New helmet law in Jersey

[Profpointy]

Dunno never been, have you?

Quite hot today though according to Google

Last time I was in Canada it was -30C, albeit Alberta rather than Ontario

 

[Big Nick]

After all it would be stupid to criminalise people when you cannot actually demonstrate the benefit of the thing concerned.

They wouldn't need to though

 

[Profpointy]

They wouldn't need to though

don't quite follow this last point?

 

[mcshroom]

Last time I was in Canada it was -30C, albeit Alberta rather than Ontario

Last time I was in Ontario it was 35 deg C, but that was Windsor in the middle of July.

 

[mcshroom]

Well after 4 years of Michael Gove ...

 

[Mugshot]

I have answered that question already. No it wouldn't, but I would have to endure being fined, arrested, and sent to court and possibly to prison for doing it. No one has yet explained why they think they have the right to foist this upon me, despite my asking them directly.

It's been said in this thread that the results would be catastrophic if helmets were made compulsary. I've asked already on a number of occasions how people come to that conclusion, nobody has explained why yet, although @mcshroom has had a good stab. (Thank you btw) Does the fact that cycling rates dropped in Australia automatically translate to a drop in cycling rates in the UK if helmets were made compulsary?
With regards to the health benefits, at what point do we start to see them, 10 miles per week, 50, 100. If it's 50, how many of the people that are actually doing that would stop due to legislation?
The effect on the bike hire schemes is very interesting, but does a reduction in the amount of people using Boris Bikes equate to compulsion being a catastophe for cycling UK?

 

[Profpointy]

It's been said in this thread that the results would be catastrophic if helmets were made compulsary. I've asked already on a number of occasions how people come to that conclusion, nobody has explained why yet, although @mcshroom has had a good stab. (Thank you btw) Does the fact that cycling rates dropped in Australia automatically translate to a drop in cycling rates in the UK if helmets were made compulsary?
With regards to the health benefits, at what point do we start to see them, 10 miles per week, 50, 100. If it's 50, how many of the people that are actually doing that would stop due to legislation?
The effect on the bike hire schemes is very interesting, but does a reduction in the amount of people using Boris Bikes equate to compulsion being a catastophe for cycling UK?

"catastrophic" - don't know how bad it has to be to be "catastrophic" but from Australia and that other hot country Canada it appears to have reduced cycling whilst increasing the injury RATE for remaining cyclists. It could reasonably be supposed that some of the no-longer-by-bike journeys will be by car thus killing more people again. And the increased early deaths from reduced exercise have been estimated too. So how many additional deaths are catastrophic? Maybe there'll only a small number - so presumably acceptable in some eyes as the ends justify the means it seems - at least for helmets.

 

[Big Nick]

Why not? Do we expect our government to introduce laws with no rationale behind them?

They can dress up the rationale to say what they want, if they even bother giving reasons why, it's called 'spin'

I'm sure they could drag out as many safety campaign spokespeople and neurosurgeons as they liked to back a compulsory argument if they really could be bothered, I doubt the anti lobby would get much of a look in

 

[mcshroom]

"catastrophic" - don't know how bad it has to be to be "catastrophic" but from Australia and that other hot country Canada it appears to have reduced cycling whilst increasing the injury RATE for remaining cyclists. It could reasonably be supposed that some of the no-longer-by-bike journeys will be by car thus killing more people again. And the increased early deaths from reduced exercise have been estimated too. So how many additional deaths are catastrophic? Maybe there'll only a small number - so presumably acceptable in some eyes as the ends justify the means it seems - at least for helmets.

I avoided it before, but here's Roger Geffen's reasoning again.

It is well established that, if you weigh up the life-years gained through cycling (due to increased physical activity) versus the life years lost (due to injury), the health benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks involved. One widely quoted figure for the UK, acknowledged by Government, puts the benefit:disbenefit ratio for the UK at 20:1. Other ratios for other countries are higher still. (N.B. some of the academic references reduce the ratio by including the negative effects of pollution - however that's obviously irrelevant to the helmet debate. If you remove the pollution effect, the other references all come out with ratios above 20:1). But let's take 20:1 for the sake of argument.

From this, recent research shows that, if you tell people to wear helmets (whether by law or simply through promotion campaigns) and this reduces cycle use by more than 1 unit of cycling (e.g. one cyclist, or one km cycled) for every 20 who continue, this is absolutely guaranteed to shorten more lives than helmets could possibly save - even if they were 100% effective at preventing ALL cycling injuries (i.e. leg, arm, shoulder injuries as well as head injuries) for the remaining cyclists. That maximum threshold, beyond which you would be doing more harm than good, then drops further still - down to c2% - once you take account of the proportion of cycling injuries which are non-head injuries. And this is still assuming that helmets are 100% effective at preventing head injuries.

