Aussie cyclists protest mandatory helmet laws with helmet-optional rides

Rich_cb wrote:

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

Well yes, that particular BTBS comment was oddly UKIPian or Trumpist.

  But, still, the EU did produce an official report with that bizarre misuse of statistics, so I'm not ruling out the possibility that there might be something to what he said on this one.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

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?

This is what I don't get either. In many ways, if I was told that when cycling there was a chance I would end up being left in a vegetative state or worse still, killed but that a helmet would prevent this, then I'm sure I'd be more willing to wear a helmet than if it was legislated for but not effectively enforced.

Now given the drop in cycling in countries after mandatory legislation was introduced, there are obviously some who feel not cycling is preferable to cycling with a helmet. Why would this not also hold true where people felt there was a significantly greater risk of being KSI'd as opposed to the risk of a fine. 

Then it just becomes a question of how much of an effect helmet promotion has which is why others have suggested it would be somewhere on a sliding scale, probably correlating with the amount and extent of the promotion.

Pudsey Pedaller wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

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?

This is what I don't get either. In many ways, if I was told that when cycling there was a chance I would end up being left in a vegetative state or worse still, killed but that a helmet would prevent this, then I'm sure I'd be more willing to wear a helmet than if it was legislated for but not effectively enforced.

Now given the drop in cycling in countries after mandatory legislation was introduced, there are obviously some who feel not cycling is preferable to cycling with a helmet. Why would this not also hold true where people felt there was a significantly greater risk of being KSI'd as opposed to the risk of a fine. 

Then it just becomes a question of how much of an effect helmet promotion has which is why others have suggested it would be somewhere on a sliding scale, probably correlating with the amount and extent of the promotion.

To me there's a slightly more sutble aspect to it as well.  Which is the lurid helmet-promoting campaigns carry a moralising undertone, which say, not only might you be killed or injured while cycling, but that if you are _it will be your own fault_.

  It's not a large step from implying that 'cycling without a helmet is irresponsible and if you die you deserved it' to 'cycling is irresponsible'.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

To me there's a slightly more sutble aspect to it as well.  Which is the lurid helmet-promoting campaigns carry a moralising undertone, which say, not only might you be killed or injured while cycling, but that if you are _it will be your own fault_.

 

It's not a large step from implying that 'cycling without a helmet is irresponsible and if you die you deserved it' to 'cycling is irresponsible'.

And there is the emotional blackmail of "what about the people left behind when you die because you didn't wear a helmet?"

Which is sickening and utterly absurd when you consider that you are much more at risk from not cycling than cycling.

Rich_cb wrote:

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

It would be very difficult to find evidence, one way or the other, for a change in participation which of its nature would be gradual. As cycling gains an image of danger in the public mind, more and more people will cycle less or not even take it up. But this would not happen sufficiently suddenly to be readily associated with change in the image , and gathering evidence might be a matter of interviewing large numbers. I am sure you can imagine the problems of identifying and reaching the deterred. This is why a sudden change in law producing a sudden, large change in wearing rates  is so useful in assessing efficacy.

So I think you are quite safe in being able to carry on believing what you want to believe.

Myself, I find it easy to believe that the propaganda for helmets, which entails painting cycling as a unusually dangerous activity, demanding safety gear which other, equally dangerous activities ( walking or motoring, say, does not demand) has the effect of deterring many people, and leaving only lycra clad, polystyrene wearing young men and mamils. Its good to see them of course, but I would love to see the benefits of mass cycling enjoyed by all ages in their everyday life, like the Dutch.

We would be a fitter, healthier population, breathing cleaner air and making substantially less contribution to global warming. I am sure you would too, but I point out again that the high helmet wearing rate countries are the low cycling rate and high head injury rate ones. We are not going to reach the Dutch paradise whilst helmets are seen as the answer to cyclist safety.

Helmet promotion necessarily entails painting cycling as dangerous. More dangerous than walking or driving. This is not so.

Rich_cb wrote:

 

 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.

