Has a test been done to assertain the effectiveness of helmets?
- Thread starter Cyclopathic
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Some would disagree, acccording to various sources:
So it would seem that the myth that the the raft of road safety measures does not exist and was a myth created by the helmet lobby is in fact .... a myth!
Strictly you are correct but the evidence is that committed experienced cyclists are safer cyclists than nervous inexperienced ones who are the ones most likely to be put off.
Strictly you are correct but the evidence is that committed experienced cyclists are safer cyclists than nervous inexperienced ones who are the ones most likely to be put off.
Nice straw man. I said no changes at the time the helmet law was introduced, not no general background of road safety activities going on. You can pick up the long term measures and changes at other times on a state by state basis by looking at the figures for other road users. For example the pedestrian fatalities in Victoria fell by 40% in the year preceding the helmet law as a result of speeding and drink driving campaigns. In South Australia road casualties fell sharply before the helmet law was introduced as a result of road safety campaigns. Helmet proponents claim the corresponding changes in cyclist injuries are due to helmets even though they happened before the helmet law and increase in helmet wearing and although the same change is seen in helmet non-wearer groups such as pedestrians.
Committed experienced cyclists are safer per journey or per mile, but 100% of the people I know who have had cycling accidents in the past few years are committed club or commuting cyclists. My small club has maybe 30 riding members and in the past 3 years i can recall: 4 accidents involving significant injury, two smidsys and two self inflicted offs, all involved riders doing 4-5000 miles per year.
Interpretation of the Casualty department statistics so often used is difficult and there are many confounding factors. John adams comments on such risk debates is interesting:
http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/risk-for-harry-mark2.pdf
That's not surprising. The committed cyclist is likely to ride much further than the nervous beginner so has a much greater exposure and you will tend to know about accidents among the cyclists you know, not the ones you don't know.
There is an interesting correlation between cyclist accident rates and helmet wearing/compulsion. The countries where helmets are little worn have low casualty rates, of the order of half of ours. Countries with helmet laws have high casualty rates, something like twice ours. Correlation does not imply causation of course. Rather than helmets causing high rates it seems more likely that they are a response to dangerous roads. Its certainly true though, that helmet compulsion doesn't make the dangerous countries as safe as the countries where helmets are rare. The differentials remain unaffected. Helmets are not an answer to the problem of road danger. In my opinion they are a distraction from actually doing something about the problem. Which may be why many motorists see helmets as a good idea. They want to do "something" about the danger they impose on us, but prefer "something" which does not involve them changing their own behaviour. Helmets for cyclists conveniently shifts the burden of change from them to us.
Not a fallacy at all....
The statistics for the effectiveness of cycle helmets were not a split second snapshot, but data collected over a period of time.
During that time there were a wide range of other road safety campaigns. To suggest that these had no effect on the safety of cyclists is bizzare.
My statement is simply that you cannot exclude these factors when looking at the reasons behind the increase in head injuries following compulsion
The law was brought in in a split second overnight so you can look at the year before it came in and you can look at the year after it came in so excluding lots of the longer term changes or changes that took place at a different time. That is the beauty of looking at the situation when a law was introduced - you don't need to look at long time series and try to compensate for confounding factors over time, just at the ones that happened within the study window either side of the event.
Which is exactly the point, and precisely the point that is being made
For instance take the speed campaigns
The campaign was low key in 1989 (the year before compulsion) new and extensive in 1990 ( the year compulsion was introduced) and tailed off in the following two years.
There was an large and active road safety campaign that was not present in the year prior to helmet compulsion, was introduced in the same year as helmet compulsion and was also present (but less active) for the following two years.
The speeding campaign and helmet compulsion are in the same temporal window and whilst the actual effect will never be ascertained the speeding campaign cannot be excluded from having an effect on the safety of all road user groups including cyclists.
Which Australian state are you referring to? The law was introduced in different years in different states.
I don't know which states he was referring to, but here are a couple of candidates.
"In Victoria, campaigns against speeding and drink-driving were introduced about the same time as the bicycle helmet law. A medical journal reported that accident costs were reduced by an estimated GBP 100M for an outlay of GBP 2.5M (Powles and Gifford, 1993). Fig 7 shows the fall in pedestrian fatalities. Other states also introduced road safety campaigns about the same time as their helmet laws. Fig 8 shows all road casualties in SA in relation to the timing of the helmet law.
Figs 7 and 8 demonstrate why we must take care when claiming benefits of helmet laws. Cyclists are likely to benefit just as much as pedestrians from campaigns to reduce speeding and drink-driving. Some proponents of helmet laws have shown the equivalent of Fig 7 and 8 for cyclists, without explaining that similar benefits were enjoyed by other road users. The Cochrane Review of Thompson et al. fails to mention the fall in non-head injuries in Victoria (Fig 1), and dismisses the much safer road conditions (Fig 7), leading to the impression that the entire 40% fall in head cyclists’ head injuries was due to increased helmet wearing (Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, 2002).
"In Victoria, campaigns against speeding and drink-driving were introduced about the same time as the bicycle helmet law. A medical journal reported that accident costs were reduced by an estimated GBP 100M for an outlay of GBP 2.5M (Powles and Gifford, 1993). Fig 7 shows the fall in pedestrian fatalities. Other states also introduced road safety campaigns about the same time as their helmet laws. Fig 8 shows all road casualties in SA in relation to the timing of the helmet law.
Figs 7 and 8 demonstrate why we must take care when claiming benefits of helmet laws. Cyclists are likely to benefit just as much as pedestrians from campaigns to reduce speeding and drink-driving. Some proponents of helmet laws have shown the equivalent of Fig 7 and 8 for cyclists, without explaining that similar benefits were enjoyed by other road users. The Cochrane Review of Thompson et al. fails to mention the fall in non-head injuries in Victoria (Fig 1), and dismisses the much safer road conditions (Fig 7), leading to the impression that the entire 40% fall in head cyclists’ head injuries was due to increased helmet wearing (Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, 2002).
I don't know which states he was referring to, but here are a couple of candidates.
"In Victoria, campaigns against speeding and drink-driving were introduced about the same time as the bicycle helmet law. A medical journal reported that accident costs were reduced by an estimated GBP 100M for an outlay of GBP 2.5M (Powles and Gifford, 1993). Fig 7 shows the fall in pedestrian fatalities. Other states also introduced road safety campaigns about the same time as their helmet laws. Fig 8 shows all road casualties in SA in relation to the timing of the helmet law.
Figs 7 and 8 demonstrate why we must take care when claiming benefits of helmet laws. Cyclists are likely to benefit just as much as pedestrians from campaigns to reduce speeding and drink-driving. Some proponents of helmet laws have shown the equivalent of Fig 7 and 8 for cyclists, without explaining that similar benefits were enjoyed by other road users. The Cochrane Review of Thompson et al. fails to mention the fall in non-head injuries in Victoria (Fig 1), and dismisses the much safer road conditions (Fig 7), leading to the impression that the entire 40% fall in head cyclists’ head injuries was due to increased helmet wearing (Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, 2002).
"In Victoria, campaigns against speeding and drink-driving were introduced about the same time as the bicycle helmet law. A medical journal reported that accident costs were reduced by an estimated GBP 100M for an outlay of GBP 2.5M (Powles and Gifford, 1993). Fig 7 shows the fall in pedestrian fatalities. Other states also introduced road safety campaigns about the same time as their helmet laws. Fig 8 shows all road casualties in SA in relation to the timing of the helmet law.
Figs 7 and 8 demonstrate why we must take care when claiming benefits of helmet laws. Cyclists are likely to benefit just as much as pedestrians from campaigns to reduce speeding and drink-driving. Some proponents of helmet laws have shown the equivalent of Fig 7 and 8 for cyclists, without explaining that similar benefits were enjoyed by other road users. The Cochrane Review of Thompson et al. fails to mention the fall in non-head injuries in Victoria (Fig 1), and dismisses the much safer road conditions (Fig 7), leading to the impression that the entire 40% fall in head cyclists’ head injuries was due to increased helmet wearing (Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, 2002).
I don't know which states he was referring to, but here are a couple of candidates.
"In Victoria, campaigns against speeding and drink-driving were introduced about the same time as the bicycle helmet law. A medical journal reported that accident costs were reduced by an estimated GBP 100M for an outlay of GBP 2.5M (Powles and Gifford, 1993). Fig 7 shows the fall in pedestrian fatalities. Other states also introduced road safety campaigns about the same time as their helmet laws. Fig 8 shows all road casualties in SA in relation to the timing of the helmet law.
Figs 7 and 8 demonstrate why we must take care when claiming benefits of helmet laws. Cyclists are likely to benefit just as much as pedestrians from campaigns to reduce speeding and drink-driving. Some proponents of helmet laws have shown the equivalent of Fig 7 and 8 for cyclists, without explaining that similar benefits were enjoyed by other road users. The Cochrane Review of Thompson et al. fails to mention the fall in non-head injuries in Victoria (Fig 1), and dismisses the much safer road conditions (Fig 7), leading to the impression that the entire 40% fall in head cyclists’ head injuries was due to increased helmet wearing (Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, 2002).
"In Victoria, campaigns against speeding and drink-driving were introduced about the same time as the bicycle helmet law. A medical journal reported that accident costs were reduced by an estimated GBP 100M for an outlay of GBP 2.5M (Powles and Gifford, 1993). Fig 7 shows the fall in pedestrian fatalities. Other states also introduced road safety campaigns about the same time as their helmet laws. Fig 8 shows all road casualties in SA in relation to the timing of the helmet law.
Figs 7 and 8 demonstrate why we must take care when claiming benefits of helmet laws. Cyclists are likely to benefit just as much as pedestrians from campaigns to reduce speeding and drink-driving. Some proponents of helmet laws have shown the equivalent of Fig 7 and 8 for cyclists, without explaining that similar benefits were enjoyed by other road users. The Cochrane Review of Thompson et al. fails to mention the fall in non-head injuries in Victoria (Fig 1), and dismisses the much safer road conditions (Fig 7), leading to the impression that the entire 40% fall in head cyclists’ head injuries was due to increased helmet wearing (Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, 2002).
- Status
