Helmet Wankers

[Alan Hutchison]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 08:29:28 +0000, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>>If that one life could have been saved by a helmet then it is worth it. What value are you
>>>>placing on looking cool?
>
>
>>>Stop driving NOW! Car drivers kill tens of thousands every year in the US ALONE! If even one life
>>>can be saved (and actually it'll bve tens of thousands) surely it's worth it.
>
>
>>Extreme it may seem, but this *is* one reason why i do not drive. I do not wish to be part of that
>>culture that kills and injures so many.
>
>
> Hard to disagree. We still have one car between us, but I try not to use it.
>
> Guy
> ===
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

Quite. But people with that sort of attitude are not prone to adding to the problem.

FWIW my definition of a car: A tin box with wheels near its corners, sometimes useful, always
expensive, dirty and dangerous.

Alan H.

 

[Peter Keller]

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 09:42:23 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> "DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>> The laws of physics are the same in the UK as they are here and I simply don't believe a
>> word of it.
>
>
> Yes, always better to go with blind faith than facts.
>
> Try Googling for "risk compensation" some time. Read the study of German taxi drivers and ABS
> brakes, it's very revealing. There's also a rising rate of front passenger deaths in the UK at
> present, linked with the increased use of cars fitted with drivers' airbags by young male drivers.
>
> Of course, nobody believes in risk compensation. That's why it happens.

I'm having a running battle with our Land Transport Safety Authority (sic) over the need for
compulsory helmet legislation. New Zealand is, of course, now the only country in the world with a
country-wide all-ages all-encompassing law. What did NZ do to deserve to be punished like this? But
I simply can't win. We quote studies at each other, and I must say theirs are highly selected and
highly suspect. But they have the big guns and they pass the laws and are therefore winning. and the
cops enforce the laws ferociously. And the LTSA still have the gall to say "There is no evidence for
risk compensation" "there is no evidence that the numbers of bicyclists has reduced because of the
law" -- ad nauseam. I have no problem with people wearing helmets. But I do have a problem with
people forcing me to wear a helmet when the evidence for their efficacy is so patchy, and there is
also a lot of evidence showing they can do harm. Peter

--
This transmission is certified free of viruses as no Microsoft products were used in its preparation
or propagation.

 

[Peter Keller]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 23:39:59 -0800, Tom Keats wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Benjamin Lewis <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> I also have heard that vi variants like gvim are getting to be as big these days.
>
> vi's a pretty darn good, powerful editor too. I really don't understand these vi vs emacs "tastes
> great; less filling" religious wars. They're both good.
>
>> Nothin' against vi (but PICO sucks rocks),
>
> Maybe as pico is to vi, epsilon is to emacs. epsilon is an horrid perversion. ISTR Borland
> including it in their IDE suite.
>
>
> cheers, Tom

You can now get nano from the gnu site. Very like pico, but is much smaller, and is stand-alone,
doesn't come as part of a big package, and is also under the Gnu licence, not some wierd
university one.

--
This transmission is certified free of viruses as no Microsoft products were used in its preparation
or propagation.

 

[Alan Hutchison]

Nick Maclaren wrote:

