Aussie cyclists protest mandatory helmet laws with helmet-optional rides

burtthebike wrote:

Indeed.  All the long term, large scale, scientific research done by disinterested researchers using robust methodology shows one thing; cycle helmets don't reduce risk.  All the short term, small scale, unscientific research done by blatantly biased researchers using the lowest rated for reliability methodology shows that cycle helmets are fantastically effective.

Yes, it's the strength of the evidence.

All evidence that you agree with is high quality and objective.

All evidence you disagree with is poor quality and biased.

You do amuse me Burt.

Its just as well we have a good quality assessment of all the evidence to help us.

The two guys I link to below are scientists, one a medical doctor. They are not neurosurgeons but their specialties, as their job titles indicate, rather more relevant to assessing evidence of this kind. Note the  title of the second page I link to.

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Indeed.  All the long term, large scale, scientific research done by disinterested researchers using robust methodology shows one thing; cycle helmets don't reduce risk.  All the short term, small scale, unscientific research done by blatantly biased researchers using the lowest rated for reliability methodology shows that cycle helmets are fantastically effective.

Yes, it's the strength of the evidence.

All evidence that you agree with is high quality and objective. All evidence you disagree with is poor quality and biased. You do amuse me Burt.

Ben Goldacre, the Wellcome fellow in epidemiology, and David Spiegelhalter, the Winton professor for the public understanding of risk, looked at the evidence for cycle helmet efficacy, and published their conclusions in the British Medical Journal.

They write that the direct benefits of helmets are "too modest to capture." I think this means that the could find no evidence that they work, don't you?

http://www.badscience.net/wp-content/uploads/Screenshot-2013-12-13-17.12.05.png

http://www.badscience.net/2013/12/bicycle-helmets-and-the-law-a-perfect-teaching-case-for-epidemiology/

felixcat wrote:

Its just as well we have a good quality assessment of all the evidence to help us.

The two guys I link to below are scientists, one a medical doctor. They are not neurosurgeons but their specialties, as their job titles indicate, rather more relevant to assessing evidence of this kind. Note the  title of the second page I link to.

Ben Goldacre, the Wellcome fellow in epidemiology, and David Spiegelhalter, the Winton professor for the public understanding of risk, looked at the evidence for cycle helmet efficacy, and published their conclusions in the British Medical Journal.

They write that the direct benefits of helmets are "too modest to capture." I think this means that the could find no evidence that they work, don't you?

No.

It shows the opinions of two researchers, other researchers have different opinions.

Hence the ongoing debate.

Burt was claiming that all research that has shown benefit from helmets was either poor quality or biased.

I don't think that's the case. Do you?

Rich_cb wrote:

felixcat wrote:

Its just as well we have a good quality assessment of all the evidence to help us.

The two guys I link to below are scientists, one a medical doctor. They are not neurosurgeons but their specialties, as their job titles indicate, rather more relevant to assessing evidence of this kind. Note the  title of the second page I link to.

Ben Goldacre, the Wellcome fellow in epidemiology, and David Spiegelhalter, the Winton professor for the public understanding of risk, looked at the evidence for cycle helmet efficacy, and published their conclusions in the British Medical Journal.

They write that the direct benefits of helmets are "too modest to capture." I think this means that the could find no evidence that they work, don't you?

No. It shows the opinions of two researchers, other researchers have different opinions. Hence the ongoing debate. Burt was claiming that all research that has shown benefit from helmets was either poor quality or biased. I don't think that's the case. Do you?

I can see that you are determined to defend your position.

Fair enough, but the research Burt was talking about is bilge like the Thompson, Rivara, Thompson paper which claimed to show that helmets would prevent 85% of head injuries. If this happened in the real world there would be no argument. Helmeteers often quote this 85% figure though. It can be taken as a sure sign that they don't know what they are talking about.

The sort of studies which support helmet efficacy are often case study types. That is, they look at cyclists with injuries and how they came by them. Trouble is, wearers are often nice middle class families riding in pleasant parks. Non wearers though, tend to be more of the urban outlaw type.

R

Using Rivara's methodology and figures you can show that helmets protect against leg injuries.

The studies which show helmets don't work are whole population studies, like the "experiments" in Oz and NZ. They require less statistical manipulation.

When the wearing rate in Oz went from about a third to near 100% overnight because of the law, the injury and deathg rate should have tumbled. In fact it went up slightly.  Figures from Oz. Gov.

In NZ. the injury rate near doubled against a big decrease in cycling numbers. I don't think this was because the sheep turned nasty. According to Rivara et al. the rate should have dropped, because wearing rates went up to near 100% when the law came in. Figures from NZ. Gov.

felixcat wrote:

I can see that you are determined to defend your position.

