Helmet Bill and reasons to oppose it

[Steady rider]

How is evidence defined that constitutes 'causation'?

Causation indicates that one event is the result of the occurrence of the other event; i.e. there is a causal relationship between the two events. This is also referred to as cause and effect.

There is reasonable evidence to show helmet use can increase the accident rate.

[Nearholmer]

There is reasonable evidence to show helmet use can increase the accident rate.

Where?

[Jdsk]

How is evidence defined that constitutes 'causation'?
...

Here's an excellent introduction to the principles:
"The evolution of evidence hierarchies: what can Bradford Hill's ‘guidelines for causation’ contribute?":
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.125 ... 009.090020

And in the context of modern systematic reviews:
"Systematic reviews to evaluate causation: an overview of methods and application":
https://ebm.bmj.com/content/17/5/137

Jonathan

[pjclinch]

Evidence suggests helmets use increases the accident rate for cyclists and could this also apply to motorcyclists? How would this be evaluated?

If you're asking how this would be evaluated then I wonder if you're actually at the point where you can suggest there's a causal relationship between helmets and crashes, i.e. that putting on a helmet makes one significantly more likely to crash in a generalised (motor) cycling context.

First you evaluate the evidence properly, and only then (assuming it goes that way) would you be able to convincingly argue for a causal link.

How would you evaluate it?
"Just"/"simply" account for the potential confounders that could come from alternative explanations of crash rate correlation with helmet wearing, and demonstrate that the holes in your data (e.g., other things that may correlate with helmet wearing that you don't have enough data on) aren't significant in themselves (always a good game, as you don't have that data so don't see what you might be missing).

Pete.

[cycle tramp]

I couldn't give a toss about the "personal liberty" argument. Anybody who thinks that being forced to wear a bit of polystyrene on their head is some terrible infringement of their "personal liberty" needs to spend a bit more time in North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia. For instance.

To be fair, I don't think I used the words 'terrible infringement'.. but in the above examples, each piece of legalisation which removes our choice and our freedom in whatever aspect of our lives, brings us a step closer to being as those countries. Equally each succesful attempt at resistance in those countries against a totalitarian state brings them closer to freedom...

..freedom isn't given, its fought for.. and once lost is twice as hard to get back.

[pjclinch]

I couldn't give a toss about the "personal liberty" argument. Anybody who thinks that being forced to wear a bit of polystyrene on their head is some terrible infringement of their "personal liberty" needs to spend a bit more time in North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia. For instance.

I'd suggest that's not really the problem. It's more that the choice then becomes to cycle with something you don't want to wear, or don't cycle.
And there's no shortage of image conscious folk (e.g., think particularly high school pupils who are trying to avoid being in out-groups) who'll choose no cycling rather than cycling in something they hate not because they're striking a blow for personal freedom but because they don't want to be seen as geeks.

But it comes down to the same thing: forcing their hand in what is effectively a matter of personal liberty scores a public health own-goal.

Pete.

[maximus meridius]

I couldn't give a toss about the "personal liberty" argument. Anybody who thinks that being forced to wear a bit of polystyrene on their head is some terrible infringement of their "personal liberty" needs to spend a bit more time in North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia. For instance.

I'd suggest that's not really the problem. It's more that the choice then becomes to cycle with something you don't want to wear, or don't cycle.
And there's no shortage of image conscious folk (e.g., think particularly high school pupils who are trying to avoid being in out-groups) who'll choose no cycling rather than cycling in something they hate not because they're striking a blow for personal freedom but because they don't want to be seen as geeks.

But it comes down to the same thing: forcing their hand in what is effectively a matter of personal liberty scores a public health own-goal.

Pete.

Yes, I agree, it's not the problem at all. That's why those people who use it as some sort of "argument" against helmet enforcement look foolish, determined to latch on to this issue in order to push some half-baked pseudo political agenda. Well, it's not really even as much as that, just some woolly notions about freedom.

