A decent helmet won’t restrict movement; but forcing people to only ride while wearing a helmet certainly can restrict the usefulness of bikes. Two Australian cities have tried introducing Bike Share systems and both have been miserable failures. The reasons are more than the helmet law, but its undoubtable that Mandatory Helmet Law (MHL) has played a big part.
Horribly, wearing a helmet cam is very useful. Report bad drivers really. I haven’t put mine on yet, but by ye gods, it’s time.
This is exactly it. If you have good medicine in the absence of good epidemiology, then good medicine is good enough. We know that helmets prevent cranial and upper spinal injury. We know this in many flavors: cycling, motorcycling, hockey and American football, the military, aviation, etc. It’s known that helmets protect heads.
Now, as to how the numbers stack up… we can run multi-state double-blind stratified randomized controlled trials on cyclists’ helmet use, but it won’t amount to a hill of beans because we know the mechanism for head injury and how to prevent it by wearing a helmet.
I understand how some cyclists don’t want to HAVE to wear a helmet because a new law says they need to. Yes, it’s somewhat of an intrusion. But it’s a small intrusion, compared to, say, the NSA recording all your phone calls. And it’s an intrusion based on a known mechanism of catastrophic injury.
No, they’re statistics that have been turned into lies by folks who should know better than to pass laws on the basis of ‘common sense’. If they’re not incompetent, they’re corrupt.
My arguments only fall flat on their face if you’re prone to substituting your own reality for the inconvenient one. Once more: if you’re interested in lowering the collective expenditure on preventable healthcare, you don’t breathe a word to discourage cycling, let alone force adults to be insulted with such a ‘just in case’ measure. The benefit of MHL can’t be reliably demonstrated. That makes it pseudoscience, to the extent that it pretends to be based on science.
It’s like being told you have to wear a safety harness to use the outside toilet. And here, take this special lightning umbrella. Surprise, there are people who can tell you stories about being struck by lightning. Maybe you should worry.
Unless you’re the sort who’s not interested enough in risk to trust their own assessments, and are thus vulnerable to all sorts of propaganda… then you might actually buy a shit sandwich like the idea that the danger of cycling is anything but negligible.
Unlike the supposed benefit of MHL, the costs are real and numerous.
Meeting between Ms Sue Abbott, Prof Chris Rissel and Dr Paul Martin and
The Hon. John Ajaka MLC, Parliamentary Secretary for Transport and Roads
Tuesday 19th July, 2011, GMT
Proposal:
That mandatory bicycle helmet legislation in NSW be repealed for adults, but retained for children aged 17 years and less, and for persons participating in organised competitive cycling.
Rationale:
The benefits of cycling (health, environment, less congestion) outweigh the risks
All cost-benefit analyses have consistently found that the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risk (Hillman 1992, de Hartog et al. 2010). One economic analysis looking specifically at helmet legislation in Australia found it had led to a net cost (De Jong 2010). Pucher, Dill and Handy (2010) conclude that “the combined evidence presented in these studies [from countries without universal helmet legislation] indicates that the health benefits of bicycling far exceed the health risks from traffic injuries, contradicting the widespread misperception that bicycling is a dangerous activity” (Pucher et al. 2010)
Mandatory helmet legislation deters people from cycling
There is general agreement that people stopped riding when the legislation was introduced. Based on census data on journey to work, cycling levels have still not recovered to 1986 levels (Parker 2004),with cycling to work representing only 1.2% of journeys in 2006 (New and Rissel 2008). NSW Transport Data Centre figures (2010) show that there are fewer weekday cyclists in Sydney in 2008/09 (n=106, 000) than in 1985 (n=147,000) despite population increases.
To justify helmet legislation cycling needs to be thought of as a dangerous activity. Concerns about danger and safety are the main reasons people don’t cycle. However, some types of cycling are more dangerous (mountain biking or competition cycling) than others (recreational or utility). Helmet legislation for everyone is a blunt solution. About one in six current cyclists (16.5%) cite helmets as a reason for not cycling more (Cycling Promotion Fund 2011). The same figure conservatively applied to non-cyclists (most of the population) represents a substantial number of potential cyclists.
