:Helmets for cyclists first.

Benefits outweigh possible drawbacks.

Your arguments based on selecting/interpretating the research that supports your cause hasn't persuaded me otherwise.

I'm also persuaded by the "expert cyclists" - those that do commute regularly or cycle to a high standard - the majority of them wear helmets.

The main drive to defeat this law is based on the desire to increase cycling at all costs.



You are still failing to answer whether you find the Thudguard a good idea or not.


User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9555
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby Cunobelin » 5 Feb 2011, 6:06pm

KTM690 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12333783



Interesting - the article you have quoted refutes the statements you are making - was that intentional?

KTM690
Posts: 152
Joined: 1 Feb 2011, 8:16pm

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby KTM690 » 5 Feb 2011, 6:22pm

Cunobelin wrote:
KTM690 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12333783



Interesting - the article you have quoted refutes the statements you are making - was that intentional?



"Back in 2001, Australian experts set out to determine just this by trawling medical literature published in the past decade.

Their analysis found that wearing a helmet cut the risk of head injury and brain injury by half, and facial injury by nearly a third"

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 16964
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby [XAP]Bob » 5 Feb 2011, 6:28pm

Did it also show a reduction in hip injuries?

How a crown protecting helmet can prevent facial injury is beyond my logic. (unless they're talking about trivial injuries, where the overhang may offer some protection (assuming it doesn't cause over rotation...))
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.

KTM690
Posts: 152
Joined: 1 Feb 2011, 8:16pm

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby KTM690 » 5 Feb 2011, 6:44pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:Did it also show a reduction in hip injuries?

How a crown protecting helmet can prevent facial injury is beyond my logic. (unless they're talking about trivial injuries, where the overhang may offer some protection (assuming it doesn't cause over rotation...))


Reduce, maybe.

Steady rider
Posts: 2172
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby Steady rider » 5 Feb 2011, 8:18pm

Why should anyone think helmets are worth promoting given the results below.

Robinson 1996 report, Table 2 shows data for children in NSW. The equivalent number of injuries for pre law level of number of cyclists increased from 1310 (384 head + 926 other injuries) in 1991 to 2083 (488 head + 1595 other injuries) in 1993. For NSW the helmet laws reduced children’s safety. The increased injury rate were 59%, from 1310 to 2083.

Erke and Elvik (Norwegian researchers) 2007 stated: "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."

The UK's National Children's Bureau (NCB) provided a detailed review of cycling and helmets in 2005, stating that the case for helmets is far from sound and the benefits of helmets need further investigation before even a policy supporting promotion can be unequivocally supported.

Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accid Anal Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf

Erke A, Elvik R, Making Vision Zero real: Preventing Pedestrian Accidents And Making Them Less Severe, 2007. p 28
http://www.toi.no/getfile.php/Publikasj ... 7-nett.pdf

Gill T, Cycling and Children and Young People, A review, National Children's Bureau, 2005. http://www.cycle-helmets.com/cyclingreport_timgill.pdf"

Back in 2001,

Australian experts set out to determine just this by trawling medical literature published in the past decade.

Their analysis found that wearing a helmet cut the risk of head injury and brain injury by half, and facial injury by nearly a third
" can we discuss this in detail?
Last edited by Steady rider on 5 Feb 2011, 8:53pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Cunobelin
Posts: 9555
Joined: 6 Feb 2007, 7:22pm

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby Cunobelin » 5 Feb 2011, 8:18pm

KTM690 wrote:
Cunobelin wrote:
KTM690 wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12333783



Interesting - the article you have quoted refutes the statements you are making - was that intentional?



"Back in 2001, Australian experts set out to determine just this by trawling medical literature published in the past decade.

Their analysis found that wearing a helmet cut the risk of head injury and brain injury by half, and facial injury by nearly a third"


You are unaware of the Cochrane review criticism of those findings?

SilverBadge
Posts: 577
Joined: 12 May 2009, 11:28pm

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby SilverBadge » 6 Feb 2011, 10:36am

[XAP]Bob wrote:Did it also show a reduction in hip injuries?

How a crown protecting helmet can prevent facial injury is beyond my logic. (unless they're talking about trivial injuries, where the overhang may offer some protection (assuming it doesn't cause over rotation...))


Has anyone got the link to www.sciencedirect.com to work? Searching on "helmets" from the front page brings up 25 articles on helmets for bikers and cyclists, none of which really seem to fit the description.

It does appear that virtually all claims for significant protection from cycle helmets can be traced back to Thompson Rivara and Thompson conducting a review of available data, rejecting nearly everything they didn't do themselves, and backing their own conclusions regardless of those claims not being realised when helmet use increases.

KTM690
Posts: 152
Joined: 1 Feb 2011, 8:16pm

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby KTM690 » 6 Feb 2011, 11:28am

Steady rider wrote:Why should anyone think helmets are worth promoting given the results below.

