Cyclist who don't wear a helmet

[mcshroom]

Non-compulsion tend to go for 'thin end of the wedge' and 'the freedom of cycling au naturel' with a side order of 'less cyclists will make it more dangerous for everyone' and 'if it's good enough for cyclists everyone should be wearing one'. Off the top of my head (no pun intended, but it appears one was achieved).

The first one is Headway's approach to legislation, as can be seen recently in Jersey where they went for mandatory U18 helmets, then realised that wouldn't work so dropped to U14 helmets as a bridgehead. (Note that Deputy Green, who first introduced the law is also the Chairman of Headway - rather a conflict of interest I might suggest)

The second a matter of opinion (IME @User is usually joking about his hair blowing in the wind),

The third is a correlation of widely collated data (link - p2). Indeed data from countries where MHLs have been introduced have shown that the rate of cycling drops faster than the rate of head injuries, so rather than being emotive, the facts show that for the remaining cyclists in places such as Australia, you were objectively more likely to suffer a head injury while riding after the MHL introduction than before.

I think you haven't actually understood the fourth. Cycling is not a dangerous activity, with very similar head injury rates (and lower total head injury counts) than other activities such as driving and walking. The question to anti-freedom (compulsionists) advocates is on what logical basis do they believe that a helmet is required, and should be mandated, for one of these activities, but not for the others?

That is not emotive, but the exact opposite. Logically activities with similar risks should be treated in a similar way, but the anti-freedom advocates illogically choose to single out one activity as requiring 'safety equipment'.

So one that is possibly emotive, one that is opinion based on recent events, one logic exercise, and one and that is completely evidence based.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

The first one is Headway's approach to legislation, as can be seen recently in Jersey where they went for mandatory U18 helmets, then realised that wouldn't work so dropped to U14 helmets as a bridgehead. (Note that Deputy Green, who first introduced the suggested law is also the Chairman of Headway - rather a conflict of interest I might suggest)

The second a matter of opinion (IME @User is usually joking about his hair blowing in the wind),

The third is a correlation of widely collated data (link - p2). Indeed data from countries where MHLs have been introduced have shown that the rate of cycling drops faster than the rate of head injuries, so rather than being emotive, the facts show that for the remaining cyclists in places such as Australia, you were objectively more likely to suffer a head injury while riding after the MHL introduction than before.

I think you haven't actually understood the fourth. Cycling is not a dangerous activity, with very similar head injury rates (and lower total head injury counts) than other activities such as driving and walking. The question to anti-freedom (compulsionists) advocates is on what logical basis do they believe that a helmet is required, and should be mandated, for one of these activities, but not for the others?

That is not emotive, but the exact opposite. Logically activities with similar risks should be treated in a similar way, but the anti-freedom advocates illogically choose to single out one activity as requiring 'safety equipment'.

So one that is possibly emotive, one that is opinion based on recent events and that are completely evidence based.

On the question of a conflict of interests for Deputy Green, I have a doubt about the legitimacy of using a charity as a direct political organ. The chair of the charity is also a minister in the States of Jersey Assembly. That's about as direct as you can get.

On the fourth point, the perception of danger, I think it is worth including the sources of danger when there are genuine dangers as a factor in these debates. After all, Andrew Green's son did not get his brain damage from a simple fall off his bike - he was knocked off.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I think you haven't actually understood the fourth.

Don't worry, I understand it. Looking at the figures more people get head injuries doing other things, therefore making them wear helmets for cycling while not for those other things is illogical. The reason I count it as being an emotive issue for that camp is the way and time it tends to be brought in to arguments and the fact that however logical, it is an argument that is very unlikely to win anyone over because at its basic level it's accusing your opponent of being stupid.

The data for cycle use vs head injuries just ends up in an argument of relevance. Again while at its basic level it is cold data, it becomes a question of whether Australia is a valid case study for, say, England where patterns of cycle use are markedly different. At which point it's no longer been a logical argument in the debates I've seen so far.

