CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

"Is it really safer to wear a helmet when cycling?"

(153 posts)
  • Started 14 years ago by chdot
  • Latest reply from wee folding bike

No tags yet.


1…3456

  1. SRD
    Moderator

    The Community Health Study is based on interviews - in phone and person - so self-reporting. The point is, if that data is somehow off for Alberta then it is off to an equal degree for all the provinces - this is what makes it comparable. there is no difference in the questions asked in Alberta, hence no reason to assume that that data in one case is skewed (or indeed in all cases).

    We could/should also question the methodology of the standing on corners people -- weather being the obvious factor that might change from year to year - but I've not read it, so am disinclined to raise questions.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  2. Dave
    Member

    I absolutely agree - the best example of this is that as part of the justification for closing down the A90, someone went along on a Sunday in August and found that just 13% of cyclists were using the road. Had they gone along on any weekday (or, say, an icy January morning!) they would have been lucky to find 13% of cyclists on the "facility".

    However, census figures before and after cycle laws are passed pretty much unanimously find a drop of 30-45% (Australia, NZ, Canada, US). The fact that the Alberta counts agree with every other jurisdiction is a point in their favour, while the interviews contrasting with observed figures in every other jurisdiction is a point that should be addressed.

    It might be that there is indeed a justification for the traffic counts being wrong, and the interviews being right (I have an open mind). But to credibly suggest that riding has increased when it is observed to decrease requires the authors to address the discrepancy, in my mind.

    (Did people in Alberta give more positive bike-related answers simply because there had been so much legislation-based bike awareness sent their way, for example? Might you be more likely to remember the bike tucked away in the shed if you are getting 30 second "wear a helmet, cycling bareheaded will kill you" ads on TV? Seems unlikely to me but who knows!)

    Posted 14 years ago #

  3. steveo
    Member

    Dave we've had this conversation also. I don't have an alternative and i don't care for one as i equally don't care if you do or don't wear a lid.

    All i'm saying is that its not 100% its not even 50/50 difference is I don't trot out the Aus study every time the helmet "debate" comes out. I've pointed out a similar drop in a non MHL country SRD has given us a good study pointing out that in Canada at least there was no correlation.

    How do you explain the drop in the UK?

    Posted 14 years ago #

  4. Kim
    Member

    Just out of interest, how much difference would you expect to get between a self-reporting questionnaire and interviews (on phone and person)? Is asking question about behaviour more or less reliable than observing behaviour?

    I am not being sarcastic, I am genuinely interested as the only behavioural studies I have ever done were observational, but that was because the subjects were rodents and could be relied on to answer questions.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  5. Dave
    Member

    the Aus study

    In case this is a common miscomprehension, I should like to point out that there is not an "Australian study". There have been many studies, in each of the legislatures that have passed MHL, by diverse research groups.

    "I've pointed out a similar drop in a non MHL country"

    I wasn't aware of this. The MHL countries show a pronounced drop over the course of one year, before-after laws are passed. If you have similar data for a non-MHL country I'd love to see it (as opposed to, "since cars became affordable in the UK fewer people cycle", which I can fully accept and indeed would consider a universal truth for all countries).

    "How do you explain the drop in the UK?"

    In a nutshell, people can now afford to drive, the infrastructure and road system has been adapted to be car-friendly and (sometimes explicitly) bike unfriendly, so they do drive.

    You'd expect to see this effect everywhere, and I'm sure that the car ownership graph in every country essentially corresponds to a fall in cycling. The difference is that in years when helmet laws are passed, an extra 30-40% drops off the cycle use figures. When they are revoked, that number recovers.

    It's still lower than it would be in a world without cars, and it still follows a general trend (i.e. if petrol gets expensive, more people cycle even though not as many more cycle as might have done in an environment where the risks of cycling are considered rationally).

