Aussie cyclists protest mandatory helmet laws with helmet-optional rides

burtthebike wrote:

"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.

 

Effective is an erroneous autocorrect from effect.

Some does not equal most.

If some people are happy with a single data point with unclear methodology from 22 years ago that's up to them.

You implied earlier that all the helmet research had been assessed and ranked according to established hierarchies of evidence. I assumed you meant that was done by yourself. If not, by whom?

Which hierarchy of evidence are you using which places population level studies above case-control studies?

Please provide a link or a reference to this system of classification.

Just to clarify a cohort study is not, by definition, a population level study.

The standard hierarchy of evidence is RCT> Cohort>Case Control> Observational/Cross Sectional (These are population level studies).

Rich_cb wrote:

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.

Your argument doesn't make any sense to me.  As previous poster pointed out, the 'time of day' figures don't show that commuting is 'high risk'.

It also says nothing about whether the nature of the risk for commuters is of the type that a helmet might help with.  My own doubts about helmets are partly down to the fact that what I fear most when cycling on busy roads is being crushed by a lorry or being hit by a vehicle travelling at very high speeds, and I don't think a helmet will help at all in those cases.  (I think it might if I'm doored, I concede that, and that's a major part of why I usually wear one, along with wimpishly bowing to social pressure).

Furthermore, I disagree 100%  that commuters are unlikely to be deterred - they are likely to adopt a different mode of transport (as the vast majority of commuters already do, so you can hardly argue it's hard to imagine!)

  It's sports/serious recreational cyclists, for whom cycling is something they make a special effort to do anyway (e.g. putting the bike in the 4x4 and driving off to the country), who are less likely to be put off by having to have a bit of extra equipment - needing special kit is common to sports of all kinds.  People engaged in those kinds of activities seem to _like_ buying specialist bits of kit.

Though I would have thought there would be data out there somewhere to show what happens in each case. 

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Your argument doesn't make any sense to me.  As previous poster pointed out, the 'time of day' figures don't show that commuting is 'high risk'.

It also says nothing about whether the nature of the risk for commuters is of the type that a helmet might help with.  My own doubts about helmets are partly down to the fact that what I fear most when cycling on busy roads is being crushed by a lorry or being hit by a vehicle travelling at very high speeds, and I don't think a helmet will help at all in those cases.  (I think it might if I'm doored, I concede that, and that's a major part of why I usually wear one, along with wimpishly bowing to social pressure).

Furthermore, I disagree 100%  that commuters are unlikely to be deterred - they are likely to adopt a different mode of transport (as the vast majority of commuters already do, so you can hardly argue it's hard to imagine!)

 

  It's sports/serious recreational cyclists, for whom cycling is something they make a special effort to do anyway (e.g. putting the bike in the 4x4 and driving off to the country), who are less likely to be put off by having to have a bit of extra equipment - needing special kit is common to sports of all kinds.  People engaged in those kinds of activities seem to _like_ buying specialist bits of kit.

 

Though I would have thought there would be data out there somewhere to show what happens in each case. 

You seem to have ignored my use of the word 'relative'. Unless you believe commuting to be the safest form of cycling available then it will be relatively high risk compared to another type.

I'm not arguing that helmets would be effective in a commuting accident.

I'm arguing that you cannot extrapolate data from countries with mandatory helmet laws and apply it to countries without.

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Your argument doesn't make any sense to me.  As previous poster pointed out, the 'time of day' figures don't show that commuting is 'high risk'.

It also says nothing about whether the nature of the risk for commuters is of the type that a helmet might help with.  My own doubts about helmets are partly down to the fact that what I fear most when cycling on busy roads is being crushed by a lorry or being hit by a vehicle travelling at very high speeds, and I don't think a helmet will help at all in those cases.  (I think it might if I'm doored, I concede that, and that's a major part of why I usually wear one, along with wimpishly bowing to social pressure).

Furthermore, I disagree 100%  that commuters are unlikely to be deterred - they are likely to adopt a different mode of transport (as the vast majority of commuters already do, so you can hardly argue it's hard to imagine!)

 

  It's sports/serious recreational cyclists, for whom cycling is something they make a special effort to do anyway (e.g. putting the bike in the 4x4 and driving off to the country), who are less likely to be put off by having to have a bit of extra equipment - needing special kit is common to sports of all kinds.  People engaged in those kinds of activities seem to _like_ buying specialist bits of kit.

