CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
@steveo - unsure how you derived that from my post, but - no, that is not what was meant by my sweeping statement !
Perhaps but it's implied by saying that cyclist you observe behaving poorly have helmets whilst you observe well behaved cyclist bear headed/becapped I think you might be suffering from observational bias if I'm honest.
Perhaps you took it that way, although I qualified my statement by suggesting that the individuals concerned may have recently come back into cycling.
And, as for sweeping statements and observational bias? I agree, it creeps in to the best of us, even you steveo :-
"Neds on their BSO's, usually full suspension catalogue jobs, tend not to bother with helmets, the highway code or lights."
@wee folding bike
It depends what the data is. If it is the total number of injuries received by cyclists from all sources divided by the total number of miles travelled by bike then it's a societal level statistic that can't tell you anything about the composition of the data. It's a useful statistic for trends and comparison with other modes but it doesn't tell us anything about composition or the causes of the injuries nor their relationship to helmet wearing.
If it is the aggregation of individual level data it implies a correlation between distance cycled and injury which we can take as a measure of exposure to risk. Essentially, it implies that people who do a lot of cycling are more likely to be injured and so they might be well advised to take greater precautions than people who only cycle short distances. But it doesn't say much about risk itself because that would encompass more variables than exposure. It might be that people who cycle a lot, cycle faster so that even if they were no more likely that other cyclists to be in collisions, those collisions would lead to greater injury because of the speed and circumstances and that might be true whether they are helmeted or not.
@nelly my bias towards neds was more directed at you're point in particular not in general, I've never tried to say one way or the other wether helmets make a difference to behavior.... Except in the case of neds on the pavement on their bso's running red lights and terrorizing evening news readers but that is mostly unrelated.
Insto,
So what if there were more injuries per mile with madatory helmets than without mandatory helmets?
You can't easily deconvulute the effect of safety in numbers but, nonetheless, what would the above finding mean?
It depends how the composition of the stats has changed. My understanding is that in Australia this is what happened and it was explained in terms that more cautious cyclists had got the message that cycling what more dangerous and they stopped or reduced their cycling, leaving behind a group of cyclists who rode beyond the design parameters of helmets. When they crashed (as their greater exposure makes somewhat more likely) they had more injuries than slower riders. So what appeared was the paradoxical increase injuries per mile.
That has been interpreted as evidence that helmets "don't work" but actually for these cyclists helmets were always less effective it's just that their greater weight in the data, after the departure of the cautious, is making the injury rate increase. At best you have evidence that mandating helmet use has a net negative effect because the potential health gains from cycling are lost with little compensatory reduction in injuries.
But that's only one way it could happen. It might be the other argument that while wearing a helmet makes some injuries less likely (the direct crack on the noggin), it makes other injuries more likely, particularly rotational injuries because heads that would have missed the road or slid or where the elasticity of skin would have mitigated some of the effect of scraping on tarmac, now lead to rotation of the head, leading to neck injuries. Depending on the type of crashes you could see more injuries.
The other thing I'd wonder about (and sometimes do) is where that 'per mile' comes from. The data sources for 'per mile' in the UK are pretty poor, particularly for cycling and when there's been a major change like helmet mandation you'd wonder about whether cycling would change in ways that aren't readily captured, especially not by sample surveys like the National Travel Survey where the distance estimates for minority modes like cycling are likely to be hugely imprecise and only unreliably grossed up to millions of miles to make them a useful denominator for the count of injuries.
Amir: "Helmets have the advantage for folk like me who may be missing one or two hairs and so want to hide that".
I'm not too sure about that. You could hide baldness under a cap. Also a cap would help if you have a weak neck as the weight of a helmet could leave you looking like a bobble-headed doll. And if you have a really tiny head the extra volume could contribute to banging it on stuff. I know when I put my helmet on before I leave the shed I often bang my head on the door on the way out. It's then that I am most glad that I put one on.
Hehehe :>
I read this thread this morning and found it interesting and informative. Having business in and around Saughton Skatepark I note, anecdotally, that the large majority of bmx riders ride without hats, both in the park and getting to and from, often on pavements. Wearing a helmet may be seen as uncool by these young people and so this may form a habit that they don't wear one now and in the future? Presumably a lot of these young people will go on to be bike commuters in the future!
I on the other hand, am not going scarce on top, and wear a cap and a helmet. I have two helmets one blue the other yellow. I wear the cap under the yellow helmet, used for commuting, to negate the helmet hair look at work, and the blue helmet on it's own when cycling other than commuting.
