Right, now we are getting somewhere and at least I think I have a better understanding of your perspective here.
I have to say Peter, that like you, I do a very serious job, and whilst it is not devoid of humour, (One would never survive otherwise) I can take other aspects of life (like this site) a little less seriously without it upsetting the bank balance!
Personally, I don't think compulsion is the way to go as it happens, but I wonder why the compusion of helmets in other countries has had a detrimental effect on cycle use.
Is it really because it leads people to think that cycing MUST be dangerous, or might it be that like you not wishing to be compelled into helmet wearing, it is a rebellion against the compusion, rather than the fear of safety angle.
Is there any research on that aspect? It would be interesting to know!
There is quite a lot of evidence that mere promotion of cycle helmets puts people off, so that should pretty much answer your question. A recent report to the European Conference of Transport Ministers said: "From the point of view of restrictiveness, even the official promotion of helmets may have negative consequences for bicycle use, and that to prevent helmets having a negative effect on the use of bicycles, the best approach is to leave the promotion of helmet wear to manufacturers and shopkeepers.”
It's quite telling how manufacturer advertising tends to avoid issues where ASA could be involved on things like how much protection they actually afford, telling you things like style and ventilation and weight rather than anything about what ought to be the primary purpose!
Think of any activity where a safety helmet is normal. Motor sport, rock climbing, downhill ski racing, working on busy building sites etc. Now go and ask a sample of the public if they think any or all of those are more dangerous than being a pedestrian. What do you think the answer will be?
it is strange that helmets reduce the number of cyclists. is it cost, being macho (like not carrying an umbrella or buying toilet roll), feeling foolish (ha! wear a tilley hat). i would suspect that a large number of adult wearers do so because they have children and they wear them and so the parent does too as an example.
Back a few steps to whther organisations looking after children can be trusted to have the science... well, the National Children's Bureaus has a report which contains the following:
“Those of us who cycle should be under no illusion that helmets offer reliable protection in crash situations where our lives may be in danger. Neither should we believe that widespread adoption of helmet wearing would see many fewer cyclists killed or permanently disabled. The evidence so far suggests otherwise.”
so it certainly isn't the case that they're all singing from the same hymn sheet. It's worth a look at the NCB report, author Tim Gill has done a thorough job. The Annex from page 31 particularly on helmets, section 5 from page 13 on general safety.
We don't know the exact reasons why it puts people off, but more importantnt is that we know it does.
As for the example and role model, again we're back to assuming they must be good. When I was training to be a cycle instructor I was told I should always wear a lid to be a role model. Subsequent discussion showed the chap who told me that was just working from anecdotal evidence and wasn't actually aware there was any debate that they might not be a good thing. I think I should be a role model demonstrating that cycling is a reasonably safe activity without contrived safety equipment of no proven benefit...
I presented the 2006 BMJ debate in my work Journal Club, and it surprised quite a few folk. One of my clinical scientist colleagues commented afterwards that before I'd presented the deeper evidence she had worn a helmet primarily out of guilt, being made to feel irresponisble not wearing one when riding with her children. Another friend who works for SNH told me of similar indirect pressure through guilt to wear a lid.
In relation to the "evidence" provided by the NZ model and others where compulsion has occurred, I have a real problem blindly accepting it without knowing how the figures are compiled.
I will try to explain that by using two hypothetical scenarios.
A child is cycling downhill not wearing a helmet, loses control and strikes the kerb at 20 mph.
They sail over the handlebars and fall head first onto the grass verge. They sustain a fractured skull and Brain damage.
A week later a child is cycling down the same hill, this time wearing a helmet and again loses control, strikes the kerb and sails over the handlebars.
This time however, they were travelling at twice the speed, and the kinetic energy makes them fly further and they strike their head on the concrete path. They sustain exactly the same injuries.
Now those attempting to convince us that helmets are useless would then say that in the same circumstances, wearing a helmet made absolutely no difference to the outcome and consequently, helmets are useless.
On the face of it, they would appear to be correct.
BUT, have they taken into account the different degrees of speed/kinetic energy as described in the two hypothetical cases above?
How can you arrive at a definitive answer when there are so many variables that could influence the outcome.
This is the problem I have with using such examples, I just cannot see how objective conclusions can be reached at with so many subjective variables?
The point of whole population studies is you get a very large statistical sample (it is effectively the sum total of all the anecdotes and individual accidents), and that in turn means you get to see the overall chances. So if there is no change in head injuries with helmet wearing that doesn't necessarily mean helmets do nothing... it could mean they save some lives and cost others, we don't know. But we do know that as you set out on a journey you can't currently say one way or the other that you'll be better off with or without a helmet. In a given accident you may well be better off, but unless you can choose your particular style of acident then that's a moot point because you may be in an accient that is made worse! Seat belts are known to have killed some people, but since we know that if all else is equal they impriove our chances if you were told to prepare for an unknown accident in 5 seconds you'df make sure you were wearing one. The difference is with helmets we can't actually say you're better off if all else is equal, counter-intuitive through it may seem.