 

Though I would have thought there would be data out there somewhere to show what happens in each case. 

You seem to have ignored my use of the word 'relative'. Unless you believe commuting to be the safest form of cycling available then it will be relatively high risk compared to another type. I'm not arguing that helmets would be effective in a commuting accident. I'm arguing that you cannot extrapolate data from countries with mandatory helmet laws and apply it to countries without.

Relative to _what_ though?  Is there really a large enough number of cycle miles that consist of 'cycling round the park on a Sunday' to be a meaningful comparison?  I find that hard to believe, most parks aren't that large and most people don't have that much spare time.

What are you comparing commuting to, if not mountain-bike/sports cycling?

You just seem to me to have an attachment to your conclusion and invent unconvincing arguments to support it.  It seems quite convenient that you aprioiri discount any form of evidence one might find that undermines your argument.  You say you can't compare juristrictions  with compulsion with those without, and you also reject comparisons betore-and-after compulsion.  Which, conveniently, makes it forever impossible to determine the truth.

It's akin to how homeopaths insist their treatments can't be studied by normal scientific methods.

Edit  - is your argument then, that helmet promotion (and social pressure, and propaganda consisting of lurid posters of brain injuries) is somehow good, while acknowledging that legal compulsion is bad?  Because it seems clear to me that it's a continuum - strong social pressure and state-funded propaganda is not qualitiatively different from a law.  The only stance that isn't likely to be counterproductive is to do neither, neither mandate nor ban the things, neither promote them nor stigmatise them.  Just leave it up to invididuals.

Compulsion by cycle clubs and sportif organisers is one of the steps on the way to full compulsion.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

[

 

Edit  - is your argument then, that helmet promotion (and social pressure, and propaganda consisting of lurid posters of brain injuries) is somehow good, while acknowledging that legal compulsion is bad?  Because it seems clear to me that it's a continuum - strong social pressure and state-funded propaganda is not qualitiatively different from a law.  The only stance that isn't likely to be counterproductive is to do neither, neither mandate nor ban the things, neither promote them nor stigmatise them.  Just leave it up to invididuals.

It has been said by a civil servant, I think, that compulsion would be difficult to bring in if few cyclists wear helmets, but that they are watching the situation. The clear implication is that the more cyclists who wear helmets voluntarily, the more likely compulsion is.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Relative to _what_ though?  Is there really a large enough number of cycle miles that consist of 'cycling round the park on a Sunday' to be a meaningful comparison?  I find that hard to believe, most parks aren't that large and most people don't have that much spare time.

 

What are you comparing commuting to, if not mountain-bike/sports cycling?

 

You just seem to me to have an attachment to your conclusion and invent unconvincing arguments to support it.  It seems quite convenient that you aprioiri discount any form of evidence one might find that undermines your argument.  You say you can't compare juristrictions  with compulsion with those without, and you also reject comparisons betore-and-after compulsion.  Which, conveniently, makes it forever impossible to determine the truth.

 

It's akin to how homeopaths insist their treatments can't be studied by normal scientific methods.

 

Edit  - is your argument then, that helmet promotion (and social pressure, and propaganda consisting of lurid posters of brain injuries) is somehow good, while acknowledging that legal compulsion is bad?  Because it seems clear to me that it's a continuum - strong social pressure and state-funded propaganda is not qualitiatively different from a law.  The only stance that isn't likely to be counterproductive is to do neither, neither mandate nor ban the things, neither promote them nor stigmatise them.  Just leave it up to invididuals.

You're getting fixated on the examples and missing the broader point.

The reason you can't compare the population risk level before and after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws is that the cycling population has changed so drastically.

Unless the 30% drop in participation was spread evenly across all cycling groups then it's inevitable that the risk profile of the cycling population will change.

That is due to different groups of cyclists having different levels of risk.

It is because you can't make an accurate before and after comparison that you can't apply the findings to other countries.

I've yet to see convincing evidence that cycle helmet promotion produces a marked drop in participation.

The local authority figures quoted earlier are for one year only so can't be compared to trend and the paper they are supposedly from is inaccessible so method etc can't be scrutinised.

If I see convincing evidence I am happy to change my mind.

