Oh dear - another helmet law proposal.

[Andy Leighton]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:55:35 +0100,
Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> I wonder whether its even simpler than that. People seem to buy the
>> gear of their favourite rider team, and some even a look alike of the
>> bike they ride on. Given that all the teams have to wear helmets its an
>> easy step to wear the helmet as part of the look alike image without any
>> consideration of other factors. I wear functional gear and don't wear a
>> helmet - I have no interest in being seen in what the professionals
>> wear.
>
> Up to a point, but while I think it's fair to say I'm a fairly committed
> cyclist, and a bit of a gear-junkie, I only have a vague notion of
> professional riders and teams. For those of us who don't really follow
> cycling as a sport and/or ride with the local Chain Gang that doesn't
> really apply, and yet it's still easy to see a lid as something "proper"
> cyclists wear.

I think a lot depends on how you get into cycling. For me it was
through utility cycling as a lad. Biking up to see my mates, doing my
paper round, going up the shops for my mum, even going out a village
about 12 miles away. Cycling as a sport wasn't even on my horizon.
However this was before mountain bikes and before bmx. These are
probably having more of an effect on the youth of today - and they
are both areas where helmets are more common and probably of more
use.

I'm not quite sure how the older folks I've seen have come to start
wearing helmets after a lifetime of cycling without. Presumably
buying into the whole they'll protect me come what may line.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Dave Larrington:
> You forgot:
>
> c) How many times has the gubbinsment put its collective hands up and said
> "OK, you were right, we were wrong. X /doesn't/ work. We'll repeal the law
> immediately and give you your money back"


But shirley all they would have to do would be to introduce a helmet law
at the same time as, oh, something like a reduction in speed limits in
towns -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/7046200.stm


and be careful when evaluating the effect of the helmet law to cite
absolute casualty numbers rather than casualty rates against a control
population, and lo! the helmet law will demonstrably have made cyclists
safer!

But then, who would fall for something as blatantly misleading as that,
eh?


--
Mark, UK
"Defoe says that there were a hundred thousand country fellows in his
time ready to fight to the death against popery, without knowing whether
popery was a man or a horse."

 

[[email protected]]

Roger Merriman wrote:
> as genural rule, the more 'serious' cyclist's in my experance wear
> helmets.
>
> ie lycra clad all the gear etc.

I wonder how much this is just a matter of habit, given that helmets are
often required for races. I don't wear a helmet for cycling, but I do
for skating (most of the time, unless it's /far/ too hot) chiefly
because I don't want to be DQed for forgetting it in a race.

And I even used it once -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/coruskate/tags/helmetsavedmylife/

Saved me from a lump on the back of the head, perhaps: did nothing for
my knees, thigh or elbows.


-dan

 

[Nigel Cliffe]

Roger Merriman wrote:
> Coyoteboy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> Let's look at this another way,
>>>
>>> How many people do you see on the road who are wearing a helmet,
>>> proportionally to those who are not?
>>>
>>> Sniper8052
>>
>> On my daily 34 mile commute? I see (on average) 7 or 8 other
>> cyclists. I see one non-helmeted person and I see him at he same
>> point every day, ~1 mile from work. Why? I must admit that I expect
>> to see more non-helmeted commuters but this isnt the case in the
>> Liverpool area. Maybe the "serious" cyclists stay away from commuter
>> routes?
>
> as genural rule, the more 'serious' cyclist's in my experance wear
> helmets.

Define "serious".

If you mean "club race rider", then yes, they are likely to wear helmets
because their competitive race bodies require them. (Similar to saloon car
racing and saloon car rallying, helmets and other race-related rules apply).

If you mean "use a bike a lot", then I would disagree.


> ie lycra clad all the gear etc.
>
> it's the onces wearing jeans and a shirt that don't. very few wear the
> gear with out a helmet.

"The gear" meaning what ? If you mean "replica race team kit", then I guess
the helmet is part of the replica.
Or do you just mean the comfort/convinience related bits of cycle clothing
(padded/fitted shorts, jerseys with pockets in useful places, etc..) ?



I guess I'm not a 'serious' cyclist.
Not sure what you need to do to become one. I have four bicycles. I rode
12 mile round trip to town to do some shopping on Friday, a 25 mile
rough-stuff organised ride on Saturday, 60 miles on Sunday (it was sunny),
about 6 miles to pick some blackberries yesterday.


I rarely wear a helmet as I think they are uncomfortable and inconvinient
when weighed up against any potential benefits (which are weak if you read
the real-world research papers; those same papers suggest that I need to
wear one whilst in the shower and walking down the street).
The only times I wear a helmet is on technical rocky MTB routes where I
think a low speed fall is more likely.