Improvements in the road safety environment led to reduced cycling injuries, not helmet legislation
All the available long term data on cycling injuries and deaths in Australia show that there was a long decline in injuries among all road users prior to the helmet legislation (See Appendix). This is consistent with international improvements in road safety at the same time (Pucher and Dijkstra 2000).
Removing helmet legislation is the cheapest way to increase cycling levels
Building cycle paths might be the ideal solution to get more people riding, but there is not the budget to do this comprehensively within the foreseeable future. Cycling levels can be increased quickly without government cost by repealing the helmet legislation.
Bicycle helmets only protect 10-15% of head injuries
Recent reviews have re-evaluated the evidence and found significant bias in previous estimates (Elvik 2011). Helmets don’t protect the neck and face, and may increase the risk of some injuries.
Australia, New Zealand & the United Arab Emirates are the only countries in the world with an all-age, enforceable bicycle helmet legislation
If it was such a good idea, why haven’t other countries followed suit?
Adults are able to make an intelligent choice about the riskiness of their cycling
Repealing the legislation simply means that police and judicial resources are not wasted on a minor “offense” that causes no harm to others. It will also decriminalise a large group of cyclists who are currently riding safely without helmets.
Solutions to possible issues arising
Injuries following repeal of legislation – cyclists currently wear helmets and suffer serious head injuries. There is risk associated with all forms of transport that can never be completely removed.
Repealing the legislation is seen as a backward step – the rest of the world currently does not require helmets for adults. The countries that have succeeded in fostering high levels of cycling have done so without compulsory helmets and have lower levels of injury than we have. In the Northern Territory it is legal to ride on footpaths and cycle paths without a helmet. Cycling injury rates in NT are similar to the national average (Henley and Harrison 2009).
Doctors and injury prevention experts argue that helmets save lives –for every academic paper that supports helmets or helmet legislation there is a competing academic paper that challenges the evidence (Robinson 2007). With such obvious scientific disagreement and lack of consensus, this is not the basis for good policy. Indeed, if this were a new pharmaceutical product it would be withdrawn promptly.
Seat belt legislation is effective – the evidence for the effectiveness of seat belts is far stronger than bicycle helmets, and seat belt legislation has been adopted widely around the world.
But cycling is dangerous – the perception of danger of cycling is vastly overstated. For example, as of July 2011, the London Bike Hire scheme has seen 6 million trips taken without a serious injury. The Dublin scheme is the same size as Melbourne’s scheme and as 10 times the daily use with no serious injuries.
The cost to society of head injuries is high – the actual risk of a severe head injury is very low. The benefits to the health care system of more people physically active saves more money that would be spent dealing with injuries. Our health system doesn’t deny healthcare to overeaters, sunbakers, or people playing sport.
References
Cycling Promotion Fund, 2011. Riding a bike for transport - 2011 survey findings. Cycling Promotion Fund, Canberra.
De Hartog, J.J., Boogaard, H., Nijland, H., Hoek, G., 2010. Do the health benefits of cycling outweigh the risks? Environ Health Perspect 118 (8), 1109–1116.
De Jong, P., 2010. The health impact of mandatory bicycle helmet laws. Available from http://papers.Ssrn.Com/sol3/papers.Cfm?Abstract_id=1368064. Last accessed july 14, 2011
Elvik, R., 2011. Publication bias and time-trend bias in meta-analysis of bicycle helmet efficacy: A re-analysis of attewell, glase and mcfadden, 2001. Accid Anal Prev 43 (3), 1245-51.
Henley, G., Harrison, J.E., 2009. Serious injury due to land transport accidents, australia 2006-07 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Canberra.
Hillman, M.C., 1992. Cycling: Towards health and safety British Medical Association London
New, C., Rissel, C., 2008. Cycling to work in sydney: Analysis of journey-to-work census data from 2001 and 2006 Health Promotion Service, Sydney South West Area Health Service Liverpool.
Parker, A., 2004. Unsustainable trends in the australian census data for the journey to work in melbourne and other cities in victoria. 27th Australasian Transport Research Forum. Adelaide.
