The BMJ sees sense

[Angelfishsolo]

Someone has to do it

Indeed. Just don't take all University research seriously

 

[2Loose]

The equivalent Indie article.

 

[Angelfishsolo]

The equivalent Indie article.

So to be perfectly fair to the statistisions and stats fans. More than two thirds of the journals readers who voted voted for.......

 

[david k]

What the paragraph said in full however was:-

Australia made it illegal to not wear a helmet in 1991 but Sydney University researchers have called for the law to be repealed, arguing that the fall in head injuries was down to road safety improvements, rather than the new law.

so they argued the point not proved it, the only fact if we are to use your quest for hard evidence is that head injuries have decreased since helmet compulsion was brought in,, not my views, the hard evidence

 

[Angelfishsolo]

so they argued the point not proved it, the only fact if we are to use your quest for hard evidence is that head injuries have decreased since helmet compulsion was brought in,, not my views, the hard evidence

Agreed.

 

[Red Light]

so they argued the point not proved it, the only fact if we are to use your quest for hard evidence is that head injuries have decreased since helmet compulsion was brought in,, not my views, the hard evidence

Its been shown that the number of head injuries fell by less than the number of cyclists i.e. the risk per cyclist went up. But its easy to fall into these traps when you haven't read any of the evidence.

 

[Red Light]

The equivalent Indie article.

They forgot to illustrate it with a picture of James Cracknell practising what he preaches.

 

[david k]

Its been shown that the number of head injuries fell by less than the number of cyclists i.e. the risk per cyclist went up. But its easy to fall into these traps when you haven't read any of the evidence.

so the risk went up?

so when they claim that the accident reduction was because of road safety improvements in fact the safety improvements havent worked?

Road improvements have led to an increase in cycling injuries

 

[HJ]

If cycle helmets gave an great benefit then we would know about it by now. Research into the potential "benefit" of cycle helmets has been going on for over 20 years. If there was clear evidence that they did indeed save lives we wouldn't be having this argument. The simple truth is that cycle helmet offer very little benefit if any, but there is a lot of money to be made from manufacturing a produce which costs less than £2 to produce and retails for £40-£120, and if you can make the wearing of it a legal requirement, so much the better. Getting "Doctors" to endorse the produce certainly helps, lets not forget that before the 1960's many medical members of the BMA were happy to say that smoking was good for you or were happy to proscribe Thalidomide for pregnant women. There plenty of evidence out there, it is just that some people don't want to take any notice of it.

Cycling is no more dangerous than running or walking and yet no one is suggesting we should all wear walking helmets. If we really want to make the roads safe, then we need to deal with the real danger, motor vehicles, anything else is just victim blaming and ignoring the elephant in the room.

 

[lukesdad]

If cycle helmets gave an great benefit then we would know about it by now. Research into the potential "benefit" of cycle helmets has been going on for over 20 years. If there was clear evidence that they did indeed save lives we wouldn't be having this argument. The simple truth is that cycle helmet offer very little benefit if any, but there is a lot of money to be made from manufacturing a produce which costs less than £2 to produce and retails for £40-£120, and if you can make the wearing of it a legal requirement, so much the better. Getting "Doctors" to endorse the produce certainly helps, lets not forget that before the 1960's many medical members of the BMA were happy to say that smoking was good for you or were happy to proscribe Thalidomide for pregnant women. There plenty of evidence out there, it is just that some people don't want to take any notice of it.

Cycling is no more dangerous than running or walking and yet no one is suggesting we should all wear walking helmets. If we really want to make the roads safe, then we need to deal with the real danger, motor vehicles, anything else is just victim blaming and ignoring the elephant in the room.

Ah ! but you havnt thought it thru properly. There are great benefits to compulsion. More income from VAT and fines for those breaking the law. Less taxes for me. Im all for it

 

[ufkacbln]

The Australian experience is a difficult one for pro-compulsionists

There was a reduction in head injuries that is indisputable.

However:

1. The helmet legislation was brought in along with a massive road safety campaign and "blitz" on poor driving, speeding, vehicle maintenance, drink driving etc
2. Arguably the roads were safer as a result of this so a decrease in ALL accidents was shown.
3. Logically there should have been a reducion in cycle accidents and as part of that head injuries even if helmet compulsion had not occurred

Of course the real problem for the argument is the inconvenient decrease in the number of cyclists.

When the figures are actually examined in detail the results are embarrassing!

Despite an arguably safer environment, the decrease in the number of head injuries was proportionately less than the drop in the number of cyclists.

The real message from the Australian experience is that the number of head injuries per cyclist increased with compulsion.

 

[ufkacbln]

The thing that seems to be missed a lot of the time in this debate is the reason for making something compulsory.

• The decision on whether to wear a helmet should be based on the benefit (or lack of benefit) to the wearer, and relates to the relative risks to the cyclist of wearing or not wearing a helmet.
• The decision on whether to make helmet wearing compulsory should be based on the benefit (or lack of benefit) to society in general, and relates to the relative costs to society of cyclists wearing or not wearing helmets (e.g. health care costs and after-care, etc).

Even if the first were to suggest that one should wear a helmet (not that it does), that would not mean that the second should come down on the side of compulsion.

The health care costs are a double edged sword, as cyclist head injuries are only a small minority of head injuries and the cost is minimal when compared to other causes.

Given some of the difficulties in data acquisition, cohort studies are better than pure accident statistics.

Thornhill did a cohort study of ALL patients who were admitted with head injuries, giving a more accurate picture, and a cohort of some 3,000.

Their demographics are typical of these studies.

1255 (42%) were men aged 40 years or less, 575 (19%) were men and women aged 65 years or more, and most (90%) were classified as having a mild injury. The most common causes of injury were falls (43%) or assaults (34%); alcohol was often involved (61%), and a quarter reported treatment for a previous head injury.

If we assume that there is a target of reducing the financial burden of head injuries, then we should be looking at reducing the alcohol related, the falls and the assaults

 

[lukesdad]

Im not convinced by the Australian example. As I understand it the greatest drop of cycle use was amongst teenagers. Yet the data was collected from a group of a few hundred cyclists. Hardly representative. Or have I misssed something ?

 

[ufkacbln]

Im not convinced by the Australian example. As I understand it the greatest drop of cycle use was amongst teenagers. Yet the data was collected from a group of a few hundred cyclists. Hardly representative. Or have I missed something ?

The Australian study is deeply flawed on a number of levels.

However it is still held up despite this as a beacon by pro-compulsionists!

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Sorry if this isn't the right place for this question, but is there anything to suggest that wearing a helmet reduces the perception of the cyclist being an individual person? I suppose I'm thinking along the lines of the military, when as peace keeping forces they keep the body armour and helmets to a minimum and only when necessary, preferring the soft capped human face, so people see "Friendly Fred the bloke" rather than "hostile soldier". Cyclists with dark glasses, helmet and lycra are quite easy for most people to disassociate from. To differing degrees the thinking could be, "They're not like me, I'm a person, ergo, they're not people", which would lead to less caring attitude when we meet? Just a theory, could be bollocks.