Rich_cb wrote:

You're getting fixated on the examples and missing the broader point. The reason you can't compare the population risk level before and after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws is that the cycling population has changed so drastically. Unless the 30% drop in participation was spread evenly across all cycling groups then it's inevitable that the risk profile of the cycling population will change. That is due to different groups of cyclists having different levels of risk. It is because you can't make an accurate before and after comparison that you can't apply the findings to other countries. I've yet to see convincing evidence that cycle helmet promotion produces a marked drop in participation. The local authority figures quoted earlier are for one year only so can't be compared to trend and the paper they are supposedly from is inaccessible so method etc can't be scrutinised. If I see convincing evidence I am happy to change my mind.

We're fixated on the example because it's the only attempt you've made to support your claim that there are different levels of risk across different cycling groups. The KSI figures for different times of the day don't show this to be true, let alone which groups are higher risk and by how much.

Beyond that, we are left with the fact you are relying on it being a logical assumption that this is the case even with the absence of evidence, yet you seem ready to dismiss logical assumptions when they don't support your position, even when there is supporting evidence.

Rich_cb</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>[/quote wrote:

You're getting fixated on the examples and missing the broader point. The reason you can't compare the population risk level before and after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws is that the cycling population has changed so drastically. Unless the 30% drop in participation was spread evenly across all cycling groups then it's inevitable that the risk profile of the cycling population will change. That is due to different groups of cyclists having different levels of risk. It is because you can't make an accurate before and after comparison that you can't apply the findings to other countries. I've yet to see convincing evidence that cycle helmet promotion produces a marked drop in participation. The local authority figures quoted earlier are for one year only so can't be compared to trend and the paper they are supposedly from is inaccessible so method etc can't be scrutinised. If I see convincing evidence I am happy to change my mind.

You seem to be backtracking, in that you are retreating to the idea that the population is 'different' therefore one can't conclude anything from an increased accident rate.  But the validity of that argument depends on in what _way_ the population is different.  Your original claim about 'dangerous commuting' just isn't plausible.

But, in the absence of any data to determine what the change is exactly, I'm happy to make your argument for you and agree that it's possible there might be fewer commuters (mostly safe) and more mountain-bikers (prone to catapult themselves over rocks while being gnarly?) and failed Danny Mcaskill wannabes.

What I don't get is how you can claim strong social pressure and moral blackmail by the state and other groups with financial power, is qualitatively different from an actual law (which might not be rigorously enforced anyway).  Why is that not a continuum?  In most other domains socail stigma and propaganda can be seen to produce similar, if lesser, effects to legal persecution, so why would it be different in this case?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

You seem to be backtracking, in that you are retreating to the idea that the population is 'different' therefore one can't conclude anything from an increased accident rate.  But the validity of that argument depends on in what _way_ the population is different.  Your original claim about 'dangerous commuting' just isn't plausible.

 

But, in the absence of any data to determine what the change is exactly, I'm happy to make your argument for you and agree that it's possible there might be fewer commuters (mostly safe) and more mountain-bikers (prone to catapult themselves over rocks while being gnarly?) and failed Danny Mcaskill wannabes.

 

What I don't get is how you can claim strong social pressure and moral blackmail by the state and other groups with financial power, is qualitatively different from an actual law (which might not be rigorously enforced anyway).  Why is that not a continuum?  In most other domains socail stigma and propaganda can be seen to produce similar, if lesser, effects to legal persecution, so why would it be different in this case?

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure I can explain it anymore clearly than I did in my last post but I'll have one last go.

Imagine a country with only 2 types of cyclist.

High risk cyclists and low risk cyclists.

The two groups are of equal size.

The high risk cyclists have a fatality rate of 9 per million miles ridden.

The low risk cyclists have a rate of 1 fatality per million miles.

The population risk is therefore 5 fatalities per million miles ridden.

Imagine a helmet law is introduced.

All the low risk cyclists immediately quit cycling.

All the high risk cyclists continue cycling.

The number of cyclists decreases by half and as it is only the high risk cyclists left the population risk is now 9 fatalities per million miles.

The population risk has increased massively but the individual risk for each high risk cyclist is exactly the same as it was before.

My point is that you cannot assume a rise in individual risk from a rise in population risk unless you have identical populations in your two comparison groups.

That is not the case with pre and post helmet law population comparisons.

Rich_cb wrote:

I'm not sure I can explain it anymore clearly than I did in my last post but I'll have one last go.

Imagine a country with only 2 types of cyclist.

High risk cyclists and low risk cyclists.