>
>
> Correct. But let me introduce myself. While I am very rusty, I am a statistician by training and
> was once fairly good. Again, while I haven't looked at ALL of the evidence, I did spend some time
> looking at many of the references quoted by the pro-helmet brigade, and found that all except a
> couple were complete nonsense. Their data may have been correct, but the analysis was so obviously
> incorrect that their conclusions were often the OPPOSITE of what should have been derived from the
> data. The couple that weren't complete nonsense were inconclusive, and counterbalanced by
> equivalent research that indicated that bicycle helmets increased the risk of brain damage.
>
> There MAY be some new data, but I doubt it. The executive summary is this:
>
> Helmets almost certainly reduce trivial head injuries in all classes of cyclist - i.e. mere
> bruises, cuts and so on. Yes, some of the cuts may have needed hospital treatment, but they
> are STILL trivial.
>
> Helmets almost certainly make a negligible difference to the incidence of brain damage
> following an accident for normal cyclists, and the data are not good enough to tell whether
> the difference is positive or negative.
>
> Helmets probably help with extreme cycling - crashes at speeds above 30 MPH, people who ride
> over broken rock and so on - the evidence is very scanty and hence inconclusive, but is at
> least fairly consistent.
>
> Mandatory and even semi-mandatory helmet wearing reduces the number of normal cyclists
> significantly, especially those that are using cycling as a form of transport rather than
> recreation. And 'significantly' is of the order of tens of percent.
>
> The rest is politics, dogma and so on.
>
>
> Regards, Nick Maclaren.

Nick, you have concisely articulated the issue. My comment is that the introduction of mandatory
helmet use in Australia certainly reduced the number of normal cyclists significantly as you say,
when it was introduced. What has happened since, though, is that cycling in all its forms is now
increasing strongly after the famously reported decrease.

Here is the situation as I see it in Victoria.

In the late forties, early fifties, it was headline news in local papers when the local police
sergeant was assigned a (gasp) car and could retire his standard issue police bicycle. Now it seems
that the plum job in the Police Department is in the bicycle squad.

Bicycles travel free on suburban trains, and that includes tandems, whacko! Cyclists are
respectfully asked by the train operators to consider the amenity of other passengers during
peak hours.

Inter-city trains have a parcel van which can accommodate many bicycles and if bookings or
expectation dictate, they will happily add a second van. The downside is that on some of the routes
they run "Sprinters" at some times, diesel electric rail cars similar to the ones in Scotland, and
with similar restrictions on the carriage of bicycles.

When the tram lines were extended recently in the City of Whitehorse, the stops were engineered so
that motor traffic has to wait when a tram is stationary, but cyclists can pass. Some may quibble
over the detail but the intent is positive for cycle commuters.

We have some really great cycle touring facilities in this state. Road touring is relatively safe
here and the Rail Trails are really successful. Do a Google search on that and be amazed.

Our umbrella organisation, Bicycle Victoria, is a robust organisation and it and the other industry
and user groups are cooperating and presenting a united front to governments. They need to, of
course, because we have to overcome half a century of fascination with the dreaded m***r c**s.

The situation varies state by state, but AFAIK the trends are similar in all states.

Post helmet legislation, we are moving on. It can be reasonably argued that we would be afforded
more safety by wearing our sun bonnets than helmets, but what party politician would risk the flak
of trying to roll back legislation like this once it is in place. Some of us wear our helmets by
choice and some wear them because we will be booked and fined if we don't, but we have moved on and
cycling is on the increase.

Hope this puts it in perspective for you. We look forward to cycling in the UK again this year as we
did last. I hope you don't mind if we wear our h*****s. Its conditioning, you know.

Regards,

Alan Hutchison.

 

[Tony Raven]

Alan Hutchison wrote:
>
> Nick, you have concisely articulated the issue. My comment is that the introduction of mandatory
> helmet use in Australia certainly reduced the number of normal cyclists significantly as you say,
> when it was introduced. What has happened since, though, is that cycling in all its forms is now
> increasing strongly after the famously reported decrease.
>
> Here is the situation as I see it in Victoria.
>

<snip details>

I'm not sure that is the whole picture. Cycling data for Perth shows that throughout the 90's
cycling was significantly below the 1991 level but in
2001/2 it jumped suddenly to above th 1991/2 level. I don't have subsequent year data but it would
seem something happened, maybe the encouragment measures you mention, to get more people
cycling. It is arguable though that without the helmet law that increase would have started
from a much higher base level.

Similarly the ABS Census data for the country as a whole shows commuter cycling in 2001 at 1.15%
which is below the immediate post compulsion figure in '96 of 1.21% and well below the 1991
figure of 1.63%.

