[C&T's very own] cycling helmet thread

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

Your views about 30km/h and helmets is a stunning contrast.

Why is that so, the limit is 30KpH the law is that I stick to the speed limit regardless of whether I think it's a ridiculous limit

If there were to be a mandatory helmet law I would expect people to adhere to that law regardless of them thinking it a ridiculous law

No contrast there

Carawaystick

Spook_ie wrote: »

There is a faction that believe cycle helmets should incorporate mouth and chin protection but lets cross one bridge at a time shall we.

No,no. If cyclists are safer wearing motorbike helmets, rather than pushbikes helmets, then by your logic, all cyclists should wear these, no point settling for half measures.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Why is that so, the limit is 30KpH the law is that I stick to the speed limit regardless of whether I think it's a ridiculous limit

If there were to be a mandatory helmet law I would expect people to adhere to that law regardless of them thinking it a ridiculous law

No contrast there

The stark contrast isn't anything to do with your compliance with the law, it's your support for helmets for cyclists while thinking 30km/h is a ridiculous limit.

The contrast of your views is overwhelming -- you think cyclists should go around wearing protective gear just in case they fall and hit their heads BUT you think the idea that motorists should slow down to 30km/h to avoid collisions with others (pedestrians, cyclists, cars etc), and limit the injuries if a collisions happens, is "ridiculous".

To recap: You want people to protect them self against a small chance they'll fall and even smaller chance they'll hit their head, BUT a measure which is proven to limit collisions and limit their affects if they happen is "ridiculous".

The evidence to support 30km/h zones in urban areas is gold plated stuff -- it makes the evidence around bicycle helmets look like it was scribbled on the back of a napkin on a drunken night out!

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

The stark contrast isn't anything to do with your compliance with the law, it's your support for helmets for cyclists while thinking 30km/h is a ridiculous limit.

The contrast of your views is overwhelming -- you think cyclists should go around wearing protective gear just in case they fall and hit their heads BUT you think the idea that motorists should slow down to 30km/h to avoid collisions with others (pedestrians, cyclists, cars etc), and limit the injuries if a collisions happens, is "ridiculous".

To recap: You want people to protect them self against a small chance they'll fall and even smaller chance they'll hit their head, BUT a measure which is proven to limit collisions and limit their affects if they happen is "ridiculous".

The evidence to support 30km/h zones in urban areas is gold plated stuff -- it makes the evidence around bicycle helmets look like it was scribbled on the back of a napkin on a drunken night out!

My opinion as to a law being ridiculous or not is irrelevant, it is the law and I obey it, like wise if a helmet law is brought in whether you believe it is sensible or not I would expect you to obey it. Now back to the actual topic rather than my opinions on other things

It would seem that there is a fundamental untruth being cited by the pro cycling/anti helmet lobby..

Helmets: old study, new information

18 march 2013. A recently unearthed study into the impact of helmet legislation in South Australia has further dented claims that helmet laws did not have a beneficial effect when introduced in Australia.

The study, Evaluation of the Compulsory Helmet Wearing Legislation for Bicyclists in South Australia, was published by the Office of Road Safety in 1994.

It has not previously been publicly available, but a copy was recently provided to Bicycle Network, which is making it available to interested researchers.

It reports that potentially preventable injuries dropped 24.7 per cent in the two years after the 1991 legislation compared to the two years before.

During the period helmet wearing rates increased significantly to over 90 per cent.

Despite being unavailable for examination, the report has been referred to by anti-helmet advocates as evidence against the efficacy of compulsory helmets.

The study says that the value of helmets could be significantly greater than shown by the study because 49 per cent of commuters, and 15 per cent of all cyclists over 15, were already wearing helmets before the legislation.

Some extracts from it
[IMG][/img]

Gotta love this one the best though


So the year after helmet legislation it rose by 2.9% the year after it dropped 0.7% the year after that of the GP and a wet month it dropped 15% perhaps it's the GP you wanted dropped rather than helmets?

Edited to clarify when drops in usage occured

Spook_ie

hardCopy wrote: »

<snipped>

If you can show me anywhere in the world where mandatory helmets have not reduced the number of cyclists then there's a debate to be had. Otherwise, we're just going round in circles.

Feel free

Helmets: old study, new information

18 march 2013. A recently unearthed study into the impact of helmet legislation in South Australia has further dented claims that helmet laws did not have a beneficial effect when introduced in Australia.

The study, Evaluation of the Compulsory Helmet Wearing Legislation for Bicyclists in South Australia, was published by the Office of Road Safety in 1994.

It has not previously been publicly available, but a copy was recently provided to Bicycle Network, which is making it available to interested researchers.

It reports that potentially preventable injuries dropped 24.7 per cent in the two years after the 1991 legislation compared to the two years before.

During the period helmet wearing rates increased significantly to over 90 per cent.

Despite being unavailable for examination, the report has been referred to by anti-helmet advocates as evidence against the efficacy of compulsory helmets.

The study says that the value of helmets could be significantly greater than shown by the study because 49 per cent of commuters, and 15 per cent of all cyclists over 15, were already wearing helmets before the legislation.

Spook_ie

Carawaystick wrote: »

No,no. If cyclists are safer wearing motorbike helmets, rather than pushbikes helmets, then by your logic, all cyclists should wear these, no point settling for half measures.

That would depend on if you view mandibuler injuries and facial injuries in the same vein as brain injuries, though mandibular and facial injuries can be serious it's doubtful they cause death and symptoms such as these

There are numerous symptoms of brain damage, whether traumatic or acquired. They fall into four major categories:

Cognitive
Perceptual
Physical
Behavioral/emotional

Cognitive symptoms of brain damage include:

Difficulty processing information
Difficulty in expressing thoughts
Difficulty understanding others
Shortened attention span
Inability to understand abstract concepts
Impaired decision-making ability
Memory loss

Perceptual symptoms of brain damage include:

Change in vision, hearing, or sense of touch
Spatial disorientation
Inability to sense time
Disorders of smell and taste
Balance issues
Heightened sensitivity to pain

Physical symptoms of brain damage include:

Persistent headaches
Extreme mental fatigue
Extreme physical fatigue
Paralysis
Tremors
Seizures
Sensitivity to light
Sleep disorders
Slurred speech
Loss of consciousness

Behavioral/emotional symptoms of brain damage include:

Irritability and impatience
Reduced tolerance for stress
Sluggishness
Flattened or heightened emotions or reactions
Denial of disability
Increased aggressiveness

http://www.webmd.com/brain/brain-damage-symptoms-causes-treatments?page=2

Carawaystick

Spook_ie wrote: »

That would depend on if you view mandibuler injuries and facial injuries in the same vein as brain injuries, though mandibular and facial injuries can be serious it's doubtful they cause death and symptoms such as these

So you think a compulsion law should be brought in to only prevent brain injuries, it's not part of an overall harm minimising plan. That's clear now.

From your list quoted( from an undisclosed source) I could list 2or 3 from each category from limb injuries I've suffered.

Spook_ie

Carawaystick wrote: »

So you think a compulsion law should be brought in to only prevent brain injuries, it's not part of an overall harm minimising plan. That's clear now.

From your list quoted( from an undisclosed source) I could list 2or 3 from each category from limb injuries I've suffered.

Well unless in some convuluted reasoning you intend on strapping the helmets to your knees and elbows then yeah, but maybe you're right and we should also push for mandatory knee and elbow pads at the same time

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

My opinion as to a law being ridiculous or not is irrelevant, it is the law and I obey it, like wise if a helmet law is brought in whether you believe it is sensible or not I would expect you to obey it. Now back to the actual topic rather than my opinions on other things

Given you volunteered your views on 30km/h on this thread, I think it's very relevant to the claims you are making about cycle helmets.

You following the law is again irrelevant -- nobody is claiming you are not doing so.

But it's just not tenable that somebody can call 30km/h ridiculous and think that cycle helmets are needed as cyclists -- you seem to be "victim blaiming", you want to wrap up cyclists in helmets but forget about directly reducing collisions and there harmful effects at their main source.

Carawaystick

Spook_ie wrote: »

Well unless in some convuluted reasoning you intend on strapping the helmets to your knees and elbows then yeah, but maybe you're right and we should also push for mandatory knee and elbow pads at the same time

Motorbike helmets would by your logic prevent mandibular and facial injuries. You're not too concerned about them.

On the cycling forum there's this
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83744657&postcount=31

droidus has no sources listed, but your quote was anonymous also.

Spook_ie

Carawaystick wrote: »

So you think a compulsion law should be brought in to only prevent brain injuries, it's not part of an overall harm minimising plan. That's clear now.

From your list quoted( from an undisclosed source) I could list 2or 3 from each category from limb injuries I've suffered.

Carawaystick wrote: »

Motorbike helmets would by your logic prevent mandibular and facial injuries. You're not too concerned about them.

On the cycling forum there's this
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83744657&postcount=31

droidus has no sources listed, but your quote was anonymous also.

Don't know why you need a source to list what most medical sites list as the symptoms of brain damage but here you go
http://www.webmd.com/brain/brain-damage-symptoms-causes-treatments?page=2

BTW here's another consideration for reducing traumatic head injuries, especially if you make a habit of it

Dementia and traumatic brain injury
Over the past 30 years, research has linked moderate and severe traumatic brain injury to a greater risk of developing Alzheimer's disease or another type of dementia years after the original head injury.

One of the key studies showing an increased risk found that older adults with a history of moderate traumatic brain injury had a 2.3 times greater risk of developing Alzheimer's than seniors with no history of head injury, and those with a history of severe traumatic brain injury had a 4.5 times greater risk.



Does every hit to the head lead to dementia?

Not everyone who experiences a head injury develops dementia. There’s no evidence that a single mild traumatic brain injury increases dementia risk. More research is needed to confirm the possible link between brain injury and dementia and to understand why moderate, severe and repeated mild traumatic brain injuries may increase risk.
Other studies — but not all — have found a link between moderate and severe traumatic brain injury and elevated risk.

Emerging evidence suggests that repeated mild traumatic brain injuries, such as those that can occur in sports like American football, hockey and soccer, may be linked to a greater risk of a type of dementia called chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Research has shown that boxers have an increased risk of chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

Current research on how traumatic brain injury changes brain chemistry indicates a relationship between traumatic brain injury and hallmark protein abnormalities (beta-amyloid and tau) linked to Alzheimer's.

Some research suggests that traumatic brain injury may be more likely to cause dementia in individuals who have a variation of the gene for apolipoprotein E (APOE) called APOE-e4. More research is needed to understand the link between APOE-e4 and dementia risk in those who've had a brain injury.

http://www.alz.org/dementia/traumatic-brain-injury-head-trauma-symptoms.asp#dementiaandinjury

Spook_ie

Carawaystick wrote: »

Motorbike helmets would by your logic prevent mandibular and facial injuries. You're not too concerned about them.

On the cycling forum there's this
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83744657&postcount=31

droidus has no sources listed, but your quote was anonymous also.

They would indeed but lets get the idea of helmets saving your brain before helmets saving your boyish good looks
http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/9274034.Put_your_head_in_gear_over_cycle_helmets/

[snip - I don't see want point you're making with this but it seems needless, ott and not ok when posted without spoiler tages or something - mod]

Spook_ie

More information extracted from Australian Census Data 1976-2006

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/travel-to-work-1976-2006.pdf

Now to me it looks like there was a massive shift from all forms of transport to private car, perhaps you should be looking a little deeper than blaming helmet laws for the decline so often cited

monument

Please keep try to one post between other people's replies you can edit your reply if you want.

Also please just quote a paragraph two of any article or study you want to highlight and link to the rest.

Spook_ie wrote: »

It would seem that there is a fundamental untruth being cited by the pro cycling/anti helmet lobby..

Deal with what people are saying here -- there's more than enough to cover with out having to engage in shawdow boxing with any lobby that isn't here.

There was already a warning to stop the lobby-type talk.

bk

Richard Logue wrote: »

I think we all know cycle helmets are inevitable and no amount of discussion on Internet boards will stop it.

Nope, quite the opposite:

1) The Mayors of Pert and Sydney are looking for exclusions from the law for their cities.

2) In 2004 both the UK and Irish governments started looking to introduce such laws. There was a massive uproar from the cycling community and they quickly scrapped the idea.

Since 2004, the evidence against mandatory helmet laws has mounted significantly and it would be very unlikely to ever be looked at again.

Now the government is actually listening much more closely to the cycling community and taking their advice. For instance recently updating the law to make it clear that cyclists don't have to use cycling paths when available. Something the cycling community has long campaigned for.

I can also tell you that the recently released cycling manual was very heavily influenced by the lessons learned in the Netherlands and that officials and engineers/city planners from the NTA, Dep of Transport and City Councils now frequently visit the Netherlands to learn how to improve cycling infrastructure and are much more likely to head in a Dutch style mode.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Examples of pedestrians falling over ALL the time, excluding icy weather...

Why exclude icy weather? If a person slips in icy weather and cracks their head open and dies, they surely we should introduce a law making mandatory helmet wearing during icy weather?

In the last year, my mother has fallen down twice and even split her head open once (luckily she was sore but fine). Elderly people fall down all the time and sometimes it even leads to death.

So, should we introduce a mandatory helmet law for all over 60's?

Oh and also for those with epilepsy and other such conditions?

People who are drunk also frequently fall over and hit their head and sometimes die. So should we introduce mandatory helmet laws for anyone who has a drink? With a drinking limit and breathalysers to test if you should be wearing a helmet or not?

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

Nope, quite the opposite:

1) The Mayors of Pert and Sydney are looking for exclusions from the law for their cities.

2) In 2004 both the UK and Irish governments started looking to introduce such laws. There was a massive uproar from the cycling community and they quickly scrapped the idea.

Since 2004, the evidence against mandatory helmet laws has mounted significantly and it would be very unlikely to ever be looked at again.

Now the government is actually listening much more closely to the cycling community and taking their advice. For instance recently updating the law to make it clear that cyclists don't have to use cycling paths when available. Something the cycling community has long campaigned for.

I can also tell you that the recently released cycling manual was very heavily influenced by the lessons learned in the Netherlands and that officials and engineers/city planners from the NTA, Dep of Transport and City Councils now frequently visit the Netherlands to learn how to improve cycling infrastructure and are much more likely to head in a Dutch style mode.



Why exclude icy weather? If a person slips in icy weather and cracks their head open and dies, they surely we should introduce a law making mandatory helmet wearing during icy weather?

In the last year, my mother has fallen down twice and even split her head open once (luckily she was sore but fine). Elderly people fall down all the time and sometimes it even leads to death.

So, should we introduce a mandatory helmet law for all over 60's?

Oh and also for those with epilepsy and other such conditions?

People who are drunk also frequently fall over and hit their head and sometimes die. So should we introduce mandatory helmet laws for anyone who has a drink? With a drinking limit and breathalysers to test if you should be wearing a helmet or not?

1 That wouldn't be anything to do with JCDevereux wanting to make a profit then?

2 Much like when the idea is put forward on most internet forums, when a large proportion of respondents will start citing half truths from surveys that are over 20 years old

3 Must see if I can find the latest figures about cycling safety improvements when cyclists use infrastructure rather than roads, admittedly the infrastructure would appear to be far surpassing Dublins but none the less

4 Actually you'd be far better educating people about the co-efficient of friction between their shoes during different conditions, kind of like when you drive on slicks on wet roads.

Back to more studies

http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/Pub/pdf/12Cycle-Safety.pdf

Many researchers and observers have noted a correlation between cyclists numbers and increased safety expressed as a decrease of the incidence rate of severe/fatal crashes involving cyclists. The “safety in numbers” effect has been cited widely but correlation does not imply
causality and there are numerous possible explanations for the observed effect. At the centre of the phenomenon is the observation of non -linearity of risk: an increase of exposure (numbers, volumes, etc.) results in a less than proportional increase of the number of crashes (Eenink et al., 2007). This implies that if the number of vehicles increases, the crash rates will go down. The risks of cyclists are also non-linear, that is to say an increase in numbers results in a non-proportional increase of crashes (Elvik, 2009).

“Expectancy” is one way of explaining this non -linearity. That is to say: if a road user expects the presence of another road user, or can predict the behaviour of that other road user, one may expect lower risks (Houtenbos, 2008; Räsänen and Summala, 1998). In this respect, it may be more precise the re-cast “safety in numbers” as “awareness in numbers” Wegman in Mapes, 2009). An alternative explanation for the “safety in numbers” phenomenon is that cycle-safe traffic systems attract large numbers of cyclists – large numbers of cyclists in countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany are associated with high densities of bicycle facilities (Bhatia & Wier, 2011). There is no solid evidence that low fatality rates can only be explained by ‘numbers’ alone. Critically, if policy simply adds more cyclists to the system without other risk-reducing measures, than greater unsafety may result

Recommendation 2 Insufficient evidence supports causality for the “safety in numbers” phenomenon – policies increasing the number of cyclists should be accompanied by risk - reduction actions.

Now the government is actually listening much more closely to the cycling community and taking their advice. For instance recently updating the law to make it clear that cyclists don't have to use cycling paths when available. Something the cycling community has long campaigned for.

So now you've moved away from cycling infrastructure would seem that there are less and less options to improve on the safety other than mandatory helmets, there is a saying beware of what you wish for!

Yet more research that helmets prevent deaths and injuries while not necessarily inhibiting cycle use

http://www.imperial.ac.uk/college.asp?P=2250

Writing in the BMJ the authors conclude, "Local publicity campaigns encouraging the voluntary wearing of helmets have been effective and should accompany national drives to promote cycling."

But Dr Sheikh also revealed that while head injuries fell during the study period, other cycling injuries (limb and miscellaneous) increased.

"Cycle helmets are therefore only a partial solution to improving safety in this group of road-users," he said.

The question this stat raises is if head injuries fall, and limb injuries increase, then has the number of accidents increased or the number of cyclists or both?


Just found this one as well...

http://conversation.which.co.uk/transport-travel/bike-helmets-cycling-compulsory-law/

A new EU report has proposed cycle helmets should be made mandatory for children up to the age of 13, as well as adding cycle safety training to the curriculum for all seven and eight year olds.

Reports from the Irish Independent newspaper also suggest that parents who allow their children to ride a bike without a helmet will face charges under new rules proposed by the Road Safety Authority. These rules could come into force in Ireland by 2016 if the government approves them.

But Ireland won’t be the first to impose a bike helmet law; bicycle helmets have already been made mandatory in 13 European countries, as well as New Zealand and Australia.

ArmaniJeanss

Bicycle helmets have already been made mandatory in 13 European countries.


*********
Spook, did you happen to come across the names of any of these 13 in your research, it sounds a bit like bolox to me as I can only think of one? (Malta).

Seems a random made-up figure by the Indo. Unless they mean mandatory just for children or something like that, in which case its about as accurate a sentence as 'alcohol is banned in 54 European countries'.

Spook_ie

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Bicycle helmets have already been made mandatory in 13 European countries.


*********
Spook, did you happen to come across the names of any of these 13 in your research, it sounds a bit like bolox to me as I can only think of one? (Malta).

Seems a random made-up figure by the Indo. Unless they mean mandatory just for children or something like that, in which case its about as accurate a sentence as 'alcohol is banned in 54 European countries'.

Suspect that a few of the 13 would be children's compulsory helmets, mind you I think Finland/Spain and Portugal are mandatory all ages in certain conditions such as Spains

Required on interurban routes except when going uphill or in very hot weather, or for professional cyclists

Gotta laugh, we're going to be flooded with refugees
http://www.ecf.com/news/spanish-cyclists-call-for-asylum/

Spook_ie

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2012/10/07/what-are-the-benefits-of-bicycle-helmets/
Now here's a graph for interpretation referencing cycling injuries in NSW.

Cookie_Monster

Spook_ie wrote: »

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2012/10/07/what-are-the-benefits-of-bicycle-helmets/
Now here's a graph for interpretation referencing cycling injuries in NSW.

So despite decreasing the number of cyclists (as posters have previous shown) mandatory helmets increase head and arm injuries amongst cyclists after the initial decrease - which of course is entirely attributable to the decimated cycling numbers as a whole. At the point where proper infrastructure is "increased"* injuries finally start to fall again. This would imply less cyclists are getting run over by vehicle, which of course further implies than most accident are motorists fault which has also been shown by posters in this thread.

All in all it nicely shoots your own argument straight in the foot helmet.


* - a pretty non specific term or time

Polar101

Spook_ie wrote: »

Suspect that a few of the 13 would be children's compulsory helmets, mind you I think Finland/Spain and Portugal are mandatory all ages in certain conditions such as Spains

In Finland the law says you should normally wear a helmet when you cycle. But it's not enforced, and there is no penalty for not wearing one.

Spook_ie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

So despite decreasing the number of cyclists (as posters have previous shown) mandatory helmets increase head and arm injuries amongst cyclists after the initial decrease - which of course is entirely attributable to the decimated cycling numbers as a whole. At the point where proper infrastructure is "increased"* injuries finally start to fall again. This would imply less cyclists are getting run over by vehicle, which of course further implies than most accident are motorists fault which has also been shown by posters in this thread.

All in all it nicely shoots your own argument straight in the foot helmet.


* - a pretty non specific term or time

Eh No, actually the correct interpretation of the graph would be..

A decrease in the ratio of head injuries against arm injuries which shows that helmets reduce head injuries, an increase in arm injuries showing an increase in riders ( as per census data in Post 214 and as per Post 205 ) followed by a plateau in arm injury numbers and further decrease in head injury when the cyclists were given infrastructure, The decrease in head injuries presumably from removing some direct vehicle conflict from the equation where cycle helmets would be least effective in protection

Spook_ie

Polar101 wrote: »

In Finland the law says you should normally wear a helmet when you cycle. But it's not enforced, and there is no penalty for not wearing one.

Could well be so, do the insurance companies/courts reduce awarded damages if no helmet is worn?

bk

Spook_ie wrote: »

Eh No, actually the correct interpretation of the graph would be..

LOL :rolleyes:

This graph clearly shows that head injuries continued to increase from 2004 when the mandatory helmet laws was introduced and when there was a 36% decrease in cyclists (thus the increase is even more pronounced) and that head injuries only started to decrease after improved cycling infrastructure was introduced.

Which is exactly the point we have all been making all along.

- Mandatory helmet laws don't make you safer, they just reduce the number of cyclists.
- Improved cycling infrastructure and 30km/h speed limits make cycling safer.

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

LOL :rolleyes:

This graph clearly shows that head injuries continued to increase from 2004 when the mandatory helmet laws was introduced and when there was a 36% decrease in cyclists (thus the increase is even more pronounced) and that head injuries only started to decrease after improved cycling infrastructure was introduced.

Which is exactly the point we have all been making all along.

- Mandatory helmet laws don't make you safer, they just reduce the number of cyclists.
- Improved cycling infrastructure and 30km/h speed limits make cycling safer.

Mandatory helmet laws were in 1991-1992, 2006 was when they increased expenditure on cycling infrastructure.
2004 head injuries are still lower than 1990 and as a trend were still flat compared to the increase in arm injuries

EDIT: Amended from 1991 to 1991/92 to account for the actual different dates that various territories brought the law in.

The mantra about MHL has been repeated so often now that even when presented with a graph showing 1991/2 as the start point people will reinterpret it as different dates lol:rolleyes:

bk

Sorry I meant to tpye 1994 rather then 2004, though it seems to be 1991/2

However the point is still the same, head injuries actually continued to increase after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws and only decreased after the introduction of improved cycling infrastructure.

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

Sorry I meant to tpye 1994 rather then 2004, though it seems to be 1991/2

However the point is still the same, head injuries actually continued to increase after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws and only decreased after the introduction of improved cycling infrastructure.

OMG what graph are you reading!

The fact that there is a WIDENING gap between head and arm injuries means that as injuries increase there are less head injuries

You need to look at trends rather than point data and the trend for head injuries is a significant drop from 1990 to 1991 and then a flat trend, I don't have any data to hand for pre 1990 so couldn't tell you (at the moment) if the trend was up, flat or down before then

bk

I'm reading the same graph as you and it clearly shows no drop in the number of head injuries after the introduction of MHL, despite the fact that there was a 36% drop in the number of cyclists in that period. That means there was actually an increase in the number of head injuries per cyclist after the introduction of the MHL.

To be honest, you really have shot yourself in the foot introducing this graph.

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

I'm reading the same graph as you and it clearly shows no drop in the number of head injuries after the introduction of MHL, despite the fact that there was a 36% drop in the number of cyclists in that period. That means there was actually an increase in the number of head injuries per cyclist after the introduction of the MHL.

To be honest, you really have shot yourself in the foot introducing this graph.

Are you seriously trying to tell me you can't see the bit of graph where there is a 33% drop in head injuries from 1990 to 1991 (when MHL is introduced), you'll forgive me if I hold the fabled 36% drop in cyclists as a myth then because you obviously don't look at graphs too often

bk

Nothing fabled about the 36% drop, it is accounted for in a number of different reports into the issue.

A 33% drop in head injuries, while you have a 36% drop in cyclists is actually an increase in head injuries per cyclist!

Also it is worth noting that in the months just before the introduction of MHL, a massive campaign to get motorists to slow down was also introduced, so it makes it hard to prove if the initial drop was due to the MHL laws or this speed reduction campaign (it included lots of advertising, new speeding laws and big enforcement campaigns).

Spook_ie

bk wrote: »

Nothing fabled about the 36% drop, it is accounted for in a number of different reports into the issue.

A 33% drop in head injuries, while you have a 36% drop in cyclists is actually an increase in head injuries per cyclist!

Also it is worth noting that in the months just before the introduction of MHL, a massive campaign to get motorists to slow down was also introduced, so it makes it hard to prove if the initial drop was due to the MHL laws or this speed reduction campaign (it included lots of advertising, new speeding laws and big enforcement campaigns).

OK heres the deal you put up the reports on the 36% and I'll see how many of them I can debunk

steamengine

Spook_ie wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to tell me you can't see the bit of graph where there is a 33% drop in head injuries from 1990 to 1991 (when MHL is introduced), you'll forgive me if I hold the fabled 36% drop in cyclists as a myth then because you obviously don't look at graphs too often

Yep, that's how the graph reads, plus the increasing gap between the two lines confirms the continuing drop in head injuries year on year in real terms according to report quoted in the blog.

There is no mention of a 36% cyclist drop in the associated blog for that graph. In fact it states, post the MHL intro, the number of cyclists actually increased yearly.

Just one short quote from the blog about the efficacy of cycling helmets.........

"Thus head injury hospitalisations fell massively in ‘real’ terms over the 20 years from 1990 to 2010."

Source: Oliver et al - University of New South Wales

Cookie_Monster

Spook_ie wrote: »

Eh No, actually the correct interpretation of the graph would be..

er, no. Your interpretation of the graph, one that, remarkably, no one else shares!?!

Let me do some further interpretation from the silly graph. Painting white lines on roads reduces head injuries, even the linked article admits this. So we can infer simply painting more white lines on the road will further reduce injuries. A silly conclusion you might say but it's what the graph demonstrates.

The graph also has no context pre 1990, how do we know it wasn't a freak year, or that injuries were already falling or other factors were already at work?

It does not even distinguish between head injury types, a helmet is not ever going to stop you shattering teeth from a crash for example. It also ignores neck injuries (no doubt because they'll increase and not suit the research) which helmets increase.

Yet despite its flaws it shows injuries rising after the initial decrease yet notably leaves out any actual number of cyclist increasing. Can only mean selective use of data to try and make it look better, but as we've already seen the reduction in cyclist % was higher than the reduction in head injury %.

Spook_ie

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

er, no. Your interpretation of the graph, one that, remarkably, no one else shares!?!

Let me do some further interpretation from the silly graph. Painting white lines on roads reduces head injuries, even the linked article admits this. So we can infer simply painting more white lines on the road will further reduce injuries. A silly conclusion you might say but it's what the graph demonstrates.

The graph also has no context pre 1990, how do we know it wasn't a freak year, or that injuries were already falling or other factors were already at work?

It does not even distinguish between head injury types, a helmet is not ever going to stop you shattering teeth from a crash for example. It also ignores neck injuries (no doubt because they'll increase and not suit the research) which helmets increase.

Yet despite its flaws it shows injuries rising after the initial decrease yet notably leaves out any actual number of cyclist increasing. Can only mean selective use of data to try and make it look better, but as we've already seen the reduction in cyclist % was higher than the reduction in head injury %.

Actually I did say that there was nothing pre 1990 to tell if it was up/down or sideways

Spook_ie wrote: »

OMG what graph are you reading!

The fact that there is a WIDENING gap between head and arm injuries means that as injuries increase there are less head injuries

You need to look at trends rather than point data and the trend for head injuries is a significant drop from 1990 to 1991 and then a flat trend, I don't have any data to hand for pre 1990 so couldn't tell you (at the moment) if the trend was up, flat or down before then

I would suggest you read the full article before criticising

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Funsworks.unsw.edu.au%2Ffapi%2Fdatastream%2Funsworks%3A10700%2FSOURCE01&ei=YdO3UYPMEsGO7AbavYCoAQ&usg=AFQjCNEAzvWeDPYJu_M_9sWs3gjvRCmhlA&bvm=bv.47810305,d.ZGU

As to painting a few white lines well maybe in some of the Victorian Councils you might be right but did you know that committed expenditue in Melbourne in 2012 there was a $50.07 spend per person $4,950,000 and in Sydney a spend of $89.38 spend per person $16,400,000 on cycle infrastructure.
http://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au/media/vanilla/file/BiXE%202012%20Final%20Report.pdf

Wonder what you actually get for that? Surely more than a few tins of white Dulux

ArmaniJeanss

Spook_ie wrote: »

did you know that committed expenditue in Melbourne in 2012 there was a $50.07 spend per person $4,950,000 and in Sydney a spend of $89.38 spend per person $16,400,000 on cycle infrastructure.

$50.07 per person sounds a mightily impressive spend on cycling infrastructure alright. Melbourne having a population of 4,950,000/50.07 = 99,000 sounds unlikely though as the last time I was there it had a population of roughly 4M.

So on closer examination the $50.07 figure (and also the $89 for Sydney) seem a bit of a joke.
Tantamount to Dublin Corporation spending €1M on a cycle lane in O'Connell Street, then deviding this figure between the permanent residents of that street (lets say 50 people living in bedsits on O'Connell Street, I don't know the exact figure) and saying they spend $20K per person on cycling infrastructure.

Jawgap

Cross-post from the cycling forum.....

Ben Goldacre's editorial in the BMJ this week

"We have both spent a large part of our working lives discussing statistics and risk with the general public. We both dread questions about bicycle helmets. The arguments are often heated and personal; but they also illustrate some of the most fascinating challenges for epidemiology, risk communication, and evidence based policy.

With regard to the use of bicycle helmets, science broadly tries to answer two main questions. At a societal level, “what is the effect of a public health policy that requires or promotes helmets?” and at an individual level, “what is the effect of wearing a helmet?” Both questions are methodologically challenging and contentious.

The linked paper by Dennis and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj.f2674) investigates the policy question and concludes that the effect of Canadian helmet legislation on hospital admission for cycling head injuries “seems to have been minimal.”1 Other ecological studies have come to different conclusions,2 but the current study has somewhat superior methodology—controlling for background trends and modelling head injuries as a proportion of all cycling injuries."

Spook_ie

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

$50.07 per person sounds a mightily impressive spend on cycling infrastructure alright. Melbourne having a population of 4,950,000/50.07 = 99,000 sounds unlikely though as the last time I was there it had a population of roughly 4M.

So on closer examination the $50.07 figure (and also the $89 for Sydney) seem a bit of a joke.
Tantamount to Dublin Corporation spending €1M on a cycle lane in O'Connell Street, then deviding this figure between the permanent residents of that street (lets say 50 people living in bedsits on O'Connell Street, I don't know the exact figure) and saying they spend $20K per person on cycling infrastructure.

You could well be right, wonder how they derive their figures because figures for places like Alice Springs are roughly correct where as City of Freemantle seems overstated with 21000 extra in 10 years! Phenomenal rate of growth if it's true

Alice Springs 28449 according to them 25186 (2011) according to wiki
City of Fremantle 28584 according to them 7643 ( 2001) according to Wiki

EDIT;- Population of Greater Melbourne 4.25 million Source abs.gov.au

City of Melbourne would seem to consist of these areas
Carlton
Docklands
East Melbourne
Kensington/Flemington
Melbourne
Melbourne (CBD Grid)
Melbourne (CBD North)
Melbourne - St. Kilda Road
North Melbourne
Parkville
South Yarra
Southbank
West Melbourne
Which when added together give a population for City of Melbourne of 93,105 in 2009
Source http://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/AboutMelbourne/Statistics/Documents/Analysis_of_Population_and_Housing_2001_2009.pdf table 1

Kind of like Counting Fingal as part of DCC rather than as Co. Dublin