If enforced helmet wearing were proven, incontrovertibly, to have substantial benefits, both at the individual and societal level, I would have no issue at all with mandated helmets. But it hasn't been. Quite the opposite, in terms of overall public health.

I wear a helmet when cycling, except when I forget. I don't think helmet wearing ought to be mandatory.

[cycle tramp]

I couldn't give a toss about the "personal liberty" argument. Anybody who thinks that being forced to wear a bit of polystyrene on their head is some terrible infringement of their "personal liberty" needs to spend a bit more time in North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia. For instance.

I'd suggest that's not really the problem. It's more that the choice then becomes to cycle with something you don't want to wear, or don't cycle.

But it comes down to the same thing: forcing their hand in what is effectively a matter of personal liberty scores a public health own-goal.

Pete.

Yes, I agree, it's not the problem at all. That's why those people who use it as some sort of "argument" against helmet enforcement look foolish, determined to latch on to this issue in order to push some half-baked pseudo political agenda. Well, it's not really even as much as that, just some woolly notions about freedom.

I wear a helmet when cycling, except when I forget. I don't think helmet wearing ought to be mandatory.

So at what point shouldn't the state get involved? Whether the populace have the right to protest or strike, whether the state outlaws certain religions or sexual practices, or even denies one gender the rights that the other enjoys? At what point in your life do you think that Parliament shouldn't have a say, or are we all going to become shee-ple, completely unable to make our own minds up about anything without a directive from Parliament?

Is the ability for anyone to look at the risks involved in any activity and make decisions as to what protection to take, really woolly thinking or something we should be trying to foster?

Here's one of my favourite quotes about freedom, rather worryingly it's from Enoch Powell MP, but doesn't lose any of its potency

'The maintenance of the principles of Individual freedom and responsibility is more important than the avoidance of the loss of lives through the personal decisions of those individuals.
Whether these lives are lost swimming or mountaineering or boating or riding horseback or on a motorcycle'

[Nearholmer]

At what point in your life do you think that Parliament shouldn't have a say, or are we all going to become shee-ple, completely unable to make our own minds up about anything without a directive from Parliament?

We’re back to the strange idea that Parliament is some alien force that arbitrarily imposes laws upon us.

It isn’t.

It’s six hundred odd bods that we elect to represent our interests and make decisions on our behalf, and if we don’t like the sort of decisions they’re coming up with, we elect different odd bods next time round.

That’s how we mediate society, and it sure as heck needs to be mediated through some process that attempts to balance all of our interests, because without one it would be mediated by bullies and exploiters for their own personal ends.

The only practical way to obtain the sort of complete freedom to do what you fancy that you seem to hanker after, without ever being told what you can or can’t do by civil society through its processes, or by bullies through violence, is to go and live as a hermit in total isolation from everyone else. The moment you want some of the very many benefits that being part of society offers you have to trade some liberty or, I suppose, extract some benefits by becoming a bully yourself.

Musing further, the last point takes us to a lot of the libertarian claptrap that comes out of the USA; what it boils down to is a demand to be freed from the constraints of civil society, in order to be able to bully and exploit.

[Jdsk]

...
That’s how we mediate society, and it sure as heck needs to be mediated through some process that attempts to balance all of our interests, because without one it would be mediated by bullies and exploiters for their own personal ends.
...

Yes. It's known as the state monopoly on violence. (And that description surprised me the first time that I heard it.)

Jonathan

[maximus meridius]

I'd suggest that's not really the problem. It's more that the choice then becomes to cycle with something you don't want to wear, or don't cycle.

But it comes down to the same thing: forcing their hand in what is effectively a matter of personal liberty scores a public health own-goal.

Pete.

Yes, I agree, it's not the problem at all. That's why those people who use it as some sort of "argument" against helmet enforcement look foolish, determined to latch on to this issue in order to push some half-baked pseudo political agenda. Well, it's not really even as much as that, just some woolly notions about freedom.

I wear a helmet when cycling, except when I forget. I don't think helmet wearing ought to be mandatory.

