i do recall the oz/nz from somewhere. tv possibly. the debate surrounding that was very inconclusive as far too many variables cropped up depending upon point of view and ended up inconclusive.
I don't think compulsion is fair. Maybe a referendum where every cyclist must vote yes or no. The choice would still be up to the individual. Unless voluntarily compulsion was a third choice on the free vote.
Are there plans to introduce compulsion in the UK?
Relevance?
If not, then what the feck is this thread about.
Let those ignoramuses like me who think there MAY be some merit in the practice (especially for children) carry on in our ignorance whilst those who know "the truth" sit smugly on their saddles knowing that they will NEVER suffer brain damage from a fall!
As sure as eggs is eggs, if you draw attention to something that you don't want to happen - it will!
Let those ignoramuses like me who think there MAY be some merit in the practice (especially for children) carry on in our ignorance whilst those who know "the truth" sit smugly on their saddles Knowing that they will NEVER suffer brain damage from fall!
As sure as eggs is eggs, if you draw attention to something that you don't want to happen - it will!
Tony - don't demean yourself with this absolutist crap. The point is that the science of risk is uncertain and there are unexpected consequences of apparently safe actions.
A sudden retreat into "I'm thick - tell me what to do" is a bit out of character for you
The governmnet line is there are currently no plans to introduce helmet compulsion.
The DfT have previously stated they would not seek to introduce compulsion until wearing rates increased to the point that they felt enforcement would not be a problem. In other words, there are some people in DfT circles who wish to introduce it but only when the time is riper, such a time bing when wearing levels are higher than they are now.
There have been attempts to introduce legislation via private members' bills. PMBs are almost always failures in themselves, but they do move things up the political agenda and there is talk of someone having another go, moving it further up the agenda again. The last one, by Eric Martlew (Lab, Carlisle) was drafted by BHIT.
In the meantime the pro compulsion lobby continue to have success despite pedalling throughly debunked science as reasoning. The BMA used to have a well researched policy stating that although they thought helmets were a Good Thing, compulsion was not. After lobbying from BHIT that has been reversed, and with a new policy based on a fraction of the evidence formerly considered and pushed through at the BMA AGM in a debate-stifled manner that wouldn't have been out of place in the former Soviet Union. It has attracted considerable opposition within the BMA, particularly from the transport committee IIRC.
More countries are introducing helmet laws despite no evidence that any have been shown to work usefully. The BMA's current document lists the mere fact that these laws are passed as a compelling reason why we should have one too, no mention is made of effectiveness.
In summary, if nobody does anything about it it's quite likley to happen at some point. The trend is for such laws to be passed because they are widely assumed to be good because the media and politicians have largely bought into the idea that they are good. Analysis of existing laws has not been part of the process.
It was pretty clear that you were having another pop at me personally. Which really doesn't help anyone.
What I am reasonably sure of is that current evidence shows that my chances of brain damage from a bike accident are not affected significantly either way if I choose to wear a helmet. So if I wear one I'm not erring on the side of caution. And if I don't wear one I'm not erring on the side of caution.
I see Peter, I was just thinking that unless there were firm plans to introduce compulsion, then this would not be the time to counter debate it.
Having said that, if the "pro" side are surreptitiously attempting back door methods, then I can fully understand where you are coming from.
I still remain to be convinced by your argument, and that is not to say that I think the other side is right, just that it might be safer to give them the benefit of the doubt until there is irrefutable evidence either way!
.... I still remain to be convinced by your argument, and that is not to say that I think the other side is right, just that it might be safer to give them the benefit of the doubt until there is irrefutable evidence either way!
Against that though Tony lies the danger of 'the stealth of acceptability' - the sense that helmet wearing is somehow 'right', possibly only because it's promoted by a louder, more persistent voice. Saying something again and again does not make it any more (or less) correct. If, god forbid, I was on the receiving end of a traffic 'incident' that ended in court and the prosecution/defence/insurance company etc. argue that I merit some culpability, or reduced compensation, or reduced liability for a driver who injured me, etc on account of me choosing not to wear a helmet, despite the current base of actual evidence, then I'd consider that a very dangerous road to be going down......
