Helmet discussions in York

[Steady rider]

https://www.cycle-helmets.com/zealand_helmets.html
New Zealand section, provides details mentioned by the first presenter, up to 121% increased risk.
NZ provides both injury data and hours cycled.

https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1250.html
Table 1 shows the increased risk for children and teenagers

http://worldtransportjournal.com/wp-con ... 4.4opt.pdf
page 10 provides the deaths to cyclists in NZ not involving motor vehicles collisions

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/au-assessment-2015.pdf provides an overall assessment for AU

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/nz-clarke-2012.pdf provides an overall assessment for NZ, more recent data shows the outcome was worst than indicated in the 2012 paper.

The WHO position of promoting helmets is a problem, knowing the injury rate has increased relative to cycling levels, e.g. Robinson 1996 paper, 59% increase for children in NSW. The WHO speaker needs to look again at the evidence. Odds Ratio calculation do not include exposure, they compare groups, who behave in different ways.
http://worldtransportjournal.com/wp-con ... eb-opt.pdf

[Wanlock Dod]

...The WHO speaker needs to look again at the evidence...

The WHO speaker made it quite clear that they were prepared to be selective about the evidence that they consider relevant.

Risk is a function of hazard and exposure. The WHO speaker focused on the hazard, and chose not to consider exposure evidence as relevant.

From my own experience I know that when riding with a helmet my maximum downhill speeds are about one third higher than when riding without a helmet. Clearly that won’t help me to win any races, but it does make me safer.

[Mike Sales]

From my own experience I know that when riding with a helmet my maximum downhill speeds are about one third higher than when riding without a helmet. Clearly that won’t help me to win any races, but it does make me safer.

Are you not using up the safety benefit as a performance benefit? That is, you may be faster but not safer. Of course your estimate of the extra crash survivability may be an under estimate or an over estimate, in which cases you may be more or less "safe".

[Wanlock Dod]

Is there really anybody who doesn’t use the “safety benefit” as a performance benefit though?

Some of the evidence presented by the first speaker in the discussion pointed directly at helmeted cyclists being more at risk (i.e. more likely to crash). Risk compensation, or the homeostasis of risk, is quite well established in some areas, but is frequently dismissed as implausible when it comes to cycle helmets.

[Mike Sales]

Is there really anybody who doesn’t use the “safety benefit” as a performance benefit though?

No. That is why we talk about risk homeostasis (or compensation).
"Safer" cars are more dangerous to cyclists.

[Mike Sales]

From what I could understand, none of the “studies” had any hard evidence to support their theories.

Here is an assessment of the evidence by two professionals in the field of risk and medical interventions. It was published as an editorial in the BMJ.
The say:-

In any case, the current uncertainty about any benefit from helmet wearing or promotion is unlikely to be substantially reduced by further research. Equally, we can be certain that helmets will continue to be debated, and at length. 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.

Ben Goldacre, Wellcome research fellow in epidemiology1, David Spiegelhalter, Winton professor for the public understanding of risk.

https://www.badscience.net/2013/12/bicycle-helmets-and-the-law-a-perfect-teaching-case-for-epidemiology/

I would think that if helmets did the job, reduced cyclist injury rates, you should be able to tell.
If they reduced rates by the 85% claimed by some, then when wearing in Australia went from about a third to nearly 100% because of the law, there should have been a very noticeable drop in cyclist injury and death rates. There was no change.

Damn, I have messed up the quoting. I hope it is comprehensible.

[Mike Sales]

From what I could understand, none of the “studies” had any hard evidence to support their theories.

Before introducing a law there needs to be hard evidence. Before any medical intervention, and that is what helmet promotion by medics amounts to, there needs to be evidence.

[iRider]

From what I could understand, none of the “studies” had any hard evidence to support their theories.

Before introducing a law there needs to be hard evidence. Before any medical intervention, and that is what helmet promotion by medics amounts to, there needs to be evidence.

Those so called experts admitted that "more research is needed" etc etc. At this time, they are stating their respective hypothesise based on the limited data and analysis. Neither a hypothesis nor research and analysis based upon incomplete and insufficient data is 'evidence'.

[Steady rider]

"more research is needed" was specific to the increased number of deaths not involving motor vehicles, e.g for New Zealand they increased, for 5 year periods, 9, 10, 12, 16, 29. For Canada and the USA they also seem to have increased. This would require a very detailed examination in case of death.

[Mike Sales]

From what I could understand, none of the “studies” had any hard evidence to support their theories.