I would say from my experience that I feel, and believe I am more visible, with the yellow lid on than the blue one. On the occasions I have crashed to date commuting, the helmet has not been called into use. I don't think I feel safer with the cap and helmet combo but I have others to consider who are convinced they are essential.
"The other thing I'd wonder about (and sometimes do) is where that 'per mile' comes from. The data sources for 'per mile' in the UK are pretty poor, particularly for cycling and when there's been a major change like helmet mandation you'd wonder about whether cycling would change in ways that aren't readily captured, especially not by sample surveys like the National Travel Survey where the distance estimates for minority modes like cycling are likely to be hugely imprecise and only unreliably grossed up to millions of miles to make them a useful denominator for the count of injuries."
Yes. For instance, people (including the Australian authorities) often try to argue that there was only a temporary dip and that more people cycle now than previously. However, the *proportion* of women cycling to work was still just half that of the pre helmet law level right into the 21st century (these laws date from the 80's).
Of course, there is a potentially valid argument that the effects of helmet promotion / legislation would not be so keenly felt in the UK precisely because we have been "softened up" by so much heavy promotion and peer pressure in the intervening period.
Most of those who "are convinced they are essential" and aren't comfortable with doing something dangerous enough that head protection is so urgently required aren't going to cycle anyway, so where's the loss?
Insto,
Looks like you also can't discount the possibility that hats do no good for the more cautious ride either.
I started wondering if other public health initiatives would be adopted on such a basis and then I remembered homeopathy.
I'm not sure there's anything in the observation of increased injuries per mile that would allow you to say anything one way or the other about the cautious rider. If it keeps them on a bike then they derive health benefits even if there is no protection in a crash. But given the design parameters of helmets it seems likely that they would do some good although they do their best good for someone riding at or close to the rated speed of 12mph and striking their head in a way that falls within the range of strikes that helmets are designed to offer protection against.
If there was a general point about standard cycling helmets to be made it would their limited range of protection both in terms of the low speed and the unusual and quite specific types of falls where they do best. They are a shoddy compromise that give people excessive reassurance about their safety. If you are concerned about your head, wear a proper helmet - a full-face downhill helmet or at least one of those BMX helmets that come down the side of the head.
Actually, I once read a good argument that since most pharmaceutical drugs are only marginally more effective than placebo, but placebos are must less expensive, there was a good case for starting most treatments with a placebo (homeopathy) and seeing if that works.
There was a similar piece in New Scientist a few years ago where they found that had the USSR and DDR given their athletes sweeties and told them they were drugs it would have had the same beneficial effect as what they really did which was give them drugs and tell them they were sweeties.
If homeopathy was cheap I might agree but part of the cure seems to be the price. It could also divert people from a real cure and it takes resources from the NHS.
And the downside is that there are people who believe so strongly in such cures that they refuse to take conventional medicine, even if it would save their life.
A small data point on the behaviour and hat observations. I saw one other cyclist this morning. He had lots of yellow kit, a full sus MTB, plastic hat and he was bombing through the middle of Coatbridge on the pavement. I think it was the same guy who was on the pavement with his back lingt on last week.
@tarmac jockey - cap and helmet - that's a bit belt and braces
@insto - apparently placebos work even if you tell people they are placebos??
folds@ - I see your Coatbridge lunatic with my Kingsnowe Crackpot, pulled out into fast lane without looking, car screeched to halt to avoid him, gives him a toot, then overtakes, he gesticluates wildly, car slows down then sees he is quite rabid and accelerates away. Clearly no helmet on his bonce. We the Mysterions have data. [Mysterions were the baddies in Capt. Scarlet]
I see no one taking me up on my suggestion of trying to destroy your own argument. I do not believe wearing a helmet makes you a worse cyclist. However, that is what I am looking for as it is the opposite of the commonsense man in the street view about crazy RLJ, pavement riding, no lights, not even wearing a helmet cyclists.I am vigilantly looking for helmet wearing bad cyclists.
I don't buy the Mysterons as baddies thing. Who was it destroyed the Mysteron base?
The Mysterons claim to be peaceful beings, but are currently waging a war of nerves against the people of Earth following Captain Black's unfortunate actions resulting in the total destruction of the Mysteron city.
Well it might have looked like total destruction but, through their capacity for Retrometabolism, they got better.