Have you seen that poster for children from BeHIT, the helmet pushing charity? It shows a skull X-rayed in a helmet. Have a look at the propaganda if you don't believe that the helmeteers focus on endangerising cycling. They routinely vastly overstate the chances of a head injury whilst riding. This sort of thing is bound to dissuade some people from cycling.

To persuade cyclists into helmets you have to convince them that cycling is uniquely dangerous, but this is untrue. Walking and riding in a car are about as productive of head injuries as cycling. (It depends on the country: in some cycling is a bit safer, in others more dangerous.)

felixcat wrote:

Helmet promotion necessarily entails painting cycling as dangerous. More dangerous than walking or driving. This is not so.

Rich_cb wrote:

 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.

Have you seen that poster for children from BeHIT, the helmet pushing charity? It shows a skull X-rayed in a helmet. Have a look at the propaganda if you don't believe that the helmeteers focus on endangerising cycling. They routinely vastly overstate the chances of a head injury whilst riding. This sort of thing is bound to dissuade some people from cycling.

To persuade cyclists into helmets you have to convince them that cycling is uniquely dangerous, but this is untrue. Walking and riding in a car are about as productive of head injuries as cycling. (It depends on the country: in some cycling is a bit safer, in others more dangerous.)

My MSc dissertation was on the subject of people's perceptions of the risks of cycling and their perceptions of the effectiveness of helmets, and the data showed that most people thought that cycling was much more dangerous than it really is, and that helmets were much more effective than they really were, and that the views were linked.  If you thought cycling was very dangerous, it was likely that you thought that helmets were extremely effective.

I could see no other cause for this than the propaganda put out by BHIT and the media, with thousands of "helmet saved my life" stories, usually with a picture showing a helmet which had shattered, not deformed, and a medic/police/road safety officer confirming that it had indeed saved their life. 

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.

And black is white and white is black.  You'll argue yourself into a corkscrew if you keep this up.

Rich_cb wrote:

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.

I wouldn't want to deny anyone the right to choose for themselves, but last time I checked, no human has been born with a cycle helmet pre-attached to their head. Therefore surely the default position should be, such as it is in most other areas of our lives, not to wear a helmet until there is sufficient evidence in both quantity and quality to show a clear overall benefit in doing so.

The alternative would surely be chaos as you could argue that anything showing correlation should influence decision making until such time as it's shown not to be causation.

Rich_cb][quote=felixcat wrote:

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.

Not true; we don't only have case control studies.  The only studies showing massive benefits from helmet wearing are case control studies, so unreliable that scientists have called for their results to be ignored unless supported by other, more reliable data.  There are epidemiological studies, much more reliable, which show no benefit.

burtthebike wrote:

Not true; we don't only have case control studies.  The only studies showing massive benefits from helmet wearing are case control studies, so unreliable that scientists have called for their results to be ignored unless supported by other, more reliable data.  There are epidemiological studies, much more reliable, which show no benefit.

Case control studies are a type of epidemiological study Burt.

Rich_cb wrote:

 

Case control studies are a type of epidemiological study Burt.[/quote]

In a sense, but whole population studies avoid very real problems with the selection of cases, which must be very carefully done. As I have already said, Rivara et. al. fail to avoid these problems.

As you have pointed out, wearers and non wearers are not easily comparable.

felixcat wrote:

In a sense, but whole population studies avoid very real problems with the selection of cases, which must be very carefully done. As I have already said, Rivara et. al. fail to avoid these problems.

As you have pointed out, wearers and non wearers are not easily comparable.

Whole population studies also have their flaws as you must ensure that the population remains comparable.

If the population changes markedly over a period of time then any comparisons become meaningless.

For example in Australia post helmet mandation the cycling population effectively dropped by a third, this makes comparing the population before and after the law very difficult as the composition of the population is likely to be significantly different.

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Not true; we don't only have case control studies.  The only studies showing massive benefits from helmet wearing are case control studies, so unreliable that scientists have called for their results to be ignored unless supported by other, more reliable data.  There are epidemiological studies, much more reliable, which show no benefit.

Case control studies are a type of epidemiological study Burt.

Indeed they are, just not as reliable as whole population, long term studies.  In fact, case control studies are not reliable at all.

burtthebike wrote:

Indeed they are, just not as reliable as whole population, long term studies.  In fact, case control studies are not reliable at all.