The statistical picture would tend to indicate that cycle promotion measures and perhaps post
millenium life style changes have recently had some impact in some places in offsetting the
reductions in cycling from helmet compulsion

Tony

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Alan Hutchison" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Nick, you have concisely articulated the issue. My comment is that the introduction of mandatory
> helmet use in Australia certainly reduced the number of normal cyclists significantly as you say,
> when it was introduced. What has happened since, though, is that cycling in all its forms is now
> increasing strongly after the famously reported decrease.

But still not up to pre-law levels, despite increased population. Cycling is also increasing
in the UK.

> Post helmet legislation, we are moving on. It can be reasonably argued that we would be afforded
> more safety by wearing our sun bonnets than helmets, but what party politician would risk the flak
> of trying to roll back legislation like this once it is in place. Some of us wear our helmets by
> choice and some wear them because we will be booked and fined if we don't, but we have moved on
> and cycling is on the increase.

Question 1: how many more people would be cycling if there was no helmet law?

Question 2: do you suppose that cyclists in Victoria are unique among road users worldwide in not
riding less safely when protected by a "safety" device?

Question 3: your legislators were told that helmets prevent 88% of cyclist head injuries. Given that
the observed reduction post compulsion is, within the bounds of statistical accuracy, zero, when
will they repeal the law?

In the UK we have no lid law. Someone is trying to push one through. from your experience of cycling
in Victoria, how desirable would you say a lid law is?

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[W K]

"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> S. Anderson <[email protected]> wrote in message
> [email protected]
> > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> Amazingly, when the UK introduced sealt belt legislation - driver fatalities stayed the same!
> >> But there was a substantial rise in pedestrian, cyclist and rear-seat passenger fatalities.
> >
> > Can you cite the data for this declaration? I'd be interested to see this.
>
> The laws of physics are the same in the UK as they are here and I simply don't believe a
> word of it.

Its not about physics, its about driving behaviour.

> BTW, when Victoria first introduced compulsory seatbelt usage not only did the number of
> fatalities drop significantly but the number of spinal injuries dropped 75% in the first year.

Very strange, that one, and physics too! In the UK seat belt compulsion is sold on the reduction in
head injuries. This isn't about rolling vehicles is it? Types of accidents are dependent on types of
road. Rolling more likely in rural roads, hitting something more likely in urban situations- or
where roads often have walls on either side!

 

[W K]

"Nick Maclaren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> In article <[email protected]>, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <[email protected]> writes:
> |>
> |> On the face of it it's hard to add anything to that, other than that I believe the evidence
> |> indicates that cyclists wearing helmets have a
greater
> |> propensity to risk-taking (risk compensation).
>
> Yes, you are right I should have mentioned that. The evidence isn't good enough to either be
> certain that it occurs (though it seems likely) or whether helmet wearing increases the risks
> people take. It could equally well just be a selection effect.

In agreement up to here....

> In any case, any significant effect almost certainly applies to the 'extreme' cyclists only, and
> the effect is negligible for normal cyclists.

Interesting assertion, but a subtle effect (not sure how you define "significant"), can be far from
negligible on a whole population.

I thought the whole "risk compensation" business was about such subtle changes to behaviour. e.g.
people with seatbelts and ABS do not drive like loonies, just very slightly less safely.