Robinson 1996 report, Table 2 shows data for children in NSW. The equivalent number of injuries for pre law level of number of cyclists increased from 1310 (384 head + 926 other injuries) in 1991 to 2083 (488 head + 1595 other injuries) in 1993. For NSW the helmet laws reduced children’s safety. The increased injury rate were 59%, from 1310 to 2083.

Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accid Anal Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf


Australian experts set out to determine just this by trawling medical literature published in the past decade.

Their analysis found that wearing a helmet cut the risk of head injury and brain injury by half, and facial injury by nearly a third
" can we discuss this in detail?


Looking at the Robinson report it strikes me as a paper directed at negating the arguments for cycle helmet use by expanding the arguments for their benefit.

An argument against is that it was suspected (as opposed to proved) that helmet use decreased cycling. This may have been the case. Australia does have a hotter climate and helmets will be more uncomfortable. This may make cycling with a helmet less attractive over there. Northern Ireland is a bit colder.
The paper did find that the proportion of cyclists presenting with head injuries at hospital dropped following helmet law - that was with 75% compliance.
This was in the context of other road safety measures being introduced - drink driving and speed control.
Although these measures to address driver behaviour were introduced it does not mean that less drivers were drunk or that speeds slowed. The reduction of head injuries was in the proportion of attendances as opposed to number.

It was also argued that net health benefit was reduced due to decrease in cycling - what's to say the kids didn't take up some other exercise instead?

Litte Bruce isn't going to think " awww strewf I gotta wear a lid now, can't 'ave that I'm just gonna sit on my buttock and trough junk food"

Probably just took up skateboarding without a helmet instead.

Prove to me that it's better that a child's head hit's the floor at 20 mph without a lid as opposed to with one and I'll agree that helmet law is daft.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby meic » 6 Feb 2011, 12:07pm

KTM690 wrote:
Steady rider wrote:Why should anyone think helmets are worth promoting given the results below.

Robinson 1996 report, Table 2 shows data for children in NSW. The equivalent number of injuries for pre law level of number of cyclists increased from 1310 (384 head + 926 other injuries) in 1991 to 2083 (488 head + 1595 other injuries) in 1993. For NSW the helmet laws reduced children’s safety. The increased injury rate were 59%, from 1310 to 2083.

Robinson DL; Head injuries and bicycle helmet laws; Accid Anal Prev, 28, 4: p 463-475, 1996 http://www.cycle-helmets.com/robinson-head-injuries.pdf


Australian experts set out to determine just this by trawling medical literature published in the past decade.

Their analysis found that wearing a helmet cut the risk of head injury and brain injury by half, and facial injury by nearly a third
" can we discuss this in detail?


Looking at the Robinson report it strikes me as a paper directed at negating the arguments for cycle helmet use by expanding the arguments for their benefit.

An argument against is that it was suspected (as opposed to proved) that helmet use decreased cycling. This may have been the case. Australia does have a hotter climate and helmets will be more uncomfortable. This may make cycling with a helmet less attractive over there. Northern Ireland is a bit colder.
The paper did find that the proportion of cyclists presenting with head injuries at hospital dropped following helmet law - that was with 75% compliance.
This was in the context of other road safety measures being introduced - drink driving and speed control.
Although these measures to address driver behaviour were introduced it does not mean that less drivers were drunk or that speeds slowed. The reduction of head injuries was in the proportion of attendances as opposed to number.

It was also argued that net health benefit was reduced due to decrease in cycling - what's to say the kids didn't take up some other exercise instead?

Litte Bruce isn't going to think " awww strewf I gotta wear a lid now, can't 'ave that I'm just gonna sit on my <i>[rude word removed]</i> and trough junk food"

Probably just took up skateboarding without a helmet instead.

Prove to me that it's better that a child's head hit's the floor at 20 mph without a lid as opposed to with one and I'll agree that helmet law is daft.


How does a helmet on MY head affect what happens to that CHILD's head?
Plenty of other laws for so called child safety apply only to children.

It is a matter of proportionality, many other activities are equally or more dangerous than cycling. If the same level of protection was demanded for those activities EVEN you would see how daft it is.

An obvious example which I have used repeatedly and applies to both of us, is that I will be legally allowed to go out on my motorcycle with a helmet but not my cycle without a helmet on the grounds of safety! How daft do you need?
Yma o Hyd

snibgo
Posts: 4604
Joined: 29 Jun 2010, 4:45am

Re: Formerly N.I. legislation - now general helmet argument

Postby snibgo » 6 Feb 2011, 12:57pm

It may be worth saying that cycling is generally considered good for not only the cyclist, but society in general.

A personal anecdote: I banged my head on the pavement yesterday evening. it was only a slight tap, which might not have happened if I hadn't been wearing the cycle helmet. I also banged the hip I broke last year, which wasn't clever.

It wasn't a bike accident. I had parked the bike and was walking to the community centre, stupidly didn't see the downstep in the path, and crashed down.