Google 'Hierarchy of Evidence'.

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?

Having looked at a very great deal of the evidence, it is clear to me that the evidence showing huge benefits is rated much lower on international scales for the reliability of research, most of which is small scale, short term with blatantly biased researchers, and is frequently of the case control type, which is rated lowest for reliability of any research methodology.  Some researchers do meta-studies and put lots of this unreliable research together and claim that it is magically transformed into reliable data; it isn't.

burtthebike wrote:

Having looked at a very great deal of the evidence, it is clear to me that the evidence showing huge benefits is rated much lower on international scales for the reliability of research, most of which is small scale, short term with blatantly biased researchers, and is frequently of the case control type, which is rated lowest for reliability of any research methodology.  Some researchers do meta-studies and put lots of this unreliable research together and claim that it is magically transformed into reliable data; it isn't.

Did you systematically review all those studies before or after you rang all those insurance companies?

Rich_cb wrote:

 

 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?

Spiegelhalter and Goldacre are not doing research. They are looking at the research into helmet efficacy and assessing it. They are thought by their employers to be good enough at epidemiology and helping the public understand risk that they have been appointed to a chair and a fellowship, so it is probable that they have done a thorough job.

The work that they have done on helmets is thought good enough to be published by the British Medical Journal as editorial matter.

My own interest is in risk homeostasis. The book which focussed my ideas and extended my understanding is Risk by John Adamd published by the University College London Press.

I strongly recommend it to any cyclist interested in the subject.

Some review quotes.

extremely counterintuitive...stimulating and rewarding , Nature.

I was asked to review a new book...and I have utterly changed my mind about the benefits of seat belt legislation, Sunday Telegraph.

An invigorating book that deserves to be widely read,  Philosophy.

Adams is a gentle and accessible giant in the field of risk, New Statesman.

felixcat wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

 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?

Spiegelhalter and Goldacre are not doing research. They are looking at the research into helmet efficacy and assessing it. They are thought by their employers to be good enough at epidemiology and helping the public understand risk that they have been appointed to a chair and a fellowship, so it is probable that they have done a thorough job.

The work that they have done on helmets is thought good enough to be published by the British Medical Journal as editorial matter.

My own interest is in risk homeostasis. The book which focussed my ideas and extended my understanding is Risk by John Adamd published by the University College London Press.

I strongly recommend it to any cyclist interested in the subject.

Some review quotes.

extremely counterintuitive...stimulating and rewarding , Nature.

I was asked to review a new book...and I have utterly changed my mind about the benefits of seat belt legislation, Sunday Telegraph.

An invigorating book that deserves to be widely read,  Philosophy.

Adams is a gentle and accessible giant in the field of risk, New Statesman.

Totally agree with everything you've said there, especially about Risk by John Adams.   Despite all the dust jacket recommendations, most books don't change your life, but Risk probably would.

felixcat wrote:

Spiegelhalter and Goldacre are not doing research. They are looking at the research into helmet efficacy and assessing it. They are thought by their employers to be good enough at epidemiology and helping the public understand risk that they have been appointed to a chair and a fellowship, so it is probable that they have done a thorough job.

The work that they have done on helmets is thought good enough to be published by the British Medical Journal as editorial matter.

My own interest is in risk homeostasis. The book which focussed my ideas and extended my understanding is Risk by John Adamd published by the University College London Press.

I strongly recommend it to any cyclist interested in the subject.

Some review quotes.

extremely counterintuitive...stimulating and rewarding , Nature.

I was asked to review a new book...and I have utterly changed my mind about the benefits of seat belt legislation, Sunday Telegraph.

An invigorating book that deserves to be widely read,  Philosophy.

Adams is a gentle and accessible giant in the field of risk, New Statesman.

 

 

I'm not going to get involved in pointless semantics.

Many of the authors of pro helmet studies have fantastic qualifications/credentials so I'm not sure that's really relevant either.

Further to that an editorial is essentially an opinion piece.

I will take a look at that book when I get the chance though, thanks for the recommendation.

