Compulsory helmets again!

"Ian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So all the development that helmet manufacturers put into helmets is not worth a light? Can you
tell me what the vast majority of cycle injuries

are?

Quoted message said:

We are not talking about the blanket of all injuries here afterall, just head injuries, you
trotting out non specifics and swallowing wholesale non specifics from elsewhere is showing you to
have "ostrich" syndrome.

But doesn't the BS that helmets are built to state that they only need to offer protection in
accidents "where there is no other vehicle involved" or has that changed? if a vehicle hits a
cyclist at 40 mph then the chances are that that cyclist will probably die whether they are wearing
a helmet or not. If a cyclist gets run over by a 32 ton artic that's only doing 20mph, again there
is a fair chance that the cyclist will die whether wearing a helmet or not.

And what about helmets for pedestrians if you are going to go down that route?

I know! lets ban all two wheel traffic AND pedestrians and all go about in cars. How about that?

Quoted message said:

Lets look at New Zealand.

" The relatively large increase in helmet wearing associated with the passing of a compulsory
helmet wearing law in 1994 reduced head injuries

by

Quoted message said:

between 24 and 32% in non-motor vehicle crashes, and by 20% in motor

vehicle

Quoted message said:

crashes."

But didn't it also reduce cylce USE by a larger percent? certainly did in Australia, therefore the
RATE of head injuy didn't change. Isn't it perceived that the health benfits of cycling far outweigh
the "benefits" of compulsory helmet wear? i.e. isn't it far better to have a larger number of people
cycling and so benefiting their health rather than a tiny minority, which would be the case if
helmets were made compulsory?

"Ian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy, you know? scribed with passion and wit: Lets look at New Zealand.

" The relatively large increase in helmet wearing associated with the passing of a compulsory
helmet wearing law in 1994 reduced head injuries

by

Quoted message said:

between 24 and 32% in non-motor vehicle crashes, and by 20% in motor

vehicle

Quoted message said:

crashes."

Povey L J, Frith W J, Graham P G. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1999; volume 31, pp 763-770

This paragraph is very badly written and, unfortunately, doesn't really contribute anything to the
discussion other than confusion. My point is that it might mean that the number of head injuries
fell by 24-32% as a result of helmet legislation. This could correspond with a reduction in the
amount of cycling. On the other hand it might mean that the percentage of head injuries as a
proportion of all injuries fell by 24-34%. This might be a change from say, 60% to 45% (using 24% as
the decrease) or 6% to 4.5% or .6% to 0.45%.

What is it? Left as it is it the information only obfuscates the argument.
___
Michael MacClancy

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Ian
Just zis Guy, you know? scribed with passion and wit:

Quoted message said:

Call it a foible. I can't allow advocacy of compulsory helmets pass unchallenged<snip>

So all the development that helmet manufacturers put into helmets is not worth a light? Can you tell
me what the vast majority of cycle injuries are? <snip research suggesting that head injury is a common cause of death amongst cycling fatalities)

Ian, none of your quotes said anything about accident or head injury rates and how these were affected by MHLs or even the actual incidence of helmet wearing. It doesn't really matter what proportion of cyclist fatalities can be attributed to head injuries nor what the indidence of head injuries is if helmet wearing does not appear to reduce the rates. AFAIK there isn't any research which demonstrates this at a population level. This doesn't mean that there is no reduction but does suggest a need for further investigation.

"Ian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Call it a foible. I can't allow advocacy of compulsory helmets pass unchallenged, because the
only research that has ever suggested

significant

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

benefit from wearing a helmet has been from people who have already made

up

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their minds that they want helmets to be compulsory, and no country

which

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

has tried it has actually reduced injury rates. Cycling rates, yes,

helmet

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

laws cut cycling rates pretty dramatically, but injury rates remain the same. Until we know why
I am unwilling for me or my children to be lab

rats

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in the same failed experiment.

Quoted message said:

So all the development that helmet manufacturers put into helmets is not worth a light?

It would seem so, judging by the published figures.

Quoted message said:

Can you tell me what the vast majority of cycle injuries are?