Before introducing a law there needs to be hard evidence. Before any medical intervention, and that is what helmet promotion by medics amounts to, there needs to be evidence.

Those so called experts admitted that "more research is needed" etc etc. At this time, they are stating their respective hypothesise based on the limited data and analysis. Neither a hypothesis nor research and analysis based upon incomplete and insufficient data is 'evidence'.

Indeed the evidence for helmet promotion or compulsion is not there.

[Wanlock Dod]

There doesn’t seem to be any shortage of studies on cycle helmets that have found any beneficial effects to be very marginal. We could just keep on doing more of them, finding the same marginal and insignificant protective effects, in the hope that eventually one will provide the holy grail of a real, and significant, life saving effect. So far all this approach has resulted in is business as usual with no benefit to either cyclist safety or public health.

An alternative approach might be to accept that the protective effect is only very minimal, as demonstrated by numerous studies and look for other issues to guide us in what is genuinely beneficial to cyclist safety, and/or public health.

[The utility cyclist]

From what I could understand, none of the “studies” had any hard evidence to support their theories.

Before introducing a law there needs to be hard evidence. Before any medical intervention, and that is what helmet promotion by medics amounts to, there needs to be evidence.

There's already clear evidence that everyone not cycling need to wear helmets before those that do ride a cycle. 1.3M reported head injuries, 160,000 hospital stays due to same ... every year, the % of those people who are cyclists is a tiny fraction. Despite airbags, crash cells/steel cage, seatbelts motorists die solely of head injuries four times as many as do people on bikes. Most cycling deaths that are a result of head trauma (which are generally caused by criminals) are massively outside the scope of even the most modern cycle helmet.

Given the number of women raped (penetrative) is around 85,000* annually, why is there no discussion regarding women to be compulsorily made to wear anti rape devices, given the evidence this should be on the agenda long before cycle helmets no?

It's only people who ride cycles that are forced to protect themselves and with ineffective protection at that, against criminal action, it's only people on bikes that are discussed with respect to them protecting themselves with physical attire and where they should frequent, it's only people on bikes who are victim blamed for not wearing said attire when they are killed or maimed

*from circa 400,000 sexual assaults that are actually reported in England and Wales.

Oh and Cugel, in case you respond on this thread, fact based comments and describing the reality of what's occurring is not a "rant"

[Cugel]

From what I could understand, none of the “studies” had any hard evidence to support their theories.

Before introducing a law there needs to be hard evidence. Before any medical intervention, and that is what helmet promotion by medics amounts to, there needs to be evidence.

There's already clear evidence that everyone not cycling need to wear helmets before those that do ride a cycle. 1.3M reported head injuries, 160,000 hospital stays due to same ... every year, the % of those people who are cyclists is a tiny fraction. Despite airbags, crash cells/steel cage, seatbelts motorists die solely of head injuries four times as many as do people on bikes. Most cycling deaths that are a result of head trauma (which are generally caused by criminals) are massively outside the scope of even the most modern cycle helmet.

Given the number of women raped (penetrative) is around 85,000* annually, why is there no discussion regarding women to be compulsorily made to wear anti rape devices, given the evidence this should be on the agenda long before cycle helmets no?

It's only people who ride cycles that are forced to protect themselves and with ineffective protection at that, against criminal action, it's only people on bikes that are discussed with respect to them protecting themselves with physical attire and where they should frequent, it's only people on bikes who are victim blamed for not wearing said attire when they are killed or maimed

*from circa 400,000 sexual assaults that are actually reported in England and Wales.

Oh and Cugel, in case you respond on this thread, fact based comments and describing the reality of what's occurring is not a "rant"

You make more good points. Nevertheless, you make them in your usual ranter style. Ranting truth or well-proven facts is possible as ranting is a style of writing or speaking, nothing to do with the truth or otherwise of what is ranted.

The point I was trying to make to you is that your default ranter style often obscures your well-researched and good reasoning. Why not just calm down a bit, as this will then disallow those who would gainsay you from doing so based merely on your style?

Cugel

[mattheus]

... why is there no discussion regarding women to be compulsorily made to wear anti rape devices ...

Although I agree with the point you're trying to make, this is not a phrase that is likely to win over Hearts-n-Minds (it's not even likely that many minds will reach the end of the sentence).

I do try to make the point in more persuasive ways, but I don't claim to have been very successful yet :/ When I find the magic mantra, I shall let you know!

[De Sisti]

... why is there no discussion regarding men to be compulsorily made to wear anti rape devices ...