Pucher, J., Dijkstra, L., 2000. Making walking and cycling safer: Lessons from europe Transportation Quarterly. 54, 25-50.
Pucher, J., Dill, J., Handy, S., 2010. Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review. Prev Med 50 Suppl 1, S106-25.
Robinson, D.L., 2007. Bicycle helmet legislation: Can we reach a consensus? . Accident Analysis and Prevention 39 (1), 86-93.
Appendix. Reductions in head injuries BEFORE helmet legislation
Figure 1: Percentage of injuries that are head injuries by road users, Western Australia, 1971 to 1998
Hendrie D, Legge M, Rosman D, Kirov C. An economic evaluation of the mandatory bicycle helmet legislation in Western Australia. Road Accident Prevention Research Unit, 1999. Bicycle Network | Making bike riding easier for everyone
Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Monograph 17 Cycle Safety. 2004.
Figure 6. Trend in cycling fatalities in The Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, the United Kingdom and the USA, 1970–2008 (Percent relative to 1970 level). (Sources: IRTAD, 2010; Pucher and Dijkstra, 2000.
1 Like
Well, given that you cycle in London, it makes perfect sense to ameliorate those other risks. Gotta balance things out…
1 Like
[quote=“peregrinus_bis, post:69, topic:16635”]
Yes.[/quote]
I don’t think you understood the question.
Do you seriously mean to say that you advise people not to jaywalk because it encourages motorists to mow pedestrians down?
I’d say it makes more sense to allow adults the freedom to move freely as long as they’re not causing significant risk to others. And even if you want to deny the right to risk one’s own life (good luck with that), that still doesn’t encompass riding a bike without a helmet FFS.
And if the motorists are mowing down unacceptably large numbers of people, maybe we should be looking at them, rather than telling other road users to be sure and not piss the motorists off.
1 Like
I refer you to the fact that MHL costs more life than it saves by discouraging cycling.
I advise people not to jaywalk because some idiot driver might hit them.
I’m not denying anyone anything - I’m just telling people they’d be better off in an accident if they have some protection. If I wanted everyone perfectly uninjured all the time, I’d make them live in cotton wool houses and never move.
It’s not about not pissing motorists off, it’s about showing the good side of cyclists - etiquette, consideration, care. It’s infectious as well. Car drivers start being better.
If you go to war with cars, you make drivers and their simple minds angry at all who resemble you. All cyclists.
No, unfortunately for your vociferous arguments, it is not like this. There are no sources of medical knowledge around safety harnesses and special umbrellas regarding toilet injury. But there are plenty regarding head injury and helmets.
No, you said “Contrast with the decline in motorcyclist deaths - they’re being more and more thoroughly educated in how to avoid being a KSI on the road. Cyclists aren’t.”
You conclusion was clearly that the in crease in cyclist deaths as compared to motorcyclists was due to education. I was saying there is not enough evidence to support either that premise or that hypothesis.
1 Like
Wow, we would all have saved a lot of words replying to you if you had just read the damn article.
Actually, when I draw a conclusion, I saw “I conclude that …”. You’re inferring, erroneously. I’m stating two separate facts, and allowing you to draw your own conclusions.
Nonetheless, get to the point: if all cyclists were educated in avoiding becoming KSIs, would there be fewer cyclist deaths or not?
I always thought about this when visiting Amsterdam. They have tons of bikers, yet virtually none of them are wearing helmets and it seems (without any statistical evidence) that the accident rate is low. Obviously there are many factors, including that they have Critical Mass and many dedicated lanes and the majority of riders are going relatively slow. But it may demonstrate part of their hypothesis that no helmet law helps encourage use which can create critical mass for safe cycling.
2 Likes
You do realise we are talking about pedal cycles not motorcycles or have I made a silly mistake? Sorry I didn’t realise it was about motorbikes.
Here my response to Shane Simmons regarding bicycles. I can cycle fast on my BICYCLE but I have never attained anything close to 60Mph. I am sure that motorbike helmet included in your comment probably relates to a high speed of around 60Mph. I have experienced numerous bicycle crashes, which I mentioned in my initial comment. One of my bicycle crashes was at reasonably high speed for a bicycle, I was going to fast around a corner when I hit an oil patch, thus due to my speed the bike slipped from underneath me entailing my body sliding along the floor for quite some distance but I never banged my head even when I foolishly tried to end the slide by getting up early thus entailing multiple rolls hurting my knees and elbows (pro-tip: if sliding along the floor after a crash just go with it).
I think judging by some comments I must be abnormal regarding my ability to protect my head via adroitly moving my hands, arms, elbows, knees, legs, neck when I have previously crashed.
I have experienced the exact same crash, although it was not a BMW. Yes I know what it is like when a car turns into you “peregrinus_ bis.” Did you not read my comment where I explained I have been crashed into on a a few occasions? My comments are from the the viewpoint of regular cyclist.
The car turned into me regarding my crash, in a similar way to the crash you describe, but I have quick reactions so I made evasive manoeuvres in the best possible way, which it seems you also did, but this was not enough thus the car wing-mirror shattered on my on a combination of my hand and handlebars. The shattering of the car wing mirror was not enough to stop the car, thus maybe you can imagine how the car is now pushing me in the direction of its turn but I am not banged my head in fact I am moving my entire body away from the car, I am leaning via my torso but eventually the car stops thus I am now falling in the direction I was leaning, which is away from the car thus I now need to quick put down my hands to break my fall. My handlebars where severely bent, and I busied my lower pelvis area because I fell on top my my bike, I also had a cut to my thigh but I didn’t bang my head.
I am sorry have some head damage from your crash but it is possible without a helmet your reactions might have been slightly quicker thus you might not have damaged your head in any way.
No! For f’s sake, that was the point of my response, which you missed several times.
If cyclists were educated, as you say, but we had an increase in ridership, you’d probably still get an increase in accidents. Or if education had no effect, and we had some noise, we might get an increase in accidents.
I have no idea why you’re trying to pull some statement about education out of these numbers that have nothing what-so-ever to do with education. Maybe when the article involves education?
I don’t doubt that education is a good thing. You just seemed very sure of yourself that the only difference between the motorcycle numbers and bicycle numbers is education, when the data don’t support any such thing.
Oh please.
In the context of my comment, in the context of my experience, I am not sure how helmets prevent head damage, but thanks for explaining how helmets work, lol, even though the explanation was unneeded.
My point is: I think the loss of agility, which wearing a helmet entails, would in my situation make me more likely to injure my head because I would have slightly reduced freedom of movement (try moving your arm over your head with and without wearing a helmet) thus via my reduced agility, my responsiveness to a crash, if I was wearing a helmet, means I might not be able to effectively protect myself by moving my body and head appropriately.
I have been crashed into unexpectedly without any warning but I have always managed to protect my head. I would prefer to depend upon the skill on my brain, via quick thinking and agile movements, to save my head instead of merely falling to the ground in the manner of a crash-test dummy wearing a helmet. Helmets are fine for elderly people, babies, or people with leaning disabilities, people who perhaps don’t have the smartest reactions in the world, but intelligent people should be left to depend on their own wits if they want to, although I realise many people will not appreciate this.
No JonS, my views are from experience not “hubris.” I comment regarding various bicycle crashes I have experienced. I value my brain thus it would be silly to overestimate my ability to protect my brain. I don’t think I am infallible, I don’t exaggerate my ability, I merely realise not wearing a helmet is actually the best way to protect my brain, but this can seem contrary to logic regarding people who need the government to monitor and protect every aspect of their lives. Sadly in our brainless modern civilization there is a tendency to stop people being self-reliant, a tendency to stop people using their brains, which means means valid self-reliance and skill can be mistaken for hubris or arrogance.
1 Like
Nah. I was quick as lightning. I’m used to the helmet. How would my reactions have been quicker?
Sorry that you too have been a victim of the car / cycle matrix.
I am the only one who finds a lovely little nugget of irony in the government enforcing protection of the brain it apparently believes you do not need?
4 Likes