 

[Alan Hutchison]

Tony Raven wrote:
> Alan Hutchison wrote:
>
>>Nick, you have concisely articulated the issue. My comment is that the introduction of mandatory
>>helmet use in Australia certainly reduced the number of normal cyclists significantly as you say,
>>when it was introduced. What has happened since, though, is that cycling in all its forms is now
>>increasing strongly after the famously reported decrease.
>>
>>Here is the situation as I see it in Victoria.
>>
>
>
> <snip details>
>
> I'm not sure that is the whole picture. Cycling data for Perth shows that throughout the 90's
> cycling was significantly below the 1991 level but in
> 2001/2 it jumped suddenly to above th 1991/2 level. I don't have subsequent year data but it would
> seem something happened, maybe the encouragment measures you mention, to get more people
> cycling. It is arguable though that without the helmet law that increase would have started
> from a much higher base level.
>
> Similarly the ABS Census data for the country as a whole shows commuter cycling in 2001 at 1.15%
> which is below the immediate post compulsion figure in '96 of 1.21% and well below the 1991 figure
> of 1.63%.
>
> The statistical picture would tend to indicate that cycle promotion measures and perhaps post
> millenium life style changes have recently had some impact in some places in offsetting the
> reductions in cycling from helmet compulsion
>
> Tony
>
>
No problem at all with your points, Tony. I feel however that some balance is needed in the
discussion.

As previously stated, we have to redress a half century of motor car mindset. I view helmet
legislation as a consequence of that. Nonetheless, well-meaning people are getting on with the job,
with measurable success.

If our cycling friends on the other side of the world are to be able to draw useful conclusions from
our experience (or misfortune if you see it that way), then it is best if they have the full picture
available to them.

You say in your post that perhaps ..cycle promotion measures.. have had some impact. I subscribe
very strongly to that view and suggest that the millions spent by motor companies selling the sizzle
not the steak is our most daunting hurdle to overcome.

Regards,

Alan Hutchison.

 

[Tony Raven]

Alan Hutchison wrote:
>
> If our cycling friends on the other side of the world are to be able to draw useful conclusions
> from our experience (or misfortune if you see it that way), then it is best if they have the full
> picture available to them.
>

I think the conclusion we are trying to draw on this side of the world, and which most of the
discussion is about, is that compulsion is bad for cycling. I would rather have all the positive
measures without compulsion as otherwise a lot of the effort expended on the positive measures is
taken up in compensating for the effects of compulsion.

Tony

 

[Alan Hutchison]

Tony Raven wrote:

> Alan Hutchison wrote:
>
>>If our cycling friends on the other side of the world are to be able to draw useful conclusions
>>from our experience (or misfortune if you see it that way), then it is best if they have the full
>>picture available to them.
>>
>
>
> I think the conclusion we are trying to draw on this side of the world, and which most of the
> discussion is about, is that compulsion is bad for cycling. I would rather have all the positive
> measures without compulsion as otherwise a lot of the effort expended on the positive measures is
> taken up in compensating for the effects of compulsion.
>
> Tony
>
>
Quite.

Alan.

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Frank Palermo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> It seems to me that the chief cause of road fatalities is someone driving
like
> a prat (i.e. in such a way that the actual risk of crashing is
unacceptably
> high).

Many years ago a Transport Minister said that crashes are in the main caused noit by the taking of
large risks, but by the taking of small risks very large numbers of times. I think there's a good
deal of truth in that. Obviously the average boy racer is a crash waiting to happen, but the people
most likely to crash (mileage adjusted) are company car drivers, especially commercial travellers,
whose risk taking is much less overt.

> That is, behaviour and cultural modification will have a far greater effect of bringing down the
> incidence of fatalities than any amount of airbags, seatbelts, helmets, etc. Those protective
> devices merely guard (to varying degrees of success) against high-risk behaviours.

Or rather they allow drivers to drive less safely for the same level of personal risk.

> if I'm cycling at 25km/hr, and a car pulls out on me, I'll hit the brakes (if I had time... this
> isn't an exact science so, unlike others, I'm not pretending it is) and possibly decelerate to
> 10km/hr by the time I actually hit the car. I'm below the 12 km/hr someone mentioned earlier

Now add the acceleration due to gravity, and the relative movement of the car...

But the principal point is that helmets are primarily designed to protect against impacts *which
were survivable anyway*.

