I suspect the closest match you would find will be those who think covid is a hoax or vaccines are 5G enabled and those calling for mandatory helmet laws.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
THE Helmet Thread
(895 posts)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Very little overlap between the two populations, I'd suggest.
The kind of people who trust vaccines because they trust in the reliability of effective scientific trials ("This interim safety and efficacy analysis was based on 32,449 participants accruing 141 symptomatic cases of COVID-19. The trial had a 2:1 randomisation of vaccine to placebo."[here]") are possibly still waiting for an equivalent that shows the effectiveness at a population level of cycle helmets as a mechanism for harm reduction.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I'd be more likely to wear a helmet if it was a one off treatment that I couldn't feel which gave me 90% immunity to hitting my head, while reducing the damage if I do.
Posted 3 years ago # -
There may be minimum correlation between the outcome of refusing vaccine/helmet (since the latter shouldn’t impact wider population), but the idea behind it (denying efficiency after being being shown research to prove it) seems similar.
I would be more inclined to compare mandatory helmet laws to the sugar tax tbh. It’s one of these (necessary?) infringements on personal liberties that 50% of the population will make noise about, while ultimately benefiting from.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Mandatory helmet laws would be like demonstrating how effective vaccines are against rabies then making it required to go on holiday, regardless of where you're going. Am I leaving the country? Will I be near wild animals? Will I be far from medical help?
The problem with the sugar tax comparison is you can avoid it by not eating sugar. The same happens with helmet laws and cycling. One is a desirable outcome, the other is not.
Posted 3 years ago # -
You can also avoid it by wearing a helmet?
Posted 3 years ago # -
In Mandatory Helmet Land one may:
Avoid the sugar tax by not eating sugar. Desirable, and the intended outcome.
Avoid wearing a helmet by not cycling. Undesirable, as the intended outcome is that people should wear a helmet and continue cycling[1]
Like @Greenroofer I'm still waiting for that population-level study that shows benefits of mass helmet use significantly exceeding the disbenefits of such an imposition.
-D
[1] unless the government of Mandatory Helmet Land is *extremely* cynical and in bed with Big Automotive...
Posted 3 years ago # -
Moreover, if we (society) are looking for interventions of dubious benefit, then mandatory external airbags for vehicles should be a higher priority than helmets. Reduce the danger at source.
Of course if we (society) actually cared about road safety there's a plenty of interventions of proven effectiveness we could use instead of mandatory PPE. However, as we have seen in other threads, challenge to the motor-vehicle hegemony is upsetting to a certain constituency.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Many people are still waiting for legitimate (by their own arbitrary standards) proof of the benefit of face coverings/vaccines too though... and in the meantime are happy to cite fringe research suggesting otherwise for their own agenda (freedom etc.)
I don’t really have a particularly strong opinion on it though - was just a thought. :) You're right though, I see now that the sugar tax was not a good comparison. Maybe seatbelts in cars? There are some anti-seatbelters out there for sure, and some research suggesting harmfulness in “false sense of security” and “improper use”, similar to a helmet I guess.
Posted 3 years ago # -
@glossywolf, loving this debate you are having with yourself and others.
The forum is in a bit of a lull just now in terms of my type of whimsy but I think @iainmcr has returned with a new moniker. Red Mist or Red Setter or something? Unless two people on here own dachas near Moffat.
So I expect a bounce back to my preferred level of capriciousness
Posted 3 years ago # -
It’s always nice to find a topic which has a level of controversy equal to the pronunciation of the singular midge. I’ll admit to the odd incendiary comment for the sake of alleviating the boredom of my day... :)
Posted 3 years ago # -
I wear a helmet more often than not (and was saved from severe head injury by a helmet while mountain-biking in the Pentlands a few years back).
I still think we should aim for a state where people can feel safe enough not to wear a helmet and aren't victim-blamed for not wearing onePosted 3 years ago # -
@glossywolf, do you know of anywhere that has implemented a mandatory helmet law and hasn't experienced a drop in cyclist numbers?
Do you know of anywhere that has experienced a drop in cyclist numbers and also a drop in heart related illnesses?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Regarding the seat belt comparison. If only it had the effect of stopping people driving.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Head injuries aren't contagious. Not wearing a helmet is purely a personal risk whereas masks/vaccines have wider societal implications. Vaccines/masks are more like speed limits.
Posted 3 years ago # -
No helmet can protect against concussion (this is where the brain slops around or rotates inside the skull).
Will glossywolf also call for mandatory helmet wearing when taking a shower, going up a ladder, walking on a pavement, travelling in car, or is it just people riding bikes that get the exception?
All of the above have greater numbers of head injury than cycling.
There's a reason why people don't wear helmets when showering, etc.: because it simply isn't necessary.
And on mandatory seatbelt laws, introduction of said laws made no difference to the numbers of KSI. In fact KSIs of children and vulnerable road users went up, as drivers took slightly more risks, drove slightly faster, etc.
There is an interesting chapter on it in "Death on the Streets" which is recommended reading for all.
TLDR: Studies on the introduction of mandatory seatbelt laws in the 1980s were flawed because they were conflated with stricter drink-drive enforcement carried out at the same time. The effect on children and vulnerable road users was also not considered, neither the population-level increase in crashes due to greater risk taking...
Don't get me wrong - wearing a seatbelt will improve your personal outcome if you crash. What mandatory laws won't do is improve overall road safety.
Read the book!
