Nice article in the NY Times about helmets

bompington

Cyclists who wear protective helmets are more likely to be knocked down by passing vehicles, new research from Bath University suggests.

The study found drivers tend to pass closer when overtaking cyclists wearing helmets than those who are bare-headed.

Oh, I've just realised I've been mis-reading that all these years...

tailwindhome

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/d ... law-35450/


*goes back to work*

bigmat

TailWindHome wrote:

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/decline-in-australian-head-injuries-linked-to-helmet-law-35450/


*goes back to work*

Doh! Beaten to it!

Kieran_Burns

Whaaaaaa....????

also found that despite a rapid growth in cycling’s popularity, head injuries serious enough to require hospital admission are declining at a rate of 4% a year.

Between 1991 and 2010, arm injuries rose by 145% (660 to 1620 per year) while head injuries increased by just 20% (590 to 706)

veronese68

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Whaaaaaa....????

also found that despite a rapid growth in cycling’s popularity, head injuries serious enough to require hospital admission are declining at a rate of 4% a year.

Between 1991 and 2010, arm injuries rose by 145% (660 to 1620 per year) while head injuries increased by just 20% (590 to 706)

I think I mentioned earlier that I'd have been much better off today if I had a small child attached to each arm for protection. Compulsory child arm defenders?

meanredspider

TailWindHome wrote:

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/decline-in-australian-head-injuries-linked-to-helmet-law-35450/


*goes back to work*

Ooh - that's "shot the fox"

Will read the study more carefully later as I'm always sceptical about any study data but, at first sight, it does seem to have made reasonable "apples to apples" comparisons and it is interesting to see the large rise in cyclists after, what might have been, a large drop when compulsory helmet laws were introduced.

Would be interested in an anti-helmet view of it as that will help me take a more critical view of the study.

meanredspider

The study is worth a read. Basically says that helmet-wearing has accounted for a reduction in head injuries and improved cycling infrastructure has accounted for even greater reduction in all injuries (that bit being no surprise to anyone).

What I also found interesting is the studies showing that helmet wearing ranks at No.13 in a list of reasons non-cyclists cite for not riding a bike. It's difficult to say how much the "perception of danger" plays into the reasoning (conscious or subconscious) though.

Whilst the study might add fuel to the compulsion fire (I hope not), it should certainly be used to argue that better cycling infrastructure leads to a reduction in all cycling risks.

rick_chasey

meanredspider wrote:

Whilst the study might add fuel to the compulsion fire (I hope not), it should certainly be used to argue that better cycling infrastructure leads to a reduction in all cycling risks.

No waaaay.

Hoopdriver

meanredspider wrote:

Yup - that study was total nonsense. The difference in distance was small and I don't know of anybody that was knocked off like this. If it made the difference to being left-hooked, THEN I'd be interested. The conclusion of that study is that we should all wear blonde wigs....

+1

It was indeed rubbish.

By the by, has anyone noticed the article from Australia about the sharp decline in head injuries in the 20 years since the helmet laws were brought into force?

veronese68

Hoopdriver wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Yup - that study was total nonsense. The difference in distance was small and I don't know of anybody that was knocked off like this. If it made the difference to being left-hooked, THEN I'd be interested. The conclusion of that study is that we should all wear blonde wigs....

+1

It was indeed rubbish.

By the by, has anyone noticed the article from Australia about the sharp decline in head injuries in the 20 years since the helmet laws were brought into force?

Have you read the previous half dozen or so posts?

Hoopdriver

Veronese68 wrote:

Hoopdriver wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Yup - that study was total nonsense. The difference in distance was small and I don't know of anybody that was knocked off like this. If it made the difference to being left-hooked, THEN I'd be interested. The conclusion of that study is that we should all wear blonde wigs....

+1

It was indeed rubbish.

By the by, has anyone noticed the article from Australia about the sharp decline in head injuries in the 20 years since the helmet laws were brought into force?

Have you read the previous half dozen or so posts?

Sorry, I missed them. In my haste I though they were talking about the other studies and din't look closely enough at the weblink.

bluefinch

The Australian study is really interesting but

The number of serious cyclist head injuries in New South Wales, Australia has been reduced by around a half over the past two decades through the combined effect of compulsory helmet laws and improved cycling infrastructure, a study has found

as it doesn't seem able to make any distinction between the effects of helmets, versus the effects of segregated infrastructure, it doesn't really help in progressing the lycra vs Dutch debate.

Hoopdriver

bluefinch wrote:

The Australian study is really interesting but

The number of serious cyclist head injuries in New South Wales, Australia has been reduced by around a half over the past two decades through the combined effect of compulsory helmet laws and improved cycling infrastructure, a study has found

as it doesn't seem able to make any distinction between the effects of helmets, versus the effects of segregated infrastructure, it doesn't really help in progressing the lycra vs Dutch debate.

