CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

THE Helmet Thread

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

No tags yet.


1…111213…30

  1. neddie
    Member

    One thing that could confuse the NZ car ownership data, around the time they introduced the helmet laws, is this:

    Pre 1992-ish, NZ had very strict laws on importing vehicles. It meant that most of the cars on the road were either Aussie muscle cars or very old British cars from the 50s/60s/70s e.g Ford Cortinas, Vauxhall Chevettes, Triumph 2000s etc. Cars were scarce, and prices were high.

    In the mid 90s, these import laws were relaxed and the market was flooded with cheap Japanese imports. So many of the old cars were scrapped and replaced by more reliable Japanese models.

    NZ is (and has always been) very much a car based society. Cycling rates are only high in the city of Christchurch (flat/student population).

    Posted 11 years ago #

  2. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Long term cycling data for Netherlands and UK...

    People stopped cycling there too...

    Data taken from here...
    http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/Irresistible.pdf

    Of course rates recovered somewhat in 70s, but no real rise since then in NL.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  3. Instography
    Member

    @Baldcyclist
    I'm not sure what it is you hope to find in a longer and longer time series. No one is saying that there hasn't been a long term decline in cycling and a long term growth in car use. I accept those things but you want to say something specific - that the introduction of helmet compulsion has no impact on levels of cycling. For that you need to look at the specific time period around the introduction of compulsion.

    I'll stick with NZ for now. In the six years prior to compulsion, cycling participation was rising. In 1993 it experienced a precipitous decline. A decline that continued for the next nine years.

    There's nothing in the GDP data or the new car registration data to explain that collapse. Wealth didn't suddenly increase nor was there any surge in new car registrations.

    It could be a massive coincidence but it seems more plausible that that the collapse in cycling in the year before and the years immediately after the introduction of a law requiring people to wear helmets is related to the helmet law.

    I'd make a slightly different argument from yours. I think the long term decline in cycling is related to wealth and car ownership. I would speculate that the increasing volume of cars is the cause of the increasing injuries and the response to that, whether there is compulsion or not, is for cyclists to do one of two things: wear protective clothing or stop cycling.

    This happens regardless of whether there is a helmet law. In the UK, helmet wearing has increased despite it being voluntary. I think all the law does is accelerate what was happening anyway and I think it does that because of the much greater emphasis on the dangers of cycling as a law is debated and then enforced.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. Baldcyclist
    Member

    OK, silly analogy time:

    Q. What killed the dinosaurs?

    A. A 10Km wide asteroid hitting the earth wiped them out.

    except...

    They were dying already, climate change was already killing them, and they would have eventually become extinct anyway.

    What I am trying to say is that you need to look at the data from before the 'helmet event' to see what was really happening.

    Q. What killed cycling in New Zealand.

    A Helmet laws being introduced in 1994.

    except,.... cars had already killed it. At least that's what I think I will be able to show once (if) I have a complete data set. I want to see what was happening in each decade leading up to the 'helmet event'. Were the rates of decline as severe before, as after.

    Once you know what really 'killed' cycling, it then seems to me to be silly to focus on helmets in any context, it's a diversion. Arguing about making helmets compulsory for health and well being is as silly as arguing that making them compulsory kills cycling.

    "
    I'd make a slightly different argument from yours. I think the long term decline in cycling is related to wealth and car ownership. I would speculate that the increasing volume of cars is the cause of the increasing injuries and the response to that, whether there is compulsion or not, is for cyclists to do one of two things: wear protective clothing or stop cycling.
    "

    Incidentally, this I agree with. I think it is part of the story.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. SRD
    Moderator

    But - and I'm sure you know this - other countries whose cycling rates did not decline, or recovered - have similar rates of growth and car ownership.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    "I think all the law does is accelerate what was happening anyway and I think it does that because of the much greater emphasis on the dangers of cycling as a law is debated and then enforced."

    In other words - the impending legislation 'raised issues'. Some people decided that they would not wear a helmet so stop cycling.

    Others are 'made aware' that cycling is 'dangerous' - even with a helmet(?)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  7. Instography
    Member

    @SRD
    Sure. Other countries, the Netherlands for example, did something about the root of the problem - the interaction of bicycles and increasing numbers of motor vehicles and were able to stop or reverse the decline in cycling and had no need for a helmet law.

    On Baldcyclist's analogy, helmet compulsion is a meteor falling on cycling, although I'm not sure I would agree with his conclusion. I don't think arguing against helmet compulsion is a silly diversion.