Posted 3 years ago # -
@acsimpson Seems a bit ironic to extol the health benefits of cycling as exercise while denying the health benefits of helmets though no? But no, I really don’t know much about this issue. Honestly I just feel a bit confused as to why someone would choose not to cycle just because they were required to wear a type of hat... People don’t refuse to go for a walk because they’re required to wear shoes? But if that is the case, I agree that it’s definitely not sensible to mandate it.
@Rob Yup, but I suppose if you really wanted to, you could probably manage to find some wider implication. (Added cost to NHS? The safety of the anti-helmeters’ children?)
Posted 3 years ago # -
When "ordinary", "average" people who don't cycle, but would if they felt safe, see all cyclists dressed in hi-viz and helmets, what do you think that makes them think?
That cycling is safe and something everyone can do?
Or that cycling is dangerous and requires protective equipment and bravery?
There is a huge latent demand of people who wish to cycle but won't because of perceived or actual danger.
Think about it from others' perspective...
Cycling is not inherently dangerous. Cycling carries risk and that risk is created by motorised, weaponised, armoured aggressors.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Will glossywolf also call for mandatory helmet wearing when taking a shower, going up a ladder, walking on a pavement, travelling in car, or is it just people riding bikes that get the exception?
Don’t forget construction sites, children’s climbing wall centres...
I don’t think helmet use protects the spine, which I believe is the main cause of death from falling in the shower?
Posted 3 years ago # -
... Or that cycling is dangerous and requires protective equipment and bravery?
I suppose you could say the same about knee pads when roller blading (dangerous), carrying a water bottle when running (dehydrating) or wearing a life jacket when canoeing (risky). Probably best not to throw off the life jacket or chuck away the water bottle though at the risk of alienating newbies to the sport?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Another good point from "Death on the Streets" is that 'safety benefits*' are always absorbed as 'performance benefits++'
*Like anti-lock brakes; traction control; grippier tyres; seatbelts; crumple zones; roll cages; impact beams; daytime running lamps; high-level brake lights; airbags, etc...
++Like driving faster, cornering faster, driving faster in reduced visibility or bad weather; pushing cornering closer to the limit; taking more risks; "relaxing" more while driving (lower stress, but greater inattention)
Then when things go wrong, they go wrong much more spectacularly
Posted 3 years ago # -
I suppose so, but I can’t imagine cycling any slower/better if I didn’t wear a helmet. It would still hurt and be risky to fall off or get hit...
Posted 3 years ago # -
Out of interest, do you feel the same about the use of face coverings? Against it because it makes people less likely to socially distance etc?
Posted 3 years ago # -
The mandatoriness of helmet wearing on a bike should be dependent on what type of chain lube you use.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yes, I cycle much more carefully and slowly when lidless, knowing that I feel less protected. When I want to go fast and take more risks, e.g. out for sport, I put a helmet on.
Not wearing a helmet can help you avoid a crash, either consciously or sub-consciously and drivers alledgedly behave differently around helmeted or non-helmeted cyclists. Throw in a fake wobble and they give you a wide berth.
And I'm sure there is "risk compensation" in effect with face coverings - yes people get closer and take more risks when wearing them.
(For the record, I'm happy to wear a face covering where required, or where there might be vulnerable people)
Posted 3 years ago # -
It’s usually a real wobble from me.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Not about helmets as such -
“
Danielle Obe, the founding member of the Black Swimming Association, told the Guardian the ruling underlined the inherent systemic and institutional inequalities around the sport. “We believe that it confirms a lack of diversity in (the sport),” she said. “Aquatic swimming must do better.”
The original swimming cap, designed by Speedo 50, was created to prevent Caucasian hair from flowing into the face when swimming. Obe said the caps did not work for Afro hair, which “grows up and defies gravity”.
“
Posted 3 years ago # -
From reading the posts here I'm not quite sure if the disingenuousness inherent in comparing the evidence for the efficacy of vaccines against the evidence(or lack of it, rather) for helmet use is some kind of joke/insincere trolling? Perhaps because I'm not embedded in the "cycling culture", I'd always been under the impression that it was fairly uncontroversial that they're Safety Theatre for ordinary bike riders, so suggesting people who question their benefits are of the same order as antivaxxers is...bizarre.
If you're belting along on a drop-handlebar road bike at 30+ mph, or half-falling down the side of a mountain on a dirt trail, sure, wearing gear that will protect you from the serious gashes and abrasions that can result seems like a sound plan. But those injuries aren't going to happen to someone pootling along at sub-15mph on an upright, that's skinned-knees and cuts you can treat with plasters territory, not to mention that while using any kind of safe cycling infrastructure the chances such riders will even have an accident at all are negligible, nevermind a worst-case scenario one. Also, it seems rational for a child or adult learning to ride wear one, since they have a real chance of falling off even at low speeds in a safe environment. But otherwise? Pure Safety Theatre, and as much for the benefit of status-quo loving motorists("Wot can I do guv, he wasn't wearing a helmet! Yes, my two-ton death machine might have pulped half his organs and turned his spine to spaghetti, but if only he'd taken some care and put on an inch of foam with a thin plastic shell, perhaps he'd still be here today, s'not my fault is it!"), as anyone else.
Posted 3 years ago # -
“is some kind of joke/insincere trolling? Perhaps because I'm not embedded in the "cycling culture", “
Don’t worry, even ‘regulars’ on here don’t always understand things.
Irony doesn’t always travel well on the internet. Usually not worth over-analysing.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Good article on helmets
https://how-sen.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmetsand really interesting article on helmets, climate change, and collective action:
https://how-sen.com/journal/2014/5/what-bike-helmets-can-teach-us-about-climate-changeBoth are quite old so I don't know why the first one was doing the rounds on twitter today.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
