New York Times article

[albion]

Hard to tell;
Cycling halved in New Zealand since helmets became compulsory.

But how much of the downward trend was a fashion thing?

 

[Red Light]

Hard to tell;
Cycling halved in New Zealand since helmets became compulsory.

But how much of the downward trend was a fashion thing?

The issue is not so much the downward trend but the step change down when the helmet law was introduced. Same in Australia. And while a couple of decades later cycling levels have changed its difficult to exclude lots of other factors from being contributory over such a long period.

 

[jonny jeez]

Mexico is difficult to tell what happened because they repealed their year old helmet law on the day they launched their bikeshare scheme. So too many things changed too quickly or at the same time to divine much I'm afraid. But if you want something up to date have a look at the recent Sydney study by Rissel and Wen on "The possible effect on frequency of cycling if mandatory bicycle helmet legislation was repealed in Sydney, Australia: a cross sectional survey" in Health Promotion Journal of Australia 2011; 22: 178-83. As you will probably need a subscription to view it I have copied the results of the study below.

Results: One in five (22.6%, 95% CI 18.8-26.4%) respondents said they would cycle more if they did not have to wear a helmet, particularly occasional cyclists (40.4% of those who had cycled in the past week and 33.1% of those who had cycled in the past month). Almost half (47.6%) of respondents said they would never ride without a helmet, 14.4% said ‘all the time’, 30.4% said ‘some of the time’ and the rest were not sure. One third (32.7%, 95% CI 28.5-37.0%) of respondents did not support mandatory helmet legislation. ​

Conclusions: While a hypothetical situation, if only half of the 22.6% of respondents who said they would cycle more if they did not have to wear a helmet did ride more, Sydney targets for increasing cycling would be achieved by repealing mandatory bicycle helmet legislation. A significant proportion of the population would continue to wear helmets even if they were not required to do so.​

Thanks RL this is the sort of statement I'm after. Hopefully you can see what I'm getting at here. I'm happy to be a big boy and make my own decision, even if that decision is "I have no empirical evidence to support this decision, I just like it". However, what you've copied here for me is a statement illustrating clearly that, in one country at least a study reached the conclusion that they would be unwise to impose mandatory helmet use.

Hope fully others will follow suit, not least the UK.

Now an interesting point is that the study also concluded that those who want to wear a lid will continue to regardless and as such mandatory imposition was of no benefit either.

I'm reaching the conclusion (or perhaps reinforcing my belief) that if lids don't cause any harm then I might as well wear one...unless I don't fancy it that particular day. But what I now understand is that forcing people to wear them is more damaging than not doing so.

I appreciate your help.

 

[totallyfixed]

RL, you've got me wrong there.

I am genuinely interested in this "effect", read my posts on this thread and you'll see that i am on the cusp of becoming a convert. But I like to reach my own conclusions so, if there is recent evidence to support the thought that lid wearing is actually putting people off, I'd like to read it.

What I don't like though is an idea that a movement is trying to dissuade lid wearing. let individuals choose what's right for them (as i am doing so and as you may help me to)...oh and i'm not suggesting YOU are starting a movement here either.

So now we have that cleared up, can you help me? I 'd like to study any relevant info and it seems that you are someone able to lay their hands on it.

I'd appreciate your help

J

Damn! What lead you to think there was a movement? There is one of course - The Order of the Cloth Cap, and it isn't open to just anyone either. There are rules.....but only members know them

 

[Fab Foodie]

What I don't like though is an idea that a movements is are trying to dissuade pursuade lid wearing. let individuals choose what's right for them (as i am doing so and as you may help me to)...oh and i'm not suggesting YOU are starting a movement here either.

There, a bit of balance.
The pro-lid movement is hugely vocal, hugely funded and based on little or no evidence, detrimental to cycling and the health of nations.
I rest my case m'lud.

 

[Lanzecki]

The 'need' for helmets in Dublin was discussed for months when the Dub Bike scheme was being thought about and later designed. It's worth noting that the anti's quoted statistics from Melbourne's experiences in an effort to get the scheme scrapped. The also quoted injury's per received by cyclists saying that it was only gonna go up when 'untrained' cyclists started riding around the place.

Someone with a better brain had the injury's per pedestrian for the same period to hand. You can guess which was higher..

You cannot compare Dub and Melbourne on any level. I've been to both city's. Suffice to say that Dublin's scheme is expanding. And it's not down to the open roads and great weather.

When I go to Dublin I'll use the scheme if I can. But lugging a helmet around? Please.

While I wear a helmet when I'm riding my bike I recognise that they are not designed to protect from any impact over 12mph. IE a rider falling off. This rarely happens. In all my years or riding to and from school, and later work, Sans helmet I never hit my head even when I did fall off. The only time I did receive a head injury was when I was run over (my words in court) by a coach. Even then a helmet wouldn't have helped as I received a broken jaw... Ohh my poor Kona Lava Dome...

All that said, it' kinda makes me wonder if wearing helmets gives drivers a false sence of our security/safety. "Ach!, he's got a helmet, I'll close pass him"

 

[growingvegetables]

All that said, it' kinda makes me wonder if wearing helmets gives drivers a false sense of our security/safety. "Ach!, he's got a helmet, I'll close pass him"

+ 1001

 

[davefb]

Which is why I said it "indicates" and used the word typically several times. Yes on its own it has its limitations and there is a lot of scatter in the data but one needs to look at it alongside the other evidence that is out there at the national level, where helmet compulsion has been introduced and the success of bikeshare programmes. Individually none of them except the helmet compulsion data is conclusive but collectively they all add up to point to helmets discouraging people from cycling whether they are mandated, promoted or just used.

but it doesn't do anything of the sort .. it's reasonably akin to 'pirates vs global warming' , there's two data ( arbitrarily 'joined' by using cities/towns without any comments about why some areas might have other issues locally, like differing populations/road types/people/hills) and there's an assumption they're linked.
In fact you can easily look at that chart and draw this conclusion , it actually shows that the places with highest cycling rate are ones with the highest level of helmet usage.. oxford/cambridge .
I also missed out that the title is "cycling usage", but talks about "cycling to work"... It's a pretty poor piece of work tbh....

It isn't helmet use that discourage, IF THERE WAS ANYTHING , it would be the wording of any 'pro helmet' information.. Though even that other chart, without any info from a sample of people is pretty useless. ie "why did you give up cycling"..

As for close passes, god knows, but tbh it's a bit of a bizarre statement to think that drivers "dont see cyclists, but at the same time they see that they have or haven't got a helmet". The *only* time I've ever really given cyclists more room when driving relates to cycling style and if they're weaving all over the road.