    I mean, even if cycling is in long term decline, that's no reason to hurry it along with a helmet law. It's an argument for not doing anything to make it worse and actually doing things to make it better.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  8. Baldcyclist
    Member

    "
    I don't think arguing against helmet compulsion is a silly diversion.
    "

    But if you accept helmet compulsion is 'neutral' it does become insignificant.

    In countries A , B , C, cycling is in decline, what can we do to reverse that?
    Countries X, and Y tried to address the issue by introducing helmets, cycling rates are still falling.

    Helmet compulsion still fails because it made no difference.

    Conclusion, let people wear them if they like, what can we do differently which might help?

    Answers already above in various posts cards.

    I don't think we actually disagree on what should be done, just on the actual impact of helmet legislation. It still fails, whether I am right, or you are, but I think overstating the effect makes people think about it all the more, and reinforces those negative images of cycling.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  9. chdot
    Admin

    "I think overstating the effect makes people think about it all the more, and reinforces those negative images of cycling"

    Indeed!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  10. steveo
    Member

    Hang on, is that the helmet debate put to bed? Finally? Now what???

    Posted 11 years ago #

  11. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Don't be silly, we still need to work out whether they work or not.... ;)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  12. steveo
    Member

    Ru-roh :D

    Posted 11 years ago #

  13. Instography
    Member

    I don't accept that it's neutral. In New Zealand, even if there was a long term decline in cycling, before the helmet legislation there seems to have been a slow rise in cycling participation. The helmet law turned that into a drop of 50% over the next few years. I think that's something to be opposed.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  14. steveo
    Member

    I don't accept that it's neutral.

    But surely still irrelevant? If NZ dropped the law tomorrow would you expect to see the rates rise to the 1980's levels? Or would it more likely need more fundamental changes, driver attitudes, infrastructure et al? Its a problem for NZ; here "we" need to worry about reversing 50 years of transport policy and creating an environment where people choose not to wear a helmet more than they choose to because they feel safe. Helmet compulsion doesn't need to be opposed here its not on the cards.

    Think of helmets as an indicator species, you can't add fish to a polluted river and say its clean. You need to clean the river and count the fish or in this case the lack of helmets.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  15. Instography
    Member

    No, I don't think repealing the law would put everything back again. As the great Tom Waits said, you can't unring a bell. Humpty will not be put back together again. Elvis has left the building, etc etc. Once you've made something dangerous you can't unmake it.

    Baldcyclist was making the case that helmet compulsion didn't cause any reduction in cycling. I said it accelerates downward trends, and in the New Zealand case seems to reverse, upward trends. If that's true, I don't think it's irrelevant.

    But no one every advocated helmets as a means of promoting cycling just the same as no one ever used a hangover to sell a beer. Maybe apart from Skull Splitter. But even though legislative compulsion isn't on the cards, there's a very strong social norm around wearing helmets that I don't doubt influences everyone who comes to cycling without an already established opinion. I almost killed a couple of pensioners today just by telling them that I didn't use my head cam much because I don't wear a helmet. "You don't? Are you insane?" their faces said. So, no, I don't think helmets are irrelevant. Social or de facto compulsion does the same as legislative compulsion. It reflects and reinforces the belief that cycling on roads is immensely dangerous. They're not unique, of course. They reflect a broader, better safe than sorry, kills 99% of all germs, sanitising, stranger danger, never let them out of your sight, culture of fear.

    Otherwise, I don't, of course, disagree that something other than helmets needs to be done to make cycling safer.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  16. steveo
    Member

    Fair enough.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  17. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Our post on the effects of the NZ cycle helmet law has had more views than any other so far on http://www.rdrf.org.uk .

    "

    http://rdrf.org.uk/2013/12/27/the-effects-of-new-zealands-cycle-helmet-law-the-evidence-and-what-it-means

    Posted 10 years ago #

  18. stiltskin
    Member

    Oh dear. I note that they cite cyclehelmets.org as a main source of evidence with respect to cycle helmets. It would be nice if they had tried to find an unbiased source of evidence...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  19. gembo
    Member

    As it will soon be new year here is a proposal

    Adopt the opposite position you hold on helmets. So for me, ,when I came back to cycling I bought a helmet, thought nothing of it. Through the various helmet wars on this forum I decided to take an anti helmet stance and try to find evidence that showed this was wrong. This is Karl Popper's view of science, take your theory and try to disprove it. With helmets there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other, regardless of your bias, just goes round in circles.