So at what point shouldn't the state get involved? Whether the populace have the right to protest or strike, whether the state outlaws certain religions or sexual practices, or even denies one gender the rights that the other enjoys? At what point in your life do you think that Parliament shouldn't have a say, or are we all going to become shee-ple, completely unable to make our own minds up about anything without a directive from Parliament?

Is the ability for anyone to look at the risks involved in any activity and make decisions as to what protection to take, really woolly thinking or something we should be trying to foster?

Here's one of my favourite quotes about freedom, rather worryingly it's from Enoch Powell MP, but doesn't lose any of its potency

'The maintenance of the principles of Individual freedom and responsibility is more important than the avoidance of the loss of lives through the personal decisions of those individuals.
Whether these lives are lost swimming or mountaineering or boating or riding horseback or on a motorcycle'

Yes, you're absolutely right. Because being told to wear a cycling helmet is exactly the same as being denied the right to strike or protest. I'd never thought of that before, thank you for pointing it out.

(by definition anybody using the term "sheeple" is one, except the very first person to use the word)

[Stevek76]

You also repeated my words inaccurately. I didn't say "socialist" healthcare. I said "socialised".

Those seem largely synonymous to me?

Regarding the rest, no I'm not sure it is perfectly clear. Other than perhaps you have a very individualist few of 'personal liberty'. I.e. you only seem to care about the ones that might infringe your boundaries but happy to chuck everything else.

And I note you miss the main point. If you wanted to maximise health in society we'd be having government mandated safe controlled safe exercise only. Sports cycling (road racing, MTBing etc) in general is easily demonstrably a risky activity, we don't have to get our exercise in such a manner, we choose to exercise our liberty to do so because, bluntly, most of us enjoy the thrills, knocks and competitive elements of 'rougher' methods of exercise.

Musing further, the last point takes us to a lot of the libertarian claptrap that comes out of the USA; what it boils down to is a demand to be freed from the constraints of civil society, in order to be able to bully and exploit.

The neo-libertarianism is indeed a desire for only one's own freedoms and stuff everyone else. I fail to see how undertaking some activity, as a private individual, that increases only individual harm is bullying or exploiting anyone else. Hence my general perspective on such matters is governments should not seek to legislate with hard bans on such matters.

[Nearholmer]

I fail to see how undertaking some activity, as a private individual, that increases only individual harm is bullying or exploiting anyone else.

I’m not seeking to say that it is.

What I am saying is that certain things that seem on first inspection to have potential only for individual harm actually have potential to impose costs on society, so may be of legitimate interest to society at large. These are the things where there tends to be debate about balancing individual and societal needs. This particular discussion is about helmets, but the same questions, written larger, crop up around things like smoking, drinking large amounts of fizzy pop etc.

If you read back on what I said, and CycleTramps words that led to me saying it, I think you’ll see how the musings about libertarianism crept into it.

[maximus meridius]

You also repeated my words inaccurately. I didn't say "socialist" healthcare. I said "socialised".

Those seem largely synonymous to me?

Not to me they aren't. It doesn't change the fact that you misquoted me. You would appear more reasonable as an interlocutor if you took the care not to misrepresent what people say. Though that is common here.

[cycle tramp]

I fail to see how undertaking some activity, as a private individual, that increases only individual harm is bullying or exploiting anyone else.

I’m not seeking to say that it is.

What I am saying is that certain things that seem on first inspection to have potential only for individual harm actually have potential to impose costs on society, so may be of legitimate interest to society at large. These are the things where there tends to be debate about balancing individual and societal needs.

I look forward to hearing how the systematic murder of all new born children with any disabilities and those who are over eighty years of age will help solve the UK tax issues by the next appointmented government then, for the next benefit of the rest of society....

'If your retired and only living on a state pension worried that increasing food costs will see you starving - why not get ahead of the game. Simply by calling this number a team of government specialists will arrange and pay for your funeral and safely put you to sleep in the comfort of you own home. You know you'll be doing your bit for society helping both the tax burden and freeing up much needed housing'..

..so how far do we go down this road for 'the benefit of society?'