I know it is risky to mention the "H" word but some maybe interested to read this paper from the Fietsersbond (Dutch Cyclists' Union). It try to look at the debate that has been going on about the usefulness and necessity of requiring or promoting bicycle helmets, and cast light on it, rather than use throwing fuel on the fire.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Resources
New helmet paper
(24 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
Says "404 not found" for me
Posted 13 years ago # -
This one works:
http://amsterdamize.com/documents/NVC2011_paper.pdfPosted 13 years ago # -
TRY http://amsterdamize.com/documents/NVC2011_paper.pdf
my work blocks it anyway as "social networking". How odd.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Seems to draw together some of the research we have seen already (australian study, for example).
Dont think it will change any minds, but I guess will spark debate.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Hmmm, has UK helmet use at about 22% - fairly sure it's actually higher than that (though my observations are unscientific!).
I'm kinda getting bored with it all anyway. As long as I still have the choice then fine. And as long as no-one tells me I'm an idiot for not wearing one on the commute then fine.
Posted 13 years ago # -
How odd, the forum software is changing the url... it is at
Posted 13 years ago # -
Okay got it now, thanks!
Posted 13 years ago # -
One section shows that 50% of hospital admissions that are dealt with in a day are for head injuries; but in hospital admissions of more than a weel (I tihnk it was) only 7% were head injuries.
The intention is clearly to show that head injuries aren't as serious as is thought. My immediate reaction was that the head injury admissions dropped because they might have all died in that first day....
As with any stats it's easy to turn them this way and that (I have seen analyses of the Oz figures that come down on both sides of the 'debate').
Posted 13 years ago # -
My house hold enforces helmets. If I get my bike out withour wearing one I get pointed at and shouted at by two wee boys, 'Daddy you forgot you're helmet!!!'. Wee boys can be such snitches these days, but like driving my car without a seatbelt on, I feel a little naked without one. Personal choice I suppose.
Posted 13 years ago # -
It's a useful place to pop a retro-reflective hi-viz band where it will be in full visibility from all angles, I find.
Posted 13 years ago # -
If you changed yours from Grey and Black to Grey and Blue you could double as the rozzers!!!
[Scottish police siren]
hee haw, hee haw, hee haw, hee haw, hee haw, hee haw, hee haw, hee haw, hee haw, ....
I'll grab my coat now....
Posted 13 years ago # -
I keep reading this topic header as 'New Paper Helmet'.
"Personal choice I suppose"
Precisely :) (though in your case it seems less so... :P )
Posted 13 years ago # -
"I keep reading this topic header as 'New Paper Helmet'."
Yes I was slightly disappointed not to find a press release about Paper Helmets being available in the shops. ;-)
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Yes I was slightly disappointed not to find a press release about Paper Helmets being available in the shops. ;-) "
Do you get a free one with every Paper bicycle? Are they to be issued to all Paperboys/girls [non sexist]?
Posted 13 years ago # -
the rozzers
The Polis, surely ;)
Posted 13 years ago # -
Yes sorry too much of James May on TV atm.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Most of the research I've seen into helmet use isn't particularly persuasive for or against.
As much as I am personally against mandatory helmet laws, I don't actually think (in this country at least) that there would be any overall decrease in cycling because of mandatory use - we are not liberal/militant enough as a society, we tend not to complain! Folk would jump up and down (a little) for a while, and claim injustice to this, that or the other, and then just get on with it.
What is most likely to change helmet usage over the next 20 years or so however, is attitudes. Most 3 - 10 year old children I see on a bike are wearing a helmet, mother makes sure of that!
This is completely different to when I was a child, and not wearing a helmet was normal - even after a head on collision with a wall which rendered me unconscious!
For today's children, helmet use is the norm, and that is no doubt what will effect their choices when they become adult cyclists.Posted 13 years ago # -
I would also question the partiality of the Dutch Cyclists Union, bit like asking Giro to do a study!
Posted 13 years ago # -
You would think that, but then again the Danish Cycling Union thingy is pro-helmet.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Mainly because I do research, I find most of the arguments thin and irritating. Not because I disagree with them but because I can't agree with them. They are so obviously selective that I can't say, 'yes, that's an interesting point you've made'. I see arguments that are like the bicyclehelmets.org habit of selecting figures that support the theory and ignoring the rest. Or just distorting the argument.
Just one example and then I'll stop. The first section, street practice, compares the percentage change in the level of cycling in the population and the percentage change in the level of casualties in the population. Observing that rate of change in cycling is greater than the rate of change in casualties, the paper concludes that the risk associated with cycling has increased. This is OK. It's just logic but abstracted from any understanding of who experienced casualties before and after mandation this conclusion might only be a statistical artefact, a consequence of an inverse correlation between pre-mandation accident risk and post-mandation cycling cessation.
Imagine two types of cyclist - blue cyclists and orange cyclists. Let's say there are 100 of each. Before mandation the number of casualties among blue cyclists was zero - they never have accidents. Among orange cyclists there were 100 casualties - every one of them had an accident. The overall casualty rate is 50% (100 casualties / 200 cyclists).
After mandation, half of the blue cyclists decide that they no longer want to cycle. They had no accidents and it turns out that none of them had been wearing a helmet anyway. The other half grit their teeth, put on a helmet and carry on having no accidents.
The orange cyclists are undeterred and carry on as before. They had always been wearing helmets before mandation so the law has no effect. And it turns out that they carry on having accidents.
What we observe is compliance increasing from 50% to 100%. We see cycling decline by 25%. It is correct to calculate that the casualty rate has increased by 50% to 75% (100 cyclists out of 150 continuing cyclists). It seems that the change in causalities massively outstrips the change in cycling. In fact, the two are heading in the opposite direction.
Yet, and this is the crucial point, on the ground, in street practice, for the group of cyclists who suffered casualties before mandation, nothing has changed at all. Helmet wearing hasn't changed and the risk of casualty hasn't increased at all. The apparent increase in overall risk is an artefact of the differential impact of mandation on participation.
Participation might be a problem of helmet mandation but a different problem. There are plenty of arguments against helmet mandation but this type of analysis is worthless on its own.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"the rozzers
The Polis, surely ;) "
This is great and potentially useful page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_slang_terms_for_police_officersPosted 13 years ago # -
"It is correct to calculate that the casualty rate has increased by 50% to 75% (100 cyclists out of 150 continuing cyclists)."
I'm no mathematician, but is this 66% instead of 75%?
Posted 13 years ago # -
Yeah. For no reason, that popped into my head as I was driving back from town today.
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