The vast majority of cycle injuries are: irrelevant to this discussion. Liddites claim that lids
reduce head injuries by 85%; countries introduce compulsory helmet legislation as a result; those
countries experience no measurable reduction in head injury rates. That means one of two things:
either the helmets do not work, or they work just fine but they make a crash more likely to happen,
thus cancelling out their effect. I don't know which, and nobody seems to be working on finding out.
Until we know what's going on, I am vehemently opposed to compulsory helmet laws.

The TRL produced a report suggesting that injury rates increased in areas where there was aggressive
helmet promotion. Does this explain the observed facts? Who knows? I wrote to the DfT asking them,
and they sent me a form letter by reply which failed to acknowledge that the issue even existed. But
it does exist, because John Franklin (who knows more about cycling than am ever likely to) says it
exists. And so do lots of other people.

We are not anti-helmet, we are anti-compulsion. And we are not anti-compulsion because we don't
believe helmets work, we are anti-compulsion because logic indicates that they should work, but
whole population and time-series data repeatedly prove that at the populaiton level they don't. So
there is a gap between the specific effect of a helmet in a crash and the actual effect of helmets
in populations. Maybe helmeted cyclists ride more dangerously, or maybe the kinds of crashes wich
account for hospital admissions (notably those involving motor vehicles) are, as the helmet
manufacturers acknowledge, beyond the capabilities of helmets.

Quoted message said:

We are not talking about the blanket of all injuries here afterall, just head injuries, you
trotting out non specifics and swallowing wholesale non specifics from elsewhere is showing you to
have "ostrich" syndrome.

Yes, head injuries not blanket injuries. So how come the leading study quoted by helmet advocates
also manages to show that helmets reduce leg and torso injuries? It cuts both ways, you see. The
simple fact is that head injury rates have not fallen where helmet use has risen. The ratio of
cyclist to pedestrian injuries is static over time despite increasing use of helmets. This is tru
for children as well as adults.

I can model something on a small scale and persuade myself it works, maybe like the perpetual motion
machines they sold as desk toys in the 70s, but if I test my hypothesis on whole population and
time-series data, occasionally causing large step changes in usage rates, and the results
persistently show no measurable effect (which they do), then my model is clearly flawed. You can
take a wide range of data from Australia and New Zealand, and other places, and say "point to the
place where the helmet law was introduced" and it's impossible.

Quoted message said:

Lets look at New Zealand

Yes, let's. Taking the original data, Dr Nigel Perry graphed the change in the ratio of head
injuries to all injuries, relative to a reference date, March 1988. He co-plotted for two groups:
cyclists, and a control group of the whole population - motorists, pedestrians, ladder climbers -
everyone who sustained an injury. If helmets prevent 85% of head injuries this will be clearly
visible in this graph.

This graph shows that:
- The general fall in the likelihood of head injury for cyclists coincides to a high degree with a
similar fall in head injury for non-cyclists (who make up the great majority of the whole
population control group).

- There is a fall for cyclists and not the control group when the law was introduced, but the
cyclist head injury rate had previously risen above the overall one, and the fall is soon followed
by an increase. The cyclist head injury rate does appear to fluctuate a little more than the
overall rate.

- There has been no additional benefit for cyclists through the wearing of helmets that has not been
enjoyed by the population as a whole without helmets. This is despite the fact that the survey on
which the graph is based included head injuries sustained in simple falls (for which cycle helmets
are designed to offer some degree of protection) as well as more serious instances of collisions
with motor vehicles.

cyclehelmets.orgc2007.pdfOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Australia.

Cameron et al (1994) fitted a logistic regression to the pre-law data and extrapolated it beyond the
helmet law introduction. Post-law, the only significant change from the regression line was the
1992/93 point which lies below their 95% confidence limits. It is likely that changes in reporting
rates, hospital procedures or some other factor can account for this discrepancy in an otherwise
relatively smooth trend.

Charting the percentage of head injuries amongst hospitalised cyclists [...] It is not possible to
discern from the graph the year of introduction of the legislation.

cyclehelmets.orgc2016.pdfOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Of course this isn't worth anything to you because you would rather we

have

Quoted message said:

a head injury and a broken leg rather than just the leg, so you can say

that

Quoted message said:

we need to educate car drivers, a few more brain damaged kids will help further your cause
afterall.