Fair enough, but the research Burt was talking about is bilge like the Thompson, Rivara, Thompson paper which claimed to show that helmets would prevent 85% of head injuries. If this happened in the real world there would be no argument. Helmeteers often quote this 85% figure though. It can be taken as a sure sign that they don't know what they are talking about.

The sort of studies which support helmet efficacy are often case study types. That is, they look at cyclists with injuries and how they came by them. Trouble is, wearers are often nice middle class families riding in pleasant parks. Non wearers though, tend to be more of the urban outlaw type.

R

Using Rivara's methodology and figures you can show that helmets protect against leg injuries.

The studies which show helmets don't work are whole population studies, like the "experiments" in Oz and NZ. They require less statistical manipulation.

When the wearing rate in Oz went from about a third to near 100% overnight because of the law, the injury and deathg rate should have tumbled. In fact it went up slightly.  Figures from Oz. Gov.

In NZ. the injury rate near doubled against a big decrease in cycling numbers. I don't think this was because the sheep turned nasty. According to Rivara et al. the rate should have dropped, because wearing rates went up to near 100% when the law came in. Figures from NZ. Gov.

 

You can't extrapolate data from compulsory helmet use countries to non compulsory use countries.

Compulsory helmet laws reduce the numbers of cyclists (strong correlation) but they are not likely to do so uniformly. Those groups with high helmet wearing rates prior to the law, eg road cyclists, are likely to be far less affected by it and therefore suffer less of a drop.

Road cyclists are a higher risk group so the overall risk profile of the cycling population will change.

If you look at the UK data you can see a voluntary increase in helmet wearing that correlates very strongly with a drop in cyclist KSIs and head injuries.

At the moment all we have is case control studies so we have to interpret them as best we can given, as you pointed out, the large amount of caveats attached to such studies.

Until somebody does a randomised control trial we'll never know for certain if helmets produce benefits at the individual level so it's up to each person to look at the evidence and make their own decision.

Rich_cb wrote:

 

You can't extrapolate data from compulsory helmet use countries to non compulsory use countries. Compulsory helmet laws reduce the numbers of cyclists (strong correlation) but they are not likely to do so uniformly. Those groups with high helmet wearing rates prior to the law, eg road cyclists, are likely to be far less affected by it and therefore suffer less of a drop. Road cyclists are a higher risk group so the overall risk profile of the cycling population will change. If you look at the UK data you can see a voluntary increase in helmet wearing that correlates very strongly with a drop in cyclist KSIs and head injuries. At the moment all we have is case control studies so we have to interpret them as best we can given, as you pointed out, the large amount of caveats attached to such studies. Until somebody does a randomised control trial we'll never know for certain if helmets produce benefits at the individual level so it's up to each person to look at the evidence and make their own decision.[/quote]

One of the problems is that in Oz and NZ, certain USA jurisdictions and UK if certain politicians get their way, is that it is not up to each person to make their own decision, and, as you concede, laws reduce cycling which I think we all see as a bad thing.

The point about using compulsory studies is that a law produces a sudden large jump in wearing rates which makes it much easier to seperate the effect of wearing from general noise and more gradual changes in behaviour of drivers and cyclists and other changes in the law.

I don't think that your guess about different kinds of cyclists can account for the NZ changes. It seems odd to suggest that more expert cyclists are more accident prone. In any case, deterence of more casual, less commited cyclists is one of the reasons that laws are a bad thing. We are left with a cycling population like Oz's, young men, intrepid and somewhat inurred to the risks. Not like the Dutch, where nearly everyone cycles, and the population are tall and healthy, unlike Australia which is one of the most obese countries in the world.

I return to my original observation. Some countries have helmet laws, and /or cyclists called by the non cycling population, "lycra louts." They have low levels of cycling, high rates of helmet wearing and high rates of injury (and obesity). Other countries have high levels of cycling, done by unhelmetted people in ordinary clothes, low injury rates and healthy people.

Now I would not claim, of course, that wearing a helmet or not will make all the difference, it is clearly a question of cycling culture and road conditions. I would claim that putting most of the pressure on cyclists to wear polystyrene distracts from the things which need to be done, and which would make a difference.

I also appreciate that this website is not a place likely to give an unbiased hearing to my views. Most of its inhabitants want nothing more than to be taken for a professional. It was a shrewd move by the helmeteers to make the pros wear helmets.

felixcat wrote:

One of the problems is that in Oz and NZ, certain USA jurisdictions and UK if certain politicians get their way, is that it is not up to each person to make their own decision, and, as you concede, laws reduce cycling which I think we all see as a bad thing.

The point about using compulsory studies is that a law produces a sudden large jump in wearing rates which makes it much easier to seperate the effect of wearing from general noise and more gradual changes in behaviour of drivers and cyclists and other changes in the law.

