Author Topic: Cycle helmets  (Read 19545 times)

Systematic

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #50 on: October 23, 2013, 05:34:46 PM »
MilwaukeeStubble

Just to clarify,  the reason cycle helmet law is being questioned is not a personal liberty issue. 

it's that overall the bads significantly outweigh the goods. It is increasing harm not decreasing it

As far as I know there are few bads regarding wearing a seat belt. 

If a law regarding wearing a seatbelt contributed to increased risk of being involved in an accident and increased your likelihood of suffering a head injury would you still accept its application as a law?

This is what cyclists are being told to do with the cycle helmet law

There are other negatives too, but these in particular contradict the most common majority beliefs.

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #51 on: October 23, 2013, 06:52:42 PM »
MilwaukeeStubble

Just to clarify,  the reason cycle helmet law is being questioned is not a personal liberty issue. 

it's that overall the bads significantly outweigh the goods. It is increasing harm not decreasing it

As far as I know there are few bads regarding wearing a seat belt. 

If a law regarding wearing a seatbelt contributed to increased risk of being involved in an accident and increased your likelihood of suffering a head injury would you still accept its application as a law?

This is what cyclists are being told to do with the cycle helmet law

There are other negatives too, but these in particular contradict the most common majority beliefs.

Thank you.  It's as if people are coming onto this thread and only reading the posts for helmet laws while ignoring the ones anti-helmet laws.

Hardly anyone on here has written against helmet laws using the personal liberties point.  I'm not sure anyone has used this argument, but I don't want to back and re-read every post.

capital

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #52 on: October 23, 2013, 08:03:46 PM »
Bicycling generally has positive externalities for society (better health for citizens; space-efficient, low cost and low-pollution local transportation; more cyclists on the road makes drivers pay more attention leading to better safety for all cyclists), whereas driving generally has negative externalities (traffic congestion and pollution). Seat belt laws, even if they discouraged driving, would be make society better, whereas bike helmet laws make society worse by discouraging cycling.

And you don't see people wearing motoring helmets much, even though cars are the #1 cause of brain-injury-related deaths.

Systematic

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #53 on: October 23, 2013, 11:44:37 PM »
@ehgee

I particularly agree with your last line.  Noone seems to want to argue against it when its posted on general forums. See comments below,

The idea is eventually break through the consciousness of the majority moral right, not to persuade. Its the first step in addressing attitudes.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/city-centre/9303594/Beautifoal-makes-city-streets-home

You've given me the thought of posting the question here. lets see how it goes. i'll post it away from this thread.

@mpbaker

I must admit i didn't realise it would be so difficult to get agreement on this site.  Imagine what it's going to take to convince people who aren't cyclists



galaxie

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 370
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #54 on: October 24, 2013, 08:27:37 AM »

A hemet is a symbol which reminds those who carry or wear it of their vulnerability and  peer group differentiation.


I actually really like to differentiate myself as a cyclist.  In my city people often walk around with one pant leg rolled up long after they got off their bikes, too. 

I think that wearing a helmet also says "I'm the kind of cyclist who stops at stop lights" but that's just my impression.

MilwaukeeStubble

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 105
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Milwaukee WI
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #55 on: October 24, 2013, 09:56:42 AM »
MilwaukeeStubble

Just to clarify,  the reason cycle helmet law is being questioned is not a personal liberty issue. 

it's that overall the bads significantly outweigh the goods. It is increasing harm not decreasing it

As far as I know there are few bads regarding wearing a seat belt. 

If a law regarding wearing a seatbelt contributed to increased risk of being involved in an accident and increased your likelihood of suffering a head injury would you still accept its application as a law?

This is what cyclists are being told to do with the cycle helmet law

There are other negatives too, but these in particular contradict the most common majority beliefs.

Thank you.  It's as if people are coming onto this thread and only reading the posts for helmet laws while ignoring the ones anti-helmet laws.

Hardly anyone on here has written against helmet laws using the personal liberties point.  I'm not sure anyone has used this argument, but I don't want to back and re-read every post.

Someone did use the personal liberties point (I don't care to look back myself) which is why I said that part.  Personally, I'm extremely anti-helmet laws because I think that all they do is force helmets on people who really don't need them, which makes biking less convenient, which means less people do it, which makes it more dangerous to do and the cycle continues until we're all too fat to walk to our car.