It is not worth anything to me because the reports you quote were commissioned by the respective
Governments in order to "prove" that they were right to introduce helmet legislation, as a response
to comments in the learned journals which pointed out that despiote a large step-change in wearing
rates there was no discernible corresponding change in injury rates. The trend in cyclist head
injury vs. all injury rates is essentially flat over time.

Quoted message said:

"Bicyclists admitted to hospital with head injuries are 20 times as likely to die as those
without."

Quite possibly, but there is no evidence that helmets have any impact on this. There is no
credible evidence to suggest that, in a given impact, a helmet will make the difference between
life and death.

Quoted message said:

Of course non of this research exists according to you.

Oh it exists all right, as I said above. And there is a similarly large body of research pointing
out that, despite these grandiose claims, the effect of cycle helmets in overall casualty trends is
invisibly small. Except in British Columbia, where head injury rates have increased significantly
post-law. Oops.

Quoted message said:

How about this non scientific test. sph.emory.eduboardman.htmlOpen ↗

Non-scientific,as you say. At least two helmeted riders died in the USA last year, and a large
number of unhelmeted riders have survived. And we could use similar graphic pictures of motor racing
crashes to show that all car drivers should wear Nomex suits and full-face helmets. This is just
shroud-waving and it sheds more heat than light. Think of Nikki Lauda! Don't go out without your
fireproof longjohns!

The human skull is tough. My friend Albert, in his seventies, did a header over the bars while not
wearing a helmet and suffered nothing worse than cuts. I don't want the cuts - so I wear a plastic
hat - but the skull saved his life. Scope for a "skull saved my life" thread maybe? We are all
fitted with a skull as standard.

Quoted message said:

"However, the great majority of the fatalities and approximately half the injuries - most of them
to adults - result from damage to the head

following

Quoted message said:

collision with a car or goods vehicle."

Now check the disclaimer on your helmet. You will find that any collision with a motor vehicle is
outside the design parameters of a cycle helmet. No helmet is designed to withstand impacts of that
severity. The various tests are designed to mimic the effect of a fall from a bicicyle to the ground
at low speeds, usually quoted at not more than 12mph.

Quoted message said:

How much research do you want?

Anything credible based on whole population or time-series data will do. Well, there would probably
have to be a couple of reports, to balance the large stack which prove no effect.

Quoted message said:

So come on, lose the blanket you hide behind and talk "head injuries".

I have no problem talking about head injuries, injuries, non-head injuries. The fact remains that
the effect of helmets on injury rates including or excluding head injuries is unmeasurably small
when applied to whole populations.

Quoted message said:

Of course I'm sure no studies are valid unless you do them yourself with your huge knowledge of
such matters[SARCASM]

I make no claims to expertise - but here are some people who do: cyclehelmets.orgcyclehelmets.orgOpen ↗. Helmet
advocates make substantial claims, 85% of head injuries prevented being one common one. BHIT quoted
exactly this figure in the Early Day Motion they sponsored. That figure is no longer supported by
its authors, who have published corrections over time. BHIT still use the incorrect figure. Even
taking the lower figures of around 60%, if you double the helmet wearing rate you would expect to
see a large change in the ratio of head injuries to all injuries. In Australia this change is
vivible only in the non-cycling population, not the cycling population. Why? I don't claim to know.
But I do suggest that until the gulf between the claims and the reality is fully understood, to
advocate helmet compuslion is irresponsible.

TRL apparnetly claim around 16% injury reductions. That at least is credible. Looking for a number
that small in the overall data would demand different techniques which I don't think Franklin et.
al. have tried yet, but then I've not seen the TRL report which claimed 16% - it might someone
misremembering.

Quoted message said:

Not trying to pick a fight, just trying to open some eyes, and I still advocate choice on wearing
helmets in adults.

But you're not opening my eyes in saying these things, Ian, because I have already read those
reports. I was originally a Liddite. It was only through reading the research that I arrived at my
current position, and that was at least inpart due to comparing the strident tone of the "pro"
reports with the much more measured approach by some of the sceptics. Even the BMA does not think
helmet compulsion is a good idea.

And confining it to children is a fig-leaf, a piece of BHIT dishonesty hoping to get legislation in
and then extend it in future, when the adult wearing rate is higher because of all those kids who've
got into the habit of wearing a lid.

