Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:59 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 333 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 34  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:57 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 4:18 pm
Posts: 2336
BMW managed to negotiate exemptions in a number of countries, though. I suspect that the fact they didn't manage to do so in enough is why they didn't sell many. That and the fact that they looked stupid :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:40 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:25 pm
Posts: 924
Location: Near Wendover Bucks
When I first posted in this thread I was of the opinion that helmets will help to protect your head in an accident. However, for experienced riders in certain riding conditions the very low likelihood of an accident occurring means they are not at all essential.

I have now seen some accident data based research that identifies evidence which suggests that wearing a helmet can actually increase the likelihood of head injury. The statistics relating to the number of head injuries when compulsory helmet laws are introduced are especially intriguing....

The effect of enforced helmet laws: less cycling and no effect on the proportion of head injuries
"Helmet laws in Australia provided excellent data sets with which to test the effectiveness of cycle helmets because a principal effect of the laws was to increase substantially over a short period of time the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets. This enabled a comparison of a very large number of individuals not wearing and then wearing helmets, eliminating most of the other variables present when comparing different people or dissimilar riding conditions."

"At first, reports suggested that legislation had achieved its aim of reducing head injuries. But the researchers did not take into account the very large decline in cycle use brought about by the laws. Robinson found that although more than 75% of cyclists wore helmets post-law, this was mainly because of the disappearance of formerly bare-headed cyclists rather than because of an increase in the absolute numbers wearing helmets. The main effect of the law was to discourage cycling rather than to encourage cyclists to wear helmets. Although cycle use fell on average by about 30%, head injuries fell by only 13%, so the risk of head injury per cyclist would appear to have increased. Furthermore, the proportional reduction in head injuries for cyclists was very similar to that for unhelmeted pedestrians over the same period."

"In 1999, the Australian Road Accident Prevention Research Unit compared head injury rates of cyclists, pedestrians and
other road users. All followed similar declining trends, and the data (see graph above) suggests that there was no enduring benefit at all for cyclists. The report concluded that the law had not been cost-effective."

"New Zealand followed Australia with a mandatory helmet law. This law was also found not to have been cost effective and the head injury rate did not decrease more than for the population at large."

"In Canada, too, in those provinces where helmet laws have been enforced, no benefit is apparent. In British Columbia and Nova Scotia there was no change in the proportion of cyclists suffering head injuries post-law, although cycle use fell markedly. In Alberta, the helmet law reduced cycling by children by around 56% while the absolute number of injuries went up."

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html

This research does not identify the marked reduction in head injury incidence, that you would expect to see when compulsory cycle helmet laws are introduced. Does this mean that helmets are infective in preventing head injuries? Or are their other forces at work?


Attachments:
Western Ausralia head injury trends 1973-1998.jpg
Western Ausralia head injury trends 1973-1998.jpg [ 73.2 KiB | Viewed 116 times ]
New Zealand head injury trends 1988-1996.jpg
New Zealand head injury trends 1988-1996.jpg [ 95.59 KiB | Viewed 116 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:18 pm 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:33 pm
Posts: 11106
Location: The Home Of Mountain Biking, And All Great Things.
Helmets!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:24 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 11:16 am
Posts: 799
Location: Camden, London
seems if they are to understand the stats then need a good explanation as to why the steady declines in rates before helmets introduced, and why it stopped? its also very old data so in terms of preventative not sure helmets built using 20 year old technology and materials is comparable. It's such an emotive subject, as indeed it sometimes is for motorcyclists where not mandatory, that an independent definitive view is probably hard to find, what this data does show is that it's grey or foggy. Surprised by reduction in cycling, really people enjoyed cycling before but a need for a helmet stopped them, what else is going on with this ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:28 pm 
MacRetro rider
MacRetro rider
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 22, 2010 7:25 pm
Posts: 4977
Location: Edinburgh
Lies, damned lies and ..........................


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:34 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 11:16 am
Posts: 799
Location: Camden, London
Tazio wrote:
Lies, damned lies and ..........................


exactly, but part of it is understanding what questions asked and how data collected to avoid this, so often these technical bits are conveniently "overlooked", such as a cyclist is anyone owning a bike ? even if not used in a year but who thinks will in future who is then not a cyclist as says wont use as don't have a helmet, not saying this is applicable in the above data just thinking of examples. A cynic may suggest that the trick to the right answer is in asking the right question..........


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:45 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:25 pm
Posts: 924
Location: Near Wendover Bucks
Complex, counter-intuitive and fascinating!