The two groups are of equal size.

The high risk cyclists have a fatality rate of 9 per million miles ridden.

The low risk cyclists have a rate of 1 fatality per million miles.

The population risk is therefore 5 fatalities per million miles ridden.

Imagine a helmet law is introduced.

All the low risk cyclists immediately quit cycling.

All the high risk cyclists continue cycling.

The number of cyclists decreases by half and as it is only the high risk cyclists left the population risk is now 9 fatalities per million miles.

The population risk has increased massively but the individual risk for each high risk cyclist is exactly the same as it was before.

My point is that you cannot assume a rise in individual risk from a rise in population risk unless you have identical populations in your two comparison groups.

That is not the case with pre and post helmet law population comparisons.

Yet you haven't established any groups beyond commuters, haven't quantified any risk factors, and haven't pointed to how mandated helmet laws affect different groups.

There is nothing wrong in the concept of risk groups affecting the population risk while the individual risk remains the same, it's just that you've failed to demonstrate that it applies to cyclists when it comes to mandated helmet use let alone by how much. Your only attempt to do so (KSI by time of day) failed.

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

Yet you haven't established any groups beyond commuters, haven't quantified any risk factors, and haven't pointed to how mandated helmet laws affect different groups.

There is nothing wrong in the concept of risk groups affecting the population risk while the individual risk remains the same, it's just that you've failed to demonstrate that it applies to cyclists when it comes to mandated helmet use let alone by how much. Your only attempt to do so (KSI by time of day) failed.

I used the term relative.

A term you appear to struggle to understand.

I think it's incredibly unlikely that all groups of cyclists will be affected by mandatory helmet laws in an identical manner.

As different groups have different risk profiles it would be incredibly unlikely that the population risk profile was not changed by the introduction of the law.

Rich_cb wrote:

I used the term relative.

A term you appear to struggle to understand.

I think it's incredibly unlikely that all groups of cyclists will be affected by mandatory helmet laws in an identical manner.

As different groups have different risk profiles it would be incredibly unlikely that the population risk profile was not changed by the introduction of the law.

You keep suggesting people are wrong simply because you believe they haven't understood your argument when if anything it looks to be the other way around.

You may think it 'incredibly unlikely that that all groups of cyclists will be affected by mandatory helmet laws in an identical manner', but your only attempt to demonstrate this, didn't demonstrate anything of the sort. So much so, that I have to wonder whether you had even looked at the KSI figures before you alluded to them.

My point is that you demand evidence from others, yet dismiss it when given, whilst building your case on what you present as self-evident truths and in doing so absolve yourself of the responsibility to back up your own claims.

Rich_cb wrote:

I'm not sure I can explain it anymore clearly than I did in my last post but I'll have one last go. Imagine a country with only 2 types of cyclist. High risk cyclists and low risk cyclists. The two groups are of equal size. The high risk cyclists have a fatality rate of 9 per million miles ridden. The low risk cyclists have a rate of 1 fatality per million miles. The population risk is therefore 5 fatalities per million miles ridden. Imagine a helmet law is introduced. All the low risk cyclists immediately quit cycling. All the high risk cyclists continue cycling. The number of cyclists decreases by half and as it is only the high risk cyclists left the population risk is now 9 fatalities per million miles. The population risk has increased massively but the individual risk for each high risk cyclist is exactly the same as it was before. My point is that you cannot assume a rise in individual risk from a rise in population risk unless you have identical populations in your two comparison groups. That is not the case with pre and post helmet law population comparisons.

But I already made clear that I got that point, and , in fact, I'd say I made a better case for it than you did! (As you got bogged down in unconvincingly trying argue that commuting was 'high risk').

But what that point doesn't explain is why you think this is any different in effect from the effect of helmet promotion.

  The same thing is likely to happen whether it's a new law or a propaganda public-shaming campaign.  So you _can_ compare the effect of a helmet law with that of a pro-helmet campaign.  Whether it results in increased individual risk (due to loss of safety-in-numbers) or in only an increased total risk (due to dissuading the lower-risk cyclists) doesn't really matter - the net result is an increase in bad outcomes.  So looking at countries with such a law _is_ a useful comparison.  It doesn't actually matter whether the mechanism is a change in cycling population or not, what matters is the result.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

But I already made clear that I got that point, and , in fact, I'd say I made a better case for it than you did! (As you got bogged down in unconvincingly trying argue that commuting was 'high risk').