My sister always had a soft spot for Captain Blue. Captain Ochre just looked odd.
"
_velorution:
Caps to fend off the Autumnal Chill: Everyone knows that some kind of headgear is important when cycling in the ... http://t.co/ctEubERd
Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/_velorution/status/114256946290364416
"
Compare the width of the human head with the width of a helmet and consider the multiplication of rotational forces in angular contact.
Human hair has a low coefficient of friction and the flesh on the head is not too firmly attached to the skull and can provide lubrication as it sheds off. The skull can deform under impact and can sustain considerable damage without always being fatal although it can result in disfigurement.
All this from an A&E worker writing on a bicycle forum about helmets, mainly motorcyclist's which he saw more often, when he said one advantage was that the bereaved could often look on an unmarked face.
Dave
Yes. For instance, people (including the Australian authorities) often try to argue that there was only a temporary dip and that more people cycle now than previously. However, the *proportion* of women cycling to work was still just half that of the pre helmet law level right into the 21st century (these laws date from the 80's).
But like the data on injuries, this doesn't tell us anything about the impact of helmets. I mean, both may be correct - a temporary dip in cycling participation and recovery might only mean that participation fell abruptly on an already downward trajectory and has picked up to the extent that it is declining no more than it was before. It might have recovered on any trajectory but only with more men and children cycling but not women. A stable proportion of women cycling to work (I'm not sure what the importance of that particular statistic) might reflect many other factors such as women's participation in the labour market, the price of petrol and whether or not buses services have improved. It doesn't say anything directly about the impact of helmets.
Of course, there is a potentially valid argument that the effects of helmet promotion / legislation would not be so keenly felt in the UK precisely because we have been "softened up" by so much heavy promotion and peer pressure in the intervening period.
Or it might be the equally valid argument that the improved design of helmets simply makes them less of a burden to wear. It might be that the desire was always there but improved quality has made them more attractive, which in turn has normalised helmet wearing among a population which does, on the whole, ride within or close to the parameters that helmets are designed for. In that sense Australia jumped the gun, under-estimating people's resistance to wearing a bowling ball whereas now they look better and have been made both figuratively and literally more cool.
Most of those who "are convinced they are essential" and aren't comfortable with doing something dangerous enough that head protection is so urgently required aren't going to cycle anyway, so where's the loss?
If cycling is dangerous enough to need protection then so is walking and being in a car.
Sorry, that last paragraph in my last post is actually quoting from Dave's post. I'd meant to comment but forgot.
If cycling is dangerous enough to need protection then so is walking and being in a car.
Where walking is most risky there is protection - Pavements (segregation from traffic), underpasses, overpasses, light controlled crossings, crossing patrols etc.
Driving has seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, anti-lock brakes, traction control, etc.
There's no question that where the risks are great enough then precautions should be taken. The only questions (in my mind at least) are whether the risks warrant the precautions and whether the standard precautionary mechanisms are adequate for the risks. The first is, for me, a personal judgement and the second is a technical question. That's why, if I decided to wear one, I'd go for something better than Snell rated helmet.
@ Insto Interesting point about helmet design. I dont have one myself, but I am very taken with the Nutcase or bowling ball look. Although I imagine they might be quite warm ?
"A stable proportion of women cycling to work (I'm not sure what the importance of that particular statistic) might reflect many other factors such as women's participation in the labour market, the price of petrol and whether or not buses services have improved. It doesn't say anything directly about the impact of helmets."
But, the decline in cycle use is always linked directly to legislation. In Australia, for example, laws were brought in to each state at different times over successive years - the fall in cycle participation didn't occur in any given state until the law was ratified. This means that things like petrol prices, women's participation in the labour market, and so on should be well controlled.
Most tellingly of all, when one state effectively revoked its helmet law, the change in cycle use reversed itself. It might be that petrol prices fell just as the law was passed, then rose by coincidence as enforcement was called off, but I think it's stretching a point.
There was also revealing research done on the UK which found a correlation between regions which ran helmet campaigns and cycle use. An inverse correlation, that is - cycle use fell when there was more helmet promotion. Again, things like petrol prices are constant across the country.
Insto,
The crumple zone answer is what I get from kids in school. Even with all that protection the injury rate per mile in town or per hour overall is broadly similar. Motorways are safer per mile but it evens up again when you look at it per hour.
Cars are arguably a better place for hats as you don't need to shed heat from your head there, you could even connect it to the air/con.
