Helmet Bill and reasons to oppose it

Nearholmer · Post by **Nearholmer** » 20 Sep 2023, 10:09pm

Yes, I think there are numerous other, more pressing, things that could do with being looked at a lot more closely than they currently are from a “net societal benefit” perspective.

Virtually unconstrained use of cars would be high on my list, because while that unquestionably delivers benefits it also involves huge collateral damage (land take, pollution, unsustainable energy consumption, physical injuries …. Need I go on?)

Virtually unconstrained sale of food of appalling nutritional quality. The benefit there appears to be a combination of cheapness and time saving in the home, but the collateral damage seems pretty huge in terms of the health of the nation.

My list goes on at some length ….. but you probably don’t want to read it, because every person has their own stable of hobbyhorses.

pjclinch · Post by **pjclinch** » 21 Sep 2023, 8:33am

Steady rider wrote: 20 Sep 2023, 7:51pm I think liberty alone does qualify as reasonable grounds because cycling represents a form of freedom, in that no outside power, eg motors are required, it allows people to travel over large distances and enjoy their surroundings without using outside power. Removing the liberty of personal choice can impact on their personal experience and enjoyment. They can believe it is there right to cycle without a helmet, especially if they have cycled for many years without one. This liberty is part of their cycling background and tradition or belief..

Can't really see that cutting much mustard at the level of parliamentary debate, to be honest. I don't ride without a lid because it's part of my cycling background and tradition, but in significant part because it's a faff I can't be bothered with.

Trying to argue the above would take time away from hammering home again and again the reason not to have a mandatory helmet law is they have a proven track record of not working and if they have any effect on public health it's as an own goal, i.e., not only not achieving their goal of improved public health but actually doing the reverse.

Parliamentary time is limited, thus cut to the chase. Fortunately the DfT, and particularly ATE, would be doing just that.

Pete.

Steady rider · Post by **Steady rider** » 25 Sep 2023, 5:12pm

If you consider the outcome from legislation, for example, NSW 569 extra teenagers wearing v 2658 fewer cycling. Legislation removed the freedom of choice. This was probably more important than actually wearing a helmet.
The Briefing paper, Discussion section mentions

From 50 years of cycling the average person could incur about a 1% risk of being admitted for a serious head injury (including face) or about a 0.025% fatality risk’.

For the average person, the injury risk, for hospital admission is very low. The average person could also wear a helmet if they wished.
So the important aspect is removing Liberty, that affects all people who do not want to wear a helmet. In Australia or New Zealand, if they asked people how much would you pay for an exemption, many may say $100 or more, bearing in mind some pay fines for not wearing.
Liberty has a value, in wars when lives are lost, the value of liberty is there for all to see.

(6) (PDF) Briefing paper -UK Cycle helmet law Bill. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... t_law_Bill [accessed Sep 25 2023].

Nearholmer · Post by **Nearholmer** » 25 Sep 2023, 5:22pm

The important aspect is that it appears on first inspection (lots of confounding factors make it impossible to say for certain) that it may have put people off cycling, thereby worsening overall health outcomes at a population level. That’s where the societal cost/benefit equation comes in.

Whether they were put off, if indeed they were, by considerations of liberty, or by increased perception of danger, of the prospect of a sweaty forehead, or because their dad banned them unless they wore one, or a host of other possible reasons, is invisible.

Steady rider · Post by **Steady rider** » 25 Sep 2023, 7:57pm

Some said they would not cycle if the law came in. Others tried cycling without a helmet and experienced being stopped by the police and either booked or warned. Even within the UK, without a law, there is evidence that helmet promotions discourages cycling, as mentioned in the Briefing paper,

GMTV 1997, reported in Derby two brothers were expelled from school for not wearinghelmets, even those no legal requirement exists in the UK66. Bryan-Brown and Taylor,(1997)67 reported, “Eleven Local Authorities had however held a helmet campaign whentheir activities were focused solely on the promotion of helmets. In these Local Authorityareas, a larger increase in helmet wearing was found than in the areas which had notheld such a campaign. However, this increase was found to be strongly linked toa decrease in the numbers of cyclists observed: in those areas where a campaign hadbeen held and the numbers of cyclists had increased, helmet wearing fell.”

(6) (PDF) Briefing paper -UK Cycle helmet law Bill. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... t_law_Bill [accessed Sep 25 2023].

In addition there are organised cycle rides requiring helmet wearing and this practice is unhelpful to promoting cycling and takes away the liberty that people have of decide for themselves.

It is certain that the helmet laws in Australia discouraged cycling because I personally know people who stopped cycling due to the law.

pjclinch · Post by **pjclinch** » 27 Sep 2023, 8:01am

Steady rider wrote: 25 Sep 2023, 7:57pm It is certain that the helmet laws in Australia discouraged cycling because I personally know people who stopped cycling due to the law.