I don't think that your guess about different kinds of cyclists can account for the NZ changes. It seems odd to suggest that more expert cyclists are more accident prone. In any case, deterence of more casual, less commited cyclists is one of the reasons that laws are a bad thing. We are left with a cycling population like Oz's, young men, intrepid and somewhat inurred to the risks. Not like the Dutch, where nearly everyone cycles, and the population are tall and healthy, unlike Australia which is one of the most obese countries in the world.

I return to my original observation. Some countries have helmet laws, and /or cyclists called by the non cycling population, "lycra louts." They have low levels of cycling, high rates of helmet wearing and high rates of injury (and obesity). Other countries have high levels of cycling, done by unhelmetted people in ordinary clothes, low injury rates and healthy people.

Now I would not claim, of course, that wearing a helmet or not will make all the difference, it is clearly a question of cycling culture and road conditions. I would claim that putting most of the pressure on cyclists to wear polystyrene distracts from the things which need to be done, and which would make a difference.

I also appreciate that this website is not a place likely to give an unbiased hearing to my views. Most of its inhabitants want nothing more than to be taken for a professional. It was a shrewd move by the helmeteers to make the pros wear helmets.

 

I'm completely opposed to mandatory helmet laws for the same reasons as you.

I still maintain that data from countries which do have such laws is not applicable to countries without them.

You can get an increase in population risk without any increase in individual risk simply by altering the composition of the population.

Different groups of cyclists clearly have different risk profiles.

Different groups of cyclists also have different rates of voluntary helmet wearing.

It stands to reason that upon the introduction of a mandatory helmet law the groups with high voluntary wearing rates would see a smaller decline in participation than those groups with low voluntary rates.

Therefore the risk profile of the groups with the high voluntary wearing rates would become more prominent in the national risk profile.

Rich_cb wrote:

 

I'm completely opposed to mandatory helmet laws for the same reasons as you. I still maintain that data from countries which do have such laws is not applicable to countries without them. You can get an increase in population risk without any increase in individual risk simply by altering the composition of the population. Different groups of cyclists clearly have different risk profiles. Different groups of cyclists also have different rates of voluntary helmet wearing. It stands to reason that upon the introduction of a mandatory helmet law the groups with high voluntary wearing rates would see a smaller decline in participation than those groups with low voluntary rates. Therefore the risk profile of the groups with the high voluntary wearing rates would become more prominent in the national risk profile.[/quote]

Your idea that the failure of helmet compulsion to save lives is conjecture, motivated by a belief that there must surely be something wrong. You have no evidence.

For the idea to make any sense you have to suppose that the non-wearers before compulsion, whose removal from the cycling population increases the head injury rate, were, in spite of their lack of a helmet, safer cyclists than the wearers of a helmet.  Do you mean this? It does not say a lot for helmet efficacy. Perhaps wearers are led into danger by their feeling of safety.

Incidentally there are other activities which can result in head injury, as you must know.

Pedestrians and car passengers are about as much at risk as cyclists. Why is there no call for helmets all round. There will be more of them in the average head injury ward than cyclists. Why is cycling thought of as uniquely dangerous?

felixcat wrote:

Your idea that the failure of helmet compulsion to save lives is conjecture, motivated by a belief that there must surely be something wrong. You have no evidence.

For the idea to make any sense you have to suppose that the non-wearers before compulsion, whose removal from the cycling population increases the head injury rate, were, in spite of their lack of a helmet, safer cyclists than the wearers of a helmet.  Do you mean this? It does not say a lot for helmet efficacy. Perhaps wearers are led into danger by their feeling of safety.

Incidentally there are other activities which can result in head injury, as you must know.

Pedestrians and car passengers are about as much at risk as cyclists. Why is there no call for helmets all round. There will be more of them in the average head injury ward than cyclists. Why is cycling thought of as uniquely dangerous?

I am trying to emphasise that there is more than one possible explanation for the injury trends seen post mandatory helmet law in Oz/NZ etc.

The lower risk cyclists are not necessarily safer per second merely engaged in a type of cycling farmless likely to cause them injury.

For example, a leisurely cycle around a park could be a low risk activity while a rush hour commute on busy roads could be a high risk activity.

If helmet laws discourage leisurely park cyclists while commuters remained undeterred then the overall injury rate per km will increase even if the commute has actually got ever so slightly safer.

Rich_cb wrote:

I still maintain that data from countries which do have such laws is not applicable to countries without them.

You can get an increase in population risk without any increase in individual risk simply by altering the composition of the population.

Different groups of cyclists clearly have different risk profiles.

Different groups of cyclists also have different rates of voluntary helmet wearing.

It stands to reason that upon the introduction of a mandatory helmet law the groups with high voluntary wearing rates would see a smaller decline in participation than those groups with low voluntary rates.

Therefore the risk profile of the groups with the high voluntary wearing rates would become more prominent in the national risk profile.

