Call for mandatory cycling helmets from children's hospital consultant

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

marmotte27 wrote:

Common good not your forte. But then we knew that.

Reducing risk not in the common good? My mistake.

If reducing risk also reduces the health benefits by acting as a barrier to getting people to cycle, then it could easily end up causing more harm than it prevents. Society is better off with getting as many people onto bikes as possible if only for the health benefits (there's also the pollution and congestion issues that would improve), so that should be the focus and one of the biggest reasons that people don't cycle is because they perceive it as being dangerous. Focussing on PPE rather than driving standards only enhances the view of cycling as a dangerous activity.

hawkinspeter wrote:

If reducing risk also reduces the health benefits by acting as a barrier to getting people to cycle, then it could easily end up causing more harm than it prevents.

I would be interested in any data to back up the assertion that I think you're making (along the lines of "trying to make cycling safer by suggesting or mandating helmets makes them think it's more dangerous" -please correct me if I've misunderstood). We as human beings seem to do things more readily if we think it's safer. Eburt has explained a logical argument that some people take more risks when cycling with a helmet because they think their helmet makes them more immortal than reality.

If mandating helmets (for the sake of example, I don't advocate for that) made people think that cycling is dangerous on the basis that "they're trying to make it safer - it must be dangerous", wouldn't the same logic apply to other ways of making cycling safer? E.g. infra improvements? (I should clarify I'm all for infra improvements and not suggesting for a moment we shouldn't improve infra)

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I would be interested in any data to back up the assertion that I think you're making (along the lines of "trying to make cycling safer by suggesting or mandating helmets makes them think it's more dangerous" -please correct me if I've misunderstood). We as human beings seem to do things more readily if we think it's safer. Eburt has explained a logical argument that some people take more risks when cycling with a helmet because they think their helmet makes them more immortal than reality. If mandating helmets (for the sake of example, I don't advocate for that) made people think that cycling is dangerous on the basis that "they're trying to make it safer - it must be dangerous", wouldn't the same logic apply to other ways of making cycling safer? E.g. infra improvements? (I should clarify I'm all for infra improvements and not suggesting for a moment we shouldn't improve infra)

I'll have a look for some data in a bit, though I suspect it'll be hard to find as it's more to do with people's attitudes.

It's a different scenario with segregated infrastructure as that tends to emphasis the danger that drivers pose and it fits in with people's expectations as we have a segregated environment for walking (i.e. pavements) and certainly walking is not seen as a dangerous activity.

I think the danger aspect is often emphasised by well meaning cyclists/helmet advocates that declare things like "you'd be an idiot to cycle without a helmet" or "you've only got one head" etc. (not accusing you of saying that, by the way). That makes people think that the danger from drivers is mainly encountered when cycling although there's a similar danger level posed to pedestrians. By promoting cycle helmets and not pedestrian helmets, there's a bias introduced into people's attitudes towards cycling.

Edit: found this which is close: http://rachelaldred.org/writing/reframing-safety-an-analysis-of-perceptions-of-safety-clothing/

There's also this which is semi-related to your point about cycle lanes increasing the perception of risk: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260266221_Safe_Cycling_How_Do_Risk_Perceptions_Compare_With_Observed_Risk

Thanks for sharing. They both seem to suggest that when people feel less safe, they cycle less, and when they wear helmets and high Vis, they feel safer. There's interesting outliers regarding observed vs perceived risks too.

Promoting cycling is in the common good, motoring is not.

Oh, and when cycling participation plummets, the roads get _less_ safe - in terms of risk per exposure time - for the remaining cyclists. Australia is no safer overall for the (remaining) cyclists. They might see slightly lower head injuries (pro rate) but their overall risk of injury or death per km has *increased* since mandatory helmets laws.

Well done idiotic medics, who are simply *NOT QUALIFIED* on the broader epidemiology of cycle helmets, health and well being.

Paul J wrote:

 This idiotic medic effectively wants to damn hundreds of hearts and cardiovascular systems, in order to save 1 head.

This medic does not work in the dardiovascular department, they are only interested in reducing the workload they see.

Paul J wrote:

Helmets utterly fail to do anything about all the other injuries and deaths.

No no no no no.  In the study done by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, the grandaddies of helmet promotion and lies, it was found that helmets not only protected the head, but the rest of the body as well.  Incredibly, that study is still being quoted, even though it has been disproved.

Paul J wrote:

Head injuries are a small fraction of serious cycling injuries.

RoSPA says "Head injuries [...] are very common injuries to cyclists. Hospital data shows that over 40% of cyclists [...] suffer head injuries" and that over 70% if cyclist fatalities in London have moderate or serious head injuries (80% in rural).

I wouldn't call that a small fraction.
https://www.rospa.com/media/documents/road-safety/cycling-accidents-fact...

Of course just because there are lots of head injuries that doesn't mean that helmets would have helped (especially in the case of motor vehicle involvement / fatalities)...  but getting a fair measure of that from the data seems a difficult task.

Anyway, thanks, it's certainly worth a read of that RoSPA doc.

RoSPA wrote:

Almost two thirds of cyclists killed or seriously injured were involved in collisions at, or near, a road junction, with T-junctions being the most commonly involved. Roundabouts are particularly dangerous junctions for cyclists. Not surprisingly, the severity of injuries suffered by cyclists increases with the speed limit, meaning that riders are more likely to suffer serious or fatal injuries on higher speed roads. Almost half of cyclist deaths occur on rural roads.