Rich_cb wrote:

 

 

I'm not going to get involved in pointless semantics. Many of the authors of pro helmet studies have fantastic qualifications/credentials so I'm not sure that's really relevant either. Further to that an editorial is essentially an opinion piece. I will take a look at that book when I get the chance though, thanks for the recommendation.[/quote]

Don't get your pointless semantics line.

Would you like to give us the fantastic qualifications you assert?

I am sure Goldacre and Spiegelhalter would not write a frivolous piece, and I am sure the BMJ would not publish one.

If all I get from my efforts here is that one person reads Risk I will not think my time wasted.

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.

I'm so glad I bring joy to someone's life, makes it all worthwhile somehow.

However, if you look at the studies using international scales of reliability of research, then yes, the studies showing no benefit from helmet wearing are rated much more reliable than those showing huge benefits.

The ones showing no benefit are more likely to be large scale, long term and done by objective researchers, while those showing huge benefits tend to be short term, small scale with blatantly biased researchers.

The strength of the evidence is clear, but I guess you don't want to acknowledge that.

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.

isn’t that the way things should be? I mean, why would anyone agree with the bad evidence, and disagree with the good stuff?

Rich_cb wrote:

Experious wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07o-TASvIxY&vl=en

It is worth watching the whole video, but your evidence is at 13 minutes.

Correlation is not causation. There's a really good correlation between the voluntary increase in bicycle helmet wearing in the UK and a decrease in cyclist KSIs and serious head injuries. As has been extensively discussed on another thread that doesn't prove causation either.

Experious didn't say it was causation, he said it was evidence of the claim that promotion of the wearing of a cycle helmet actively discourages participation in cycling, which it is. You seem to be confusing evidence with proof. Proof is the result of a body evidence that is sufficient in both quantity and quality and has shown to hold true when tested. So while the correlation is not in and of itself proof of causation, it is evidence that supports causation. You asked for evidence of a claim and that evidence has been given.

Rich_cb wrote:

You've taken the well known negative effects of compulsory helmet laws and extrapolated wildly. Where is your evidence that requiring helmets on a sportive or leisure ride damages cycling? Where is your evidence that any form of helmet promotion damages cycling?[/quote]

Plenty of evidence if you care to look.  There's the TRL286 report that found cycling declined by 3% in local authority areas that promoted helmets against a background of 5% growth in those that didn't (Table 16).  There's the Australian data that showed a 30% drop in cycling on the introduction of a compulsory helmet law (and up to 90% in female teenagers).   And then there's the well known NZ graph on what happened to cycling numbers and head injuries when they introduced a helmet law (they went down and up respectively)

Tony wrote:

Plenty of evidence if you care to look.  There's the TRL286 report that found cycling declined by 3% in local authority areas that promoted helmets against a background of 5% growth in those that didn't (Table 16).  There's the Australian data that showed a 30% drop in cycling on the introduction of a compulsory helmet law (and up to 90% in female teenagers).   And then there's the well known NZ graph on what happened to cycling numbers and head injuries when they introduced a helmet law (they went down and up respectively)

Already been covered.

burtthebike wrote:

Just thought my many fans would expect me to post, so here goes.

"It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling."

And that is why helmet propaganda and promotion is so pernicious.  No benefit, massive unintended consequences and costs borne by individuals.

Helmet laws and propaganda have two proven effects: a fall in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets, there is no safety benefit.  Anyone promoting helmets, demanding helmet laws or having helmet rules for their leisure rides is doing harm to cycling generally.

 

 

I still don't believe the 'profits for those making and selling helmets' is a significant issue.  It hardly seems that helmet-making is a rich and powerful industry (as opposed to to, say, the car industry).  I don't believe anyone with any power cares very much about those guys.

(Indeed, if the number of cyclists drops with such a law, the helmet-makers profits might actually not increase, or even go down)

  I'd instead cite the effect of 'a small feeling of satisfaction and victory on the part of cyclist-resenting motorists at having managed to impose a marker of submisson onto their peceived enemy'.  Of course, that effect will wear off and they'll start looking for another way to scratch that itch, at lest until they've imposed sufficient indignities or restrictions on cyclists to get almost all of them off the roads.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I still don't believe the 'profits for those making and selling helmets' is a significant issue.  It hardly seems that helmet-making is a rich and powerful industry (as opposed to to, say, the car industry).  I don't believe anyone with any power cares very much about those guys.