I really can't make out your argument here.

You are saying that when you introduce a law, you mostly deter cyclists who don't wear a helmet voluntarily, thus changing the population of cyclists.

But would you not expect that to cause the injury rate to go _down_, given that in your view, not wearing a helmet increases risk, therefore choosing not to wear a helmet is a sign of risk-taking behaviour?

By your own logic then, if you deter that kind of risk-embracing cyclist, and only keep the risk-averse ones who already wear helmets, the rate of injury should go down. Yet you seem to be saying this change in composition can explain away the rate going _up_. What is your argument here?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I really can't make out your argument here.

You are saying that when you introduce a law, you mostly deter cyclists who don't wear a helmet voluntarily, thus changing the population of cyclists.

But would you not expect that to cause the injury rate to go _down_, given that in your view, not wearing a helmet increases risk, therefore choosing not to wear a helmet is a sign of risk-taking behaviour?

By your own logic then, if you deter that kind of risk-embracing cyclist, and only keep the risk-averse ones who already wear helmets, the rate of injury should go down. Yet you seem to be saying this change in composition can explain away the rate going _up_. What is your argument here?

I'm arguing that there are high and low risk types of cycling.

If higher risk cyclists were more likely to wear helmets voluntarily and hence less likely to be deterred by mandatory helmets then the proportion of the cycling population engaged in higher risk cycling will increase post mandation.

The consequence will be an increase in the population risk while the individual risk remains unchanged or even decreases.

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I really can't make out your argument here. You are saying that when you introduce a law, you mostly deter cyclists who don't wear a helmet voluntarily, thus changing the population of cyclists. But would you not expect that to cause the injury rate to go _down_, given that in your view, not wearing a helmet increases risk, therefore choosing not to wear a helmet is a sign of risk-taking behaviour? By your own logic then, if you deter that kind of risk-embracing cyclist, and only keep the risk-averse ones who already wear helmets, the rate of injury should go down. Yet you seem to be saying this change in composition can explain away the rate going _up_. What is your argument here?

I'm arguing that there are high and low risk types of cycling. If higher risk cyclists were more likely to wear helmets voluntarily and hence less likely to be deterred by mandatory helmets then the proportion of the cycling population engaged in higher risk cycling will increase post mandation. The consequence will be an increase in the population risk while the individual risk remains unchanged or even decreases.

More unevidenced suppositions.

Are you really suggesting that the risk averse cyclists don't wear helmets while the risk takers do?

Seems unlikely.

In any case, the result of mandation has proved to be an increase in risk per mile cycled.

You are really scrabbling around now.

felixcat wrote:

More unevidenced suppositions.

Are you really suggesting that the risk averse cyclists don't wear helmets while the risk takers do?

Seems unlikely.

In any case, the result of mandation has proved to be an increase in risk per mile cycled.

You are really scrabbling around now.

There's no more evidence for the idea that increased helmet use is directly responsible for the increased risk.

Correlation is not causation.

I'm suggesting that helmet wearing among participants in high risk activities is higher than among participants in low risk activities.

That is what you would logically expect.

The increase in risk per mile travelled is what you would expect to see in the scenario I described.

Rich_cb wrote:

felixcat wrote:

More unevidenced suppositions.

Are you really suggesting that the risk averse cyclists don't wear helmets while the risk takers do?

Seems unlikely.

In any case, the result of mandation has proved to be an increase in risk per mile cycled.

You are really scrabbling around now.

There's no more evidence for the idea that increased helmet use is directly responsible for the increased risk. Correlation is not causation. I'm suggesting that helmet wearing among participants in high risk activities is higher than among participants in low risk activities. That is what you would logically expect. The increase in risk per mile travelled is what you would expect to see in the scenario I described.

The invariable association of helmet laws and increased casualty rates shows very clearly that helmets are not the answer to the problem. There is no example of laws working.

All cyclists use the same roads,  slow or fast, helmet wearing or not, we all have to deal with the same motorists. There is no way in which one sort of cycling is a high risk sport, but another is not.

You really have no basis on which to rest your suppositions.

Cycling is not, should not be, an extreme sport, needing a helmet. If it is given that appearance, as it is in this country, we are all the losers. We should join in making cycling safe enough for your young children to ride to school.  Putting them in a helmet does not do it.

Stop der kindermoord!

felixcat wrote:

The invariable association of helmet laws and increased casualty rates shows very clearly that helmets are not the answer to the problem. There is no example of laws working.

All cyclists use the same roads,  slow or fast, helmet wearing or not, we all have to deal with the same motorists. There is no way in which one sort of cycling is a high risk sport, but another is not.

You really have no basis on which to rest your suppositions.

Cycling is not, should not be, an extreme sport, needing a helmet. If it is given that appearance, as it is in this country, we are all the losers. We should join in making cycling safe enough for your young children to ride to school.  Putting them in a helmet does not do it.