This Dutch study may to some extent explain the what is going on in the minds of people when they choose to use or not to use cycle helmets.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html

Why are Dutch cyclists more likely to be injured if they wear helmets?
"Although the Netherlands is probably the safest country in the world for cycling, helmet wearing among Dutch cyclists is rare. It has been estimated that only about 0.5 percent of cyclists in the Netherlands are helmeted."

"However, according to Dutch Government data (Rijkswaterstaat, 2008), 13.3 percent of cyclists admitted to hospital were wearing helmets when they were injured. Why does wearing a helmet appear to increase the risk of being injured so substantially?"

"The answer is probably related to another statistic. Of the injured cyclists wearing helmets, 50 percent were riding mountain bikes and 46 percent were riding racing bikes (Rijkswaterstaat, 2008). In other words, most helmeted cyclists in the Netherlands are engaged in a competitive activity, with very few making utility trips on the traditional style of Dutch bicycle."

"Crashing is much more likely when racing than when making ordinary trips about town. Because they are moving at substantially higher speeds almost all the time, racing cyclists are more likely to be in collisions requiring hospital treatment. Similarly, mountain bike riders often undertake tricky manoeuvres on rough ground, and are therefore more prone to falls than is the case for commuters, shoppers and school children riding on ordinary streets."

"Helmet wearers in the Netherlands are doing something different from normal everyday cyclists when they are wearing their helmets, which greatly increases their chances of being hospitalised. Helmet wearing is implicated in behaviour which is far more likely to end up in hospital than the cycling done when not wearing a helmet. However, in a country such as the Netherlands, where cycling is a commonplace everyday way of getting around, it is likely that most of the helmeted leisure time mountain and racing bike riders also ride utility bikes for their everyday journeys and they probably then ride unhelmeted. They choose to wear helmets only when they want to face a higher exposure to risk."

"Although the desire to take heightened risk probably comes before the decision to wear a helmet, it is likely that the act of wearing a helmet reinforces the acceptability of taking risks, leading to the taking of even greater risks. In professional sport, people may use helmets, their skill in bike handling and the protection from immediately available specialist medical care in order to facilitate the highest levels of risk taking."

"Sports cyclists wear helmets in an attempt to limit the consequences of the risks they want to take. However, the much greater representation of these cyclists in the hospital statistics suggests that their attempts to limit risks are inadequate for the risks involved. Indeed, putting their faith in 'technical fixes' such as cycle helmets may encourage many people to take greater risks than they should. In cycle sport internationally, the number of deaths in races has increased markedly since helmet use became mandatory.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1213.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:57 pm 
retrobike rider
retrobike rider
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2008 6:25 pm
Posts: 924
Location: Near Wendover Bucks
daugs wrote:
... Surprised by reduction in cycling, really people enjoyed cycling before but a need for a helmet stopped them, what else is going on with this ?

It could be that some people stopped cycling because the helmet laws debate made them reclassify cycling from being fun to being a potentially dangerous activity?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:36 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 11:25 pm
Posts: 1787
Location: It's not easy being a dolphin.
Tazio wrote:
highlandsflyer wrote:

Yes I am a helmet advocate, but when on pootling about rides it often stays hung on my sac.


Doesn't that make your saddle slightly redundant?


.....and the saddle bag too?

Can't believe I missed another 7 page helmet thread. Recently went out riding with an Australian - neither of us wearing helmets BTW in the country bike lanes and nature reserves. I asked about the compulsory helmet wearing in Australia and he reckoned it was necessary due to "war on the roads with motorists / general disrespect to cyclists". Pretty sad that an accomplished experienced cyclist MUST wear a helmet due to others' moronic behavior.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:52 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:33 am
Posts: 2929
Location: daaan saaaf
Quote:
... Surprised by reduction in cycling, really people enjoyed cycling before but a need for a helmet stopped them, what else is going on with this ?


One report I read suggested that compulsory helmet use put off women and young, fashion conscious people especially, because it messes up their hair. Messed up hair might seem trivial to a middle aged man with hair that is rarely much over half an inch long, but I guess if I'd spent £50.00 on a hair-do, or half an hour styling it to look like I'd just got out of bed, then maybe it would be an issue.

Having to wear a helmet for a 10 minute journey to pop to the shops and then have to carry the thing about is also a nuisance. In addition to giving the impression that cycling is dangerous, the added nuisance of having to wear a helmet is likely to put off casual cyclists that are making short, utility journeys, which can easily be replaced by walking, using public transport or going by car, leaving only the committed bicycle enthusiasts.

I think it's easy to see why compulsory helmet use would reduce the number cyclists quite dramatically, there are plenty of people that use a bike as a cheap, practical way of getting about, so as soon as you make it more expensive, and less practical, they think "sod it, I won't bother".


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 333 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 34  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kingoffootball, pigman and 45 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group