A wise man  once said "If you don't understand what's going on, follow the money."

There is no reliable evidence that cycle helmets reduce risk and quite a lot that shows they don't, but we still have massive helmet propaganda and constant calls for helmet laws; why?  I can't see any other reason than money.  Helmets are probably more profitable than drugs with none of the risks, and an absolute guaranteed huge profit margin if you can get your tame politicians to pass a law.

If you can sell something that costs £1 to make for £150, you aren't going to worry about being factual or accurate, which is why all helmets are sold on style, aerodynamics and anything else except their protective capabilities.  All helmets come with a disclaimer that they won't protect you in forseeable circumstances, which no-one ever reads.

burtthebike wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I still don't believe the 'profits for those making and selling helmets' is a significant issue.  It hardly seems that helmet-making is a rich and powerful industry (as opposed to to, say, the car industry).  I don't believe anyone with any power cares very much about those guys.

A wise man  once said "If you don't understand what's going on, follow the money."

There is no reliable evidence that cycle helmets reduce risk and quite a lot that shows they don't, but we still have massive helmet propaganda and constant calls for helmet laws; why?  I can't see any other reason than money.  Helmets are probably more profitable than drugs with none of the risks, and an absolute guaranteed huge profit margin if you can get your tame politicians to pass a law.

If you can sell something that costs £1 to make for £150, you aren't going to worry about being factual or accurate, which is why all helmets are sold on style, aerodynamics and anything else except their protective capabilities.  All helmets come with a disclaimer that they won't protect you in forseeable circumstances, which no-one ever reads.

I don't think this is a major issue, but I suggest that (a) it's not always about money, there are other forms of gain people can get from something, and (b) if you insist it has to come down to money it's more about the money around the car industry than the helmet industry - the former is a way more powerful lobby, and clearly has a vested interest in pushing responsibility for RTC KSIs onto the victims.

The helmet-makers might _want_ to make their products compulsory, but I don't think they'd get very far with that on their own, with their limited resources (plus, as I said, how much extra profit would they really make, if the number of cyclists goes down?).  I think the car-lobby is far more of a significant factor.

burtthebike wrote:

Just thought my many fans would expect me to post, so here goes.

"It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling."

And that is why helmet propaganda and promotion is so pernicious.  No benefit, massive unintended consequences and costs borne by individuals.

Helmet laws and propaganda have two proven effects: a fall in the number of cyclists and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets, there is no safety benefit.  Anyone promoting helmets, demanding helmet laws or having helmet rules for their leisure rides is doing harm to cycling generally.

 

 

"It hasn’t had any measured safety benefit at the population level. Across population, the reduction in injuries was no more than the drop in cycling."

Probably correct

"Helmet laws and propaganda have two proven effects: a fall in the number of cyclists "

Where has this been proven  ??

"and obscene profits for those making and selling helmets,"

What profit level do helmet makers make (not just cost of production, but compliance, distribution, R&D etc,) and define "obscene"?

"there is no safety benefit. "

That is patently bullsh*t. There are well documented safety (injury reduction outcomes) for individuals wearing helmets in some accidents

"Anyone promoting helmets, demanding helmet laws or having helmet rules for their leisure rides is doing harm to cycling generally. " 

Like wacka-mole that's a mixture of lies, damned lies and half truths.

Anyone promoting helmets is not doing harm to cycling. Wearing helmets is not proven anywhere to do harm to cyclin. Mandatory cycle wear accross a population may fail to improve cycling safety, and may even increase risk, but I believe this is far from proven

Having helmet rules for leisure rides also, unless you can prove otherwise, is unlikely to be doing harm to cycling. 

Burt, you seem wilfully unable to separate the issues of helmet wearing in the individual, injury reduction for the individual, safety in cycling in general and helmet laws. They are all separate issues which don't necessarily have a bearing on each other. It's called a paradox.