    Posted 14 years ago #

  6. steveo
    Member

    @Dave:
    How much of the drop (iyo) would you attribute to the MHL? There was something of the order of 25% in the UK according to the DfT stats i looked up in the last thread and its referenced in here some where also.

    Now its also worth bearing in mind that if you consider the UK to be cycle unfriendly you want to see Aus/NZ the cities are much larger, Christchurch NZ has the same population as Edinburgh but spread over an area twice Edinburgh's total (wiki) it has no centralized CBD and no cycle provision to speak of as off 2009. We honestly put it to shame. Equally the public transport consists of about 3 buses and a tourist tram system so if you want to go some where its bus or bike and with the choice even i opted for the car half the time.

    Next, out side of Europe petrol is considerably cheaper cars doubly so. I would posit that an increase in car use/decrease in cycle usage in Europe would be more than matched by "new world" cities where fuel is cheaper and cities have been explicitly designed round cars. Think Livingston or New Lanark on scales like London.

    If the contention is simply where there was no MHL there would be a rise i would expect that rise to be greater in the US and the Antipodes where car usage is much higher than here the, cities are explicity designed for the car, fuel and running costs are cheaper etc etc. In short i doubt MHL made much of dent over the forces already at work.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  7. SRD
    Moderator

    Kim: good question. surveys can over/under report but if well designed should avoid this. surveys like this that are large scale and done over and over again every year, should be pretty reliable. The other part of the study is about whether people wear helmets or not - where there is no leg, where there is leg only for under 18s, and where it is universal. There the authors recognize that people may over-report usage where there is leg. But that shouldn't affect the other part of the analysis.

    Steveo: very true about how urban design and widespread car-ownership/access affects cycle users. So visible in Canada as well. My husband was in the southern US last month and was appalled at the number of cyclists he saw cycling on the wrong side of the road (ie facing traffic like pedestrians), or who thought it was perfectly normal to cycle on the pavements because they clearly did not perceive themselves as having a right to be on the road.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  8. wee folding bike
    Member

    Steveo,

    are you really saying there was a 25% drop in UK cycling 1990 - 1991? I can't find the stats, can you post the reference?

    Posted 14 years ago #

  9. spitfire
    Member

    @Kim - "Give that the risk of head injury per Km travelled is similar between cycling and walking, why you not wear a helmet will walking everywhere? Remember Donald Dewar, died after tripping and banging his head."

    There you go again with the walking helmets. Last time I checked there were no cars on the pavement.
    Please don't go bringing Donald Dewar into the argument. He was a good man and had a bad heart, which was more than likely the cause of his fall. That was a low point in your arguments. Good day to you.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  10. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Walking helmets might have been needed judging by the antics of a cyclist I followed this morning. Not content with riding (at a good 12mph) along the pavement for about 100 yards, squeezing between a line of parked cars and three people waiting at the bus stop, then riding through an underpass as fast as I went around the roundabout, he emerged on the pavement next to me. He dropped in behind, but then jumped back onto the pavement at a pedestrian crossing whose lights were at red. While I was stopped, he raced past the lollipop lady and right in front of three children walking to school and who'd just finished crossing the road. He could so easily have sent one of them flying.

    I was so angry I actually raised my voice, the lollipop lady scowled, and I had visions of chasing him down to have a word. I don't know if it would have helped had I done so, and then I lost sight of him as he threaded his way through the traffic at the next red light.

    At least the motorists on my commute today seemed content not to try to kill anyone.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  11. steveo
    Member

    Thank you folders this neatly highlights how futile these discussions are I gave you the numbers and the link the last time we had this conversation.

    Any the drop was between 1990 and 1993 and the figure was 24% over that period.
    1990 1991 1992 1993
    53 52 47 40
    98.4% 91.6% 84.7%
    76.3%

    source: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/
    Document: http://www.dft.gov.uk/excel/173025/221412/221549/227755/2856721/article1reviewofprogr1.xls
    You want table 1g.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  12. Kim
    Member

    @spitfire in an average year 70 people are killed by motor vehicles being driven on the pavement. You don't have to be hit by a car to get a head injury, a simple trip is enough.