In fact, the evidence on the effectiveness of helmets has become increasingly sceptical over time. A recent literature review by Rune Elvik, an internationally recognised authority on road safety, found that the estimates of helmet effectiveness have progressively decreased over time, with the most recent studies showing no net benefit. In this same report he documents evidence that helmets increase the risk of neck injuries. In a separate report, Elvik has also found that helmet-wearers suffer 14% more injuries per mile travelled than non-wearers. The reasons for this are unclear, however there is good evidence that (at least some) cyclists ride less cautiously when wearing helmets, and that drivers leave less space when overtaking cyclists with helmets than those without.

The only clearly documented effect of enforced helmet laws (e.g. in Australia, New Zealand or parts of Canada) is to substantially reduce cycle use, typically by about a third. Reductions in cyclists' head injury have been similar to the reductions in cycle use, suggesting no reduction in risk for the remaining cyclists, and in some cases this appears to have worsened. In addition to the possible explanations in the para above, this may also be becuase reductions in cycle use undermine the "safety in numbers" effect for the cyclists who remain - see see www.ctc.org.uk/safetyinnumbers. A clear relationship has been shown between cycle use and cycle safety - cycling is safer in places where cycle use is high (e.g. the Netherlands or Denmark - or within Britain, in Cambridge or York). Telling people to wear helmets, instead of creating safe cycling conditions, is contrary to the aims of encouraging more, as well as safer, cycling.

From this, I hope it is clear that the effectiveness or otherwise of helmets is not the main point. As explained above, even if helmets were 100% effective, you would still be doing more harm than good if you deter more than c2% of cycle use by telling people to wear them. That's because the risks of cycling are not especially high, and the health benefits are SO much greater. You are about as unlikely to be killed in a mile of cycling as a mile of walking - do we also need walking helmets? - no, of course not! The idea that you need helmets to cycle is both a symptom of our massively exaggerated concern about the "dangers" of cycling, which results in such pitifully low cycle use in Britain.

In short, if we want to maximise the health, environmental and other benefits of cycling, we need to focus on creating safe conditions, and thus increasing cycle use. Resorting to helmets simply tackles the symptoms of the problem, not the causes, and thus deters people from cycling. This is pretty much guaranteed to shorten more lives than it could possibly save. Faced with both an obesity crisis and a climate crisis, the last thing we should be doing is driving people into increasingly car-dependent, obesogenic lifestyles.

For an even larger analysis by the CTC of the issue of cycle helmets then this is a long but well referenced read: -
http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_public/cycle-helmets-evidencebrf.pdf

 

[Big Nick]

I'm at a loss to understand why Big Nick liked that post if he doesn't get other points people have made saying the same thing.

Because its a statement I would normally agree with when in a general context, I'm not saying I agree it applies to this issue though if indeed the Cunobelin meant it so?

 

[up hill struggle]

Must be alot of people on here that either holiday or live in jersey. I cant wait to see the reaction when they do decide to introduce it in England & the rest of the UK.

 

[snorri]

Jersey's road casualty figures are bucking the trend of the rest of the UK in that they are not significantly improving.

It would be interesting to see the percentages of vulnerable users on the road in Jersey compared with the rUK figure where the number of vulnerable users on the roads has dropped dramatically.

 

[Mugshot]

What evidence would satisfy you, other than live running of the experiment here, which you are not having?

They're genuine questions Adrian, I am asking, because I don't know, whether Australia pre compulsion is directly comparable to the current UK cycling situation? If it was then it would seem fair to suggest that the results would be similar here, if not then would we necessarily see the same results. I had assumed that the debate was about the merits or otherwise of compulsion, I am asking, again because I do not know, if there have been any surveys carried out in the UK which showed that compulsion would have a catastrophic effect on cycling in UK.
@mcshroom Geffens quote is the sort of thing which I was looking for.

 

[Mugshot]

I'll start one on Survey Monkey for you.

It may be an idea as you don't appear to know either.

 

[Big Nick]

I actually don't think it will actually come in here in the same way a lot of other activities aren't legislated for....quad biking being an example which has had numerous fatal crashes

I will continue to wear one when the law says I don't have to regardless in the same way I do in other sports that involve an element of speed such as skiing and off road motorcycling