90% of child cycling accidents happen off the roads. How would legislation mandating helmet use for
children on the road affect this? BHIT know that perfectly well.

But it would have given the insurers of the driver who hit Darren Coombs a way of claiming that his
injuries were his own fault. It is pointless to deny that insurers would use such legislation in the
courts, because they already try to claim contributory negligence when cyclists are hit by car
drivers and suffer head injuries while not wearing helmets.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

rifleman scribed with passion and wit:

Quoted message said:

But doesn't the BS that helmets are built to state that they only need to offer protection in
accidents "where there is no other vehicle involved" or has that changed? if a vehicle hits a
cyclist at 40 mph then the chances are that that cyclist will probably die whether they are
wearing a helmet or not. If a cyclist gets run over by a 32 ton artic that's only doing 20mph,
again there is a fair chance that the cyclist will die whether wearing a helmet or not.

And what about helmets for pedestrians if you are going to go down that route?

I know! lets ban all two wheel traffic AND pedestrians and all go about in cars. How about that?

So you are saying that bicycle helmets have no benefit whatsoever and are designed as such, ergo, to
simplify it, if the helmet will absorb a 10mph impact, it it not basically true to say that it would
reduce the effects of a 20mph impact to those of a 10mph impact, you are saying that if the design
limits are exceeded then the benefits cease rather than are reduced.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lets look at New Zealand.

" The relatively large increase in helmet wearing associated with the passing of a compulsory
helmet wearing law in 1994 reduced head injuries

by

Quoted message said:

between 24 and 32% in non-motor vehicle crashes, and by 20% in motor

vehicle

Quoted message said:

crashes."

But didn't it also reduce cylce USE by a larger percent? certainly did in Australia, therefore the
RATE of head injuy didn't change.

You have misread the quote, example; it says 20% in motor vehicle crashes, that could be 20% of 100
crashes or 20% of 5 crashes, the reduction in cycling is irrelevant to the percentage figure.

Quoted message said:

Isn't it perceived that the health benfits of cycling far outweigh the "benefits" of compulsory
helmet wear? i.e. isn't it far better to have a larger number of people cycling and so benefiting
their health rather than a tiny minority, which would be the case if helmets were made compulsory?

--
Ian

catrike.co.ukcatrike.co.ukOpen ↗

Michael MacClancy scribed with passion and wit:

Quoted message said:

"Ian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy, you know? scribed with passion and wit: Lets look at New Zealand.

" The relatively large increase in helmet wearing associated with the passing of a compulsory
helmet wearing law in 1994 reduced head injuries

by

Quoted message said:

between 24 and 32% in non-motor vehicle crashes, and by 20% in motor

vehicle

Quoted message said:

crashes."

Povey L J, Frith W J, Graham P G. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1999; volume 31, pp 763-770

This paragraph is very badly written and, unfortunately, doesn't really contribute anything to the
discussion other than confusion. My point is that it might mean that the number of head injuries
fell by 24-32% as a result of helmet legislation. This could correspond with a reduction in the
amount of cycling. On the other hand it might mean that the percentage of head injuries as a
proportion of all injuries fell by 24-34%. This might be a change from say, 60% to 45% (using 24%
as the decrease) or 6% to 4.5% or .6% to 0.45%.

What is it? Left as it is it the information only obfuscates the argument.
___
Michael MacClancy

I think it is very clear, it only confuses you if you choose not to read it properly.

--
Ian

catrike.co.ukcatrike.co.ukOpen ↗

Michael MacClancy said:

"Ian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy, you know? scribed with passion and wit: Lets look at New Zealand.

" The relatively large increase in helmet wearing associated with the passing of a compulsory
helmet wearing law in 1994 reduced head injuries

by

Quoted message said:

between 24 and 32% in non-motor vehicle crashes, and by 20% in motor

vehicle

Quoted message said:

crashes."

Povey L J, Frith W J, Graham P G. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1999; volume 31, pp 763-770

This paragraph is very badly written and, unfortunately, doesn't really contribute anything to the
discussion other than confusion. My point is that it might mean that the number of head injuries
fell by 24-32% as a result of helmet legislation. This could correspond with a reduction in the
amount of cycling. On the other hand it might mean that the percentage of head injuries as a
proportion of all injuries fell by 24-34%. This might be a change from say, 60% to 45% (using 24%
as the decrease) or 6% to 4.5% or .6% to 0.45%.