I was responding to a specific point I saw (and often hear) and I didn't see any reason to repeat an argument that I saw several times throughout the thread.  I may have written it poorly but I deliberately left out my opinion on whether helmet laws should or should not exist so please don't assume what I would have written.  With that, I also explicitly said that I don't always wear a helmet, which may have served as a hint to my feelings...
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 09:58:52 AM by MilwaukeeStubble »

Systematic

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #56 on: October 24, 2013, 03:40:08 PM »
galaxie

perhaps mustachians are happy to differentiate.  One of the issues for non-mustachians is they struggle when they look different.

Melody

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1089
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Australia
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #57 on: October 24, 2013, 05:00:43 PM »
Sadly, the compulsory helmet law here in Australia, did reduce the number of cyclists. I'm not sure if it increased the perception of cycling as dangerous (and therefore put people off it) or if it was a bit more of a "urgh, my hair is getting squished" phenomena!
The other issue being faced by local councils is how to provide a "free bike" system such as in barcelona etc, when you have a helmet law in place. The metro council is looking at creating an exemption for people on roads with speed limits less than 60kms/hr (i.e. every road you would reasonably cycle on if you're not a lycra wearer on a road bike). I personally don't mind wearing a helmet, but if it is reducing cycling that is negative for the community :(

Systematic

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #58 on: October 24, 2013, 08:27:55 PM »
Hi Melody

I've visited Brisbane a few times and have seen those bikes just sitting there. Such a shame.  When so much is being spent on a fantastic public transport system to keep congestion down (and other things) that I saw so few bikes.  One day things will change.

capital

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #59 on: October 24, 2013, 08:44:28 PM »
http://www.rmitcatalyst.com/the-sustainable-urbanist-are-helmets-the-only-woe-to-melbourne-bike-share/
Australia's bikeshare systems have been among the least successful in the world, probably because needing to buy and carry a helmet kills the spontaniety that makes such a system useful.

Apparently Brisbane sees .3 rides per bike per day, whereas New York's new system sometimes hits 7 trips per bike:
http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/08/07/citi-bike-cracked-seven-trips-per-bike-yesterday-thats-a-lot/

perthcyclist

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 24
  • Location: Australia
    • perthcyclist blog
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #60 on: October 25, 2013, 12:33:51 AM »
Yeah it's funny though eh, because you always see these jokers, dressed all in black, black beanie, black bike, riding at night and They never seem to get run over!.

I think that probably it isn't actually as dangerous as you think! Of course I use lights, but I don't go in for high viz anymore as I think it gives cycling a bad image, like it's dangerous or something, which it certainly isn't. I feel much safer on my bicycle than I do in a car.

We live on a fairly popular bike 'route' and we are at the bottom of a hill, every night walking the dogs there are a few cycling 'ninjas' - in dark colours with no lights. Good for me one of my dogs is a sighthound and she sees them even if I don't. Still a lot of the time they are the same people. I guess when you ride a bike here you pretend you are invisible anyway, so what's the difference if you are *actually* invisible :P

In terms of the helmet law, and high vis, totally agree with you. When I am in the car it's the cyclists' feet I notice the most, because humans are hardwired to see movement. So the lesson is to get your cadence up!

Systematic

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #61 on: October 25, 2013, 03:54:58 AM »
Right thats it next time im in Brisbane im going to take some cycle helmets.

What an adventure.


Russ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2213
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Boulder, CO
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #62 on: October 25, 2013, 12:47:42 PM »
MOD NOTE:

I'm just chiming in to let you all know that I've had to modify two users' posts in this thread so far this week, both from people who have been here a while and should know better. This is really disappointing, especially having to come back the second time. In case you need a reminder of the rules, since simply linking them obviously isn't enough:

The overriding principle here on this site: Be a human being and treat others respectfully.

That includes, but is not limited to:
1. Don't be a jerk.
2. Attack an argument, not a person.
3. Your posts must not break any laws.
4. Be respectful of the site and other members.
5. No spam.

While we encourage open discourse, enforcement of the above rules will be done solely at the moderators' discretion.  If you have any questions, feel free to PM a moderator.

Try to stay towards the top of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement:

(Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Keep it civil.

Thanks,
Russ

mpbaker22

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1095
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #63 on: October 25, 2013, 01:21:58 PM »
The edit doesn't actually make any sense.  You removed the word you believed to be offensive, but left the rest of the sentence in place.  If you removed it because it was a personal attack on someone, you left that attack in place.  If you removed it because that word is offensive, then you better get to editing a lot more posts.

Russ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2213
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Boulder, CO
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #64 on: October 25, 2013, 01:37:48 PM »
The edit doesn't actually make any sense.  You removed the word you believed to be offensive, but left the rest of the sentence in place.  If you removed it because it was a personal attack on someone, you left that attack in place.  If you removed it because that word is offensive, then you better get to editing a lot more posts.