I think the drop in numbers of head injuries and comparisons with arm injuries was what made the case for helmets; the infrastructure case I think was based on injuries overall, but I may be mistaken. I've not read the actual report and the news story is by necessity going to be some else's distillation of it.

meanredspider

bluefinch wrote:

The Australian study is really interesting but

The number of serious cyclist head injuries in New South Wales, Australia has been reduced by around a half over the past two decades through the combined effect of compulsory helmet laws and improved cycling infrastructure, a study has found

as it doesn't seem able to make any distinction between the effects of helmets, versus the effects of segregated infrastructure, it doesn't really help in progressing the lycra vs Dutch debate.

You need to read the study properly as it makes a clear distinction. Basically both arm injuries and head injuries increase with increases in cycling population (as measured by bike imports - not a perfect measure but easily measured). The rate of increase in head injuries though is much lower than arm injuries showing that helmets are providing protection(the argument goes). When better cycling infrastructure is put in place, the rate of injuries of both types decreases. So I actually think it does a reasonably good job of distinguishing the two effects.

It does, at face value at least, torpedo nearly all of the anti-helmet arguments: rapidly growing cycling population & head injuries far short of general accident rates (as measured by arm injuries) whilst relating that helmet usage is low down the list of barriers to cycling as identified by non-cyclists.

I remain wary of these studies because I'm nervous about the quality of the data but, unlike every other study I've read, it does seem to be an apples-for-apples comparison.

rick_chasey

meanredspider wrote:

bluefinch wrote:

The Australian study is really interesting but

The number of serious cyclist head injuries in New South Wales, Australia has been reduced by around a half over the past two decades through the combined effect of compulsory helmet laws and improved cycling infrastructure, a study has found

as it doesn't seem able to make any distinction between the effects of helmets, versus the effects of segregated infrastructure, it doesn't really help in progressing the lycra vs Dutch debate.

You need to read the study properly as it makes a clear distinction. Basically both arm injuries and head injuries increase with increases in cycling population (as measured by bike imports - not a perfect measure but easily measured). The rate of increase in head injuries though is much lower than arm injuries showing that helmets are providing protection(the argument goes). When better cycling infrastructure is put in place, the rate of injuries of both types decreases. So I actually think it does a reasonably good job of distinguishing the two effects.

It does, at face value at least, torpedo nearly all of the anti-helmet arguments: rapidly growing cycling population & head injuries far short of general accident rates (as measured by arm injuries) whilst relating that helmet usage is low down the list of barriers to cycling as identified by non-cyclists.

I remain wary of these studies because I'm nervous about the quality of the data but, unlike every other study I've read, it does seem to be an apples-for-apples comparison.

Of course, just because cycling is growing doesn't necessarily mean that compulsary helmet laws aren't retarding the growth in the number of people who cycle and the number of journeys by bike.

UndercoverElephant

Rick Chasey wrote:

Of course, just because cycling is growing doesn't necessarily mean that compulsory helmet laws aren't retarding the growth in the number of people who cycle and the number of journeys by bike.

Perhaps it's just deterring the more reckless cyclists who like to fall off and hit their head?

rick_chasey

*shrugs*

I think helmets are a red herring re safety. It's mitigating, rather than preventitative.

I see it like this. For public health and cycling, there are 2 things that matter.

1 - get as many people cycling as many journeys as possible. There's a significant public health advantage to everyone cycling a lot of the time.

2 - reduce the number of accidents for bicycles - epsecially the cyclist & motorised vehicle accidents. They're the large proportion of the type of accidents, and they tend to have worse consequences than any other accident combo involving a cyclist.

I see it a bit like sat nav burglary from cars. Police will spend a lot of money telling people to hide their sat navs when they park up, when what will really the best way to avoid sat nav theft is to police it properly so there's no bloody people trying to steal them in the first place. By making the issue the 'hiding of sat navs' the police can get off not doing their job properly.

meanredspider

For sure, I'd not like to see helmet compulsion and I really would like to see much better cycling infrastructure

roger_merriman

meanredspider wrote:

It does, at face value at least, torpedo nearly all of the anti-helmet arguments: rapidly growing cycling population & head injuries far short of general accident rates (as measured by arm injuries) whilst relating that helmet usage is low down the list of barriers to cycling as identified by non-cyclists.

I remain wary of these studies because I'm nervous about the quality of the data but, unlike every other study I've read, it does seem to be an apples-for-apples comparison.

What would be more useful if they you could see the trends before and after the MHL.

The other issue is that your dealing with a changing system early 90's is where the first MTB's started hitting the streets etc. Does the health service deal with head injurers in the same way?

Hoopdriver

Rick Chasey wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

bluefinch wrote:

The Australian study is really interesting but

The number of serious cyclist head injuries in New South Wales, Australia has been reduced by around a half over the past two decades through the combined effect of compulsory helmet laws and improved cycling infrastructure, a study has found

as it doesn't seem able to make any distinction between the effects of helmets, versus the effects of segregated infrastructure, it doesn't really help in progressing the lycra vs Dutch debate.

You need to read the study properly as it makes a clear distinction. Basically both arm injuries and head injuries increase with increases in cycling population (as measured by bike imports - not a perfect measure but easily measured). The rate of increase in head injuries though is much lower than arm injuries showing that helmets are providing protection(the argument goes). When better cycling infrastructure is put in place, the rate of injuries of both types decreases. So I actually think it does a reasonably good job of distinguishing the two effects.

It does, at face value at least, torpedo nearly all of the anti-helmet arguments: rapidly growing cycling population & head injuries far short of general accident rates (as measured by arm injuries) whilst relating that helmet usage is low down the list of barriers to cycling as identified by non-cyclists.

I remain wary of these studies because I'm nervous about the quality of the data but, unlike every other study I've read, it does seem to be an apples-for-apples comparison.

Of course, just because cycling is growing doesn't necessarily mean that compulsary helmet laws aren't retarding the growth in the number of people who cycle and the number of journeys by bike.

I believe that a reluctance to wear helmets ranked 13th on the lst if reasons people did not take up cycling. That suggests something...

rick_chasey

I guess so.

It's a deal breaker for me for anything actual proper road riding.

bluefinch

A critical look at the new Australian study:

http://mccraw.co.uk/government-funds-flawed-helmet-validating-study/

Kieran_Burns

bluefinch wrote:

A critical look at the new Australian study:

http://mccraw.co.uk/government-funds-flawed-helmet-validating-study/

Nice article - I was reaching some of the same conclusions myself.

So another state funded study saying what the State wants it to say....

txom

I'm not sure this article is any more balanced than the paper itself. Unless I've missed something, it conveniently ignores the increase in the number of cyclists over the period.

I'm not in favour of compulsory helmets, but I don't think this article gives a fair representation of what the paper is claiming.

Kieran_Burns

txom wrote:

I'm not sure this article is any more balanced than the paper itself. Unless I've missed something, it conveniently ignores the increase in the number of cyclists over the period.

I'm not in favour of compulsory helmets, but I don't think this article gives a fair representation of what the paper is claiming.

The increase was judged by the number of bikes imported wasn't it?

txom

Yes, imports and "the number of bicycle movements at three primary locations that feed into cycleways within the Sydney CBD", I think.

But the article doesn't mention this and says "the obvious conclusion to draw from a sustained divergence in the injury ratio without a change in helmet wearing rates is precisely that helmets aren’t responsible for the change in ratio – it’s actually down to something other than the wearing of a helmet."

It seems to me that the sustained divergence is caused by the increase in the amount of cycling in combination with the wearing of helmets.

Kieran_Burns

txom wrote:

Yes, imports and "the number of bicycle movements at three primary locations that feed into cycleways within the Sydney CBD", I think.

But the article doesn't mention this and says "the obvious conclusion to draw from a sustained divergence in the injury ratio without a change in helmet wearing rates is precisely that helmets aren’t responsible for the change in ratio – it’s actually down to something other than the wearing of a helmet."

It seems to me that the sustained divergence is caused by the increase in the amount of cycling in combination with the wearing of helmets.

Except the number of people wearing helmets has actually dropped....

peat

I saw a guy come off a brompton in Oxford on Saturday and headbut a metal pedestrian railing. He wasn't wearing a helmet. It wasn't a pretty sight.

I'll keep on wearing mine thanks. I don't need studies to convince me either way. I just know i'd rather have an inch of deformable foam between my skull and the rest of the world.

txom

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Except the number of people wearing helmets has actually dropped....

It looks like that claim was based on a comment by an Australian MP without evidence. Sound familiar?!

JamesB5446

Peat wrote:

I saw a guy come off a brompton in Oxford on Saturday and headbut a metal pedestrian railing. He wasn't wearing a helmet. It wasn't a pretty sight.

I've seen loads of pedestrians fall over and hit their heads. I've done it myself a few times.

txom wrote:

It looks like that claim was based on a comment by an Australian MP without evidence. Sound familiar?!

No one is using this article to try justifying a law that infringes on any ones civil liberties though. That's the difference.