You've always had the fact that there isn't enough evidence. And then having clearly stated that you persist in proposing a solution that assumes you have got enough evidence (i.e., leaning one way rather than the other). But you haven't. They might equally do more harm on average than good.
We would both agree that on current evidence telling folk specifically not wear a helmet because of concerns over their cranial health would be daft. And it is just as daft to err the other way, given evidence that doesn't show a clear benefit either way. You shouldn't suggest an intervention based on a gut feeling, only clear, positive evidence. There is not clear positive evidence that helmets are a win, which is why the expert witnesses I formerly quoted would not agree you'd be better off to any degree wearing a helmet.
You seem to think I'm "anti helmet". I'm not (look at my OM picture, for goodness' sake!).
You do have a point there Matt, it would not be long before a legal eagle would pounce on that, but again, that is not a reason to deny children protection if Peter and his anti lobby cannot prove conclusively that there is "no benefit" from wearing one!
You've always had the fact that there isn't enough evidence. And then having clearly stated that you persist in proposing a solution that assumes you have got enough evidence (i.e., leaning one way rather than the other). But you haven't. They might equally do more harm on average than good.
We would both agree that on current evidence telling folk specifically not wear a helmet because of concerns over their cranial health would be daft. And it is just as daft to err the other way, given evidence that doesn't show a clear benefit either way. You shouldn't suggest an intervention based on a gut feeling, only clear, positive evidence. There is not clear positive evidence that helmets are a win, which is why the expert witnesses I formerly quoted would not agree you'd be better off to any degree wearing a helmet.
You seem to think I'm "anti helmet". I'm not (look at my OM picture, for goodness' sake!).
Pete.
Despite his possibly consititutional abscence of humour Tony - I think he's accurate in the above post.
i do recall the oz/nz from somewhere. tv possibly. the debate surrounding that was very inconclusive as far too many variables cropped up depending upon point of view and ended up inconclusive.
A fair assumption from the top level of debate, but to be honest the top level debate in the meejah isn't very well informed. Again the case that you need to start digging to get closer to the truth, and the "of course it's worked" camp end up resorting to rather spurious reasoning (for example, BHIT's one that the reason Autralian cyclist numbers appeared to be considerably down was due to a driving license age change in Victoria, though why that affected Western Australia they didn't say, or that numbers of cyclists holding up in Ontario was proof that cyclist numbers never drop, though they omitted to mention that the Ontario law has never been enforced, and so on).
And the next level debate is actually pretty awful too, as Hagel et al's repsonse to Robinson's 2006 BMJ article demonstrated with clear failures of logic in their arguments. Particularly fine was rubbishing rsik compensation, despite one of the authors having published a paper that found evidence for risk compensation... Hagel et al got pretty comprehensivley mauled in the Rapid Responses from plenty of folk with good credentials in the field.
Again, you have to read up yourself to be sure, but the more I look the more holes I find in the pro camp and the fewer I find in the skeptics' work. One of the strengths of the BHRF work is they reference the stuff they critique so you can go and look at it yourself (at least if you have a suitable library to hand, and being a clinical scientist in a teaching hospital I do).
Despite his possibly consititutional abscence of humour
Guilty as charged here. I'm sorry, the regulars in uk.rec.cycling have gone over it all so many times it's become a tedious and humour free necessity to make sure "helmets are essential!" and "a helmet saved my life!" doesn't get into the general public consciousness as being truth. It's ultimately a public health issue and it's past the banter level for me, at least while there's so much misinformation about it.
So let me be clear Peter.
You are NOT anti helmet, you are just anti compulsion?
Quite so. Though since active encouragement and promotion of helmets has been shown to reduce cycling, and moves us towards the possibility of compulsion, I'm against active encouragement to wear them too. That's not the same as campaigning against then and telling people to stop wearing them for the good of their health though. I'm quite happy for folk to wear them if they want to, and see them as genuinely useful in certain sporting environemnts, for example (tecnical mountain biking you'll find me wearing one, for example, descent mountain biking is sufficiently bonkers that I wouldn't do it anyway, but not wearing a good lid for that I wouldn't see as a good plan).
(in answer to Kinley)