What is it? Left as it is it the information only obfuscates the argument.

Intuitively one would think that it would be due to a drop in cycling as the two percentages are
nigh on identical. One would expect to see a much greater benefit in non-motor vehicle crashes as
they tend to be at slower speed and within the extremely limited design capability of a new, well
fitting cycle helmet.

The figures Ian posted show quite convincingly that cyclists do die of head injuries. As do
motorists and pedestrians.

What they do not show is whether helmets have a measurable effect in reducing the head injury rate.
One of the better measures that can be used is the comparison between cyclists and pedestrian
accidents. If the relative proportions of head injuries between the two groups do not change then
it is reasonable to assume that whatever measures taken to prevent head injuries by one group are
not working.

For the record, I think helmets have a good role to play in their design envelope. This is a low
speed linear impact where the predominant mass being stopped by the helmet is the head. For high
speed impacts, or impacts where a soft helmet (almost every one on the market now) may contribute to
a rotational force on the head, they may be of no use or potentially more dangerous than not wearing
one. (And sometimes I wear one but most of the time I dont).

Whether children should be forced to wear helmets is a moot point. The number of child deaths
through preventable head injury alone in UK is probably very small, a tiny proportion of the 25 or
so cycling related child deaths each year. Would we not be better off encouraging better training
and attitudes amongst all sections of the community rather than victim blaming?

For anything to be compulsory there has to be an element of serious risk and a realistic measure to
reduce that risk. I don't think this is the case with cycling. I'd much rather my kids were cycling
without a helmet than not cycling (and sitting in front of yet another video).

..d

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"However, the great majority of the fatalities and approximately half

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

injuries - most of them to adults - result from damage to the head

following

Quoted message said:

collision with a car or goods vehicle."

Now check the disclaimer on your helmet. You will find that any collision with a motor vehicle is
outside the design parameters of a cycle helmet.

No

Quoted message said:

helmet is designed to withstand impacts of that severity. The various

tests

Quoted message said:

are designed to mimic the effect of a fall from a bicicyle to the ground

at

Quoted message said:

low speeds, usually quoted at not more than 12mph.

So I WAS right about the "no other vehicle involved" British Standard. What is the point in wearing
a helmet, AND making it compulsory, if that helmet only protects the cyclist if they just "fall
off"? MOST experienced cyclists don't just "fall off" (icy and slippery roads apart!)

Just zis Guy said:

.... the leading study quoted by helmet advocates also manages to show that helmets reduce leg and
torso injuries?

Actually I now have a mechanism for this, of sorts.

A few months ago someone posted to rec.sport.unicycling (unfortunately I am now unable to find the
post) describing a fall that he had while mountain biking. He commented that he was glad he'd been
wearing a helmet, because otherwise he would have made an effort not to hit his head. He felt that
by not making any effort to avoid hitting his head, he was able to make an effort instead to avoid
damage to his arms and legs.

I found it rather worrying that anyone would put so much faith in a PFDB that he would make no
effort to avoid hitting his head in the event of a tumble. Come to think of it, that could also be a
valid mechanism for helmets to increase head injuries among the stupid...

--
Danny Colyer (catch the cow to reply) juggler.netdannyOpen ↗ Recumbent cycle page:
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukrecumbentsOpen ↗ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine

"Ian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think it is very clear, it only confuses you if you choose not to read

it

Quoted message said:

properly.

The problem with helmet threads is that one keeps going over the same ground time and time again.
I'm sure you haven't seen other posts I've made on the subject and that you don't have the first
idea what my opinion about helmets is or, indeed, if I have an opinion on the matter at all. I'm
sorry if you interpreted my post as being anti-helmet because this isn't what it was meant to be. I
am honestly unclear about what the paragraph means. Perhaps if you posted more of the article or
provided an online reference I'd be able to satisfy my curiosity.
___
Michael MacClancy

In article said:

So I WAS right about the "no other vehicle involved" British Standard. What is the point in wearing
a helmet, AND making it compulsory, if that helmet only protects the cyclist if they just "fall
off"? MOST experienced cyclists don't just "fall off" (icy and slippery roads apart!)