    Odd how people who play golf don't wear helmets either, I know a couple people who have been hospitalised after being hit on the head with a golf ball.

    What is it about cycling that make it so dangerous?

    Posted 14 years ago #

  13. wee folding bike
    Member

    Steveo,

    Did you try drawing a line graph with that data? I did. There could be another pattern there.

    I still don't see how it acts as a control for mileage which decreases with MHL and increases when they are revoked.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  14. steveo
    Member

    Sharp drop followed by largely flat for the next few years. I'm open to other interpretations.

    For my own clarity, the units are 100 million vehicle kilometres does this mean that 1990 would be 5 billion 300 million or 530 million km? I'm guessing the latter but i'm willing to be amazed!

    I've not seen the studies that show the increase where MHL is revoked so i can't comment.

    The point i keep making is that MHL is not the whole story in AUS/NZ, its maybe part of it though i'd still wager on it being a small part of a larger trend.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  15. wee folding bike
    Member

    Look back to the beginning. It looks like there was an increase during the early 80s which then went back to the '79 levels by the '90s. There is a 40% increase from '79 to '82 (46 -> 64).

    Perhaps people were following Tebbit's advice.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  16. steveo
    Member

    Aye that's a fair point but we don't have similar data for AUS/NZ so its hardly a fair comparison either.

    Tebbit's advice? You've got a few years on my folders I need a hand with that one ;)

    Posted 14 years ago #

  17. SRD
    Moderator

    where to stop/start any dataset? certainly a decrease can be found if we go back to 1940 or something and an increase from 1880....

    Posted 14 years ago #

  18. spitfire
    Member

    @Kim - "in an average year 70 people are killed by motor vehicles being driven on the pavement"

    Where did this data come from?
    Link please?
    There are a lot more cars on the road than on the pavement.

    "What is it about cycling that make it so dangerous?"
    I don't think cycling is dangerous all the time, but if danger comes my way (perhaps a sleepy distracted unattentive driver on my particular stretch of road early one morning) I have chosen to don something to absorb some of the blow should I happen to land head first.

    Also you haven't responded to my previous request for your sources:

    "there is evidence that they can also increase the risk of head and facial injury"

    Link please?

    Sorry I didn't respond to your earlier question:
    "where have I said that people shouldn't wear helmets if they want to?"
    hold on, isn't that what your argument is on this thread (and any helmet related thread) that people "shouldn't" because it "puts others off"?

    Posted 14 years ago #

  19. wee folding bike
    Member

    spitfire,

    You do know cycle helmets are not intended for use against cars?

    Posted 14 years ago #

  20. spitfire
    Member

    @weefoldingbike - really? well blow me down with a feather
    Yes I am aware that a hard metal object travelling at 30mph or more will not be stopped by plastic and polystyrene
    Did I not make myself clear?
    Perhaps I will try harder:
    I have chosen to don something to absorb some of the blow should I happen to land head first. On the ground, after perhaps slowing myself after the initial collision, (as happened last year when I could see what was about to happen with a driver pulling around a double parked truck beside me and pulling in too fast to turn left at the lights...)

    Posted 14 years ago #

  21. SRD
    Moderator

    "What is it about cycling that make it so dangerous?"

    Seems to me that the dangerousness of cycling is that while most of the time recreational cycling is not dangerous at all when there are accidents they can be very serious. So unlike some sports where you expect lots of little accidents - sprained ankles etc - in cycling one is more likely to go kablooey in a big way, rather than accumulate lots of little cuts and grazes. I've had three 'big(ish)' accidents over the years -- one caused by bike part failure, one because asphalt had been taken up which I hadn't seen when my tire hit it, and one caused by a car door. But I can't think of any other even minor injuries that I've incurred.