I have to find a balance between enforcing the rules and unnecessarily censoring users' posts, and prefer to leave the message there while removing the most offensive parts. I also try not to act without someone first reporting the post. If there are more posts that you find offensive, please file a report.

Feel free to PM me to discuss this further.

Thanks,
Russ

Nancy

  • Guest
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #65 on: October 25, 2013, 04:32:25 PM »
Thank you, Russ!

iamlindoro

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1520
    • The Earth Awaits
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #66 on: October 25, 2013, 09:01:28 PM »
With no offense intended, I suggest grouping sentences together in paragraphs (rather than starting a new paragraph for every sentence) to increase understandability.  It's very hard to follow your train of thought at times when each sentence is a standalone unit.

Of course, I continue to disagree with you, as does the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety in Queensland:

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/41798/1/Monograph_5.pdf

Quote
"Current bicycle helmet wearing rates are halving the number of head injuries experienced by Queensland cyclists. This is consistent with published evidence that mandatory bicycle helmet wearing legislation has prevented injuries and deaths from head injuries.

It is reasonably clear that it discouraged people from cycling twenty years ago when it was first introduced. Having been in place for that length of time in Queensland and throughout most of Australia, there is little evidence that it continues to discourage cycling. There is little evidence that there is a large body of people who would take up cycling if the legislation was changed."

I chose a study from AU, but there are numerous similar studies all over the world that show that a) though there may be an initial reduction in cycling with helmet laws, it is temporary and not permanent, and b) that the wearing of a helmet reduces the risk of head trauma in bike crashes.

That said, this whole thread is going in circles, and clearly nobody is going to have their mind changed, so I'll respond no further-- but don't mistake a chorus of agreement for a lack of dissent.  It's just not worth the personal attacks that seem to fill this thread.  I'll pose a question, though-- if disagreement and civil discussion aren't acceptable, then what's the point of posting at all, if the only acceptable response is agreement?
« Last Edit: October 25, 2013, 09:52:13 PM by iamlindoro »

Systematic

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #67 on: October 26, 2013, 02:11:23 AM »
Thank you for doing this even though you disagree. :)

Thank you very much for the data I love this sort of stuff. But I might get it wrong.

I am going to criticise the statistics so if you're involved in the area, feel free to tell me to pull my head in and not read further.

I could be wrong too, I might have missed something.   

Lets just say I have quite a bit of experience in this particular area but not with cycling.

In transport I used to see reports like this and found them very frustrating.

To me there are some big holes and it looks like they have gone out and collected bits of  research from masters projects in Queensland and studies from other states. it's missing proper statistical reasoning.  I think they have pulled together bits of secondary research from all over the place.  There may have been limited studies undertaken by masters students etc using different methods but no overall study. This is not good.

Normally if an organisation is going to measure mode use they use one specific survey method so they can show trends.  Hopefully this comment will make sense as I go through it. Its a simple survey that includes reasoning for traveling, time of travel age etc for comparison, area. Its the fundamental piece of research for this sort of report. Because comparisons must be consistent. 

Its difficult to make it clear here, but here we go.



1.The information does not include information about the actual %age drop in cycling trips it simply refers to "less cycling". it also says

(It states) Unfortunately, there is a lack of systematic long-term measures of cycling participation that provide an unbiased measure of participation in cycling across a whole range of purposes and locations.

(they have said specifically) the drop in head injuries cannot be accounted for by less cycling (but we don't have the statistics)

Later it has text about journey to work data dropping by 10000 trips but this has returned (to what)? why does it only include this purpose. It quotes a drop of 44% of teenagers cycling in Melbourne that is all .


2. I cannot find information on the number of deaths.  if there is "less cycling" I'm wondering if Queensland has had an increase of "surprise" accidents where there are fewer cyclists and motorists don't expect to see them. Like we have had here.

3. I note that they quote New Zealand statistics re increasing helmet wearing but they don't include statistics. our head injury and death statistics. 

4. The conclusion

Australian and international research has demonstrated that introduction of bicycle helmet legislation was followed by a reduction in the number and severity of head injuries to cyclists. (yes but proportionally it could have skyrocketed)

New Zealand research shows that the legislation has good cost-effectiveness. (great but our cyclists are dying)

Note I like the way they use these lovely statistics even though they have no statistics for the last sentence


Systematic

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #68 on: October 26, 2013, 02:34:04 AM »
"Current bicycle helmet wearing rates are halving the number of head injuries experienced by Queensland cyclists. This is consistent with published evidence that mandatory bicycle helmet wearing legislation has prevented injuries and deaths from head injuries.

