Understanding why mandatory bicycle helmet legislation would be harmful to Norway

[Steady rider]

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _to_Norway

The paper looks into the issue of a suggested helmet law for Norway. It tries to explain why such a proposal would be harmful. 34 pages.

[853]

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _to_Norway

I'm looking at it, and this is the first thing I saw ......

[853]

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... _to_Norway

The paper looks into the issue of a suggested helmet law for Norway. It tries to explain why such a proposal would be harmful. 34 pages.

If you're looking for an accurate, un-biased, objective report .... you won't find it here

I've spent over 70 minutes reading it, and I wouldn't recommend anyone doing so. It offers no new data or anything that hasn't been seen before.

The report draws heavily on data from Australia and New Zealand going back over 40 years, and contains meaningless tables, incomplete tables and considerable repetition.

It refers to by Olivier and Creighton 2017 https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/46 ... ogin=false

and Hoye 2018 a lot https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7518301301

so it is worth showing their conclusions

Olivier and Creighton 2017:

Hoye 2018:

It also credits the author repeatedly: Clarke CF, (2017) Weaknesses with a meta-analysis approach to assessing cycle helmets, Clarke CF, Investigative study of meta-analysis approach to assessing cycle helmets and mandatory helmet legislation. 2025 , Clarke CF, Gillham C,(2019) Effects of bicycle helmet wearing on accident and injury rates, GB National Road Safety Conference, November 2019, Clarke CF, Is cycle helmet promotion warranted, July 2022 Edinburgh Napier University, Clarke CF, Evaluating cycling fatality risk with a focus on cycle helmet use, 2021, Clarke CF, Evaluation of Australia's bicycle helmet laws, The Sports Science Summit, O2 venue London UK, Clarke CF, Suggested research to evaluate cycle helmet effects on balance and riding stability, 2021

Best filed under fiction

[Nearholmer]

I long-ago concluded that the dual personality who authors these papers is potentially very harmful to the sensible cause of avoiding helmet compulsion. His/their papers are so flawed that they can easily be held up to ridicule. If one was cited in a legal case, or a good quality parliamentary debate, it would do a lot more harm to the cause than good. Perhaps he/they is/are a Trojan horse.

[853]

I'm happy to be neutral until I've read something

Sadly, this is more of the same

[Steady rider]

The paper contains 118 references and 13 Tables, can 853 or others, specify any significant errors in the tables or references provided?

From the 118 references, about 40+ are for 2017 or later, including 2025 and 2024.
To understand the issues it requires considering research over the period from when legislation was first introduced up to the present day.

I think it does tend to repeat some aspects and quotes from dated information , but often the information appears correct. Such as the number of fines in Victoria, but it adds extra recent details about how many have been imprisoned.

Are there any other papers questioning the studies calling for helmet legislation in Norway?

ps the list for Clarke, omitted, Clarke CF, Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law , Med J NZ ,
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/nz-clarke-2012.pdf

[Steady rider]

The claims by Olivier and Creighton 2017 and Hoye 2018:are dubious because both studies use comparisons between helmeted and non-helmeted, and the two grouping are substantially different in behaviour in some risk taking aspects. For alcohol use in Table 4,

The average percentage value being 6% for helmeted v 26.6% for non-wearers, excluding Eng et al and Orsi with exceptional high values, probably due to the methodologies used, results in 3.2% for wearers v 22.1% for non-wearers.

Apart from alcohol use Table 4 lists many other differences.

Hoye claims,

In summary, mandatory bicycle helmet legislation can be expected to reduce head injury among crash involved cyclists. Some adverse effects may occur, but will not necessarily be large or long-lasting

.
Details from New Zealand, with data on hours cycle pre law to post law, Clarke 2012 reported on NZ,

The survey information 1989/90–2003/06 suggests a drop of 53% and indicates that the helmet law discouraged cycling to a significant extent

.

[pjclinch]

I suspect if you want to be persuaded that helmet laws might not be a Cunning Plan irrespective of locale just reviewing what Chris Boardman has said about them over the last ~15 years will cover the ground in a more easily digestible manner.

Pete.

[Steady rider]

https://www.chrisboardman.com/content/i ... elmets.php

a good approach.

Parliament should be debating how to fund cycling infrastructure and reduce risks, A list of measures could be consulted and voted on.
e.g
1)
Reductions to national speed limit for country roads, those with white lines and wider than 6m, and those without white lines and narrower, from 60 mph, to 50 mph and 40 mph limits suggested or to meet comply with specifications.

[pjclinch]

Parliament should be debating how to fund cycling infrastructure and reduce risks, A list of measures could be consulted and voted on.

How to reduce risks is pretty much a known quantity so I don't really see Parliamentary debate as a good way to make progress there, probably more a way for eejits to make "war on motorist" noises. Parliament has previously created good consultation work like the Get Britain Cycling report: it's over a decade old but I don't think anything's really changed significantly.

Funding would a case of the government deciding, not Parliament debating. Or, in the current climate, more likely the government not deciding

Pete.

[axel_knutt]

I think a good subject for a novel public debate on risk would be why do risk debates usually start from the patently false premise that risk is undesirable and unwanted.

[Mike Sales]

I think a good subject for a novel public debate on risk would be why do risk debates usually start from the patently false premise that risk is undesirable and unwanted.

I am a onetime rock and ice climber, small boat sailor and rapid descender (on foot and on two wheels) so I have to agree with you.
The point I have to add is that I nevertheless resent other people taking risks with my life.
The difference must be that I like to be in control of the risk and that I enjoy using my skill and judgement. I certainly dislike being told be the bossy rulemakers how I must behave.

[axel_knutt]

The point I have to add is that I nevertheless resent other people taking risks with my life.

Indeed. John Adams cites a reference claiming that people are about 1000 times more sensitive to a risk that's imposed on them than one they choose for themselves. Another good topic for a public debate.

[Mike Sales]

The implication of the busybodies is that one can only be safe by following their rules, and wearing a helmet, hiviz or a lifejacket. This is obvious nonsense. Plenty die whilst following all the rules.
Awareness, understanding and skill, are more important, and it is the right of all to judge how best to act.
If you watch Saving Lives at Sea on the telly, you will see many of the rescued saying sorry. The lifeboatmen always tell them that there is no need to apologise.
I have known lifeboatmen who have been rescued themselves.
Risk cannot be eliminated: it is integral to living, and trying to avoid all risk would mean a dull life without any accomplishments.

[pjclinch]

I think a good subject for a novel public debate on risk would be why do risk debates usually start from the patently false premise that risk is undesirable and unwanted.

Folk are quite happy to embrace extra risk when it's what they do, but not so much when it's what they're seen to say - "Safety First!" is at least notionally the Right Thing to be saying in our culture.

I think much of that comes down to being aware of situations where less risk clearly equals better (say, train signalling systems, sterilisation of surgical instruments) and assuming without much thought that that's probably a general case.

In formal risk management circles risk/benefit tends to be the way the game is played, recognising the potential benefit of risk can offset danger (e.g. we'll have Bikeability Training on roads that are more dangerous than the playgrounds we taught Cycling Proficiency in because we'll actually teach students about dealing with traffic better that way, we'll do the mountain biking down the skills trails rather than on the flat ground because that'll be more fun and the idea is to have fun) and given the degree to which that is publicly accepted it seems that people do understand it when they turn their thinking off autopilot.

Pete.