Helmets and the Law

chilling

Not read most of this yet but it's a study from the The New Zealand Medical Journal on the effects of their helmet law.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/nz-clarke-2012.pdf

Thought it may inspire some interesting debate

EKE_38BPM

rick_chasey

I remember Chris Boardman quoted that study in a pro-cycling article about helmets.

I also remember quoting Boardman on that plenty of times, never to much effect.

CiB

That's good enough for me. I'd ban the things personally, and this chap has just agreed with me 100%. Discussion closed.

Next.

spen666

CiB wrote:

That's good enough for me. I'd ban the things personally, and this chap has just agreed with me 100%. Discussion closed.

Next.

Presumably you mean debates re helmets

CiB

Nope. Just helmets. If they'd never been invented, would there be a clamou...

Stop. Step Away From The Helmet Debate. Keep Hands Clear Of The Keyboard. Move Slowly Away With Hands Facing Downwards. Step Away From The Helmet Debate.

meanredspider

It's a very messy study from my POV. Doesn't seem to set out to explain the drop in cyclist injuries after the helmet law was introduced that I could see. Also seemed to want to compare head injuries for vehicle occupants and cyclists.

It also wants to compare pedestrians with cyclists a lot:
- Cars these days are specifically designed to protect pedestrians on impact
- As a pedestrian, you struggle to have a road accident where no (other) vehicle is involved (whereas, I think it points out only 1/3 of bike accidents are impacts with cars)

I agree with it's conclusion (that mandatory helmet wearing is Bad) but I think it's poorly argued.

NGale

anyone?!

chilling

I remember Chris Boardman quoted that study in a pro-cycling article about helmets.

I didn't realise this was old. I thought it was new going by the published date of 10/02/2012. Having read a bit more I agree with meanredspider. The whole study seems to be a bit of a mess.

rick_chasey

*shrugs* guess it wasn't that one then.

He definitely quoted one from that part of the world where helmets were made compulsory.

Kieran_Burns

meanredspider wrote:

It's a very messy study from my POV. Doesn't seem to set out to explain the drop in cyclist injuries after the helmet law was introduced that I could see. Also seemed to want to compare head injuries for vehicle occupants and cyclists.

It also wants to compare pedestrians with cyclists a lot:
- Cars these days are specifically designed to protect pedestrians on impact
- As a pedestrian, you struggle to have a road accident where no (other) vehicle is involved (whereas, I think it points out only 1/3 of bike accidents are impacts with cars)

I agree with it's conclusion (that mandatory helmet wearing is Bad) but I think it's poorly argued.

It did - stating that the comparable figures show an increase in cyclist injuries as a percentage of miles cycled

meanredspider

Kieran_Burns wrote:

It did - stating that the comparable figures show an increase in cyclist injuries as a percentage of miles cycled

Annual number of injuries per million hours spent travelling
(change relative to 1988–91)
25.61 (88-91)
21.38 (-17) (96-99)

-17 is a 17% decrease per million hours

tailwindhome

Going slighty off topic.

Cavendish finished a stage recently (Qatar?) having discarded his helmet after a crash near the finish.

Was there any punishment for this?

bails87

TailWindHome wrote:

Going slighty off topic.

Cavendish finished a stage recently (Qatar?) having discarded his helmet after a crash near the finish.

Was there any punishment for this?

Capital punishment.

He rode without a helmet, therefore he died.

t.m.h.n.e.t

TailWindHome wrote:

Going slighty off topic.

Cavendish finished a stage recently (Qatar?) having discarded his helmet after a crash near the finish.

Was there any punishment for this?

He disgarded it because it was in many tiny peices,having protected his noggin.

EKE_38BPM

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Going slighty off topic.

Cavendish finished a stage recently (Qatar?) having discarded his helmet after a crash near the finish.

Was there any punishment for this?

He disgarded it because it was in many tiny peices,having protected his noggin.

Ah, but did it? Maybe the road was actually protected from his head hitting it?

thelawnet

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Going slighty off topic.

Cavendish finished a stage recently (Qatar?) having discarded his helmet after a crash near the finish.