I remind you that "the plural of anecdote is not data".

Knowing individuals who were put off tells you some individuals were put off. It suggests you might look further to see if it was a general trend, but it tells you pretty much nothing about that general trend.

I think the law did adversely affect cycling levels, but that's not from knowing several people who were put off...

Pete.

Steady rider · Post by **Steady rider** » 27 Sep 2023, 9:27am

Evaluation of Australia's of bicycle helmet laws https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... %20schemes.

mattheus · Post by **mattheus** » 27 Sep 2023, 10:13am

Steady rider wrote: 27 Sep 2023, 9:27am Evaluation of Australia's of bicycle helmet laws https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... %20schemes.

Well exactly.
We have large-scale statistics, and individual anecdotes/case-studies to back them up.
__________________________________________
Meanwhile, I see well-known head-injury expert James Cracknell is running for parliament in a Tory safe seat...

Mike Sales · Post by **Mike Sales** » 27 Sep 2023, 10:35am

mattheus wrote: 27 Sep 2023, 10:13am __________________________________________
Meanwhile, I see well-known head-injury expert James Cracknell is running for parliament in a Tory safe seat...

IF he is elected I am sure he will work on eliminating the causes of cycling casualties, not just on promoting an ineffective attempt to mitigate the damage.
Perhaps he will try to get the party to promote 20mph schemes, which do save not just lives, but injuries to all parts of the body.
In Wales the Tories are using the squeals of motorists who cannot bear to slow down a little for the sake of those who have to share the road with them, as a wedge against Labour. I hope he can get them to give up this despicable behaviour.

pjclinch · Post by **pjclinch** » 27 Sep 2023, 12:48pm

Steady rider wrote: 27 Sep 2023, 9:27am Evaluation of Australia's of bicycle helmet laws https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... %20schemes.

Compare and contrast that with "because I personally know people who stopped cycling due to the law"...

mattheus · Post by **mattheus** » 27 Sep 2023, 1:31pm

pjclinch wrote: 27 Sep 2023, 12:48pm
Steady rider wrote: 27 Sep 2023, 9:27am Evaluation of Australia's of bicycle helmet laws https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... %20schemes.
Compare and contrast that with "because I personally know people who stopped cycling due to the law"...

Perfectly normal form of study; we have large-scale statistics, and individual anecdotes/case-studies to back them up.

(is there an echo in here??)

Nearholmer · Post by **Nearholmer** » 27 Sep 2023, 1:56pm

Evaluation of Australia's of bicycle helmet laws https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... %20schemes

Ah, another Mr Clark’s papers, all of which I’m sure you remember as if you’d written them all yourself.

Does it actually demonstrate cause, or only correlation and hypothesis?

mattheus · Post by **mattheus** » 27 Sep 2023, 2:13pm

Nearholmer wrote: 27 Sep 2023, 1:56pm
Evaluation of Australia's of bicycle helmet laws https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... %20schemes
Ah, another Mr Clark’s papers, all of which I’m sure you remember as if you’d written them all yourself.

Does it actually demonstrate cause, or only correlation and hypothesis?

Maybe do your own googling? Here is the very first result I got:

Importantly, helmet laws severely reduce the number of cyclists on the road, leading to increased risk among those who remain through reduced safety in numbers, a researched and acknowledged influence on cyclist accident and injury rates. Unsurprisingly, compulsory helmets have also discouraged cycling.

Australia's helmet law disaster

Australian Parliament House
https://www.aph.gov.au › DocumentStore
PDF

Honestly m'dear, this is quite a well documented phenomenon.

Nearholmer · Post by **Nearholmer** » 27 Sep 2023, 2:44pm

Don’t worry, I’m aware that there are other analyses that point strongly towards compulsion putting people off; that’s why I’m not in favour of compulsion.

mattheus · Post by **mattheus** » 27 Sep 2023, 2:51pm

Nearholmer wrote: 27 Sep 2023, 2:44pm Don’t worry, I’m aware that there are other analyses that point strongly towards compulsion putting people off; that’s why I’m not in favour of compulsion.

Oh. ok.

So most of the following text was a waste of time:

Re: Helmet Bill and reasons to oppose it
Post by pjclinch » 27 Sep 2023, 8:01am

Steady rider wrote: ↑25 Sep 2023, 7:57pm
It is certain that the helmet laws in Australia discouraged cycling because I personally know people who stopped cycling due to the law.
I remind you that "the plural of anecdote is not data".

Knowing individuals who were put off tells you some individuals were put off. It suggests you might look further to see if it was a general trend, but it tells you pretty much nothing about that general trend.