 

But what that point doesn't explain is why you think this is any different in effect from the effect of helmet promotion.

 

  The same thing is likely to happen whether it's a new law or a propaganda public-shaming campaign.  So you _can_ compare the effect of a helmet law with that of a pro-helmet campaign.  Whether it results in increased individual risk (due to loss of safety-in-numbers) or in only an increased total risk (due to dissuading the lower-risk cyclists) doesn't really matter - the net result is an increase in bad outcomes.  So looking at countries with such a law _is_ a useful comparison.  It doesn't actually matter whether the mechanism is a change in cycling population or not, what matters is the result.

I'd argue that if the only result is an increase in total risk without an increase in individual risk then there won't be an increase in bad outcomes by definition.

You may be right about helmet promotion, you may not, we don't know and we don't appear to have any decent quality evidence to go on.

I'm happy to accept your argument if there's some good evidence behind it but until there is I'm guessing we'll just have to agree to disagree?

Rich_cb wrote:

 

I'd argue that if the only result is an increase in total risk without an increase in individual risk then there won't be an increase in bad outcomes by definition. [/quote]

I mistook you for somebody who believed helmets worked. Must have been mistaken.

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

 

I'd argue that if the only result is an increase in total risk without an increase in individual risk then there won't be an increase in bad outcomes by definition.

Ah, but there is, because you'll have reduced active travel and so increased bad outcomes for inactivity and pollution related health problems.  So the effects of helmet promotion or compulsion will be negative overall.

As for helmet promotion - well, we do have some evidence, we know how in other areas propaganda and social pressure is only different in the strength of its effect from legal sanctions.  Certainly if the propaganda is supported by the state (OK, it's more complicated if it's purely privately funded propaganda).  The default assumption, absent contradictory evidence, would be that state propaganda is only different from state force in the degree of its effect.

Anyway, where's BTBs?  I want to know if the EU is indeed being that devious or if it's just a conspiracy theory.  I genuinly wouldn't be surprised either way.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Ah, but there is, because you'll have reduced active travel and so increased bad outcomes for inactivity and pollution related health problems.  So the effects of helmet promotion or compulsion will be negative overall.

 

As for helmet promotion - well, we do have some evidence, we know how in other areas propaganda and social pressure is only different in the strength of its effect from legal sanctions.  Certainly if the propaganda is supported by the state (OK, it's more complicated if it's purely privately funded propaganda).  The default assumption, absent contradictory evidence, would be that state propaganda is only different from state force in the degree of its effect.

 

Anyway, where's BTBs?  I want to know if the EU is indeed being that devious or if it's just a conspiracy theory.  I genuinly wouldn't be surprised either way.

Such as when the authorities promote helmet wearing in such a way so as to be easily confused with it being mandatory.

For example, in the 'vehicles and cycles' section of the West Yorkshire Police website (link below), we get this piece of 'advice':

'Cyclists should always wear helmets that meet the British Standard (BS EN 1078:1997)'

In addition to this, cyclists are given 10 other safety tips, whilst drivers are simply told:

'Drivers and motorcycle riders are urged to remain alert to cyclists and keep safety in mind at all times, especially by passing by at a safe distance.'

Oh, and since when is a bicycle not a vehicle?

https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/advice/vehicles-cycles/vehicle-crime...

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

 

For example, in the 'vehicles and cycles' section of the West Yorkshire Police website (link below), we get this piece of 'advice':

 

'Cyclists should always wear helmets that meet the British Standard (BS EN 1078:1997)'

 

And here's the legal loophole, define wear, please?

On you head?

On your arm?

By the straps of the loops on your jeans?

I don't know what the requirements are in order to wear a helmet correctly.

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Ah, but there is, because you'll have reduced active travel and so increased bad outcomes for inactivity and pollution related health problems.  So the effects of helmet promotion or compulsion will be negative overall.

 

As for helmet promotion - well, we do have some evidence, we know how in other areas propaganda and social pressure is only different in the strength of its effect from legal sanctions.  Certainly if the propaganda is supported by the state (OK, it's more complicated if it's purely privately funded propaganda).  The default assumption, absent contradictory evidence, would be that state propaganda is only different from state force in the degree of its effect.

 

Anyway, where's BTBs?  I want to know if the EU is indeed being that devious or if it's just a conspiracy theory.  I genuinly wouldn't be surprised either way.