Was there any punishment for this?

He disgarded it because it was in many tiny peices,having protected his noggin.

Apparently he injured his neck.

Damn helmets. :roll:

rick_chasey

I'm in danger of taking the argument seriously, but....

Surely the study isn't saying that helmets aren't effective when you land on your head?

The article is making a point from a public policy perspective.

They say the health benefits of cycling that are lost when less people cycle as a result of compulsory helmet laws are greater than the injuries preventing by making helmets compulsory.

It's considering whether helmets should be made compulsory, not about whether they will help you individually.

meanredspider

I think you are right but it's such a messy study that it fails to do even that effectively. There's no control group (it tries to use peds and other vehicle passengers - which, frankly, is a nonsense) - it would have been far more effective if it had taken cycling levels in a similar country where this legislation hadn't been introduced. I think it does also try to argue that helmets aren't effective (hence the injury rates) but fails to attempt to explain the apparent significant drop in injuries after legislation is introduced and focuses upon (but, again, doesn't explain) the then rapid rise. It's very disappointing. I'm pro-helmet but anti-legislation but I see this study as messy and weak.

tailwindhome

thelawnet wrote:

T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Going slighty off topic.

Cavendish finished a stage recently (Qatar?) having discarded his helmet after a crash near the finish.

Was there any punishment for this?

He disgarded it because it was in many tiny peices,having protected his noggin.

Apparently he injured his neck.

Damn helmets. :roll:

I feel it's only fair to redress the balance by pointing out that he sustained his injuries while wearing the helmet. I can only conclude that wearing the helmet led to him taking on extra risk in the belief his helmet would protect him.

Clearly his attitude to risk changed once he discarded the helmet.




C'mon Buns. Post.You know you want too.

rick_chasey

meanredspider wrote:

I think you are right but it's such a messy study that it fails to do even that effectively. There's no control group (it tries to use peds and other vehicle passengers - which, frankly, is a nonsense) - it would have been far more effective if it had taken cycling levels in a similar country where this legislation hadn't been introduced. I think it does also try to argue that helmets aren't effective (hence the injury rates) but fails to attempt to explain the apparent significant drop in injuries after legislation is introduced and focuses upon (but, again, doesn't explain) the then rapid rise. It's very disappointing. I'm pro-helmet but anti-legislation but I see this study as messy and weak.

Like I said before, I remember Boardman in procycling citing a study that came to the same conclusion I described above.

I think he came across it when he was asked to be part of a committee that was considering whether to make it compulsory or not. From what I remember, I think that was his main argument for being against wearing helmets.

jedster

It's considering whether helmets should be made compulsory, not about whether they will help you individually

Indeed.

And given that I can't remember any poster here actually advocating mandating helmets, it doesn't add a lot!

rick_chasey

jedster wrote:

It's considering whether helmets should be made compulsory, not about whether they will help you individually

Indeed.

And given that I can't remember any poster here actually advocating mandating helmets, it doesn't add a lot!

It's an interesting perspective though, isn't it?

What it does demonstrate is that there are a lot of people who don't like wearing them enough to not ride a bike at all.

meanredspider

Rick Chasey wrote:

What it does demonstrate is that there are a lot of people who don't like wearing them enough to not ride a bike at all.

I'm not even sure it says that - at least not unequivocally. It shows that there were less people "riding bikes" (whatever that's defined as) after the law was introduced. Correlation isn't causation. Even if it were, we're not even clear what it is about mandated helmet use that caused the drop. My wife has a bike that hasn't left the garage in 5 years. In a survey she might claim she "rides a bike". I'm not sure she could lay her hands on a helmet though and, should the law be introduced here, that might be enough to swing her towards answering "I don't ride a bike". I honestly doubt a committed cyclist would quit if forced to wear a helmet (after all, many do for organised events). People like my wife thought, for whom a bike provides absolutely no health benefits, would. Clearly, any barriers to getting people onto bikes is a Bad Thing - hence my objection to a law. The reasons for the drop in this study, though, are a little more opaque.