- Nigel


--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

 

[[email protected]]

On 15 Oct, 23:32, "Coyoteboy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Let's look at this another way,
>
> > How many people do you see on the road who are wearing a helmet,
> > proportionally to those who are not?
>
> > Sniper8052
>
> On my daily 34 mile commute? I see (on average) 7 or 8 other cyclists. I see
> one non-helmeted person and I see him at he same point every day, ~1 mile
> from work. Why? I must admit that I expect to see more non-helmeted
> commuters but this isnt the case in the Liverpool area. Maybe the "serious"
> cyclists stay away from commuter routes?

So we can say from your observations that more cyclists wear helmets
than don't, my observation would be slightly lower than yours in that
I would put it at about six or seven out of ten on my 90mile commute
and subsequent patrols.

If we say that seven out of ten cyclists are wearing helmets then 70%
of all collisions in broad terms must also involve helmeted cyclists.
This would mean that 70% of all fatalities will also involve a
helmeted cyclist as will 70% of all head injuries.

Thus taking the 148 cyclist deaths in 2005 as an example figure 103 of
them were wearing helmets. The average child head injury rate is 9%
over 10 years I have been unable to find a corresponding adult
figure. Children account for 36% of road traffic cycle collisions.

Using the figures above and rounding:

Of 103 fatalities in cycling 40 were children
Of those 40 only 4 involved a head injury

As we know from observation that 70% of cyclists wear a helmet rounded
to 75% for ease

We can say 3 of these were wearing a helmet and 1 wasn't.

So even with fairly basic observation and statistics we can prove that
of the fatalities reported in 2005 amongst child cyclists the majority
involved were wearing cycle helmets.

Yet we are asked to believe that children wearing helmets are 14 times
less likely to be killed in a collision on the road than those not
wearing helmets and that helmets reduce the risk of death or serious
injury by anything between 65% and 85%.

The figures would tend to disprove this.

Sniper8052

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> If we say that seven out of ten cyclists are wearing helmets then 70%
> of all collisions in broad terms must also involve helmeted cyclists.
> This would mean that 70% of all fatalities will also involve a
> helmeted cyclist as will 70% of all head injuries.

Isn't this begging the question? I must be missing your point: the only
way I can see to reach that conclusion is to assume that the helmet has
no effect on the likelihood of an injury/fatality given that there has
been a collision. Which is the question we're trying to answer, isn't it?


-dan

 

[_]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 12:00:30 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:

> Alan Braggins wrote:
>
>> Risk compensation in action? Or evidence that, unlike the cycling population
>> as a whole, he does get an overall benefit from his helmet?
>
> Could quite possibly be both: he rides in a crash-likely manner because
> he likes to ride that way, and since he likes to ride that way it's
> worth wearing extra protection.
>

The fallacy here is that a helmet *IS* extra protection...

 

[Peter Clinch]

_ wrote:

> The fallacy here is that a helmet *IS* extra protection...

Not fair to assume that's a fallacy though. where is the data saying
that a helmet will not mitigate minor injuries? It's decidedly lacking,
because it's an /incredibly/ under-reported sort of accident, unlike the
KSIs.

Few people go to hospital with minor hand injuries from gloveless
gardening: that does not make it a safe conclusion that gardening gloves
are pointless...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[[email protected]]

On 16 Oct, 12:53, [email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > If we say that seven out of ten cyclists are wearing helmets then 70%
> > of all collisions in broad terms must also involve helmeted cyclists.
> > This would mean that 70% of all fatalities will also involve a
> > helmeted cyclist as will 70% of all head injuries.
>
> Isn't this begging the question? I must be missing your point: the only
> way I can see to reach that conclusion is to assume that the helmet has
> no effect on the likelihood of an injury/fatality given that there has
> been a collision. Which is the question we're trying to answer, isn't it?
>
> -dan

271,017 total road injuries
3,201 deaths
141 Child deaths
16,561 cyclist casualties
148 cycle deaths


Total number of road injuries (2005) = 271,017
Total number of deaths (2005) = 3,201 0r 1.18%

Total number of Cycle injuries (2005) = 16,561
Total number of cycle deaths (2005) = 148 or 0.9%

70% of those involved in a collision were wearing a helmet

16,561 x 70/100 = 11570 helmeted cyclists

Supposed risk reduction in helmeted cyclists (death or serious injury)
= 85%

Therefore of 11570 helmeted cyclist 15% should have died or been
seriously injured.