...which to me points pretty clearly to the main source of danger in the UK.  Of course that doesn't mean that addressing this (danger from motor vehicles) would bring the most reduction in casualties per pound!  Indeed I'm sure fixing that would be more expensive and certainly more political effort than other possibles.  However it would bring a host of other benefits e.g. facilitating mass cycling.  Data suggest that would have a net positive health impact on the population (even allowing for more cycle crashes).

A Dutch analogue of the report might be of interest.  (I think VeiligheidNL are analogous to RoSPA - note though there is a separate specific Road Safety organisation, SWOV). There the main cause of death and injury is cyclists crashing on their own.  Head injuries are also high there and in the NL case that is most likely exactly where head protection might make a significant positive difference (e.g. relatively low speed falls and crashes).

chrisonatrike wrote:

Of course just because there are lots of head injuries that doesn't mean that helmets would have helped (especially in the case of motor vehicle involvement / fatalities)...  but getting a fair measure of that from the data seems a difficult task.

Anyway, thanks, it's certainly worth a read of that RoSPA doc.

RoSPA wrote:

Almost two thirds of cyclists killed or seriously injured were involved in collisions at, or near, a road junction, with T-junctions being the most commonly involved. Roundabouts are particularly dangerous junctions for cyclists. Not surprisingly, the severity of injuries suffered by cyclists increases with the speed limit, meaning that riders are more likely to suffer serious or fatal injuries on higher speed roads. Almost half of cyclist deaths occur on rural roads.

...which to me points pretty clearly to the main source of danger in the UK.  Of course that doesn't mean that addressing this (danger from motor vehicles) would bring the most reduction in casualties per pound!  Indeed I'm sure fixing that would be more expensive and certainly more political effort than other possibles.  However it would bring a host of other benefits e.g. facilitating mass cycling.  Data suggest that would have a net positive health impact on the population (even allowing for more cycle crashes).

A Dutch analogue of the report might be of interest.  (I think VeiligheidNL are analogous to RoSPA - note though there is a separate specific Road Safety organisation, SWOV). There the main cause of death and injury is cyclists crashing on their own.  Head injuries are also high there and in the NL case that is most likely exactly where head protection might make a significant positive difference (e.g. relatively low speed falls and crashes).

Indeed, I'm not going to say that all/most/some/none of those head injuries would have been reduced/prevented by helmet wearing. And indeed some of those cyclists would have been wearing helmets anyway. I was merely pointing out that head injuries do not appear to be a "small fraction" of cyclist injuries.

I am pretty sure medics have vastly over-inflated opinions of themselves. These consultants are treated like gods within their little worlds, and they feel like god
- don't they use their incredible skills to save people's lives every day?

They then conclude they are indeed all but god like beings. This confidence they carry over when making pronouncements on all other aspects of society.

As a result, when you compare their _confidence_ in their own knowledge and judgement, to what they /actually/ know, they are basically utter idiots.

What's the difference between god and a consultant? 

God doesn't think he's a consultant.

Deeferdonk wrote:

"We know there is data in Australia that after the wearing of bicycle helmets was made a legal requirement, hospitalisations for significant head injuries reduced so there is an impact of it"

The introduction of helmets to troops in WW1 resulted in an increase of head injuries - but with a commensurate reduction in deaths, as a soldier who would have previously been killed now ended up with a head injury. Shouldn't something similar have been seen with cycle helmets if they work?

The greatest effect of mandatory helmets in Australia was to reduce the number of cyclists and to enable police to target poor communities and racial minorities.

I can't remember the details, but I recall that the number of head collisions needing treatment reduced less than the reduction in cyclists which would mean that it was likely more dangerous to cycle after the law was introduced (probably due to the "safety in numbers" effect with cycling).

'The greatest effect of mandatory helmets in Australia was to reduce the number of cyclists and to enable police to target poor communities and racial minorities'.. only a Guardian reading lefty would believe this nonsense.

Looks like you are wrong:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/26/queensland-police...

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/nov/13/queensland-police...

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/may/08/victoria-police-f...

Proud to be a Guardian reading lefty. 

And yet you fail to show any counter argument or data or a link.
Best to throw in mild insults.

grOg wrote:

'The greatest effect of mandatory helmets in Australia was to reduce the number of cyclists and to enable police to target poor communities and racial minorities'.. only a Guardian reading lefty would believe this nonsense.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/cycling-without-a-helmet-in-these-suburbs-the-quickest-route-to-police-search-20200514-p54svz.html

Quote:

Bike fines have become the "quickest and easiest route" to a search and the "socio-economic litmus test" of policing as they disproportionately hit those in lower-income areas, Redfern legal centre police accountability practice head Samantha Lee said.

Often for a young person, a bike is their only mode of transport, and if they get stopped for riding on the footpath, asked why they haven't got a helmet, that escalates into a search and they may get annoyed and swear.

"It leads to the trifecta," Ms Lee said. "Fine for not wearing a helmet, fine for offensive language, and then fine for resisting arrest."

NSW Police declined to answer detailed questions about warnings, where and how bicycle fines have been issued.

Quote:

Cycle helmets don't provide protection, says neurosurgeon

Henry Marsh called into question the benefits of helmets at the Hay Festival

Why would they need helmets at the Hay Festival?

HoldingOn wrote:

Quote:

Cycle helmets don't provide protection, says neurosurgeon

Henry Marsh called into question the benefits of helmets at the Hay Festival

Why would they need helmets at the Hay Festival?

Books falling off shelves?

https://beerhelmetaction.wordpress.com/

I assume beverages are available at the Hay Festival?

Presumably the each-other-hating authors having fights.

Should mandate a cycle bog-snorkeling competition.

One chap I see regularly in my area never does up his helmet when cycling. I just saw someone wearing her helmet back to front, protecting the rear of her head.