But I'm sure someone from the pro helmet camp could explain their viewpoint better.

 

[mcshroom]

it becomes a question of whether Australia is a valid case study for, say, England where patterns of cycle use are markedly different.

Are they markedly different? Also, if they are, were they before 1991?

 

[Fab Foodie]

Even before we discuss the efficacy of helmets, we should determine whether cycling is a dangerous activity that warrants additional protective gear to be worn while participating in it.
Cycling is not a dangerous activity.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

You acknowledge it to be logical but count it as emotive. Would you object if I were to regard that as a little bit odd?

No, feel free, but I'd be a little worried if you couldn't see the point in my reasoning.

I'm a bit compulsive with forums so have read all the helmet debates (I should probably just not bother to be honest but I have found snippets interesting in the past) the views posted here are based on my experience of those threads. I could, when back on a real PC, trawl through and find examples but I don't really want to sit here doing a 'he said, she said' type confrontation. Feel free to look back at the last few threads and let me know if I am painting an unreasonable picture.

Genuinely, I find the situation interesting and I believe that if it isn't handled correctly compulsion is more than likely to get in at some point over the next two decades. It would be nice if the arguments around it could move on is all, it seems to be in a bit of a rut.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

Even before we discuss the efficacy of helmets, we should determine whether cycling is a dangerous activity that warrants additional protective gear to be worn while participating in it.
Cycling is not a dangerous activity.

Absolutely, the rpg forum I subscribe to has an area for wounded and killed hobbyists too. (Some of that may be a lie)

I don't believe there's a need for more protective gear while cycling, but I think in general cyclists as a whole would benefit from more protection.

 

[summerdays]

I don't believe there's a need for more protective gear while cycling, but I think in general cyclists as a whole would benefit from more protection.

So do I which is why I would like to see presumed liability legislation introduced.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Some useful reading ....

http://www.gicentre.net/blog/2013/11/24/risk-cycling-and-denominator-neglect

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f3817?ijkey=I5vHBog6FhaaLzX&keytype=ref

 

[Fab Foodie]

Absolutely, the rpg forum I subscribe to has an area for wounded and killed hobbyists too. (Some of that may be a lie)

I don't believe there's a need for more protective gear while cycling, but I think in general cyclists as a whole would benefit from more protection.

Surely if you were really concerned you'd campaign for pedestrians and car drivers to wear helmets first ... cyclists are waaaay down the list ....
And Summerdays makes the point that Helmets are waaaay down the list of things that would protect cyclists.

I still can't get my head around why people see fit to tell others about them wearing helmet wearing on the basis of absolutely no evidence at all.

 

[Mugshot]

It would be nice if the arguments around it could move on is all, it seems to be in a bit of a rut.

How would you like to see the arguments moved on? I'm a little confused by this I'm sorry. I agree it can feel as though they are stuck in a rut, but if you are discussing something by presenting facts to someone I'm a little lost as to where else you could go with the debate when these facts are then dismissed.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

I still can't get my head around why people see fit to tell others about them wearing helmet wearing on the basis of absolutely no evidence at all.

I know, crazy NIMBY's

 

[Fab Foodie]

I'm a little lost as to where else you could go with the debate when these facts are then dismissed.

They could just go away at that point .... but no, we have to go round and round again as if telling us the same stuff over and over again is going to improve the facts ... or lack of them.

 

[anyuser]

There are no facts, only interpretations.

 

[w00hoo_kent]

How would you like to see the arguments moved on? I'm a little confused by this I'm sorry. I agree it can feel as though they are stuck in a rut, but if you are discussing something by presenting facts to someone I'm a little lost as to where else you could go with the debate when these facts are then dismissed.

I just think a sticky with the basic arguments on that could be pointed back to _might_ allow for new points to be discussed when they arise. To be fair it'll probably just lead to arguing over the individual words used in the sticky but if it worked at all it would be better than the carousel that exists currently.