The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[Profpointy]

The link that @mjray provided is the one I was looking at lunchtime. This is interesting
From 2006 to 2011, car driver injuries increased 43%, car passenger injuries were stable, motorcyclist injuries increased 32.7%, pedestrian injuries increased 24.4% and pedal cyclist injuries increased 51.4%. Cyclists represented 11.4% of all traffic injury inpatients in 2006, compared to 13.8% in 2011.
So it seems all forms of transport are becoming more "dangerous".

There's a hell of a lot of data in there, and picking through it takes time but,

Recent trends in cyclist fatalities in Australia published July 2015 by Boufous and Olivier from the University of New South Wales found that multi-vehicle cyclist fatalities decreased 2.9% per annum from 1991 (helmet law enforcement 1990-92) to 2013 but cyclist-only fatalities increased 5.8% per annum, resulting in an overall 1.9% per annum reduction.

Fair play to you for digging that out, and reading it. It's (one of) the things that challenge my prior views. Hard to really see what's going on exactly, destroys the extreme claims of helmet advocates - the "your fault if you are a vegetable" type of thing.

 

[mjr]

Recent trends in cyclist fatalities in Australia published July 2015 by Boufous and Olivier from the University of New South Wales found that multi-vehicle cyclist fatalities decreased 2.9% per annum from 1991 (helmet law enforcement 1990-92) to 2013 but cyclist-only fatalities increased 5.8% per annum, resulting in an overall 1.9% per annum reduction.

...which suggests that multi-vehicle collisions are deadlier - and that's the situation that helmets aren't so aimed at. That cyclist-only fatalities increase seems worrying too and not what I would have guessed (a decrease in cyclist-only fatalities with a larger decrease in cyclists).

I think Jake Olivier was the lead author of a notorious dodgy helmet paper a few years ago (not quite Thompson Rivara Thompson, but still rather a lot of odd things in it) but even so, I probably should read the newer one when I have time!

 

[ufkacbln]

The link that @mjray provided is the one I was looking at lunchtime. This is interesting
From 2006 to 2011, car driver injuries increased 43%, car passenger injuries were stable, motorcyclist injuries increased 32.7%, pedestrian injuries increased 24.4% and pedal cyclist injuries increased 51.4%. Cyclists represented 11.4% of all traffic injury inpatients in 2006, compared to 13.8% in 2011.
So it seems all forms of transport are becoming more "dangerous".

There's a hell of a lot of data in there, and picking through it takes time but,

Recent trends in cyclist fatalities in Australia published July 2015 by Boufous and Olivier from the University of New South Wales found that multi-vehicle cyclist fatalities decreased 2.9% per annum from 1991 (helmet law enforcement 1990-92) to 2013 but cyclist-only fatalities increased 5.8% per annum, resulting in an overall 1.9% per annum reduction.

The problem here is that this is uncorrected data, although it still shows that cyclist injuries went the wrong way


The number of cyclists fell following helmet legislation, yet the injuries (including head injuries not only failed to decrease with the number of cyclists falling, but actually increased

Correcting the data shows that the increase in cyclist injuries was far greater

The fact remains that helmet compulsion in Australia failed to decrease head injuries, and there was in fact an increase.... not a real recommendation for the effectiveness of helmets on population basis

 

[benb]

I think this graph from New Zealand (which also passed a cycle helmet law and saw the expected corresponding decrease in cycling) says everything required.

 

[Shut Up Legs]

The problem here is that this is uncorrected data, although it still shows that cyclist injuries went the wrong way


The number of cyclists fell following helmet legislation, yet the injuries (including head injuries not only failed to decrease with the number of cyclists falling, but actually increased

Correcting the data shows that the increase in cyclist injuries was far greater

The fact remains that helmet compulsion in Australia failed to decrease head injuries, and there was in fact an increase.... not a real recommendation for the effectiveness of helmets on population basis

Agreed, and I despair of our government ever realising this and repealing this autocratic law. They would prefer that motor vehicle use continues, despite all its drawbacks. I live in a very backward country.

 

[benb]

It's also worth reiterating that not only does helmet compulsion deter people from cycling, but even helmet promotion does as well, albeit to a lesser extent. This is probably because it adds to the image of cycling as a particularly dangerous activity that you need to wear special gear to do and is overwhelmingly the preserve of young fit men. No wonder "ordinary" people are put off.

Given that we know that the health benefits to cycling outweigh the dangers by at least 20:1, if you take any action that deters more than 1 in 20 people from cycling, you are absolutely guaranteed to be doing more harm than good, regardless of how effective your proposed intervention is. And if you are only looking at head injuries, that number would be 1 in 50.
That is, even if helmets were 100% effective at preventing head injuries (which even the most fervent zealot wouldn't claim), if your helmet campaign deters even 1 in 50 people from cycling you are still doing more harm than good.

This is what's so frustrating: any objective analysis of the evidence reveals that helmets are at best a complete irrelevance to cycling safety, and at worse are actively harmful due to their deterrent effect. And yet an inordinate amount of time and effort is spent on promoting them, and further time and effort is spent on resisting compulsion. Time and effort which would be much better and more effectively deployed in tackling the actual source of danger to cyclists.

 

[Justinslow]

I think this graph from New Zealand (which also passed a cycle helmet law and saw the expected corresponding decrease in cycling) says everything required.

Although I can fully understand the graph you are now switching to NZ, everybody knows only "one man and his dog" lives there! Hardly a relevant comparison to the UK.

 

[Profpointy]

Although I can fully understand the graph you are now switching to NZ, everybody knows only "one man and his dog" lives there! Hardly a relevant comparison to the UK.

can't let that stand. If helmets don't work in Australia or NZ is there any real basis for thinking they would still work in UK because oz and nz are "different"?

 

[benb]

Although I can fully understand the graph you are now switching to NZ, everybody knows only "one man and his dog" lives there! Hardly a relevant comparison to the UK.

Why not?
Either helmets are effective at reducing head injuries or they are not. You can clearly see a massive increase in helmet wearing rates, with no corresponding decrease in head injury rates.
Claiming, without anything to back it up, that NZ is not like the UK and therefore the evidence is not relevant is desperate wriggling.

 

[Justinslow]

Why not?
Either helmets are effective at reducing head injuries or they are not. You can clearly see a massive increase in helmet wearing rates, with no corresponding decrease in head injury rates.
Claiming, without anything to back it up, that NZ is not like the UK and therefore the evidence is not relevant is desperate wriggling.

Population of uk 64.6 million
Population of NZ 4.5 million

 

[benb]

Population of uk 64.6 million
Population of NZ 4.5 million

So what?

 

[Justinslow]

You think that too small to draw a valid conclusion from?

All im saying is they are quite different counties, if I posted a similar graph from a country with an imaginary population of 10 would it still be valid?

 

[benb]

We see the same thing in Australia, with a population of 23 million. Will that satisfy you? (or will you dismiss this data too, as it's "only" WA?)

 

[Profpointy]

All im saying is they are quite different counties, if I posted a similar graph from a country with an imaginary population of 10 would it still be valid?

The point is the data is before and after compulsion. Thus it should show an effect regardless of whether it's a different kind of country or whether cycling in that country is more or less dangerous to start with. We're looking at trends not absolute numbers surely? Anyway NZ and Oz are different countries from each other yet the conclusions are similar

 

[mjr]

Anyway NZ and Oz are different countries from each other yet the conclusions are similar

Plus you can see a similar conclusion from parts of Canada introducing and repealing helmet compulsion laws, plus there seemed to be a noticeable deterrent effect when the Danish Road Safety Authority started merely promoting helmets... how many different countries do these sort of effects need to be seen in before it's accepted as likely similar in the UK?