Of course the real conclusion is that you haven't really got good enough data to draw a hard conclusion, but that works both ways and is information in itself. It mans you don't have enough evidence to say folk would be better off in helmets, or they should wear them on the assumption that they'll help. That's going too far with the data you have.
All we need for that is a single anecdote in amongst millions and millions of accidents. A quick google reveals, for example, this selection.
Again, that doesn't mean it's a bad idea in general to wear a seat belt, because if you're not wearing one you can't choose an accident where they make things worse...
Well, unbelievable debate on cycle helmets. That made very difficult reading (and I am not talking about any emotional motive regarding the original reason for the thread). It made difficult reading because the same point has been repeated over about 100 posts.
I get it. All that is being said is that there is no evidence that wearing a cycle helmet actually gives you greater protection from serious head injury. End of. I'll take that. And of course adults can decide for themselves if they want to wear one. I will say that it would have definitely been an issue in the court trial I have just been through. Thankfully my brother was wearing one and I only say that because it would have been something the defence would have used to paint the picture of my brother Tony Spink as an irresponsible cyclist. It was never going to save his life and I accept it would have been perfectly reasonable for hm not to wear one at all. But he did wear one.
And from the links offered here I have deduced that the increase in cycling accidents and deaths is more related to the fact that cycling on roads has been generally on the decline over the last decade and therefore there are fewer cyclists creating less of a presence on the road. And in my opinion, part of that increase in death rates is caused by MOTORIST ATTITUDE to cyclists. I don't have any scientific evidence of that but would love some. I would like to debate that later, not now.
The original thread folks was about the ATTITUDE OF MOTORISTS in the contribution to the reduced safety of cyclists on roads.
Well, Pete managed to find some examples (in 9 minutes...), but I can easily envisage a number of ways where a seat belt might be harmful. But once again, we have to look at the likelihood of such an event occurring (by a statistical analysis of the population data), and well as the potential outcome/hazard (what might happen). This is standard probabilistic risk analysis. A simplified version of this process is used for COSHH and other H&S risk analysis.
Unfortunately, too many people have difficulty doing the analytical part of risk analysis, and simply equate risk with hazard, neglecting the probability. cf. child abduction, peanuts, blah, blah, blah.
How many people die getting out of bed, or walking down stairs, each year? I bet it's more than die from peanut allergies. But beds don't come with warning stickers on them saying 'getting out of bed may damage your health'...
> I will say that it would have definitely been an issue in the court trial I have just been through.
I can imagine. And it shouldn't be; that's one of the points that Pete is trying to make. There's no evidence to show that wearing a helmet (or not) has any effect on cyclist safety, so a cyclist not wearing a helmet is not being reckless.
Fortunately, Pete has provided plenty of evidence that can be used to counter just this sort of nonsense that defence lawyers try to use to discredit cyclists in these situations, including a written reply from a Transport Minister (I assume in HoP) that there is no known place where increasing use of cycle helmets has made the cycling population any safer.
I'm sorry the thread has gone off onto a tangent topic, but it's been dormant for a good six months. Hopefully, it's helped people to understand the issue a bit better.
Andrew, I'm sorry that the thread got hijacked: I was responding to claims of helmets being "essential" which I think (obviously) that it is important not to let stand, and ended up repeating myself a lot becuase my original point had me called arrogant, irresponsible and various shades of stupid, and I felt it important that that didn't stand either.
My hope for the attitude thing is that increasing levels of cyclists (be it from congestion charges, fuel prices, official encouragement, wanting to do one's bit for the environment or whatever) will help. Partly more cyclists gives a "safety in numbers" effect, partly they will perhaps be seen less as mavericks, but mostly the newcomers will largely be motorists and get to see how things can be different on two wheels.
I'm lucky to live in a fairly benign town for cycling, where I give drivers consideration and I get the same back (or if I'm in the car I give cyclists consideration and get it back). As more people end up as both cyclists and motorists it's perhaps more likley (as in NL) that there won't be such a sad and counter productive "us vs. them" attitude.
On the contributory negligence from Andrew is quite right that it will be tried on, because there's nothing to lose from trying it on. Your friends in this instance are the good folk at the Cyclists' Defence Fund, an offshoot of the CTC. Follow the link on contrubutory negligence and there's a rather long piece I've yet to fully digest on the current state of play.
Access to legal teams such as CDF that fully undersatnd the games that are played against defendant cyclists can be a great asset, and is at least part of the reason I joined the CTC (most of the rest being their campaigning for relevant rights, such as the campaign last year to re-word the Highway Code revision to discourage contributory negligence claims).