> (Close to finishing now!). I think the debate goes off track too often as people expect safety
> devices to eliminate, not reduce risk. No device can eliminate risk, only reduce. Why bag helmets
> so much because they fail to do what they never claimed to do?

Because they don't do what their advocates claim them to do either. Evidence form around the world
shows no correlation between helmet use and head injury rates. Plotting pedestrian and cyclist
injury rates in New Zealand over the peirod of introduction of the law, you can't tell which trend
line is which - but there is a large jump in helmet wearing at one point for the cyclist and not the
pedestrian community.

> There was never a claim of 100% protection,

No, the figures used are between 85% and 90% - but whole population studies never show anythign like
that benefit.

> but surely limited protection is better than none?

Unless the act of protecting induces greater risk taking which increases the overall level of risk.
What happens if wearing a helmet eliminates the probability of a trivial injury but increases the
probability of a serious crash by 5%? Is that a good outcome?

> I think we get hung up over ideologies of forced helmet wearing and matters of convenience and
> comfort rather than truly examining any benefits or lack of benefits to be derived from wearing
> the things.

The only ideology involved is the True Believers who insist that we should all wear plastic hats
because middle class American kids riding offroad with helmets were less likely to suffer head
injuries than working class black kids riding round inner city streets without them. In order to
keep it simple for us they don't confuse us with the fact that the figures of 85% and 88% they use
were amended (substantially downwards) by the original authors in 1996.

Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Alan Hutchison" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> If our cycling friends on the other side of the world are to be able to draw useful conclusions
> from our experience (or misfortune if you see it that way), then it is best if they have the full
> picture available to
them.

Heh! So we go to the politicians and say "don't worry, if you introduce a helmet law it will only
cut cycling by a third, and within a decade or so it will get back to almost where it was before.
The head injury rate will remain unchanged, but you can get the train companmies to make train
travel by bike easier and call it a benefit of helmet use."

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[Drs]

Just zis Guy, you know? <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]

[...]

> Many years ago a Transport Minister said that crashes are in the main caused noit by the taking of
> large risks, but by the taking of small risks very large numbers of times. I think there's a good
> deal of truth in that. Obviously the average boy racer is a crash waiting to happen, but the
> people most likely to crash (mileage adjusted) are company car drivers, especially commercial
> travellers, whose risk taking is much less overt.

So, do taxi drivers have a significantly higher rate of accidents than the rest of us?

--

A: Top-posters.
B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[Chris Malcolm]

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

>"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

>> The laws of physics are the same in the UK as they are here and I simply don't believe a
>> word of it.

>Yes, always better to go with blind faith than facts.

>Try Googling for "risk compensation" some time. Read the study of German taxi drivers and ABS
>brakes, it's very revealing. There's also a rising rate of front passenger deaths in the UK at
>present, linked with the increased use of cars fitted with drivers' airbags by young male drivers.

>Of course, nobody believes in risk compensation. That's why it happens.

Have you come across the study of the Kent police drivers/riders? I read discussions of it in
Motorcycle Sport some decades ago, but have never found the original. Trained police motorcyclists
were compared to trained police car drivers -- trained means those who had done the police advanced
training courses. The accident rate of the motorcyclists per mile was, contrary to expectations,
significantly *less* than that of drivers. But when they compared serious injury rates per mile,
they were the same. Or so I recall of the discussion. If true it's a nice example.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"DRS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> > Many years ago a Transport Minister said that crashes are in the main caused noit by the taking
> > of large risks, but by the taking of small risks very large numbers of times. I think there's a
> > good deal of truth in that. Obviously the average boy racer is a crash waiting to happen, but
> > the people most likely to crash (mileage adjusted) are company car drivers, especially
> > commercial travellers, whose risk taking is much less overt.

> So, do taxi drivers have a significantly higher rate of accidents than the rest of us?

No idea. They do crash more often if you give them ABS, though...

