CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

THE Helmet Thread

(881 posts)
  • Started 10 years ago by Wilmington's Cow
  • Latest reply from chdot

No tags yet.


1…8910…30

  1. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Cycling in Aus dropped by 25-30%. Serious injuries dropped by 13%.

    What was happening before the introduction? None of these studies address this. We know from the UK data that cycling rates fell off a cliff in 1984 and continued to drop till about 2000. Were cycling rates already dropping before compulsion? We don't know from the data presented.

    What was happening economically in these countries that might have also influenced that drop. All we see with this data is one variable, and that variable doesn't even give a full story.

    Incidentally, just to confuse matters more, both Canadian, and Australian govt docs highlight increased cycling rates, and decreased injury rates from 1996 - 2006.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  2. adamthekiwi
    Member

    I offer this without comment, as it's pertinent and of particular interest to me:

    Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law from the New Zealand Medical Journal.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  3. Uberuce
    Member

    @Bikeability, I fear you may have got the wrong end of my stick, so I cannot accept your thanks.

    It's not the bit after you've left the plane that becomes more dangerous with a parachute - it's the decision making phase beforehand.

    My reading of the thread is that no-one has suggested that a lid is a Bad Thing at the moment the rider has lost control of the bike. That would indeed be as nutty as suggesting that upon finding oneself planeless but bearing a parachute at 15,000 feet, the best thing to do is take out a katana and start stabbing the pack until it's nylon confetti.

    What risk compensation theory postulates is that you are so much more likely to avoid the position of needing a helmet or parachute if you don't have one that the benefit of said safety devices is cancelled out.

    This assumes that your judgment of the effectiveness of the safety equipment is accurate. If you've overestimated this, then the benefit is more than cancelled out.

    That's all a bit Ancient Greece and esoteric, so we zoom back into 2013 and see that the culture around criticises cyclists who have been killed by HGVs when not wearing a helmet. The idea that helmets are so good they can withstand 36 tonnes of pressure takes hold in the juvenile mind and they ride accordingly.

    TL:DR Don't trust your safety equipment.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  4. wee folding bike
    Member

    Bald,

    We did the Aus population last night and there is always a drop in cycling after an MHL.

    And I was told it's a red herring.

    On the hair thing…,

    Shaved it all off in August. I'm much more aware of air and temperature now. Not going to be able to wear a hat in the spring as I'd like to build up som tan. Years of shade are quit obvious still.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  5. Baldcyclist
    Member

    The only red herring I stated was that a drop in kids cycling was to do with helmets.

    The population thing is of course relevant in Aus, maybe net cycling did drop when increased population was taken into account. Still doesn't give a long term view.. What was happening before compulsion, were rates still dropping then? We don't know from the data.

    What about UK with no compulsion, headline rates appear to be increasing here since about 2000, population not taken into account on these figures either. Would adjusted rates see a real terms fall here to, with no compulsion? Maybe folk just cycle less worldwide and the drop is nothing to do with helmets...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  6. wee folding bike
    Member

    Even though the drop in Aus was 25-30%?

    Even though it happens when you get an MHL elsewhere?

    Even though it happens to kids when only kids get an MHL but not to the adults in the same place?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  7. Baldcyclist
    Member

    What was happening before, maybe the drop was 50% and slowed down after compulsion?

    We don't know because the data doesn't give us the opportunity to interrogate that. It starts at 'helmet day', not 'helmet day' - 10 years.

    Cycling rates dropped substantially everywhere, as I said before they fell off a cliff here in 1984. Perhaps we got richer here before Canada and Australia, and that is the reason.

    Again kids here have no helmet compulsion, but they have stopped cycling?

    People all over the western world have stopped cycling in their droves over a prolonged period, and yet the suggested reason for this in just a few countries is only because of helmet compulsion?

    People all over the world got lazy and bought cars in the 80s and 90s because they were all of a sudden available to them. That is why cycling rates worldwide went off a cliff.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  8. wee folding bike
    Member

    Bald,

    Do you really think that being forced to wear a plastic hat made people more likely to ride a bike? We can't control all the variable all we can do is see a pattern. If you can find other entities which caused it then go ahead.

    That's not what we see in hire schemes which I know are different. We do see the same thing happen when ther is an MHL. Mileage drops.

    In the uk it has been falling since petrol came off rationing.

    So, really, do you think an MHL did not cause a drop in miles cycled?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  9. Baldcyclist
    Member

    No, helmet compulsion won't make people more likely to cycle, I don't think I argued that.

    We can't see any pattern though, we just can't. The only way to see if there is a pattern is to know what was happening before. If cycling rates were static for the previous 10 / 20 whatever years, and then on 'helmet day' were 25% less then you can see that 'helmet day' may have caused that.

    We don't see the data from before in those studies though.