It is reasonably clear that it discouraged people from cycling twenty years ago when it was first introduced. Having been in place for that length of time in Queensland and throughout most of Australia, there is little evidence that it continues to discourage cycling. There is little evidence that there is a large body of people who would take up cycling if the legislation was changed."


They have not presented their statistics to back this up. as I said before so they can't say it. They can only say this is they have the consistent systematic data regarding cycling trips.
If I thought that I was wrong I wouldn't send the letter. This is why I'm posting.  Writing such a letter will highlight the risk of brain injury and death while cycling. but this is the only thing people will listen to.

However because I have the statistics I feel I have to do something because the next time I read about a cycling accident I will feel I should have done something.

Sometimes a few correct statistics beats a large report :)

Systematic

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #69 on: October 26, 2013, 02:43:25 AM »

And yes the mandatory bicycle helmet legislation has prevented head injuries and death but how has the number of cycling trips/cyclists changed. Has the proportional number of head injuries per cyclist/trip increased?

what i should have said in this last post is there is little evidence means There is little evidence because no one has collected it.

I better walk away from my computer now. 

Peace

Systematic

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #70 on: October 26, 2013, 02:59:46 AM »


Australian and international research has demonstrated that introduction of bicycle helmet legislation was followed by a reduction in the number and severity of head injuries to cyclists.

really i should have said  Yes but you have no systematic surveying method of collecting data on cycling rates so proportionately it may have increased. You have simply said it was less.

I wish i had more time and I could have done this tidily its late and if you would like this info on one post please let me know

As I said in one of the posts

If I thought that I was wrong I wouldn't send the letter. This is why I'm posting.  Writing such a letter will highlight the risk of brain injury and death while cycling. but this is the only thing people will listen to.

However because I have the statistics I feel I have to do something because the next time I read about a cycling accident I will feel I should have acted.








Systematic

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #71 on: October 26, 2013, 03:04:51 AM »
Found it it was on the first page this is only a secondary research collection on bicycle helmets.  It doesn't have the data/evidence required. :) its just a collection of bits of research

Recent research on bicycle helmets and concerns about
how public bicycle hire schemes will function in the
context of compulsory helmet wearing laws have drawn
media attention. The Queensland Department of Transport
and Main Roads (TMR) has commissioned the Centre
for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland
(CARRS-Q) to review the available research and data to
inform the development of the policy paper.

Systematic

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #72 on: October 26, 2013, 11:34:17 AM »


Its becoming clearer to me that cycling is missing fundamental information.  This type of information is absolutely crucial if we want to measure safety.

Quantitative data

Is there an organisation in your area which records quantitative data regarding

1, the number of cycling trips per year.

2, a record of cyclist head injuries and deaths  ideally including some information about cause etc

Is there an organisation that measures qualitative data including driving attitudes and behaviour involving cyclists and vice versa and do they have resources to improve it.

This information cyclists , planners, politicians etc should be able to find easily if we want to keep an eye on cycling safety

when i think about it it, its so much easier to bring in a helmet law.

Systematic

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #73 on: October 26, 2013, 05:00:18 PM »
it occurs to me that if this research was perceived to be required to reduce traffic congestion rather than cycle safety it would have been started a long time ago.  :(




Systematic

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #74 on: October 27, 2013, 05:22:25 PM »
If there is anyone who is concerned about the Cycle Helmet Laws, I can send you some information about how thery are likely to have contributed to the poor women cyclists death in Carrindale

Systematic

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
Re: Cycle helmets
« Reply #75 on: October 28, 2013, 11:46:16 AM »
Ever since the police fined cyclists for wearing a helmet incorrectly or not wearing a helmet there has been a steady stream of letters printed in the newspaper

Heres a current summary of tbeir arguments.

Pro.
It could save your life and then the writer lists activities like wearing hard hats and rcd on electrical sockets.
Helmets are as important as sunscreen

Neg.
why don't we make pedestrians wear helmets after all if the only justification is to save lives  its the same thing.  This from a doctor.  Several doctors have written. The other dr said in summary the bad outweighed the good
The reduction in number of cyclists has increased the likelihood of an accident
Cycling benefits the environment  reducing cycling results in a reduced quality of environment
Helmets might be as important as sunscreen but we don't fine people for not wearing sunscreen

« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 11:48:08 AM by Systematic »