    To me at least it is this 'all or nothing' aspect to injury that generates some concern.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  22. chdot
    Admin

    "kablooey"

    a technical term

    Posted 14 years ago #

  23. Dave
    Member

    To be fair, if we had a guarantee that it would be revoked if cycling levels fell, I'd be willing to entertain the idea of a MHL here (perhaps in one part of the country only, so that we had a control group).

    There *are* other possible explanations, like well-timed recessions, although I find none of them compelling. The only way to know is to do it.

    One possibility locally might be to pass a bylaw making helmet use compulsory on, say, the Roseburn path. You could carefully monitor cycle use on Edinburgh's other paths (and adjacent roads) both before and after you sent the police in ticketing, and see whether there would be "no effect or even an increase in cycling" as the Canadians suggest, or whether there would be a reduction.

    The problem is, of course, that once such things exist, they are almost impossible to remove.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  24. spitfire
    Member

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11133243

    Posted 14 years ago #

  25. Kim
    Member

    @spitfire odd how you are constantly demanding links but never provide any to back up your own assertions. You want the road accident statistics try the Nation Statistics Office, for other data and a rational look at the data on cycle helmets: start here.

    @SRD, there is risk in everything we do in life, I banged my head on the door of a kitchen cupboard (which I had forgotten to close) this morning. For some reason there is a lot of irrational promotion of the idea that cycling is dangerous, hence we are told we should wear helmets. But just google "is cycling dangerous" and you find a hold wedge of evidence (and opinion) that says it isn't.

    A lot of the fear surrounding cycling is connected with the prevalence of the car. If all the resources put into promoting cycle helmets were redirected to castrating the sacred bull in society's china shop we would all be a lot safer!

    Posted 14 years ago #

  26. steveo
    Member

    That cyclehelmets.org is as biased as an English commentator, hardly a good source of rational information.

    National statistics is a good start, as is the DfT site i linked earlier. However we're back to statistics versus person its all well and good saying your unlikely to be in an accident, your also vanishingly unlikely to win the lottery yet millions of people spend hundreds of pounds a year just in case...

    Kim your kitchen doors are made of concrete and you walked into them at 5m/s yeah?

    If the few hundreds of thousand spent by helmet firms marketing and various other interested parties could solve the "Sacred bull" problem i'm quite sure the big bike manufacturers would have found the cash to do so. Just think how many more bikes they could sell if no one was afraid.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  27. Dave
    Member

    spitfire - I didn't mean that they are legislatively hard to undo. They are politically impossible to reverse.

    For example, at the moment in Australia there are calls to revoke MHL because while other sharing schemes are doing about 125 hires per bike, per month, they are getting just 3.5.

    It's been pointed out that their helmet laws have saved no lives and there was even a paper which looked into health outcomes etc. and found it was hugely costly (in terms of the direct sedentary effects of the reduction in cycling), but despite all of that, nobody in power is seriously entertaining the idea that the law be repealed.

    The law in the channel islands will be equally permanant, and NI, and when it arrives, here too.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  28. steveo
    Member

    TBH Dave i don't think MHL is really wanted by any one here, i just find the anti arguments are a bit flimsy at best and they haven't really stood up to much scrutiny but are presented as fact and any one who disagrees with them results in a 100 post "debate" about nothing that is likely to happen here in the next few years.

    I'm still very much in the its up to you camp (pro choice...) but find the anti helmet arguments patronising and misrepresented.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  29. chdot
    Admin

    "we're back to statistics versus person"

    Anyone think it's time to stop 'debating' helmets for a few months?

    Seems no-one listened to the Radio 4 programme I started this thread with.

    Quite a lot about the guy who found that drivers came closer when he was wearing a helmet and moved away if he wore a female-style wig.

    Plus some of the various surveys/studies/stats this forum seems to like.

    Only real conclusion was that presenter would keep wearing his helmet.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  30. SRD
    Moderator

    steveo: hear, hear!

    Posted 14 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…3456

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin