CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

THE Helmet Thread

(895 posts)
  • Started 11 years ago by Wilmington's Cow
  • Latest reply from gembo

No tags yet.


  1. Nelly
    Member

    w f b - too many sparks on this thread, not to speak of the endless propoganda - is this town big enough for the both of you?

    ;-)

    Posted 11 years ago #
  2. wee folding bike
    Member

    I'm sorry Nelly.

    I'd wanted to see them since I was in primary school 40 years ago.

    They really showed that Talent is an asset and it certainly wasn't Amateur hour. They are getting on and I wasn't sure if I was going to Beat the clock. However, even at this age they remain Something for the girl with everything.

    I'll go lie down. I've been bouncing like Tigger over seeing them and people at work are starting to take the micky.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  3. wishicouldgofaster
    Member

    I always advise folk to wear a helmet mainly because we know someone who was clipped by a trailer whilst out cycling with his son. Both fell off and both banged heads of the ground. The son who had a helmet on was fine, the father a serious head injury.

    His life now is spent in care as his short term memory is shot and he has lost his wife, job and ability to live an independent life. As he says all for the sake of wearing a helmet as he would have been fine if he had one on that day.

    Totally agree that helmets should not be regarded as miracle protectors, however they can protect you from serious injury in some circumstances.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  4. No PMs from me either (only just realised what might have been meant by that). Can also testify to never having met wfb.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  5. wee folding bike
    Member

    Or he might well not have been ok if he wore a helmet. We don't know because it just isn't that simple.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  6. neddie
    Member

    Oh man.

    CAN YOU ALL JUST STOP ARGUING!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  7. wee folding bike
    Member

    I thought that was sort of the point of this thread.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  8. Yep, this is the lead lined argument chamber.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  9. wee folding bike
    Member

    One of my grandparents is in a lead lined chamber.

    He died in England and had to be shipped north. Apparently this required a special box for all time.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  10. Instography
    Member

    I was told that I was supposed to bring my aunt's ashes home from Canada in some kind of hermetically sealed vacuum flask arrangement. Turns out that a box in a plastic bag in a suitcase works just as well. Plenty of sellotape (or Scotch tape there).

    Posted 11 years ago #
  11. wingpig
    Member

    My granny sat behind our sofa in a polystyrene carton for sixteen years until my dad got round to redistributing her onto a suitable hill. She's somewhere underneath the Sunnyside slopes at Glenshee.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  12. Baldcyclist
    Member

    My dad had the same arrangement, he was stopped at customs coming home from Canada and was asked to open his bag.

    "What's in the box sir?"

    "My Mum"

    Didn't get asked any more questions after that.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  13. Uberuce
    Member

    I had a serious head injury that I am only 7% convinced could have been helped by a helmet. BBC balance etc.

    http://uberuce.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/i-have-a-scar-that-makes-me-lie-to-children-on-a-regular-basis/

    I have have changed my mind about a coupla things since writing that(by which I mean I no longer lie to children on a regular basis), but the hypothetical effectiveness of a lid during that collision isn't among them.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  14. chdot
    Admin

    "
    Conclusions

    In spite of an apparently - and recent - high public acceptance of bicycle helmets in Denmark (due to shock-horror emotional propaganda), picturing helmets has an adverse effect on bicycle marketing. The same is true for a picture of a bicycle accident. From a bicycle marketing perspective (encouraging more people to use bicycles) such messages should be avoided. If safety issues need to be addressed, focus on the cycling individual is preferable for general statements on the risk of cycling.

    "

    http://www.copenhagenize.com/2013/10/promoting-cycling-positively-now-with.html?m=1

    Posted 11 years ago #
  15. gembo
    Member

    As has been ventured many times, helmet and hi viz Lycra and bells all sidebars distracting the tribes from uniting to pressurise for proper infrastructure. Much harder but this should be the aim. Protecting cyclists from the other vehicles on the road which can be lethal to people outside them and occasionally inside them

    Posted 11 years ago #
  16. stiltskin
    Member

    In spite of an apparently - and recent - high public acceptance of bicycle helmets in Denmark (due to shock-horror emotional propaganda), picturing helmets has an adverse effect on bicycle marketing. The same is true for a picture of a bicycle accident. From a bicycle marketing perspective (encouraging more people to use bicycles) such messages should be avoided. If safety issues need to be addressed, focus on the cycling individual is preferable for general statements on the risk of cycling.

    Ummm. Looking at the link you posted, I can't help but notice that the data is shown as a graph only. To my eye it looks as if the differences between helmet & non-helmet are tiny. In the order of 1 or 2% as far as I can see. It may be statistically significant, but I can't see that makes a huge difference.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  17. Instography
    Member

    I think those differences would only be statistically significant under the most generous assumptions about the selection and participation of people taking part in the study.

    But even under idealised conditions, for independent samples of 500 people the threshold of significance is around 7 percentage points. The helmet / no helmet comparison never reaches that.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  18. ARobComp
    Member

    Bad Science - Bicycle Helmets and the law - a perfect teaching case for epidemiology

    I don't get involved in the helmet chat that much as I think it's a non issue for me compared to the bigger questions around behaviour, drivers, and infrastructure. But I like Ben Goldacre, and I'd say this is a decent article. Recommended.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  19. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Back to NZ, here is some longitudinal data from Copenhaganized of all places.

    https://twitter.com/copenhagenize/status/412557009976700928

    It looks a little bit from this diagram that the cliff appeared 1 year before compulsion, the same rate of fall appears to continue at compulsion for another 3 years, then slows.

    Injury rates appear to have already started to rise 2 years prior to compulsion.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  20. Instography
    Member

    @Baldy
    What does he mean by "Bicyle (sic) helmet law enforcement"? Does that mean there was a period between enactment of the legislation and it actually coming into force? You'd think there would be a period of increasing concern about injuries (so concern and some drop in participation), introduction of legislation, debate, enactment, some grace period during which people can buy helmets or stop cycling, and then enforcement. During all of which, participation (if helmet laws cause declining participation) can fall.

    Don't you think that the enactment of legislation would be a response to an increase in injury rates? So you'd expect injuries to be already rising before legislation.

    The important thing is that the injuries rate keeps on increasing after the enforcement of the legislation. What you should be looking at is increasing injuries, helmet law enacted, injury rates falling but participation unaffected. That's not what the chart shows.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  21. Baldcyclist
    Member

    "
    The important thing is that the injuries rate keeps on increasing after the enforcement of the legislation. What you should be looking at is increasing injuries, helmet law enacted, injury rates falling but participation unaffected. That's not what the chart shows.
    "
    OK, hands up, I don't have the data to hand whilst making this suggestion, but.

    It would also be interesting to see what car ownership rates were doing during that period (they certainly increased here markedly at that time), and what affect that may have had on injury rates. To say injury rates rose only as a result of helmet law would indicate that car ownership stayed static over the period.

    Would also be interesting to see what was happening economically / politically at that time in NZ, what other things might have accounted for declining rates of cycling?

    As I've said before I think it is far to simplistic to blame helmets for declining cycling rates. The anti helmet lobby will show us data from 2 or 3 places in the world, and show us that cycling rates fell when those laws were enacted in those places.

    I'm pretty sure that you could look at almost any western country of the same period and see the same declines in cycling. What is the common denominator in ALL of the countries that saw decline? Increasing car usage!

    I'm sorry, but increasing wealth, and cars as a result of that wealth are to blame for falling cycling rates, not helmets.

    I need data...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  22. Baldcyclist
    Member

    GDP data for NZ (GDP Actual chain-volume series expressed in 1995/96 prices, December year ($m)):

    Source - http://www.transport.govt.nz/ourwork/tmif/gdpandpopulation/pg002/

    Apparently people were becoming wealthy in NZ?

    I've asked NZ govt for historic car, and cycling rates. I'll post data if they reply.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  23. Instography
    Member

    @Baldcyclist
    I'm sorry, but increasing wealth, and cars as a result of that wealth are to blame for falling cycling rates, not helmets.

    You need to relate that GDP data to the trends in cycling, follow the logic of your theory and see if the data supports it or not. If it were true that helmet compulsion had no impact on cycling participation then the New Zealand chart that Copenhagenize linked to would look different.

    Let's divide the period covered by that chart into three phases related to helmet compulsion and see what was happening to cycling and GDP (although I'll use per capita GDP, which is a better measure of 'wealth').

    In the first phase: pre-enforcement 1988-1993 - if your theory was correct we'd expect to see a trend of increasing injuries and declining participation in cycling (because it's getting dangerous out there and because cycling is being replaced by driving). We see the increasing injuries but cycling is also increasing in the five years between 1998 and 2003 and then there's one year of declining participation.

    We can suggest that in the pre-enforcement period there doesn't seem to have been a decline in participation so whatever the general trend in wealth, car ownership and driving, it's not reflected in a decline in cycling participation. Between 1988 and 1993 per capita GDP in New Zealand was flat up to 1991 and then dropped between 1991 and 1993. That decline in wealth can't be the cause of the increasing cycling because your theory needs car ownership to suddenly increase so that the 1992/3 fall in participation can be explained independently of helmet compulsion and that would need increasing wealth.

    The pre-enforcement period also shows increasing numbers of injuries, which would be consistent with increasing participation in cycling, all other things being equal.

    The last year of the pre-enforcement period shows a drop in participation. I'd speculate that the year leading up to enforcement is a grace period, when legislation has been passed or is being passed but not yet enforced. I'd expect this period to be full of debate about increasing injuries, how dangerous cycling is and why people should be forced to wear helmets. In that sort of context a decline in cycling should be expected.

    The compulsion phase - from 1994 to 1997 - will be a period of increasing compliance and high profile enforcement of the new legislation. To see the pre-compulsion turn in participation develop into a trend doesn't seem likely to be connected to a sudden surge in car ownership unrelated to helmet enforcement. Did people suddenly get more wealthy in 1993? Not in New Zealand. In NZ per capita GDP fell between 1991 and 1993, exactly when your increasing car ownership theory needs it to suddenly increase. It might be true that many people still stop cycling and take up driving but not because they are more wealthy. Per capita GDP picks up again in 1993-1994 but not by enough to cause that cliff in cycling participation.

    Could it be because people feel that cycling is more dangerous. That would be a more probably confounder - a more hostile road environment increases injuries and an increasing emphasis on the dangers of cycling. This leads to a reduction in cycling and brings about a new helmet law. But that wouldn't be unconnected to the new legislation. Increasing actual and perceived danger would be the cause and declining cycling, increasing injuries and helmet compulsion would be the effects. In that theory the helmet legislation doesn't cause the drop but it doesn't arrest the decline or the increasing injuries. The helmet legislation's not harmful, it's just useless.

    As I said before, the interesting thing about this phase is that the drop in injuries that could be expected from mass helmet compliance (and you'd expect mass compliance like we've seen with seat belts, mobile phone use or the smoking ban) doesn't appear. Injuries don't start dropping until participation has bottomed out. The turn in injuries starts in 1997.

    The post-compulsion phase - from 1997 onwards - shows participation stabilising at a new lower level but injuries keep on rising, although more slowly than before. For your theory to be true, something would have had to happen in 1997 that stopped the increase in car ownership. But per capita GDP kept on rising steadily from 1993 to 2008. Cycling should be steadily falling in this period if this increasing wealth is leading to higher car ownership but it doesn't.

    So, if your theory is "increasing wealth, and cars as a result of that wealth are to blame for falling cycling rates, not helmets" then I don't think the data from New Zealand supports it.

    (data on New Zealand per capital GDP here

    Posted 11 years ago #
  24. Baldcyclist
    Member

    "
    ...follow the logic of your theory and see if the data supports it or not.
    "

    If I get the historic data (I've asked for as far back as they've got) I requested then hopefully I can,... or look silly*. ;)

    *I'm happy to look silly, but I need to be persuaded that there wasn't already a long term decline in progress. The data presented is very specific to one very short time frame.

    I wan't to look at 30, or 40, or 50 years of data, and see what the overall trend is, and also look at the trend decade on decade, was the decline in the 90s, any different to that of the 80s, or 70s? Does the decline in NZ look drastically different to that of the UK. I don't know that yet.... If it does look different, I will be persuaded.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  25. steveo
    Member

    Did you have a look at the (UK) DfT stats? Don't they show a considerable dip around this time period?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  26. I'm genuinely looking forward to the results of all of this. I have to say, though, most of the chat is way over my head at the moment...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  27. Baldcyclist
    Member

    OK, still nowhere near a complete picture yet, here is the total number of new cars registered per year, from 1970 - 2012:

    and for 1990 - 2000:

    Source of data:
    http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/motor-vehicle-registration-statistics/docs/2012.pdf All data from 1926 is there.

    So we do know that before, and during helmet compulsion new car numbers were steadily increasing (of course we don't know how many were being scrapped). We don't know yet how that translates to Bn's of Km's travelled by car. We also know more generally from GDP figures that the trend was that people were getting richer - and hence being able to afford these new cars...

    Is it possible for ADMIN to make the pictures fit the board, or is there something I can do? Cheers.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  28. Baldcyclist
    Member

    NZ GDP per capita 1980 - 2013, source is website cited by @Insto:

    Posted 11 years ago #
  29. chdot
    Admin

  30. Baldcyclist
    Member

    UK miles cycled per person, 1995 - 2012.

    Drops away in 1995:

    Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/nts03-modal-comparisons Table NTS0305

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin