The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[MontyVeda]

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?

yes, they are different countries, but Wellington has a population of around 400,000 and Aukland has around 1.5 million... could those cities be compared to British cities of a similar size?

 

[Profpointy]

yes, they are different countries, but Wellington has a population of around 400,000 and Aukland has around 1.5 million... could those cities be compared to British cities of a similar size?

Yebbutt water spirals down the plughole in the other direction in the Antipodes so all sorts of things will be different.

 

[Justinslow]

Yebbutt water spirals down the plughole in the other direction in the Antipodes so all sorts of things will be different.

I'm not saying I don't believe the data, there's lots of stuff going on on in that piece of work that @mjray linked to, it's clearly written and put together with too much bias though which detracts from the actual figures, and I think is a shame.
I've lived in both New Zealand and Australia and no matter how similar population levels in certain cities may appear to those of cities in the UK they are completely different in terms of city/town lay out roads and planning. In my opinion both of those countries have relatively "short" history in terms of road networks etc and are superior to those in the UK.
That said, why was helmet wearing made compulsory with figures showing a general decline in head injuries over time, why was it needed in the first place?

 

[MontyVeda]

...
That said, why was helmet wearing made compulsory with figures showing a general decline in head injuries over time, why was it needed in the first place?

Occasionally, governments introduce legislation which they expect will make a huge difference. In this case, helmet compulsion didn't appear to reduce head injuries but did negatively impact of the numbers of people using cycling as transport. Was it needed in the first place?

 

[broadway]

I'm not saying I don't believe the data, there's lots of stuff going on on in that piece of work that @mjray linked to, it's clearly written and put together with too much bias though which detracts from the actual figures, and I think is a shame.
I've lived in both New Zealand and Australia and no matter how similar population levels in certain cities may appear to those of cities in the UK they are completely different in terms of city/town lay out roads and planning. In my opinion both of those countries have relatively "short" history in terms of road networks etc and are superior to those in the UK.
That said, why was helmet wearing made compulsory with figures showing a general decline in head injuries over time, why was it needed in the first place?

Would you be so ready to dismiss the figures if they showed that a decrease in injuries correlated with the increase in helmet wearing?

 

[mjr]

That said, why was helmet wearing made compulsory with figures showing a general decline in head injuries over time, why was it needed in the first place?

The NZ helmet law seems to have been introduced following a 8-year emotional campaign by someone whose son was knocked off their bike by a motor vehicle (ironically, a collision type that helmets are not designed or tested for) who helped create a "Protect the Brains Trust" and get into schools scaring children and so on. It had little to do with the casualty figures. Even so, the law had to be forced through without debate in Parliament.

The Australian helmet law seems to be a consequence of the motorcycle helmet law, with an official persuasion campaign starting in the 1970s about ten years before compulsion, based on legislators' prejudice before much evidence was available. So government (state and national) commissioned studies looking for benefits, not any drawbacks, in a pretty blatant example of what someone above called "policy-based evidence-making". A very different cause to NZ but it was also not primarily motivated by casualty statistics.

 

[benb]

I'm not saying I don't believe the data, there's lots of stuff going on on in that piece of work that @mjray linked to, it's clearly written and put together with too much bias though which detracts from the actual figures, and I think is a shame.
I've lived in both New Zealand and Australia and no matter how similar population levels in certain cities may appear to those of cities in the UK they are completely different in terms of city/town lay out roads and planning. In my opinion both of those countries have relatively "short" history in terms of road networks etc and are superior to those in the UK.
That said, why was helmet wearing made compulsory with figures showing a general decline in head injuries over time, why was it needed in the first place?

That is all completely irrelevant.
The data is unequivocal. There is a massive spike in helmet wearing rates, with no corresponding decline in head injury rates. Ergo, helmets are not effective at reducing head injuries.
Any perceived differences between NZ, Aus and the UK do not affect that.

 

[Justinslow]

The NZ helmet law seems to have been introduced following a 8-year emotional campaign by someone whose son was knocked off their bike by a motor vehicle (ironically, a collision type that helmets are not designed or tested for) who helped create a "Protect the Brains Trust" and get into schools scaring children and so on. It had little to do with the casualty figures. Even so, the law had to be forced through without debate in Parliament.

The Australian helmet law seems to be a consequence of the motorcycle helmet law, with an official persuasion campaign starting in the 1970s about ten years before compulsion, based on legislators' prejudice before much evidence was available. So government (state and national) commissioned studies looking for benefits, not any drawbacks, in a pretty blatant example of what someone above called "policy-based evidence-making". A very different cause to NZ but it was also not primarily motivated by casualty statistics.

Thanks.

 

[mjr]

So population density is the only difference you can come up with, eh?

Which would not be a great argument for @Justinslow as Suffolk's population density of 500/sq.mile is lower than Auckland Region's 830/sq.mile...

 

[Mugshot]

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"?

Because if we include those examples we start to move outside the very narrow parameters which Justin is setting. No evidence is acceptable from any country other than the UK, no evidence is acceptable from any other form of transport, no evidence is acceptable unless it includes ALL forms of cycling. I would imagine that if somebody were able to produce a graph for the UK similar to the one which benb produced for NZ then that wouldn't be acceptable for Justin because it wasn't specific enough for his area and if that was produced then he'd want one for the road where his mate bumped his head.
I think your assertion that Justin "mostly debates" is only true if that debate is the one which is very very tightly confined by Justins own agenda.

 

[Profpointy]

Because if we include those examples we start to move outside the very narrow parameters which Justin is setting. No evidence is acceptable from any country other than the UK, no evidence is acceptable from any other form of transport, no evidence is acceptable unless it includes ALL forms of cycling. I would imagine that if somebody were able to produce a graph for the UK similar to the one which benb produced for NZ then that wouldn't be acceptable for Justin because it wasn't specific enough for his area and if that was produced then he'd want one for the road where his mate bumped his head.
I think your assertion that Justin "mostly debates" is only true if that debate is the one which is very very tightly confined by Justins own agenda.

well he's still the most reasonable of the pro lobby I've come across. I'd go as far as to say he's the only one to even consider evidence even if he's far from convinced and has questionable logic sometimes. Some of the sceptics use bad logic too from time to time

 

[martint235]

well he's still the most reasonable of the pro lobby I've come across. I'd go as far as to say he's the only one to even consider evidence even if he's far from convinced and has questionable logic sometimes. Some of the sceptics use bad logic too from time to time

It's not a particularly high bar though is it?

 

[Profpointy]

It's not a particularly high bar though is it?

yebbutt he's the only one so it's a bit like maligning Monsieur Marchand for the speed record in his category not being very fast

 

[Mugshot]

well he's still the most reasonable of the pro lobby I've come across. I'd go as far as to say he's the only one to even consider evidence even if he's far from convinced and has questionable logic sometimes. Some of the sceptics use bad logic too from time to time

I think you're being very kind. How many times is he going to feign interest in the evidence which is presented to him for the umpteenth time before he simply dismisses it, for the umpteenth time.
There have been a number of "the pro lobby" that have taken part in these threads that have looked at the evidence presented and have changed their minds as a consequence, I'd consider them more reasonable and they've certainly considered the evidence.. That is not to suggest that the purpose of these thread is to change minds.

 

[Profpointy]

I think you're being very kind. How many times is he going to feign interest in the evidence which is presented to him for the umpteenth time before he simply dismisses it, for the umpteenth time.
There have been a number of "the pro lobby" that have taken part in these threads that have looked at the evidence presented and have changed their minds as a consequence, I'd consider them more reasonable and they've certainly considered the evidence.. That is not to suggest that the purpose of these thread is to change minds.

God help us if he changes his view - we'll have the zeal of the convert. I might have to start wearing a helmet again