I assume we've read the same sources (bicycle helmets.org and their brethren) and it's probably occurred to you too that what is lacking from them is any plausible explanation of the attitudinal or behavioural mechanisms that connect a requirement to wear a helmet (or even an exhortation to wear a helmet) and the kind of precipitous declines in participation that are claimed. There are probably three: cost, discomfort and a sudden realisation that cycling is dangerous. Personally, I find the 'danger' idea quite silly. The idea that people who have been cycling for any length of time suddenly think to themselves, "Oh my, we've got to wear a helmet? Streuth, this must be dangerous. Best stop." No. And to be honest, I think cost is not a significant enough factor. Even in the 80s helmets were not that expensive. They were horrible, cumbersome but even that I find quite unconvincing, except among the type of people who worry more about looking cool than about their safety.
When you look through the data, you start to notice little tell tale signs that there's something ropey about this data. First, they never link to the source.
Second, you see things like the source being "Automatic counters on bicycle paths registered declines from 1991 (pre-law) to a similar period in 1992 (post-law) of about one third on weekdays and about half at weekends." But this isn't evidence of declining cycling. This is evidence of a decline in the use of bicycle paths. It may be related to helmet legislation but who knows?
You find very selective use of the data. The worst example was when I tracked down the original report for Victoria, which bicyclehelmets.org cited as showing "Bicycle use by children aged 5-17 decreased by 36% from May/June 1990 to May/June 1991". I read the report. They don't present any data on rates of bicycle use among any section of the population. Maybe that was just an error.
I found the next report. The one bicycle helmets.org uses to say that "There were further falls to May/June 1992 in Melbourne, with teenage cycling showing by then a 46% decrease from pre-law levels". But this is hugely selective. What the report actually says is"
Estimation of bicycle use in metropolitan Melbourne indicated that overall total bicycle exposure (billions of seconds per week) had decreased during the survey periods but that adults had increased their exposure (figure 2). Based on the comparison with the first survey in the series, bicycle usage in adults had doubled over the period Nov 1987-May 1992. However, exposure in children (i.e. those aged 5- 11 years) in 1992 was 10% less than the pre-law levels assessed in 1990 and teenage exposure had decreased by 46%. The majority of this decrease in teenage (i.e. 12-17 year old) exposure (44%) occurred in the first year after the law was introduced. On the basis of these measurements of bicyclist exposure, it appears that the compulsory helmet wearing law had no deleterious effect on adult bicyclists but that it had a moderate effect on children and a major effect in teenagers immediately after its implementation.
I've put a couple of bits in bold because they show just how dishonest the selection of that teenager statistic is. Remember that thing I was saying earlier about looking cool and how horrible those helmets were?
Don't get me wrong. I'm no advocate for helmets. I don't wear one. I'm an advocate for people making their minds up on the basis of their own perceptions of the risks and other factors that influence their personal choices. Not on the basis of half truths and ropey data.
@ wfb
The crumple zone answer is what I get from kids in school.
Maybe you should listen to them. It doesn't really matter what the injury rate is. Your point about walking and car use needing protection if cycling does is a silly one. Walking and car use are loaded with protections. The argument you perhaps want to be making is the one about risk compensation. But I'd agree with you on that one.
@Insto - what you said is usually the last word in these circular debates we occasionally have about helmets
Don't get me wrong. I'm no advocate for helmets. I don't wear one. I'm an advocate for people making their minds up on the basis of their own perceptions of the risks and other factors that influence their personal choices. Not on the basis of half truths and ropey data.
THis works both ways, pro-lid and anti-helmeteers often selective in their use of data to support their argument rather than my oft repeated exhortation that people should try to dismantle their own arguments.
Most people who comment here are against compulsory helmets.
Oh, here's an other error they make - drawing unwarranted conclusions - seeing what they want to see. They say (in reference to the report above that had no data on participation rates) that "Report 76 claims that there was a substantial drop in head injuries with the law, as is clear from the graph. However, there was little discussion in the report of the substantial drop in non-head injuries. The graph shows both head and non-head injuries fell dramatically. Therefore, the effect of the law was mainly to discourage cycling, rather than prevent head injuries when crashes occurred."
That "therefore" is a basic non-sequiteur. No, the decline in head and non-head injuries is not evidence of a decline in cycling. It is evidence of a decline in all forms of injury which may be related to helmet wearing (drivers (perhaps temporarily) giving cyclists a wider berth)) or it may not. Who knows?
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts