Cycle training in schools and big hair

[Bmblbzzz]

There is at least (AFAIK) evidence that m/c helmets work.

In the late 1970s there was a big experiment conducted in the USA: half the states repealed the compulsory motorcycle helmet laws and half retained them. The report that followed proclaimed the benefit of helmets, and had a graph on the cover that showed how motorcyclist deaths had soared in the wake of the law change. However, what they had done was to aggregate the experiment and control groups together, and by coincidence the number of people riding motorcycles also increased dramatically as the fuel crisis began to bite.

This is what the graph looks like when you disaggregate the two cohorts, and compare them separately:

Helmets.JPG

As you can see, there were fewer deaths among those who weren't compelled to wear helmets.

There are also uncertainties about the effectiveness of seat belts at population level – but not at individual level.

[pjclinch]

I think "cycling = danger" is only the second loudest message from that image. The very loudest is that it's a specific activity, for which you need to prepare and use special equipment, rather than a thing you do in conjunction with the rest of life. But that's the same message given by any out-of-school activity: class visit to the library, park, museum, etc? Put on your hi-viz and form a crocodile!

You are quite correct, and it's a sorry state of affairs. I will build this angle to my next broadsides, so thanks at least for highlighting it.

Pete.

[pjclinch]

There are also uncertainties about the effectiveness of seat belts at population level – but not at individual level.

We know that in any given crash one is more likely to be okay in a belt than not. But that puts "effectiveness" purely as something in a crash, and doesn't account for the chances of a crash happening. That uncertainty (and the way that safety equipment tends to induce less care) affects individuals too, but not in a way that can easily be quantified.

Pete.

[axel_knutt]

There are also uncertainties about the effectiveness of seat belts at population level – but not at individual level.

What exactly do you mean by population level and individual level, a population is just the sum of individuals.

[Bmblbzzz]

There are also uncertainties about the effectiveness of seat belts at population level – but not at individual level.

What exactly do you mean by population level and individual level, a population is just the sum of individuals.

A population is more than the sum of individuals. It's also how those individuals interact.

Wearing a seat belt or a crash helmet will protect that individual in the event of an impact. But we know that it can also modify their behaviour (risk compensation), which in turn will obviously affect the outcomes of others. Crudely, someone wears a seat belt, feels safer, drives in a more risky manner (without necessarily intending to) and crashes into other people.

[pjclinch]

There are also uncertainties about the effectiveness of seat belts at population level – but not at individual level.

What exactly do you mean by population level and individual level, a population is just the sum of individuals.

A population is more than the sum of individuals. It's also how those individuals interact.

Wearing a seat belt or a crash helmet will protect that individual in the event of an impact. But we know that it can also modify their behaviour (risk compensation), which in turn will obviously affect the outcomes of others. Crudely, someone wears a seat belt, feels safer, drives in a more risky manner (without necessarily intending to) and crashes into other people.

There's also the counter-intuitive thing that's what is good for the population isn't necessarily good for the individuals in it, even without interactions like those above. Let's say the next Big Pandemic comes along but this next one has a 50% fatality rate and is very catching to the point that just about everyone gets it.. Someone produces a vaccine which is 100% effective at stopping the Lurgy, but kills 1% of the people who take it...

In a village of 1000 people, if nobody gets vaccinated ~500 will die, if everyone gets vaccinated ~10 will die. There's a significant chance that of the 10 who die at least one of them would have been better off without the vaccine, but despite that we're still well ahead having a policy of taking the vaccine. But a few folk doing what's right for the population are going to die, needlessly from an individual perspective but to save lots of people from a population perspective - still a bit of a bummer for them!

Pete.

[Bmblbzzz]

What exactly do you mean by population level and individual level, a population is just the sum of individuals.

A population is more than the sum of individuals. It's also how those individuals interact.

Wearing a seat belt or a crash helmet will protect that individual in the event of an impact. But we know that it can also modify their behaviour (risk compensation), which in turn will obviously affect the outcomes of others. Crudely, someone wears a seat belt, feels safer, drives in a more risky manner (without necessarily intending to) and crashes into other people.

There's also the counter-intuitive thing that's what is good for the population isn't necessarily good for the individuals in it, even without interactions like those above. Let's say the next Big Pandemic comes along but this next one has a 50% fatality rate and is very catching to the point that just about everyone gets it.. Someone produces a vaccine which is 100% effective at stopping the Lurgy, but kills 1% of the people who take it...

In a village of 1000 people, if nobody gets vaccinated ~500 will die, if everyone gets vaccinated ~10 will die. There's a significant chance that of the 10 who die at least one of them would have been better off without the vaccine, but despite that we're still well ahead having a policy of taking the vaccine. But a few folk doing what's right for the population are going to die, needlessly from an individual perspective but to save lots of people from a population perspective - still a bit of a bummer for them!

Pete.

Funnily enough, I've just been out running (in the rain, which is the second best time to run IMO) and vaccines as an illustration of population event came into my head as I was making muddy puddles on the hall floor. But in a different aspect: if I take a vaccine, I am protected. Until the protection wears off and I run the risk of catching it from someone else. If everyone in my city is vaccinated, that risk isn't there; until someone brings the virus in from outside. If the whole world is vaccinated, everyone's okay. Keep that up for a generation, and we've a good chance of eradicating the disease, as we did for smallpox and are on the verge of doing for polio.

[Vorpal]

Funnily enough, I've just been out running (in the rain, which is the second best time to run IMO) and vaccines as an illustration of population event came into my head as I was making muddy puddles on the hall floor. But in a different aspect: if I take a vaccine, I am protected. Until the protection wears off and I run the risk of catching it from someone else. If everyone in my city is vaccinated, that risk isn't there; until someone brings the virus in from outside. If the whole world is vaccinated, everyone's okay. Keep that up for a generation, and we've a good chance of eradicating the disease, as we did for smallpox and are on the verge of doing for polio.

Were on the verge of...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0122013231

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandso ... -a-rethink

[Steady rider]

It's a fashion thing
I have two daughters. Both ride bikes and have no fear. But, on achieving high school status, both gave up bike riding.

The reason? Helmets, hair styles and image. Even though it now takes twice as long by bus, bike riding and helmets are not perceived as an acceptable image.

Perhaps the next survey on the subject of bike riding could include a question re helmets. If helmets were optional, would bike riding become more acceptable?

Geoff Piddington, Gowrie ACT

Canberra Times 13 May 2024

Data from NSW showed a drop in cycling levels for girls of 90% after their helmet law, page 8 in;
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... %20schemes.

[pjclinch]

It would be good if more folk aged 20+ used their experience of being a teenager (which is longer than any existing teenager's experience) to remember the degree to which things tend to revolve around rather tribal groupings with self-image playing an important part.
If you can picture anyone you knew at school (yourself included) who would have avoided an otherwise okay thing because of maybe looking a bit of a geek in front of others then you should be able to understand how having to wear something you don't want that's associated with an outgroup (like UK cyclists as belittled and put upon by UK media many politicians and influencers) is a genuine barrier.

There used to be a "helpful" suggestion for promoting hi-viz and helmets for Bikeability Scotland in primary schools which was a catwalk show where the class doing training (typically P6 or P7/Y5 or Y6) could strut their stuff in front of the school in loud clothes and lids. I spoke to someone who'd run one, apparently a great success and much fun had.
Now think about how that would go down 2 or 3 years later... My feeling is you couldn't get anyone to sign up for it unless you paid them a few weeks' pocket money, and quite possibly not even then.

As is often pointed out in inclusivity & diversity circles, many folk need someone like them doing something before they'll realise it might be for them. As well as obvious groups like, say, Muslim women who aren't well represented on bikes on UK journeys, this also needs to include groups of teenagers just hanging out with their pals in whatever they like to wear these days. Like happens in NL, but is widely frowned upon here as dangerous and irresponsible.