    What we do know from the rest of the world though is that cycling rates have been falling consistently for 30 years, all of those countries with no helmet compulsion, but yet the rates still fall? How can that be.

    Do you really think that the fall in cycling rates in just a few countries was for different reasons than the rest of the world?

    What I think happened everywhere in the western world was that people got richer, could afford cars and used them instead. That is all really.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  10. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Car ownership in Australia increased by12% between 2002 and 2006. Perhaps this is why people stopped cycling? It would certainly more than account for the number of people who stopped cycling.

    Can't imagine folk saying you know what I'm not paying $20 for a helmet, I'm going to go out and spend $10000 on a car instead.

    http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/allprimarymainfeatures/06010F4E7D145276CA257394000EC89A?opendocument

    Posted 10 years ago #

  11. Baldcyclist
    Member

    In Canada, between 2000, and 2005 the number of registered cars rose by about 1.5M, again I can't really see this being as a result of helmet compulsion.

    http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/Publications/statistics/cvs05/pdf/cvs05.pdf

    Posted 10 years ago #

  12. wee folding bike
    Member

    Bald,

    So is is your contention that MHL was not to blame for a fall of 25-30 % in cycling and an increase in car ownership was to blame?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  13. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Yes, put simply that is what happened in the rest of the world, including the UK which saw cliff like falls in cycling rates.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  14. wee folding bike
    Member

    Then you'll probably enjoy this

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster#Pirates_and_global_warming

    As I recall uk peak cycling was '49. Petrol was on coupons still '54.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  15. Edinburgh Cycle Training
    Member

    So if this risk thesis can't be applied to other sports how do we know it can be applied equally to all cycling?

    Does it apply equally to riding on road or off road? Regular and occasional cyclists? Amateur and professional cyclists? Experienced and trainee cyclists? Old cyclists and young cyclists? Male and female?

    Oh and what about time of day and time of year? How do they factor in?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  16. wee folding bike
    Member

    Ability,

    So not disputing the figures.

    I've not seen a breakdown of that. Why would it matter?

    It's annual figures so that means it's all year.

    Did your read the NZ link earlier?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  17. Edinburgh Cycle Training
    Member

    I did read that Bike. Not much meat on the bones there though, eh?

    I mean quoting a few stats is nice, then throwing in a VERY wide ranging set of possiblcities as an unsubstantiated conclusion. Wow.

    Why do my questions matter? They matter because this is a very serious issue. If you are right, then I could be putting your cyclists in danger everytime I take them cycling. That sits very uncomfortably with me indeed.

    Its such an abstract theory to me that a I am trying to put it into context. Am I always putting them in more danger when they go on a bike? Are there times when I am not? Do your stats and hence theory only apply to say, commuters? Are they completely irrelevant if you are on a training course.

    I tried to explain this discussion with a friend I consider to be one of the most intelligent people I have ever met.

    They told me anyone who relays on statistics instead of safety equipment to protect them in the event of an accident is an idiot. I'm glad I asked them because I understood that perfectly AND it made sense to me.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  18. chdot
    Admin

    "instead of safety equipment to protect them in the event of an accident is an idiot"

    Do they cycle?

    Are they an expert on safety?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  19. rust
    Member

    "anyone who relays on statistics instead of safety equipment to protect them in the event of an accident is an idiot."

    Can I assume you wear a helmet when standing outside in case of being hit by a meteor? Or inside in case of building collapse? Carrying a fire extinguisher at all time in case of fire?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  20. SRD
    Moderator

    They probably presume that there is no negative effecti to wearing safety equip, and that there is no one with an interest in making you wear safety equip. Not sure either of those is true.

    We could spend all our lives 'safely' on the sofa, or take up sailing, bike racing etc. how one judges the 'costs' and benefits' makes a huge difference to what you consider to be a sensible judgement.

    (not sure even many very intelligent people really understand statistics or risk).

    Posted 10 years ago #

  21. Edinburgh Cycle Training
    Member

    @chdot 1. yes 2. 'Expert' is so subjective by IMHO they are.

    @rust you are free to assume anything you want. Rather strange things to assume though, no? Although the middle one is correct, you'd be good on 'through the keyhole.' I wear a helmet a lot. Inside and outside. Not exclusively for building collapses though.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  22. rust
    Member

    What I am trying to point out is that everyone relies on statistics instead of safety equipment to protect them in the event of an accident.

    Everyone. Everyday. All the time.

    Everything has a statistic risk associated with it and a choice has to be made as to how to deal with that risk. In most cases - crossing the road, walking down stairs, standing where a meteor could hit you - people choose not to counteract the risk with safety equipment.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  23. wee folding bike
    Member

    Ability,

    It's not really a few stats. We see the same thing every time.

    Neither is it really abstract. You haven't asked all the questions that you might have although I did try to flag that up for you.

    I already told you there is no breakdown available that I know of. This is likely to be because the risk is so small.

    What if the safety equipment can't be shown to be effective and might be less safe than not using it? Are you still going to call me an idiot?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  24. Baldcyclist
    Member

    I like stats, I'm just frustrated I can't find what I'm looking for, for either Canada or Australia.... I want to see what the long term cycling rates were for both countries, and I can't find that. It's easy to find long term serious injury charts, over 30 years etc, and they are some use because you can see the trend.

    I want to see if cycling rates were falling well before compulsion was introduced, or if rates just continued to fall after compulsion was introduced.

    We know that in the UK (and other countries) cycling miles travelled went off a cliff in 1984, and continued to fall until about 2000.

    We need to look at the long term trend to see if compulsion really made any difference, or if the downward trend had already started 10 years earlier

    It is no good looking at data for only the years after the event and saying see, look, fell 25%. There is no context to put that drop into, if the previous 10 years had saw a drop of 50%, then actually you could say compulsion slowed the decline dramatically - we can't say that, or the other, and be 100% sure unless we have that long term data.

    Show* me that data and I'll eat my flat cap... ;)

    *I've tried and can't find it, there may be folk better at googol than me, or have the data to hand...

    EDIT - I still think, when you take into account the decline in cycling rates all over the world over that time period, that people just got richer and started using cars, and car ownership stats over that time period seem to sugest people were buying cars

    Posted 10 years ago #

  25. SRD
    Moderator

    @baldcyclist for Canada - and probably Australia too - I worry that aggregate stats like that may conflate issues and be very unreliable. There are such profoundly different cultures and practices in urban versus rural parts of Canada as well as across regions and provinces (including in both aces, different legislation). I would be very wary of drawing any conclusions on national level data, even if historically longer-termed.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  26. steveo
    Member

    And the UK doesn't?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  27. SRD
    Moderator

    Far less variation that massive, huge, low population density federal countries. Yes.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  28. steveo
    Member

    Far less variation that massive, huge, low population density federal countries. Yes.

    But does it matter; once you're outside a large urban area and the population drops off, does is matter that it drops off to 1 person per sq km or 1000? Utility cycling drops to such a low level out side of cities it won't register in stats here or in Canada.

    So yes the variation will be massive if you compare London to the Northern Territory but realistically no cycles to work in the outback so what you are considering are really just Darwin, which doesn’t have that different a population density to Edinburgh.

    You will never get a perfect match in methodology when comparing statistics from different countries but if you want to do this comparison then you just have to make the most of what you’ve got.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  29. SRD
    Moderator

    Okay. One thing. When @baldcyclist said 'Canada' and 'Australia' let's assume what he actually meant to say was - the provinces/states in which laws changed. So he is not actually looking for national aggregate stats at all, but for provincial ones, and his point re longitudinal studies stands.

    I take your point that in this case urban data may be the only thing being measured. And maybe there's not such difference. But in that case, all your 'canada' data really tells you is about rates of change in Toronto And Montreal and some dense commuter belts near the 46th parallel. Nothing about the all-weather commuters in Calgary and Edmonton. So 'Canada' as a label is just a proxy. If that is equally true for all countries then no harm done I guess. Just not sure it tells us much, unless rate of change is significant and not obscured.

    So what is there has been a significant rate of change upwards in the big city, but also decrease in rural areas (or vice versa). That is likely to be obscured, while the gross data remains the same.

    Anyway, I'm no stats expert, so perhaps all this is irrelevant. But, I will stand by my original point that there is far more variation within countries like Australia and Canada - for many many reasons - than here in the UK.
    .

    Posted 10 years ago #

  30. LaidBack
    Member

    I'm not taking sides(!)

    My observations. Note form.

    • Parents generally want children to wear helmets
    • Bike trainers can't teach children without helmets. (Cycling at school being considered a bit like ski-ing where there is trend towards helmet wear)
    • Cars are cheaper and more reliable than ever and their safety is promoted to a much higher degree. We know that few buy a particular car just because it is the safest but safety still has to be on checklist. Bikes are still sold as sports equipment. Sport = Risk. Newcomers want to take every safety measure - short of actual bike lessons;-) Many also want to be seen to be taken care. Much easier to criticise lack of helmet than a non working brake.
    • On LB tours people can suit themselves whether they want to wear helmets
    • I've started wearing my helmet again as weather is colder.
    • On low down bikes elbow protectors would be more relevant.
    • When we did Wheels and Wings we leant helmets to people - NMS expected it as did our insurer.

    I'd agree with the contradictions in identifying risk.
    • Many people think that riding a lower bike is 'dangerous'.
    • Many people who do downhill at GlenTress believe risk is controlled and that roads are unsafe
    • Road Clubs think there is safety in numbers (and they do generally wear and use helmets).
    • Cycling with 20 children on a narrower pavement might be riskier than cycling on a wider road

    All are judgements.

    Ok. Back to the day job!

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…8910…30

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin