Compulsory helmets for car drivers

"Peter Vesel" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

When the made bicycle helmets compulsory didn't they say it save 50
lives a year or some such number?

"They" may have said it, but almost all research shows that the only real
effect has been the reduction in number of cyclists rather than the
reduction of rate of head injuries. That means that a proportion of the
population is getting less exercise and is therefore less healthy. So the
effect of compulsory helmet laws in various countries around the world is,
on the whole, negative.

Graeme

Honestly, the helmet issue is [censored]. I grew up without using a helmet,
but I'd never go back to riding without one (except maybe on a hot
afternoon while cruising slowly up a deserted cycleway) and anybody who
still sees this as an issue probably doesn't have a brain worth protecting.

I don't see anything wrong with making something compulsory that anybody
with a brain worth protecting would do as a matter of course.

As for compulsory helmets for motorists, what gets lumbered on cyclists
doesn't always follow as should be lumbered on motorists. Helmets for car
passengers and drivers comes back to "having a brain worth protecting."

Glen F said:

Read the long paragraph nearest the end at:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/natint/stories/s1099572.htm

Graeme said:

"Peter Vesel" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

When the made bicycle helmets compulsory didn't they say it save 50
lives a year or some such number?

"They" may have said it, but almost all research shows that the only real
effect has been the reduction in number of cyclists rather than the
reduction of rate of head injuries. That means that a proportion of the
population is getting less exercise and is therefore less healthy. So the
effect of compulsory helmet laws in various countries around the world is,
on the whole, negative.

Graeme

Another statistical correlation which may not mean much. At least in
brisbane, there is a lot more competitive and/or high-speed cycling; I'd
say that people doing over 30 km/h probably already wore helmets before
rules were introduced. A large number of people who stopped riding
because of helmet laws may have been the type who worry about their
hair, worry about sweat, and/or commute short distances and probably
weren't really getting worthwhile exercise out of it anyway. Might as
well have walked.

T

<| Tamyka Bell |> did write on 12May2004 at 10:25:38 AM

Quoted message said:

Another statistical correlation which may not mean much. At least in
brisbane, there is a lot more competitive and/or high-speed cycling; I'd
say that people doing over 30 km/h probably already wore helmets before
rules were introduced. A large number of people who stopped riding
because of helmet laws may have been the type who worry about their
hair, worry about sweat, and/or commute short distances and probably
weren't really getting worthwhile exercise out of it anyway. Might as
well have walked.

T

Wot?
You mean that the bicycle world has [censored] too?

I remember now - Porsche and BMW cycles....

Duh.
Of course.

--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur
Warning: All posts to be treated with a grain of salt.
By Order
K.K.

Graham W <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Graeme said:

When the UK introduced compulsory seatbelts the change in number of
drivers killed or seriously injured was statistically insignificant,
but there was a very significant increase in KSIs to vulnerable road
users (cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders etc.).

You have a source for this claim of course?

Yes.

Davis, R, 1992/93, Death on the Streets, Leading Edge Press, ISBN 0-
948135-46-8

I can't remember off the top of my head the research papers which the
above publication refer to. They made interesting but dry reading. If you
really want I can spend a while digging around in our storage boxes
looking for the book to check the exact reference.

There are other pointers to the same research on the web if you care to
look for them.

Graeme

Tamyka Bell <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Another statistical correlation which may not mean much.

True enough, as they say "lies, damned lies and statistics". However the
evidence is strong enough to be used by the British Medical Association
as reason enough to be against the compulsory use of helmets.

Quoted message said:

At least in
brisbane, there is a lot more competitive and/or high-speed cycling;
I'd say that people doing over 30 km/h probably already wore helmets
before rules were introduced.

I am not against helmet wearing per se. I wear one myself and have done
for about 15 years. I unquestioningly thought "helmet=safer" but after a
few years of reading various research papers and hearing other views I
am now aware that they are not the wonderful saviour that many people
think they are. Helmets are only tested in collision speeds of up to
20km/h (this may be different in Australia as they have different
standards), so anything above that and all bets are off.

Also, many cycling organisations mandated the use of helmets in races
well before the introduction of any such law.

Quoted message said:

A large number of people who stopped riding
because of helmet laws may have been the type who worry about their
hair, worry about sweat, and/or commute short distances and probably
weren't really getting worthwhile exercise out of it anyway. Might as
well have walked.

That may describe a small proportion of the people, but as the bloody
annoying adverts say "Find Thirty", so even pootering down to the shops
and back is enough to increase general health if done regularly.

I'm actually really surprised that there seems to be one hell of a lot
of acceptance of "Helmets=safer" in Australia. There is (was?) a very
vociferous group opposed to the helmet laws in Australia and they did
not just use emotional arguments but presented good research. Were they
so ineffective that nothing they said was taken in? I know people
listened elsewhere in the world.

Graeme

<| Graeme |> did write on 12May2004 at 12:35:11 PM

Quoted message said:

I'm actually really surprised that there seems to be one hell of a lot
of acceptance of "Helmets=safer" in Australia. There is (was?) a very
vociferous group opposed to the helmet laws in Australia and they did
not just use emotional arguments but presented good research. Were they
so ineffective that nothing they said was taken in? I know people
listened elsewhere in the world.

Graeme

Here, we do as we're told.

--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur
Warning: All posts to be treated with a grain of salt.
By Order
K.K.

Toby Ponsenby <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1q9abnvyqmfo
[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Here, we do as we're told.

Yes, I do get the impression that Australia is a bit of a nanny state and
that the majority of people do as they are told just like good girls and
boys. That in itself is not too much of a problem, the concern I have is
the almost unquestioning way in which it is done. Yes people whinge and
moan (why do the English get called "whingeing Poms"? I've never heard so
much whingeing as I have from some Australians) but very little is done to
actively try to correct anything which is seen as unjustified or incorrect
(or that is my perception).

The introduction of various laws may be with the intention of benefitting
the poulation, but when there is a lot of evidence to the contrary many
people just seem to shrug their shoulders and accept it. I find that very
strange.

Graeme

"Graeme" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Toby Ponsenby <[email hidden]> wrote in news:1q9abnvyqmfo
[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Here, we do as we're told.

Yes, I do get the impression that Australia is a bit of a nanny state and
that the majority of people do as they are told just like good girls and
boys. That in itself is not too much of a problem, the concern I have is
the almost unquestioning way in which it is done. Yes people whinge and
moan (why do the English get called "whingeing Poms"? I've never heard so
much whingeing as I have from some Australians) but very little is done to
actively try to correct anything which is seen as unjustified or incorrect
(or that is my perception).

The introduction of various laws may be with the intention of benefitting
the poulation, but when there is a lot of evidence to the contrary many
people just seem to shrug their shoulders and accept it. I find that very
strange.

Graeme

The bicycle "Institute" groups traded the compulsory helmet laws for a bit
of funding.
Essentially groups such as Bicycle Institute of NSW (as it was) were told no
helmets no cycleway funding.

And they fell for it.

Peter

"Peter Vesel" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Essentially groups such as Bicycle Institute of NSW (as it was) were
told no helmets no cycleway funding.

And now that the helmet laws have been in for a long time now, has the
funding continued or mysteriously dried up?

Graeme

Graeme said:

Graham W <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Graeme said:

When the UK introduced compulsory seatbelts the change in number of
drivers killed or seriously injured was statistically insignificant,
but there was a very significant increase in KSIs to vulnerable road
users (cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders etc.).

You have a source for this claim of course?

Yes.

Davis, R, 1992/93, Death on the Streets, Leading Edge Press, ISBN 0-
948135-46-8

not in australia

http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/stats/pdf/crash_rates_2003.pdf

sheik yerbouti <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Graeme wrote:
> When the UK introduced compulsory seatbelts the change in number of
> drivers killed or seriously injured was statistically insignificant,
> but there was a very significant increase in KSIs to vulnerable road
> users (cyclists, pedestrians, horse riders etc.).

You have a source for this claim of course?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Davis, R, 1992/93, Death on the Streets, Leading Edge Press, ISBN 0-
948135-46-8

Quoted message said:

not in australia
http://www.atsb.gov.au/road/stats/pdf/crash_rates_2003.pdf

Anyone prepared to download a 300k pdf file should read
http://www.mpp-rdg.mpg.de/workshop/JohnAdams.pdf
Or borrow a book by the same author from the library (Adams J. Risk.
London: UCL Press, 1995.)

The data for NSW look pretty convincing until you realize that road
deaths fell in almost every country about that time, because of the
oil crisis.

The UK introduced its seatbelt legislation about a decade later. It
was predicted that it would save 1000 lives every year. But the
Department of Transport's statistical assessors (Durbin and Harvey
1985) estimated actual savings were between 207 and 459. As well as
lower than expected reductions for front seat occupants, there were
apparent increases in fatalities above the prevailing trend for
cyclists (up 40%) and pedestrians (up 14%) involved in collisions with
motor vehicles and in rear seat passengers (up 27%).

However, later analyses showed that fatal crashes from 4 am to 10 pm
fell by only 3% (in line with the prevailing trend), compared to 23%
for crashes from 10 pm to 4 am (the "drink-drive hours"😉. The
reduction was almost exclusively for drivers who had drunk alcohol
crashing in non-built-up areas, with virtually no change for other
categories (drivers who had not been drinking and crashes in built-up
areas). In 1983, unprecedented numbers of breath tests were
administered, successful prosecutions for drunk driving increased by
31% and the percentage of dead drivers over the legal alcohol limit
dropped from 36% to 31%.

The above represents pretty convincing evidence that the reduction in
fatalities was due to measures against drink-driving, not the seatbelt
law. But seatbelts surely prevent injury during a crash. We are
therefore forced to conclude that drivers felt protected and drove
more dangerously in compensation. If so, we can explain the estimated
increases found by the original report in fatality rates for cyclists,
pedestrians and rear seat passengers (not required to wear belts under
the law).

Perhaps the take home message should be never to believe that a law
mandating a piece of safety equipment will be beneficial. All
governments should take the time and effort to compile pre and
post-intervention statistics, and be guided by what the data actually
tell us. (Of course, if they'd done that for helmet laws, they would
have been repealed a long time ago.)

Dorre