11,570 x 15/100 =1,739

Of which 10% would have been head injuries

1,739 x 10/100 = 174

Serious head injuries amongst helmeted cyclist account for 174 cases
from the total figure or 1.05%

(174/16561) x 100 = 1.05%

However Non Helmeted cycle injuries account for 4991 cases or 30%

16561 - 11570 = 4991

Applying a negative of the supposed benefit from helmet use 4,242 non
helmet users or 85% should have been killed or seriously injured.

4,991 x 85/100 = 4,242

Of which 10% would be head injuries

4,242 x 10/100 = 424

or 2.56% of the total number of cyclists injured.

(424/16561) x 100 = 2.56%

Total for both groups is 598 deaths or serious injuries

424 + 174 = 598

or 3.61% of the total injuries reported in 2005

598/16561 x 100 = 3.61%

There were 148 deaths amongst cyclists of which 14.8 or 10% would have
involved head injury.

148 x 10 /100 = 14.8

However looking back to our original figure there should only be 165.6
head injuries from a total of 16,561 collisions.

100/16,561 x 10 = 165.6

Thus we can see that the figures claimed for risk reduction are false.

Proof of the above can be seen from taking the expected head injury
rate, 165.6 and comparing it to the head death rate of 14.8.

The resulting figure is a little under 10%

However the total figure for both groups using the figures generated
above should be 5.32 persons killed

148 x 3.6 /100 = 5.32

Half the known 'real world' head injury rate.

Sniper8052

 

[Roger Merriman]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> > as genural rule, the more 'serious' cyclist's in my experance wear
> > helmets.
> >
> > ie lycra clad all the gear etc.
>
> I think that is a perception of "all the gear" including a helmet.
>
yup.

> It /is/ a common-sense thing that helmets make you safer, and it is a
> pervasive feeling in the UK that cycling is dangerous. So without
> realising that actually it isn't especially dangerous (and government
> figures show us it isn't), or that helmets don't have a track record of
> making you safer, and most people don't realise either, you have a
> situation where it's normal for "serious" cyclists to wear helmets.
> This is backed up by advertising, and an increasing trend for people to
> want "all the gear" to do anything much these days.
>
well the sort of cycling that is popular in uk, ie mountain biking and
road racing, does seem more prone to to the odd tumble than a potter
down to the shops.

> > it's the onces wearing jeans and a shirt that don't. very few wear the
> > gear with out a helmet.
>
> Because it's seen that a helmet is part of "the gear" by many, is my
> perception. I certainly used to think that way.
>
yes, i had always assumed that myself if i thought anything about the
helmet I and other friends didn't use them as climbing the hills was hot
enought work with out a helmet.

> Pete.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Peter Clinch]

Roger Merriman wrote:

> well the sort of cycling that is popular in uk, ie mountain biking and
> road racing, does seem more prone to to the odd tumble than a potter
> down to the shops.

Do you actually have figures showing there are more road racers than
commuters and transport cyclists? Seems like a bit of a sweeping
statement to me... In terms of actual active MTBers I'd think it's a
bit of a stretch too.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Roger Merriman]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> > well the sort of cycling that is popular in uk, ie mountain biking and
> > road racing, does seem more prone to to the odd tumble than a potter
> > down to the shops.
>
> Do you actually have figures showing there are more road racers than
> commuters and transport cyclists? Seems like a bit of a sweeping
> statement to me... In terms of actual active MTBers I'd think it's a
> bit of a stretch too.
>
> Pete.

mmm okay put another way, as a hobby biking either on a mountain bike or
road race, seems to be more prone to the odd tumble.

a sweeping stament yes it is, but then this is usenet rather than a
report. i guess it depends just how many people do use the bike to get
around in central london and other hot spots. certinaly out of those
areas you don't see many bikes, used for transport.

mind you most leisure bikes spend a lot of time sitting in shed!

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Peter Clinch]

Roger Merriman wrote:

> a sweeping stament yes it is, but then this is usenet rather than a
> report. i guess it depends just how many people do use the bike to get
> around in central london and other hot spots. certinaly out of those
> areas you don't see many bikes, used for transport.

If you take "hot spot" to mean "every settlement in the UK bigger than a
village", perhaps, otherwise we're back in sweeping-statementsville!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[_]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:57:03 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:

> _ wrote:
>
>> The fallacy here is that a helmet *IS* extra protection...
>
> Not fair to assume that's a fallacy though. where is the data saying
> that a helmet will not mitigate minor injuries? It's decidedly lacking,
> because it's an /incredibly/ under-reported sort of accident, unlike the
> KSIs.
>
> Few people go to hospital with minor hand injuries from gloveless
> gardening: that does not make it a safe conclusion that gardening gloves
> are pointless...
>

Another (but more subtle) error there; one cannot choose the kind of injury
one will have while cycling. The whole population figures are the best
indicator of "protection" - which, as we know, is essentially zero. The
range of injury that gardeners suffer may well be much more skewed towards
the minor end of the scale, and so any possible negative effect of wearing
gloves at the higher level of injury is not going to make any difference to
the amount of protection; which is in complete contrast to the situation
with cycling and helmets.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch wrote:
>Roger Merriman wrote:
>
>> a sweeping stament yes it is, but then this is usenet rather than a
>> report. i guess it depends just how many people do use the bike to get
>> around in central london and other hot spots. certinaly out of those
>> areas you don't see many bikes, used for transport.
>
>If you take "hot spot" to mean "every settlement in the UK bigger than a
>village", perhaps, otherwise we're back in sweeping-statementsville!

Speaking as someone who lives in a village and sees far more people
using bicycles for tranport dressed in normal clothes than for lycra
clad sport, I think that's more likely to be "every settlement in the
UK that isn't close to a popular cycle sporting facility". (Working
in Cambridge is different, I'm prepared to accept that as a hot spot.)

 

[burtthebike]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> If we say that seven out of ten cyclists are wearing helmets then 70%
>> of all collisions in broad terms must also involve helmeted cyclists.
>> This would mean that 70% of all fatalities will also involve a
>> helmeted cyclist as will 70% of all head injuries.
>
> Isn't this begging the question? I must be missing your point: the only
> way I can see to reach that conclusion is to assume that the helmet has no
> effect on the likelihood of an injury/fatality given that there has been a
> collision. Which is the question we're trying to answer, isn't it?

Without wishing to answer for Sniper, that's precisely the point. All the
large scale, long term evidence gathered by unbiased observers has shown
exactly that - helmets don't make any difference.

 

[Nick]

marc wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>>> Some interesting comments and plenty of inane ones. Very disheartening
>>>> to see that Ladyman apparently approves of the idea.
>>>>
>>> It seems the bloody nose he got from the HC hasn't taught him a lesson.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, no, this is his payback time. Teach those bl**dy cyclists to mess
>> with his HC. ;-(
>>
>
> I have suggested to my MP that this close to an election that she may
> want to consider her answer about the h****t question. Maybe if enough
> MPs had a word in his shell like he may get the message?

What do you mean this close to an election. They still have three years
left.

 

[Peter Clinch]

_ wrote:

> Another (but more subtle) error there; one cannot choose the kind of injury
> one will have while cycling. The whole population figures are the best
> indicator of "protection" - which, as we know, is essentially zero.

That's not quite true... the whole population data is based on KSI
reporting, so it shows you that the protection from a KSI is essentially
zero. That's not the same thing as "no protection at all". That
doesn't mean you can make substantiated claims about helmet low speed
protection, but equally you can't properly say there is none. You don't
have enough data to say that any protective effect is a fallacy.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Roger Merriman]

Peter Clinch <[email protected]> wrote:

> Roger Merriman wrote:
>
> > a sweeping stament yes it is, but then this is usenet rather than a
> > report. i guess it depends just how many people do use the bike to get
> > around in central london and other hot spots. certinaly out of those
> > areas you don't see many bikes, used for transport.
>
> If you take "hot spot" to mean "every settlement in the UK bigger than a
> village", perhaps, otherwise we're back in sweeping-statementsville!
>
> Pete.

no while as simon said a while back does seem to be fairly patchy the
where bikes are or not used. where i grew up on the edge of the beacons
bikes are rare as transport, there is increase of sunday bikers be they
sustrans pootlers or folks going up and down the hills.

walk around during the week before and past rush hour and you'll be
lucky to see a bike, cars a plenty and the odd bus.

even on the edge of london here, there are streams of cars, a few buses
and a few bikes, while they being used as transport, the numbers are
still quite low compared to cars/buses/trains.

about 85% increase in recnet years in london? i assume thats central.

that tells you that biking while recovering is coming from a low
numbers.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Peter Clinch]

Roger Merriman wrote:

> even on the edge of london here, there are streams of cars, a few buses
> and a few bikes, while they being used as transport, the numbers are
> still quite low compared to cars/buses/trains.

That's true, but it says nothing about the relative numbers of
transportational cyclists compared to Chain Gang roadies and MTBers.
There are far more drivers, train passengers and buses than Chain Gang
roadies as well.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/