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

 

[David Kerber]

In article <[email protected]>, junk@raven- family.com says...
> Alan Hutchison wrote:
> >
> > Nick, you have concisely articulated the issue. My comment is that the introduction of mandatory
> > helmet use in Australia certainly reduced the number of normal cyclists significantly as you
> > say, when it was introduced. What has happened since, though, is that cycling in all its forms
> > is now increasing strongly after the famously reported decrease.
> >
> > Here is the situation as I see it in Victoria.
> >
>
> <snip details>
>
> I'm not sure that is the whole picture. Cycling data for Perth shows that throughout the 90's
> cycling was significantly below the 1991 level but in
> 2001/2 it jumped suddenly to above th 1991/2 level. I don't have subsequent year data but it would
> seem something happened, maybe the encouragment measures you mention, to get more people
> cycling. It is arguable though that without the helmet law that increase would have started
> from a much higher base level.

Possible, but it's also possible simply that the pent-up demand for cycling finally caught up as
people decided that wearing a helmet wasn't so bad after all. Ten years on, you have a new
generation of kids just learning to cycle who have had to wear a helmet from the beginning, and are
used to it.

...

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

 

[Chris Zacho "Th]

What does this have to do with bicycling? Do cowboys all ride MTB's now?

Or was this just posted to start another helmet war?

"May you have the wind at your back. And a really low gear for the hills!"

Chris Zacho ~ "Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman"

Chris'Z Corner http://www.geocities.com/czcorner

 

[W K]

"frkrygow" <"frkrygow"@omitcc.ysu.edu> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Fred Nieman wrote:

> > A bicycle helmet (probably) didn't save my life, nor did it stop me from getting smashed and
> > ripped up really badly, which generally happens when you hit the asphalt at 60 kph. But it did
> > mean I can still walk, talk, ride a bicycle.

I don't tend to do 60kph when not wearing a helmet ont bike. [*]

> The bulk of available data says that your judgement is in error - that the funny hats don't do
> significant good.

They give me the confidence to do 60 + Which is fun.

So they are good!

[* thinking about it, I'm not even metric when riding the kind of trips I do without a helmet ]

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Fri, 6 Feb 2004 12:42:13 +0000 (UTC)
Chris Malcolm <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>Of course, nobody believes in risk compensation. That's why it happens.
>
> Have you come across the study of the Kent police drivers/riders? I read discussions of it in
> Motorcycle Sport some decades ago, but have never found the original. Trained police motorcyclists
> were compared to trained police car drivers -- trained means those who had done the police
> advanced training courses. The accident rate of the motorcyclists per mile was, contrary to
> expectations, significantly *less* than that of drivers. But when they compared serious injury
> rates per mile, they were the same. Or so I recall of the discussion. If true it's a nice example.

I doubt it has anything at all to do with risk compensation.

IN NSW, the crash rates of motorcycles are the same as those of cars, but the injury rate is much
higher, maybe even 10x, I can't recall the figure, but it's bloody high.

It's that lack of steel cage - if you crash a bike, your chances of getting hurt are fairly large.

So the riders were crashing less than expected - expectations being they'd crash at least the same
amount. And probably being hurt less than expected, as the expected injury rate is much much higher
than cars, and they got it down to same as. Meaning the bike crashes were happening at slower speeds
and more controlled circumstances.

What that set of stats shows is not anything about risk compensation, but that training, especially
of vulnerable groups, is a damn good idea.

In NSW, the introduction of the 250cc limit for learner riders led to a reduction in injury crashes
of about 3%. The introduction of rider training produced a reduction of over 20%.

Risk compensation comes in many forms. While bods wearing leathers ride their bikes in ways they
probably wouldn't if wearing shorts and t-shirt, bods wearing shorts and t-shirt ride that way too
if they've been doing the squid thing for a while. If you do "foolish" things and don't get hurt,
then the risk level of that activity drops in your estimation.

So to make car drivers more wary and careful, have to ensure they crash now and then....

Zebee