I think the law did adversely affect cycling levels, but that's not from knowing several people who were put off...

Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Top
Steady rider
Posts: 2733
Joined: 4 Jan 2009, 4:31pm
Contact: Contact Steady rider
Re: Helmet Bill and reasons to oppose it
Post by Steady rider » 27 Sep 2023, 9:27am

Evaluation of Australia's of bicycle helmet laws https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... %20schemes.
Top
mattheus
Posts: 4615
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe
Contact: Contact mattheus
Re: Helmet Bill and reasons to oppose it
Post by mattheus » 27 Sep 2023, 10:13am

Steady rider wrote: ↑27 Sep 2023, 9:27am
Evaluation of Australia's of bicycle helmet laws https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... %20schemes.
Well exactly.
We have large-scale statistics, and individual anecdotes/case-studies to back them up.
__________________________________________
Meanwhile, I see well-known head-injury expert James Cracknell is running for parliament in a Tory safe seat...
Top
Mike Sales
Posts: 7310
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm
Re: Helmet Bill and reasons to oppose it
Post by Mike Sales » 27 Sep 2023, 10:35am

mattheus wrote: ↑27 Sep 2023, 10:13am
__________________________________________
Meanwhile, I see well-known head-injury expert James Cracknell is running for parliament in a Tory safe seat...
IF he is elected I am sure he will work on eliminating the causes of cycling casualties, not just on promoting an ineffective attempt to mitigate the damage.
Perhaps he will try to get the party to promote 20mph schemes, which do save not just lives, but injuries to all parts of the body.
In Wales the Tories are using the squeals of motorists who cannot bear to slow down a little for the sake of those who have to share the road with them, as a wedge against Labour. I hope he can get them to give up this despicable behaviour.
Top
User avatarpjclinch
Posts: 5063
Joined: 29 Oct 2007, 2:32pm
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Contact: Contact pjclinch
Re: Helmet Bill and reasons to oppose it
Post by pjclinch » 27 Sep 2023, 12:48pm

Steady rider wrote: ↑27 Sep 2023, 9:27am
Evaluation of Australia's of bicycle helmet laws https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... %20schemes.
Compare and contrast that with "because I personally know people who stopped cycling due to the law"...
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...
Top
mattheus
Posts: 4615
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe
Contact: Contact mattheus
Re: Helmet Bill and reasons to oppose it
Post by mattheus » 27 Sep 2023, 1:31pm

pjclinch wrote: ↑27 Sep 2023, 12:48pm
Steady rider wrote: ↑27 Sep 2023, 9:27am
Evaluation of Australia's of bicycle helmet laws https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... %20schemes.
Compare and contrast that with "because I personally know people who stopped cycling due to the law"...
Perfectly normal form of study; we have large-scale statistics, and individual anecdotes/case-studies to back them up.

(is there an echo in here??)
Top
Nearholmer
Posts: 3054
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am
Contact: Contact Nearholmer
Re: Helmet Bill and reasons to oppose it
Post by Nearholmer » 27 Sep 2023, 1:56pm

Evaluation of Australia's of bicycle helmet laws https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... %20schemes
Ah, another Mr Clark’s papers, all of which I’m sure you remember as if you’d written them all yourself.

Does it actually demonstrate cause, or only correlation and hypothesis?
Top
mattheus
Posts: 4615
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe
Contact: Contact mattheus
Re: Helmet Bill and reasons to oppose it
Post by mattheus » 27 Sep 2023, 2:13pm

Nearholmer wrote: ↑27 Sep 2023, 1:56pm
Evaluation of Australia's of bicycle helmet laws https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... %20schemes
Ah, another Mr Clark’s papers, all of which I’m sure you remember as if you’d written them all yourself.

Does it actually demonstrate cause, or only correlation and hypothesis?
Maybe do your own googling? Here is the very first result I got:
Importantly, helmet laws severely reduce the number of cyclists on the road, leading to increased risk among those who remain through reduced safety in numbers, a researched and acknowledged influence on cyclist accident and injury rates. Unsurprisingly, compulsory helmets have also discouraged cycling.

Australia's helmet law disaster

Australian Parliament House
https://www.aph.gov.au › DocumentStore
PDF
Honestly m'dear, this is quite a well documented phenomenon.
Top
Nearholmer
Posts: 3054
Joined: 26 Mar 2022, 7:13am
Contact: Contact Nearholmer
Re: Helmet Bill and reasons to oppose it
Unread post by Nearholmer » 27 Sep 2023, 2:44pm

Don’t worry, I’m aware that there are other analyses that point strongly towards compulsion putting people off; that’s why I’m not in favour of compulsion.