Stop der kindermoord!

Seriously?

A trip through central London in rush hour is equally as risky as Sunday ride down a quiet cycle path?

Of course it isn't.

I'm not arguing.im favour of helmet laws, I'm arguing against the assumption that it must have been the increase in helmet wearing that caused the increased population level risk.

Rich_cb wrote:

felixcat wrote:

The invariable association of helmet laws and increased casualty rates shows very clearly that helmets are not the answer to the problem. There is no example of laws working.

All cyclists use the same roads,  slow or fast, helmet wearing or not, we all have to deal with the same motorists. There is no way in which one sort of cycling is a high risk sport, but another is not.

You really have no basis on which to rest your suppositions.

Cycling is not, should not be, an extreme sport, needing a helmet. If it is given that appearance, as it is in this country, we are all the losers. We should join in making cycling safe enough for your young children to ride to school.  Putting them in a helmet does not do it.

Stop der kindermoord!

Seriously? A trip through central London in rush hour is equally as risky as Sunday ride down a quiet cycle path? Of course it isn't. I'm not arguing.im favour of helmet laws, I'm arguing against the assumption that it must have been the increase in helmet wearing that caused the increased population level risk.

And I'm arguing that helmets have failed to make any difference to casualty rates. And that they are a distraction from what would work, and an alibi for the dangerous. Do you see commuting as a high risk activity which demands a helmet, though they have never been shown to reduce casualties? If you are happy for cycling to remain an activity for young, brave young men, I am not, and helmets have no prospect of making cycling safe.

Whereas the Dutch revolted against the casualty rates for the vulnerable, and a few decades ago began a policy which has made cycling safe enough for most children to ride to school, for normal people to shop and commute by bike. It worked.

felixcat wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I really can't make out your argument here. You are saying that when you introduce a law, you mostly deter cyclists who don't wear a helmet voluntarily, thus changing the population of cyclists. But would you not expect that to cause the injury rate to go _down_, given that in your view, not wearing a helmet increases risk, therefore choosing not to wear a helmet is a sign of risk-taking behaviour? By your own logic then, if you deter that kind of risk-embracing cyclist, and only keep the risk-averse ones who already wear helmets, the rate of injury should go down. Yet you seem to be saying this change in composition can explain away the rate going _up_. What is your argument here?

I'm arguing that there are high and low risk types of cycling. If higher risk cyclists were more likely to wear helmets voluntarily and hence less likely to be deterred by mandatory helmets then the proportion of the cycling population engaged in higher risk cycling will increase post mandation. The consequence will be an increase in the population risk while the individual risk remains unchanged or even decreases.

 

More unevidenced suppositions.

Are you really suggesting that the risk averse cyclists don't wear helmets while the risk takers do?

Seems unlikely.

In any case, the result of mandation has proved to be an increase in risk per mile cycled.

You are really scrabbling around now.

In fairness, I can think of a charitable take on CB's argument. Even if it's not the one he himself went on to use.

Rather than 'safe' park-riding vs 'dangerous' commuting (just how much park riding is there, really? Is there even enough to affect the figures?), I was about to assume he meant 'risky, helmet-using, mountain-biking and fast cross-country trail-riding', vs 'commuting and other utility cycling, where helmets are far less likely to be of any help in the kind of accidents users are likely to be involved in, and where people are more likely to find it a nuisance to wear them'.

Ironic that he himself put commuting on the other side of the equation. It doesn't make sense to me to put utility cycling on the 'high risk/helmet wearing' side.

But maybe it could be that the post-law figures include a higher proportion of non-urban 'sporty' cyclists? Who are more likely to wear a helmet but also fall off mountains and cycle into trees more frequently?

Even so, if that's the case, then it means the law has deterred the very kind of cycling that is most important to overall health.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

In fairness, I can think of a charitable take on CB's argument. Even if it's not the one he himself went on to use.

Rather than 'safe' park-riding vs 'dangerous' commuting (just how much park riding is there, really? Is there even enough to affect the figures?), I was about to assume he meant 'risky, helmet-using, mountain-biking and fast cross-country trail-riding', vs 'commuting and other utility cycling, where helmets are far less likely to be of any help in the kind of accidents users are likely to be involved in, and where people are more likely to find it a nuisance to wear them'.

Ironic that he himself put commuting on the other side of the equation. It doesn't make sense to me to put utility cycling on the 'high risk/helmet wearing' side.

But maybe it could be that the post-law figures include a higher proportion of non-urban 'sporty' cyclists? Who are more likely to wear a helmet but also fall off mountains and cycle into trees more frequently?

Even so, if that's the case, then it means the law has deterred the very kind of cycling that is most important to overall health.

Look at the accident statistics for KSI by time of day.

