Bradley Wiggins calls for safer cycling laws and compulsory helmets

[srw]

Oh c'mon, we're better than this aren't we?

I think so. But what's sauce for the goose, etc, etc.

 

[theclaud]

Smeggers, ben's evidence is your lack of evidence. And pleading doesn't strengthen your argument.

Which is more or less what I said about 700 posts ago.

Was it really that recently?

 

[Boris Bajic]

Where's the evidence then?

I completly defend your right to wear a helmet if you want to.
But can't you see that compulsion would be a disaster for all cyclists?[/quote]

I like your posts, benb, so I say this with caution:

Compulsion may be a bad thing - I think it would and you do too.

But it would not be a disaster for all cyclists.

Many riders would barely notice its introduction.

Some would resent it and ride on.

Some would-be cyclists would decide not to cycle.

But a disaster? No.

For all cyclists? No.

It would have barely any impression on my family of five cyclists. You might think I'd lose the benefit of falling prices for parts that the recent explosion in numbers has brought about... except that there has been no fall in prices.

I think that sometimes a dramatic statement like yours can have as strong a weakening effect on the case it supports as its author perceives its strengthening effect to be.

 

[srw]

I clearly have no brain or conscience.

I think you have both, which is why I'm surprised by your conclusion.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Ask yourself why you use up a substantial chunk of the internet telling us anecdotes that demonstrate your equanimity on the subject of helmets. And if you get an answer, be so good as to share it with us.

Did we ever figure out how one might 'demonstate equanimity on the subject of helmets' or are we putting this down as a typo?

I am keen to find the answer and as soon as I understand the question I'll give it my full attention - limited as that is.

 

[benb]

I like your posts, benb, so I say this with caution:

Compulsion may be a bad thing - I think it would and you do too.

But it would not be a disaster for all cyclists.

Many riders would barely notice its introduction.

Some would resent it and ride on.

Some would-be cyclists would decide not to cycle.

But a disaster? No.

For all cyclists? No.

It would have barely any impression on my family of five cyclists. You might think I'd lose the benefit of falling prices for parts that the recent explosion in numbers has brought about... except that there has been no fall in prices.

I think that sometimes a dramatic statement like yours can have as strong a weakening effect on the case it supports as its author perceives its strengthening effect to be.

That's fair. I was being unnecessarily rhetorical.

 

[benb]

My evidence, is your lack of evidence.

And no, pleading will not strengthen your argument.

The burden of proof is upon the person suggesting the intervention.

 

[benb]

Which is why the argument is circular.

No, because no-one is suggesting banning helmets. People are talking about compulsion, when there isn't any evidence that helmets are even effective. It's the people suggesting the intervention that need to provide the proof that their proposal will be effective.

I think I've just had a lightbulb moment, we don't need an academic, we need a lawyer......

Is there sufficient evidence to show that helmets are helpful in certain circumstances? Yes

Is the sufficient evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that they should be made compulsory? No.

Fair statement?

You missed out, "is there sufficient evidence that helmets significantly protect against serious head injuries? No."

 

[Red Light]

As we said, back in the day of this thread, you cant prove a negative.

That is a fundamentally flawed statement. You can prove a negative in so far as you can prove anything in science. And you definitely can prove the negative you keep banging on about. To Illustrate the point that benb has been trying to help you understand, assume helmets are worn by half of all cyclists. If they are 100% effective then there will be no head injured cyclists who wore a helmet in hospital, only ones without a helmet. If they are not effective at all, the hospital will have half its patients helmeted cyclists and half un-helmeted. If the effectiveness is less than 100% you will see an inbetween result. The hospital data from the UK and elsewhere is in line with the not effective assumption i.e. the proportion of helmeted head injured cyclists is the same as the proportion of cyclists who wear helmets when riding. This "proves" that there are no cyclists of the type you proposed who disappeared from the stats because they wore a helmet and weren't injured - or at least it proves that if there were, then there was an equal number of additional cyclists who were injured because they were wearing a helmet to produce a net zero outcome.

 

[Red Light]

I think I've just had a lightbulb moment, we don't need an academic, we need a lawyer......

Is there sufficient evidence to show that helmets are helpful in certain circumstances? Yes

Is the sufficient evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that they should be made compulsory? No.

Fair statement?

Despite a number of cases coming to Court, no lawyer has yet been able to present evidence to the Court that has persuaded the Court that a helmet would have made a difference. So your lightbulb moment leads you to the same conclusion which is that helmets are not proven to work.

If you want though an academic review then cyclehelmets.org has been set up by a number of expert academics in this field to do exactly what you are asking. Its problem though is because that review indicates that helmets are ineffective, the helmet lobby have labelled it a biased anti-helmet site. A bit like the tobacco lobby thinks people like ASH are biased with an agenda.

 

[Red Light]

I understand what the stats are telling us, serious crashes result in serious injuries (irrespective of head gear), but that in itself is not an excuse to be proactive about safety.

Indeed its not but be proactive with things that work rather than things for which there is no evidence they work. For example the one cited often on here is people not getting training (which does work) because of the insistence they wear helmets(not shown to work) to get the training. Its too important to allow snake oil therapies to dispace therapies that are proven to work which is what is currently happening.

 

[Tunster]

@Red Light: Your assumption is that all instances of bike crashes involved head injuries. There are too many variations of crashes to go as simplistic as your calculation.

For me personally, do helmets not provide protection for the simplist of accidents? I'm going as far down as a slip on a bit of oil and then falling over on your bike onto the road. The risk without a helmet is a major bash of the head onto the surface possibly causing concussion or even brain damage which would have far more reaching consequences. With a helmet, it won't stop you falling over but your head is protected from any major impact. If this type of accident makes up the majority for inexperienced/younger cyclists (between 5 to 18?), surely there's a neccessary need for helmets to be compulsory to protect them from silly mistakes most experienced rides won't encouter? Helmets won't stop a car knocking you off or blocking your path and you ending up flying up in the air.

The most important factor is if the chances of you surviving an accident due to wearing a helmet in most likely instances makes it worth while to protect the majority. Whether this is a minor or major incident. They'll never be a black and white case for yes or no for compulsion. This argument goes for the same as wearing a seat belt to protect yourself or driving at 30mph rather than 35/40mph to increasing the chances of a pedestrian survivng an accident.

I'd say yes to compulsion if it's going to trigger a nationwide education campaign to target both cyclists and drivers in safer cycling/driving.

 

[dellzeqq]

@Red Light: Your assumption is that all instances of bike crashes involved head injuries. There are too many variations of crashes to go as simplistic as your calculation..

RL can take care of himself, but I don't think he's saying that at all

apropos of the rotational injury thing (the injury that can be caused by helmet wear) I see that the BMX riders have a brace between their body armour and their helmets. Now, given that BMX riders crash a lot (five down in one heat) I'd have thought that anyone proposing compulsory helmet use would also insist on a brace.

Yeah, right.....

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Sense at last!

Thanks for that, will study and return to the thread.

take care there, the evidence changed my mind....

 

[GrumpyGregry]

RL can take care of himself, but I don't think he's saying that at all

apropos of the rotational injury thing (the injury that can be caused by helmet wear) I see that the BMX riders have a brace between their body armour and their helmets. Now, given that BMX riders crash a lot (five down in one heat) I'd have thought that anyone proposing compulsory helmet use would also insist on a brace.

Yeah, right.....

and body armour, and spine protectors, etc., etc.. great if you are a downhill mtb-er, not so got if you're off down the shops or doing an audax.