None. But since many cyclists aren't experienced, some experienced cyclists have balance problems,
and icy and slippery roads can't always be avoided, there are good reasons why some cyclists might
choose to wear helmets sometimes.

Ian quoted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

" The relatively large increase in helmet wearing associated with the passing of a compulsory
helmet wearing law in 1994 reduced head injuries by between 24 and 32% in non-motor vehicle
crashes, and by 20% in motor vehicle crashes."

then said:

I think it is very clear, it only confuses you if you choose not to read it properly.

Nope, Michael is quite correct. The paragraph above is ambiguous, as it does not clarify whether it
refers to an absolute percentage or a proportional percentage.

--
Danny Colyer (catch the cow to reply) juggler.netdannyOpen ↗ Recumbent cycle page:
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukrecumbentsOpen ↗ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine

Quoted message said:

A few months ago someone posted to rec.sport.unicycling (unfortunately I am now unable to find the
post) describing a fall that he had while mountain biking. He commented that he was glad he'd been
wearing a helmet, because otherwise he would have made an effort not to hit his head. He felt that
by not making any effort to avoid hitting his head, he was able to make an effort instead to avoid
damage to his arms and legs.

Wow, quick reactions! When I last fell off, I had just enough time to look down and say 'bug...'
before I headbutted the road. Not wearing a helmet meant I got an ickle scar (yay!) and mild
concussion, plus a little note from a teacher on my GCSE paper explaining why some of it might not
make sense! As I got higher than my predicted grades for this subject, I now never wear a helmet as
I have proof positive that concussion is beneficial.

Danny Colyer said:

A few months ago someone posted to rec.sport.unicycling (unfortunately I am now unable to find the
post) describing a fall that he had while mountain biking. He commented that he was glad he'd been
wearing a helmet, because otherwise he would have made an effort not to hit his head. He felt that
by not making any effort to avoid hitting his head, he was able to make an effort instead to avoid
damage to his arms and legs.

You told him his PFDB would not protect his brain owing to being three feet above it, then? ;-P

--
Guy
===
WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.demon.co.ukchapmancentral.demon.co.ukOpen ↗

"Alan Braggins" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article said:

So I WAS right about the "no other vehicle involved" British Standard. What is the point in
wearing a helmet, AND making it compulsory, if that helmet only protects the cyclist if they just
"fall off"? MOST

experienced

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cyclists don't just "fall off" (icy and slippery roads apart!)

None. But since many cyclists aren't experienced, some experienced

cyclists

Quoted message said:

have balance problems, and icy and slippery roads can't always be avoided, there are good reasons
why some cyclists might choose to wear helmets sometimes.

I'm not denying anyone the right to wear one of they choose. That's the point. If they CHOOSE. There
should be no compulsion.

David Martin scribed with passion and wit:

Quoted message said:

Michael MacClancy said:

"Ian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just zis Guy, you know? scribed with passion and wit: Lets look at New Zealand.

" The relatively large increase in helmet wearing associated with the passing of a compulsory
helmet wearing law in 1994 reduced head injuries

by

Quoted message said:

between 24 and 32% in non-motor vehicle crashes, and by 20% in motor

vehicle

Quoted message said:

crashes."

Povey L J, Frith W J, Graham P G. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1999; volume 31, pp 763-770

This paragraph is very badly written and, unfortunately, doesn't really contribute anything to
the discussion other than confusion. My point is that it might mean that the number of head
injuries fell by 24-32% as a result of helmet legislation. This could correspond with a reduction
in the amount of cycling. On the other hand it might mean that the percentage of head injuries as
a proportion of all injuries fell by 24-34%. This might be a change from say, 60% to 45% (using
24% as the decrease) or 6% to 4.5% or .6% to 0.45%.

What is it? Left as it is it the information only obfuscates the argument.

Intuitively one would think that it would be due to a drop in cycling as the two percentages are
nigh on identical. One would expect to see a much greater benefit in non-motor vehicle crashes as
they tend to be at slower speed and within the extremely limited design capability of a new, well
fitting cycle helmet.

The figures Ian posted show quite convincingly that cyclists do die of head injuries. As do
motorists and pedestrians.