    So my view changed from just assuming I would need a helmet to one where I am against compulsion. I will wear a tweed bunnet if out on the WoL path/canal path, I will wear a tam o shanter if going to the shops. Once I went to bottom of ravelrig hill (probably the most dangerous part of the route) before realising I had forgotten the helmet. I then cycled 45 miles around west Lothian and did feel a little bald but I wasn't going back up the hill to get the lid.

    So, just to relieve the circularity of this debate, why not adoptopposite position of the one you have been espousing and then try to disprove it. This can be gedanken/virtual no compulsion to buy a helmet.

    As many people point out, the helmet debate is a distraction, possibly even intentional in some quarters to avoid a consensus focused on improving infrastructure.

    We need to point out the irrelevance of helmets of course when their non use is cited by joe public or judiciary.

    WE need to find somewhere to park such comments, a bit like this thread but in the non virtual world?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  20. wee folding bike
    Member

    I already crossed the rubicon in real life. I also started out eating meat and going to church every Sunday.

    Getting used to how spokes work was a good deal more difficult. That took a couple of years.

    I surprised myself by deciding that Deep Space Nine is the best Star Trek

    Posted 10 years ago #

  21. gembo
    Member

    A Rubicon crosser that we both knew has recrossed the rubicon back to meat, but not church.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  22. wee folding bike
    Member

    I'd be more likely to re cross the religious rubicon and become a Sikh than start eating meat again. Sikhism always strikes me as a most logical kind of religion and you get fed at the temple. Not much chance of a top knot these days.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  23. gembo
    Member

    I thought I might try Buddhism for 2014 and will stick to vegetables but might learn to drive?

    Noted in census over 300,000 people ticked the Jedi Knight box. Making it possibly the fourth most common religion in UK?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  24. wee folding bike
    Member

    I toyed with putting Klingon on the census but I decided to tell the truth. No place with the honoured dead in Sto-vo-kor for me.

    I've never managed to do a tactical vote either but in north Lanarkshire it probably wouldn't work. I live in one of the safest constituencies in the uk.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  25. Nelly
    Member

    Just brilliant........Radio 5 intervews James Cracknell re: Michael Schumaker skiing accident.

    Conclusion? Wearing a helmet saved his life doing a "family" skiing activity, ergo everyone must wear a helmet while cycling - its only common sense !!

    Of course, no mention that schumaker was off piste and hence was at more risk.

    This will be revised in the media as "all people skiing on all slopes must wear a helmet"

    Makes my blood boil.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  26. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Of course, it was originally the doctors treating him who said he would 'probably' be dead now if he hadn't been wearing a helmet.

    Perhaps they have some basis for this remark that we don't know about, after all they are the ones treating him...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25546962

    Posted 10 years ago #

  27. neddie
    Member

    From http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-25550111

    Skiing itself has proportionately fewer fatalities than cycling or swimming, says Dr Mike Langran, a GP who founded the website ski-injury.com. The figures he cites suggest that the death rate for skiing is 2.07 deaths per million people skiing, compared to 29.4 per million cycling, and 72.7 per million swimming. (The rate is calculated by taking the total number of people who do the activity in a year and dividing it by the number who died doing that activity.)

    Except...

    People who ski normally only do so for approx 1 or 2 weeks of the year. Whereas cyclists usually do 40 or more weeks of the year. So if calculating the death rate against the number of people taking part in the activity per year, you would expect cycling to have 40 times the rate for the same risk level.

    I guess ski-injury.com is likely to be biased in favour of skiers in any case

    I think it is sad to see skiing go the same way as cycling re: helmets. Now you can't take your family out on the piste & ski at 10mph without helmeted morons charging past at 40+mph.

    Would Schumacher be dead if he wasn't wearing a helmet? Perhaps he would not have exposed himself to risk in the same way if he was not wearing a helmet? Then again, he is a risk taker (that's how he won so many times) & has already had a motorcycle accident

    Posted 10 years ago #

  28. Kenny
    Member

    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Video Widget

    Posted 10 years ago #

  29. gembo
    Member

    Swimming also looking quite risky?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  30. Instography
    Member

    His helmet is reported has having been broken in two, which suggests that it is likely to have done its job of absorbing and dissipating some of the impact. If he was near death after the accident with the helmet on then it seems reasonable to conclude that without the helmet he would most likely be dead.

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…111213…30

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin