Tony Raven said:Tim Woodall said:
The pro-choice lobby would argue that not only do helmets have no measurable effect on the rate
of head injuries but they actually increase the risk of other injuries.
I think you mean the anti-helmet lobby. The pro-choice lobby, of which I consider myself one,
would argue that it is up to each individual to weight the arguments and exercise their own
personal choice in whether or not to wear a helmet.
Indeed. However, it is disingenious of a report that claims to have a balanced look at the pros and
cons of helmet wearing to take the generally accepted view that, once a collision or accident has
occurred, a helmet will usually reduce the risk of head injury and then to ignore the other
evidence that suggests that _compulsory_[1] helmet wearing dramatically increases the risk of the
collision occuring.
From the figures for NSW and Victoria, my belief is that it is the compulsory wearing reducing total
cycling numbers, reducing the "visibility" of cyclists and in turn increasing the number of
cycle/motorvehicle collisions which are the accidents that tend to lead to head injuries (and lower
body injuries) that is what is swamping any possible benefit of helmets.
There may be some risk compensation occuring but I don't believe that that will be affecting the
head injury rate which tends to be as the result of car/cycle collisions where the extra 1mph or so
that someone might risk in a given situation is unlikely to make much difference to the collision
rate. OTOH, for single bike accidents that 1mph might make the difference between making it around a
"slippy" bend and losing it. (I don't believe that much more than 1mph can be involved because given
the same conditions, i.e. commuter, training, racing etc, then 1mph is likely to be all that is
physically and reasonably available - although top speed on decents might vary by a bit more. I very
nearly overcooked it on the windcheetah last week. 1mph may well have made all the difference
between "heart stopping exhilaration on two wheels" and sliding across the road on my side - and
possibly hitting my head - can I claim this as a serious head injury that didn't occur because I
wasn't wearing a helmet? ;-P )
Even motorcycle helmets appear to have a very small effect (if any) on fatal injury rates. It, of
course, depends on how you calculate the rate.
From bikersrights.comgoldstein.htmlOpen ↗
If a major concern of policy makers is the prevention of fatalities, helmet legistlation may not be
effective in achieving that objective.
If the overall cost to society of motorcycle accidents is the issue, then cost-benefit analyses that
adequately consider the tradeoff between head and neck injuries must be conducted BEFORE the cost
effectiveness of helmets can be determined.
And a site to show that you can, relatively easily, "show" that compulsory bicycle helmets are an
extremely dangerous initiative: (see footnote [1] again)
agbu.une.edu.aubhacc.htmOpen ↗
Finally, and unfortuately I can't find it again now, the fatality rates per 100,000 hours are
something like 50% HIGHER for car drivers and passengers than they are for cyclists (1998 figures
IIRC) If we could only convince people that they would be safer cycling to work instead of driving
then the increased cyclist number would probably make it safer still. (for my commute - 8 miles - it
takes me about 20% longer by bike than car on average although the s.d. for the bike is very small
(one snowy day excepted) while for the car it is a significant proportion of the mean) (My best ever
time for the car is just over 15 minutes (although that was motorway and is about 1/2 mile further
than the route I cycle) while my best time for the bike is about 20minutes (unfortuantely I didn't
time it but I started getting changed at work at 17:15 and I was in the house, at home, by 17:40)
Regards,
Tim.
[1] I use compulsory here because, as far as I can see the "voluntary helmet wearing" education
campaigns don't seem to have had the negative effects that the laws have. I would further
suggest that a NO helmet law (i.e. cycling helmets must NOT be worn) would similarly affect
cycling numbers and hence increase accident rates. However, I would suspect that had Australia
spent the umpteen million dollars on cyclist training and driver education instead of voluntary
helmet wearing education then they may well have seen significant health gains rather than the
general trend continuation they did see during those years.
--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
tjw.hn.orgtjw.hn.orgOpen ↗ locofungus.btinternet.co.uklocofungus.btinternet.co.ukOpen ↗