What they do not show is whether helmets have a measurable effect in reducing the head injury
rate. One of the better measures that can be used is the comparison between cyclists and
pedestrian accidents. If the relative proportions of head injuries between the two groups do not
change then it is reasonable to assume that whatever measures taken to prevent head injuries by
one group are not working.

For the record, I think helmets have a good role to play in their design envelope. This is a low
speed linear impact where the predominant mass being stopped by the helmet is the head. For high
speed impacts, or impacts where a soft helmet (almost every one on the market now) may contribute
to a rotational force on the head, they may be of no use or potentially more dangerous than not
wearing one. (And sometimes I wear one but most of the time I dont).

Whether children should be forced to wear helmets is a moot point. The number of child deaths
through preventable head injury alone in UK is probably very small, a tiny proportion of the 25 or
so cycling related child deaths each year. Would we not be better off encouraging better training
and attitudes amongst all sections of the community rather than victim blaming?

For anything to be compulsory there has to be an element of serious risk and a realistic measure
to reduce that risk. I don't think this is the case with cycling. I'd much rather my kids were
cycling without a helmet than not cycling (and sitting in front of yet another video).

..d

David

Thankyou, this is one of the most balanced responses in this thread and makes a lot of sense, even
if you do not agree with me.

Of course I will therefore have to come round your house and murder your family pet, :-)
--
Ian

catrike.co.ukcatrike.co.ukOpen ↗

Michael MacClancy scribed with passion and wit:

Quoted message said:

"Ian" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think it is very clear, it only confuses you if you choose not to read

it

Quoted message said:

properly.

The problem with helmet threads is that one keeps going over the same ground time and time again.
I'm sure you haven't seen other posts I've made on the subject and that you don't have the first
idea what my opinion about helmets is or, indeed, if I have an opinion on the matter at all. I'm
sorry if you interpreted my post as being anti-helmet because this isn't what it was meant to be.
I am honestly unclear about what the paragraph means. Perhaps if you posted more of the article or
provided an online reference I'd be able to satisfy my curiosity.
___
Michael MacClancy

It wasn't a personal attack, if I wanted to attack you, I would have said you were a [censored]. The fact
that the quote said it was a percentage clears it for me, i.e. 10 percent of 100 is 10, 10 percent
of 1000 is 100.

--
Ian

catrike.co.ukcatrike.co.ukOpen ↗

pig pog scribed with passion and wit:

Quoted message said:

Ian said:

Just zis Guy, you know? scribed with passion and wit:

Quoted message said:

Call it a foible. I can't allow advocacy of compulsory helmets pass unchallenged<snip>

So all the development that helmet manufacturers put into helmets is not worth a light? Can you
tell me what the vast majority of cycle injuries are? <snip research suggesting that head injury
is a common cause of death amongst cycling fatalities)

Ian, none of your quotes said anything about accident or head injury rates and how these were
affected by MHLs or even the actual incidence of helmet wearing. It doesn't really matter what
proportion of cyclist fatalities can be attributed to head injuries nor what the indidence of head
injuries is if helmet wearing does not appear to reduce the rates. AFAIK there isn't any research
which demonstrates this at a population level. This doesn't mean that there is no reduction but
does suggest a need for further investigation.

I'm not trying to show a definitive trend, just that the anti helmet lobby are not looking at the
whole picture.
--
Ian

catrike.co.ukcatrike.co.ukOpen ↗

Guy, What you want is everyone to accept reports commissioned by people who are anti helmet, you
have no balance in your argument, you are as closed and as ignorant as the people who want helmets
at any cost.

--
Ian

catrike.co.ukcatrike.co.ukOpen ↗

I criticised Ian's:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think it is very clear, it only confuses you if you choose not to read it properly.

with:

Quoted message said:

Nope, Michael is quite correct. The paragraph above is ambiguous, as it does not clarify whether
it refers to an absolute percentage or a proportional percentage.

I take that back. I've reread the paragraph for about the 10th time and suddenly it becomes clear.

It's not particularly well written, but nor is it ambiguous.

--
Danny Colyer (catch the cow to reply) juggler.netdannyOpen ↗ Recumbent cycle page:
speedy5.freeserve.co.ukrecumbentsOpen ↗ "He who dares not offend cannot be honest." -
Thomas Paine