Pete.

[Mike Sales]

You have clearly been thinking back to your youth, Pete, and your point makes good sense to me.
In my first few years of secondary school I regularly cycled four miles into and through town to the school in uniform (no helmets in those days) and thought nothing odd about it. Other boys did the same. Nothing unusual.
My family moved to a distance of a dozen miles from the school, and I still did the commute, though less often.
My pleasure cycling began then.
My twenties were a cycling blank, but when thirty I found cycling a good way to do another four mile commute and also rehabilitate my leg after injury. Normal clothes and no lid, I did not even think of lycra or expanded polystyrene.
My real cycling of distances began there, and eventually I bought some chamois lined shorts. Still no helmet.
I wonder if I would have begun riding to school if I had been told a helmet was essential. It would certainly have been a hassle to wear and store.
I have never had an off in which a helmet would have been useful.

[pjclinch]

I have never had an off in which a helmet would have been useful.

Though like other insurance policies, a lid is more about what might happen rather than what surely will or has done.

Though to extend the insurance analogy further, there is a big difference between house buildings insurance against e.g. your home burning down and house contents insurance paying out if you drop a laptop and break it.
My personal feeling is that cycle helmets are more like the latter than the former, but lots of folk seem to think otherwise.

And to extend it yet again (tbh maybe too far), the insurance market works because persuading people to buy insurance that never pays out is what makes it profitable.

Pete.

[Mike Sales]

And to extend it yet again (tbh maybe too far), the insurance market works because persuading people to buy insurance that never pays out is what makes it profitable.

Pete.

It's interesting that insurance companies have their own term for risk compensation. They call it 'moral hazard' and deplore it.

[Bmblbzzz]

I have never had an off in which a helmet would have been useful.

Though like other insurance policies, a lid is more about what might happen rather than what surely will or has done.

Though to extend the insurance analogy further, there is a big difference between house buildings insurance against e.g. your home burning down and house contents insurance paying out if you drop a laptop and break it.
My personal feeling is that cycle helmets are more like the latter than the former, but lots of folk seem to think otherwise.

And to extend it yet again (tbh maybe too far), the insurance market works because persuading people to buy insurance that never pays out is what makes it profitable.

Pete.

I'm not really sure where you're going with that. It reminds me of an opinion I heard (in an LBS) about cycle theft insurance: They wouldn't sell it because it's not worth having. Partly because the premiums are high in relation to the insured sum, but also because if your bike is stolen, although you will be heartbroken your life does not actually stop, you just need to buy another bike. They specifically contrasted this to house buildings insurance, where it's unlikely to happen but if it ever did, you would be homeless and no way could you afford to rebuild your house. House contents insurance seems more like cycle theft insurance; something quite likely to happen, even probable, but upsetting rather than catastrophic when it does.

Which would mean cycle theft insurance is not worth having but a helmet is a worthwhile "insurance policy". I feel this is not what you actually meant though.

[pjclinch]

Which would mean cycle theft insurance is not worth having but a helmet is a worthwhile "insurance policy". I feel this is not what you actually meant though.

I think neither cycle theft insurance nor helmet choice are that binary.

Our bikes are insured on house contents for an additional premium. It's not a huge sum and covers any number of bikes up to a few thousand, and as we have several bikes each it would be painful if the garage burned down.

If I'm mountain biking a long way from anywhere the relative discomfort and faff of a lid aren't really an issue, but catching an overhanging branch wrong or a fall on a rock garden it could be the difference between a very bad debilitating headache miles from anywhere and just getting back on.
But around town I'd have relatively easy recourse to alternatives and I'm not trying to match my technical skills to deliberately difficult terrain, so I feel less need of insurance.

Others feel like helmets are closer to buildings insurance, though ISTM some of them feel the buildings in question are made of highly flammable materials where everyone cooks on open fires and smokes in bed and they're built on a floodplain in an active earthquake zone in a hurricane alley

Pete.