Commuting is relatively high risk.

Also commuters are.less.likely to be deterred by a helmet law as they still need to get to work.

So a relatively high risk group who are less.likely to be dissauded from cycling by a helmet law.

As I've said before I'm not arguing in favour of mandatory helmet laws, I'm simply challenging the assumption that it was the increase in helmet wearing that led to the increased population level risk.

An alternative explanation is that it was change in the risk profile of the population itself.

Rich_cb wrote:

Look at the accident statistics for KSI by time of day.

Commuting is relatively high risk. Also commuters are.less.likely to be deterred by a helmet law as they still need to get to work.

So a relatively high risk group who are less.likely to be dissauded from cycling by a helmet law.

As I've said before I'm not arguing in favour of mandatory helmet laws, I'm simply challenging the assumption that it was the increase in helmet wearing that led to the increased population level risk.

An alternative explanation is that it was change in the risk profile of the population itself.

I've looked at the statistics for KSI by time of day (see link at the bottom) and it says the following:

'The weekday peak time for pedal cyclist KSIs is from '7am to 10am and from 4pm to 7pm. Collisions during these hours account for around 40 per cent of all pedal cyclist KSIs. This is generally in line with the timing of activity data recorded in the National Travel Survey (NTS).

This would suggest that the increased number of KSIs at peak commuting times is in line with the increased number of cyclists who happen to be commuting at those times. This would mean that they are not a particularly high-risk group after all.

What you have done is to make an assumption and in the absence of evidence to support your claim, you have presented it as a self-evident truth

You say you are challenging assumptions, yet you are doing so with a whole load of assumptions of your own (some of which are in the quoted text above, highlighted in bold).

Given that you have previously said 'That is what you would logically expect' to support your argument, allow me to present another logical explanation to support not only the idea that helmet promotion can lead to a decrease in participation but also explains (one reason) why some women choose not to cycle, resulting in fewer women cycling when compared to men.

Women are far more likely to be affected by helmet-hair and also more likely to be concerned about helmet-hair in the first place. They have 3 choices:

1. Cycle with helmet and suffer helmet-hair
2. Cycle without a helmet
3. Not cycle

The mere promotion of a helmet being necessary to keep oneself safe could deter someone from choosing option 2. So then the choice boils down to cycle and suffer helmet-hair or to not cycle. If the desire to avoid helmet hair is strong enough, the result would be to choose to not cycle.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

I've looked at the statistics for KSI by time of day (see link at the bottom) and it says the following:

'The weekday peak time for pedal cyclist KSIs is from '7am to 10am and from 4pm to 7pm. Collisions during these hours account for around 40 per cent of all pedal cyclist KSIs. This is generally in line with the timing of activity data recorded in the National Travel Survey (NTS).

This would suggest that the increased number of KSIs at peak commuting times is in line with the increased number of cyclists who happen to be commuting at those times. This would mean that they are not a particularly high-risk group after all.

What you have done is to make an assumption and in the absence of evidence to support your claim, you have presented it as a self-evident truth

You say you are challenging assumptions, yet you are doing so with a whole load of assumptions of your own (some of which are in the quoted text above, highlighted in bold).

 

Given that you have previously said 'That is what you would logically expect' to support your argument, allow me to present another logical explanation to support not only the idea that helmet promotion can lead to a decrease in participation but also explains (one reason) why some women choose not to cycle, resulting in fewer women cycling when compared to men.

Women are far more likely to be affected by helmet-hair and also more likely to be concerned about helmet-hair in the first place. They have 3 choices:

1. Cycle with helmet and suffer helmet-hair
2. Cycle without a helmet
3. Not cycle

The mere promotion of a helmet being necessary to keep oneself safe could deter someone from choosing option 2. So then the choice boils down to cycle and suffer helmet-hair or to not cycle. If the desire to avoid helmet hair is strong enough, the result would be to choose to not cycle.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...

You're assuming that there are no periods/activities when the accident rate per mile is lower. Welcome to the assumption club.

Commuters were merely given as an example, the point is that helmet laws can change the risk profile of the cycling population as they do not affect all groups of cyclists equally.

You've actually provided evidence for that argument by highlighting a group who are more likely to be dissuaded by helmet legislation.

Rich_cb wrote:

You're assuming that there are no periods/activities when the accident rate per mile is lower. Welcome to the assumption club. Commuters were merely given as an example, the point is that helmet laws can change the risk profile of the cycling population as they do not affect all groups of cyclists equally. You've actually provided evidence for that argument by highlighting a group who are more likely to be dissuaded by helmet legislation.

This is why it's hard to take you seriously. If you think it supports your case, it's evidence, if you think it harms your case it isn't. I've looked at the KSI statistics as you suggested and there is nothing in there to indicate commuting is higher risk activity. You implied the statistics would support your case but they don't. Now you're saying they don't disprove your case. Fine, but that still leaves you lacking any evidence other than 'it stands to reason'.

Also, what I presented wasn't actually evidence (though there is evidence to support it), it was a logical assumption.

Likewise, if it supports the 'compulsion' argument, you agree, if it supports the 'promotion' argument you disagree, yet if we use logical assumptions as you have done, there would still be a negative effect of cycling participation when promoting helmet use.

Compulsory helmet use

1. X% of people don't want to wear a helmet (for whatever reason)
2. helmet use is compulsory
3. Y% cyclists stop cycling because the choice is between wearing a helmet or being fined
4. Z% non-cyclists don't start cycling because the choice is between wearing a helmet or being fined

Promotion of helmet use

1. X% of people don't want to wear a helmet (for whatever reason)
2. helmet use is heavily promoted as being necessary to keep oneself safe when cycling, leading to the idea that cycling is inherently unsafe
3. Y% cyclists stop cycling because the choice is between wearing a helmet or the exaggerated risk of being KSI'd

4. Z% non-cyclists don't start cycling because the choice is between wearing a helmet or the exaggerated risk of being KSI'd

In each case, the figures for X, Y and Z may differ based on when and where the scenarios play out and based on how heavy the promotion is / how strict the compulsion is enforced. This is why it was put to you that the effect of promotion would be impossible to quantify but would still sit somewhere on a sliding scale.

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

 

In each case, the figures for X, Y and Z may differ based on when and where the scenarios play out and based on how heavy the promotion is / how strict the compulsion is enforced. This is why it was put to you that the effect of promotion would be impossible to quantify but would still sit somewhere on a sliding scale.

 

Additionally, compulsion laws are usually preceded/accompanied by pretty heavy promotion/propaganda, so it's already in the compulsion mix.

Pudsey wrote:

This is why it's hard to take you seriously. If you think it supports your case, it's evidence, if you think it harms your case it isn't. I've looked at the KSI statistics as you suggested and there is nothing in there to indicate commuting is higher risk activity. You implied the statistics would support your case but they don't. Now you're saying they don't disprove your case. Fine, but that still leaves you lacking any evidence other than 'it stands to reason'.

Also, what I presented wasn't actually evidence (though there is evidence to support it), it was a logical assumption.

Likewise, if it supports the 'compulsion' argument, you agree, if it supports the 'promotion' argument you disagree, yet if we use logical assumptions as you have done, there would still be a negative effect of cycling participation when promoting helmet use.

 

Compulsory helmet use

1. X% of people don't want to wear a helmet (for whatever reason)
2. helmet use is compulsory
3. Y% cyclists stop cycling because the choice is between wearing a helmet or being fined
4. Z% non-cyclists don't start cycling because the choice is between wearing a helmet or being fined

 

Promotion of helmet use

1. X% of people don't want to wear a helmet (for whatever reason)
2. helmet use is heavily promoted as being necessary to keep oneself safe when cycling, leading to the idea that cycling is inherently unsafe
3. Y% cyclists stop cycling because the choice is between wearing a helmet or the exaggerated risk of being KSI'd

4. Z% non-cyclists don't start cycling because the choice is between wearing a helmet or the exaggerated risk of being KSI'd

 

In each case, the figures for X, Y and Z may differ based on when and where the scenarios play out and based on how heavy the promotion is / how strict the compulsion is enforced. This is why it was put to you that the effect of promotion would be impossible to quantify but would still sit somewhere on a sliding scale.

 

You seem to be missing my point.

I'm saying that after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws it is highly unlikely that the cycling population will have the same composition as it did pre mandation.

The commuter example was just to demonstrate that different groups have different risk profiles, commuting will be relatively high risk compared to some activities.

The evidence against helmet promotion is pretty weak, the one table that is bandied around is difficult to verify as the original paper is hard to obtain.

Rich_cb wrote:

The evidence against helmet promotion is pretty weak, the one table that is bandied around is difficult to verify as the original paper is hard to obtain.

Promotion doesn't work? A culture has little effect?

So other road-related campaigns, like the drink driving ones, and the clunk click one, or those not connected to specific laws such as 'think bike' or the green cross code... they're ineffective?

Or do bike helmets also protect you from peer pressure and catchy slogans?

Rich_cb wrote:

You seem to be missing my point. I'm saying that after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws it is highly unlikely that the cycling population will have the same composition as it did pre mandation. The commuter example was just to demonstrate that different groups have different risk profiles, commuting will be relatively high risk compared to some activities. The evidence against helmet promotion is pretty weak, the one table that is bandied around is difficult to verify as the original paper is hard to obtain.

Compared to what activities though? And where is your evidence, because the KSI statistics by time of day you alluded to don't support this claim? My point, which you appear to be missing, is that you are supporting your position with logical assumptions about what you feel should be true, in this case that commuting is a relative high risk activity. I expanded on this point by demonstrating how logical assumptions can lead us to conclude that merely promoting helmet use can negatively affect participation in cycling.

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

Compared to what activities though? And where is your evidence, because the KSI statistics by time of day you alluded to don't support this claim? My point, which you appear to be missing, is that you are supporting your position with logical assumptions about what you feel should be true, in this case that commuting is a relative high risk activity. I expanded on this point by demonstrating how logical assumptions can lead us to conclude that merely promoting helmet use can negatively affect participation in cycling.

It's just an example.

Do you think that all types of cycling have the exact same level of risk associated with them?

Rich_cb wrote:

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

Compared to what activities though? And where is your evidence, because the KSI statistics by time of day you alluded to don't support this claim? My point, which you appear to be missing, is that you are supporting your position with logical assumptions about what you feel should be true, in this case that commuting is a relative high risk activity. I expanded on this point by demonstrating how logical assumptions can lead us to conclude that merely promoting helmet use can negatively affect participation in cycling.

It's just an example. Do you think that all types of cycling have the exact same level of risk associated with them?

Just living has a risk, and the evidence shows that people who ride bikes live longer and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than average.  A proven effect of helmet laws and propagands is to deter some people from cycling, thus losing the overwhelming health benefits. 

Splitting hairs by trying to differentiate which type of cycling is more or less dangerous is frankly an admission that you've lost the argument and are clutching at straws.

burtthebike wrote:

Just living has a risk, and the evidence shows that people who ride bikes live longer and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than average.  A proven effect of helmet laws and propagands is to deter some people from cycling, thus losing the overwhelming health benefits. 

Splitting hairs by trying to differentiate which type of cycling is more or less dangerous is frankly an admission that you've lost the argument and are clutching at straws.

The point of this thread is that it's not a proven effective of either.

With helmet laws the correlation with a drop in participation is strong enough to satisfy most people that the two are directly related.

That is definitely not the case with helmet promotion.

The discussion about different levels of risk in different groups of cyclists is completely separate.

How did your ranking of study evidence go by the way?

Funny that after all that work you didn't realise case control studies are considered higher quality than population level studies.

Rich_cb wrote:

With helmet laws the correlation with a drop in participation is strong enough to satisfy most people that the two are directly related. That is definitely not the case with helmet promotion.

This is a bit silly, isn't it? 

How do you propose to compare the two? You realise, of course, that with laws we have public implementation dates, and people interested in the effects of those laws collecting data on them. Not so with promotion.

So you're happy that compulsion laws introduce the unintended consequences that dissuade people from cycling. Compulsion laws that carry a heavy degree of promotion, campaigns, awareness alongside them. 

But mere promotion, without the laws, doesn't have those unintended consequences? Simply removing the legal aspect removes the unintended consequences? Do you even know that the unintended consequences seen in NZ or Oz haven't been brought about mainly through the promotion?

Or is it that the promotion of helmets in the UK hasn't been effective, so hasn't had any consequences, intended or unintended, positive or negative (you've got a cheeky graph that shows that that isn't the case, haven't you)?   

Please explain.

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Just living has a risk, and the evidence shows that people who ride bikes live longer and are fitter, healthier and slimmer than average.  A proven effect of helmet laws and propagands is to deter some people from cycling, thus losing the overwhelming health benefits. 

Splitting hairs by trying to differentiate which type of cycling is more or less dangerous is frankly an admission that you've lost the argument and are clutching at straws.

The point of this thread is that it's not a proven effective of either. With helmet laws the correlation with a drop in participation is strong enough to satisfy most people that the two are directly related. That is definitely not the case with helmet promotion. The discussion about different levels of risk in different groups of cyclists is completely separate. How did your ranking of study evidence go by the way? Funny that after all that work you didn't realise case control studies are considered higher quality than population level studies.

JHC, where to start?

"The point of this thread is that it's not a proven effective of either."  Literally doesn't make sense.

"With helmet laws the correlation with a drop in participation is strong enough to satisfy most people that the two are directly related. That is definitely not the case with helmet promotion."  Actually that is definitely the case for some people, who do believe that helmet propaganda reduces the level of cycling.

"The discussion about different levels of risk in different groups of cyclists is completely separate."  A subject you introduced to distract from your complete failure to prove anything.

"How did your ranking of study evidence go by the way?"  Since I have absolutely no intention of doing one, it is complete.  Yet another example of you introducing some random concept to distract from your failure to prove your case.

"Funny that after all that work you didn't realise case control studies are considered higher quality than population level studies."  Very funny, since intenational scales for the reliability of research rates case control studies lowest, and whole population studies much higher.   You're not clutching at straws any more, you're rambling off into some parallel universe.