Such as when the authorities promote helmet wearing in such a way so as to be easily confused with it being mandatory.

For example, in the 'vehicles and cycles' section of the West Yorkshire Police website (link below), we get this piece of 'advice':

'Cyclists should always wear helmets that meet the British Standard (BS EN 1078:1997)'

In addition to this, cyclists are given 10 other safety tips, whilst drivers are simply told:

'Drivers and motorcycle riders are urged to remain alert to cyclists and keep safety in mind at all times, especially by passing by at a safe distance.'

Oh, and since when is a bicycle not a vehicle?

https://www.westyorkshire.police.uk/advice/vehicles-cycles/vehicle-crime...

Well, back to the sliding scale, with one end being, say, Australia, and the other being as oblivious to cycling helmets as, say, walking helmets (this isn't aimed at you - it's @Rich_cb, pretty quiet on this). 

If there hasn't been effective promotion, how have we ended up with

- briefs making reference in court to irrelevant wearing of helmets by cyclists squashed by cars and lorries

- headteachers effectively banning cycling to school without helmets (the primary school 2 of my kids attend recently had a storm in a teacup, with the otherwise-logical headmistress applauding a kid cycling with a helmet and 'now she just needs to get her mum to so the same' (kid wears helmet, mum doesn't) ) 

- every triathlon (racking my brains, pretty sure) I have ever done, around 100 in total, from sprint to ironman, BTF and other-affiliations, in this and 4 other countries (non with mandatory laws) insisting on me wearing a helmet for the cycling bit, and no other safety gear

- BC events mandating helmets

- debates like this for the last couple of decades on cycling forums, with comparably risky activities remaining helmet and debate-free

?

That's some cultural shift to just 'happen'. 

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Ah, but there is, because you'll have reduced active travel and so increased bad outcomes for inactivity and pollution related health problems.  So the effects of helmet promotion or compulsion will be negative overall.

 

As for helmet promotion - well, we do have some evidence, we know how in other areas propaganda and social pressure is only different in the strength of its effect from legal sanctions.  Certainly if the propaganda is supported by the state (OK, it's more complicated if it's purely privately funded propaganda).  The default assumption, absent contradictory evidence, would be that state propaganda is only different from state force in the degree of its effect.

 

Anyway, where's BTBs?  I want to know if the EU is indeed being that devious or if it's just a conspiracy theory.  I genuinly wouldn't be surprised either way.

I think you're jumping to conclusions about the promotion side of things as we have no real idea of the magnitude of the effect, if any. But agree to disagree.

As for the pollution/active travel point you are correct. I was talking purely in terms of risk to the cyclists.

The drop in participation is one of the best reasons to oppose mandatory helmet laws and could be a strong argument against promotion if it could be proven there was a similar effect.

I imagine BTBS is at the UN protesting about their forced migration master plan or something.

Rich_cb wrote:

The drop in participation is one of the best reasons to oppose mandatory helmet laws and could be a strong argument against promotion if it could be proven there was a similar effect.

Hang on: I thought all we needed was 'it stands to reason', as in

It stands to reason that the promotion, PR campaigns, marketing and media associated with helmets have had effects,  and

It stands to reason that it is not solely the lawmaking aspect that is responsible for all the unintended consequences associated with mandatory helmets.

Are you saying that campaigns and promotion don't have an effect, or

It is only once a movement is mandated by law that the unintended consequences occur? 

davel wrote:

Hang on: I thought all we needed was 'it stands to reason', as in

It stands to reason that the promotion, PR campaigns, marketing and media associated with helmets have had effects,  and

It stands to reason that it is not solely the lawmaking aspect that is responsible for all the unintended consequences associated with mandatory helmets.

Are you saying that campaigns and promotion don't have an effect, or

It is only once a movement is mandated by law that the unintended consequences occur? 

I'm pretty sure we've been over this.

If helmet promotion has a negative effect it's likely to be small as cycling has continued to grow in countries with effective helmet promotion. For example the UK and pre helmet law Australia.

So without good quality evidence it's impossible to gauge what effect, if any, helmet promotion has on participation rates.

Rich_cb wrote:

I'm pretty sure we've been over this. If helmet promotion has a negative effect it's likely to be small as cycling has continued to grow in countries with effective helmet promotion. For example the UK and pre helmet law Australia. So without good quality evidence it's impossible to gauge what effect, if any, helmet promotion has on participation rates.

Why does the growth in cycling indicate that is it likely to be only a small effect? Other than 'it stands to reason'? Could there not be other factors in play?

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Hang on: I thought all we needed was 'it stands to reason', as in

It stands to reason that the promotion, PR campaigns, marketing and media associated with helmets have had effects,  and

It stands to reason that it is not solely the lawmaking aspect that is responsible for all the unintended consequences associated with mandatory helmets.

Are you saying that campaigns and promotion don't have an effect, or

It is only once a movement is mandated by law that the unintended consequences occur? 

I'm pretty sure we've been over this. If helmet promotion has a negative effect it's likely to be small as cycling has continued to grow in countries with effective helmet promotion. For example the UK and pre helmet law Australia. So without good quality evidence it's impossible to gauge what effect, if any, helmet promotion has on participation rates.

Actually I remember seeing something recently that said that cycling in the UK is not growing in the number of people (it was actually static or falling). It is growing in distance but that is because the same number of people are travelling further by bicycle. So cycling has not continued to grow in the UK as you have stated.

I'll see if I can find the article

*edit

Here it is:

http://road.cc/content/news/235876-flatlining-cycling-numbers-and-invest...

The article states:

"The figures also indicate that men cycle three times more often and four times further than women and Cycling UK is particularly concerned that any growth in cycling appears mainly to be among white males, suggesting an ongoing decline among women, children and people of diverse backgrounds."

As it has been proposed earlier in the thread that helmet wearing is more likely to deter women (for helmet hair reasons) and minorities (for religious headwear reasons) it would indicate that the helmet promotion over the last decade or so could have had a damaging effect on cycling numbers.

ClubSmed wrote:

Actually I remember seeing something recently that said that cycling in the UK is not growing in the number of people (it was actually static or falling). It is growing in distance but that is because the same number of people are travelling further by bicycle. So cycling has not continued to grow in the UK as you have stated.

I'll see if I can find the article

*edit

Here it is:

http://road.cc/content/news/235876-flatlining-cycling-numbers-and-invest...

The article states:

"The figures also indicate that men cycle three times more often and four times further than women and Cycling UK is particularly concerned that any growth in cycling appears mainly to be among white males, suggesting an ongoing decline among women, children and people of diverse backgrounds."

As it has been proposed earlier in the thread that helmet wearing is more likely to deter women (for helmet hair reasons) and minorities (for religious headwear reasons) it would indicate that the helmet promotion over the last decade or so could have had a damaging effect on cycling numbers.

Well it depends on your definition of growth. Is there more cycling occuring than a decade ago. Yes.

You could assume that the static number of cyclists is due to helmet promotion, without any evidence whatsoever.

Or you could look at the levels of investment and at the cycling rates in areas where there had been investment. London for example.

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Actually I remember seeing something recently that said that cycling in the UK is not growing in the number of people (it was actually static or falling). It is growing in distance but that is because the same number of people are travelling further by bicycle. So cycling has not continued to grow in the UK as you have stated.

I'll see if I can find the article

*edit

Here it is:

http://road.cc/content/news/235876-flatlining-cycling-numbers-and-invest...

The article states:

"The figures also indicate that men cycle three times more often and four times further than women and Cycling UK is particularly concerned that any growth in cycling appears mainly to be among white males, suggesting an ongoing decline among women, children and people of diverse backgrounds."

As it has been proposed earlier in the thread that helmet wearing is more likely to deter women (for helmet hair reasons) and minorities (for religious headwear reasons) it would indicate that the helmet promotion over the last decade or so could have had a damaging effect on cycling numbers.

Well it depends on your definition of growth. Is there more cycling occuring than a decade ago. Yes. You could assume that the static number of cyclists is due to helmet promotion, without any evidence whatsoever. Or you could look at the levels of investment and at the cycling rates in areas where there had been investment. London for example.

If you are talking about helmet promotion not putting people off cycling then growth should be number of cyclists not distance travelled as it is more likely to put off potential cyclists than those who cycle already. It is unlikely that helmet promotion is going to put existing cyclists off cycling further.

Are you are saying that in order to see that helmet promotion has not had an effect on the cycling numbers look at areas that have had infrastructure investment such as cycle lanes that negates the need for helmets as they are removed from motorised traffic?

If helmet promotion makes cycling seem more dangerous than it is and if cycling infrastructure promotion makes cycling seem safer, then it potentially negates the effect of helmet promotion.

ClubSmed wrote:

So you are saying that in order to see that helmet promotion has not had an effect on the cycling numbers look at areas that have had infrastructure investment such as cycle lanes that negates the need for helmets as they are removed from motorised traffic?

If helmet promotion makes cycling seem more dangerous than it is and if cycling infrastructure promotion makes cycling seem safer, then it potentially negates the effect of helmet promotion.

No. That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying there are many variables at work. We can isolate the effect of funding far more easily than the effect of helmet promotion.

If there is a trend of increased cycling growth in areas with increased funding and not in areas with decreased funding then it suggests funding is an important factor. If the effect of funding changes is large enough it may explain the entire overall trend.

As I've said several times I'm happy to accept the argument on helmet promotion if there is some decent evidence behind it.

As was discussed on a previous thread cycle helmet use grew strongly in the UK from 1994, so it can be assumed that helmet promotion was also present. I believe cycling numbers and distance grew during this time.

If so, what changed with helmet promotion from 1994-2004 to 2004 onwards?

Rich_cb wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

Actually I remember seeing something recently that said that cycling in the UK is not growing in the number of people (it was actually static or falling). It is growing in distance but that is because the same number of people are travelling further by bicycle. So cycling has not continued to grow in the UK as you have stated.

I'll see if I can find the article

*edit

Here it is:

http://road.cc/content/news/235876-flatlining-cycling-numbers-and-invest...

The article states:

"The figures also indicate that men cycle three times more often and four times further than women and Cycling UK is particularly concerned that any growth in cycling appears mainly to be among white males, suggesting an ongoing decline among women, children and people of diverse backgrounds."

As it has been proposed earlier in the thread that helmet wearing is more likely to deter women (for helmet hair reasons) and minorities (for religious headwear reasons) it would indicate that the helmet promotion over the last decade or so could have had a damaging effect on cycling numbers.

Well it depends on your definition of growth. Is there more cycling occuring than a decade ago. Yes.

If people are put off an activity by safety concerns then it is more likely to effect those who are yet to take it up rather than those who already do it. Therefor it would effect the number of people doing it (not increasing) rather than the amount of times the people who are already doing it continue to do it.

Rich_cb wrote:

davel wrote:

Hang on: I thought all we needed was 'it stands to reason', as in

It stands to reason that the promotion, PR campaigns, marketing and media associated with helmets have had effects,  and

It stands to reason that it is not solely the lawmaking aspect that is responsible for all the unintended consequences associated with mandatory helmets.

Are you saying that campaigns and promotion don't have an effect, or

It is only once a movement is mandated by law that the unintended consequences occur? 

I'm pretty sure we've been over this. If helmet promotion has a negative effect it's likely to be small as cycling has continued to grow in countries with effective helmet promotion. For example the UK and pre helmet law Australia. So without good quality evidence it's impossible to gauge what effect, if any, helmet promotion has on participation rates.

But the 'growth' in those countries has been tiny.  Involving cycling's modal share growing from negligable to insignificant.  Which suggests there are many factors supressing cycling in those countries.  Helmet promotion could be a significant force to reduce cycling, but still be rendered invisible by the size of all the other factors at work.   The fact remains that the only countries that have seen growth that is worthy of the name have been ones without such promotion.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

But the 'growth' in those countries has been tiny.  Involving cycling's modal share growing from negligable to insignificant.  Which suggests there are many factors supressing cycling in those countries.  Helmet promotion could be a significant force to reduce cycling, but still be rendered invisible by the size of all the other factors at work.   The fact remains that the only countries that have seen growth that is worthy of the name have been ones without such promotion.

The growth has certainly not been as large in the UK as most cyclists would like but it has still been growth.

That small level of growth followed decades of decline.

The growth in cycling in the UK has occurred at the same time as rising helmet use which suggests that helmet promotion was prominent during the period of growth.

I'm not disagreeing that helmet promotion might be a negative, just stating that there's no reliable evidence of this.

It would also be difficult to differentiate different types of promotion. When I got a bike through C2W a few years ago there was a lot of promotion of helmets/lights/Hi-Vis alongside the bikes.

Trying to untangle the, possibly negative, effect of the helmet promotion from the, presumably positive, effect of C2W would be pretty challenging.