INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.

For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

Stands to reason, init?

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Stands to reason, init?

#1 Post by Alan H » December 13th, 2013, 5:43 pm

It's common sense!

It's bleedin' obvious!

Why wouldn't it be?

Of course cycle helmets reduce head injuries: they should be compulsory.

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that...

Bicycle helmets and the law by Ben Goldacre and David Spiegelhalter.

This admirably shows some of the complexities of life and an excellent demonstration that we should be very wary of replying on making decisions on common sense.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Fia
Posts: 5480
Joined: July 6th, 2007, 8:29 pm

Re: Stands to reason, init?

#2 Post by Fia » December 14th, 2013, 9:08 pm

Sadly the article is paywalled. But it's important to understand that common sense isn't always either common or sense...

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Stands to reason, init?

#3 Post by Alan H » December 14th, 2013, 11:20 pm

See here.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Stands to reason, init?

#4 Post by Dave B » December 15th, 2013, 9:27 am

I have only skimmed through the article so far but from personal experience the "behaviour" factor seems important. Most of my near misses have been from kids on bikes appearing suddenly from footpaths or from behind parked vehicles. Should I have hit any of these the helmet might have protected their heads but they might have suffered fairly serious injury on other parts of the body. I know the local danger spots and drive accordingly - others do not and I am ignorant in places were I have not driven before.

As with many others things is it a matter of attitude? Along with litter dropping, a seemingly poor opinion of education, getting smashed on booze every weekend and a few other things are we British, and especially British youth, really so different from other European nations? And, if so, why?
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

chryles
Posts: 42
Joined: April 6th, 2014, 2:28 pm

Re: Stands to reason, init?

#5 Post by chryles » April 22nd, 2014, 11:56 am

December 2012: the Journal of Medical Ethics in the UK has peer reviewed and published The impacts of compulsory cycle helmet legislation on cyclist fatalities and premature deaths in the UK
There is a shed-load of information in this paper, more than anyone cares to know, probably. Here's the summary and conclusion.
Summary and Conclusion

The current debate on the efficacy of cycling helmets, and the potential impacts of a compulsory helmet
law, can best be described as a heated one. This is partly because both sides attempt to frame the debate in
different ways. Those who favour helmet legislation and promote the effectiveness of helmets as a safety
device focus on its benefits in the cases of crashes where there is an impact with the head. Whilst there is
evidence that indicates that cycle helmets reduce the risk of injury in such crashes, head injuries only occur
in 39.8% of serious or fatal crashes. The best UK estimates indicate that between 10% and 16% of cyclist
fatalities could have been prevented by cycle helmets, with significant reservations over the methods used.
For those who consider that wearing cycle helmets should remain discretionary, the main issue is the impact
of compulsory helmet laws on cycling levels and the corresponding health implications. The health benefits
of cycling as a physical activity are well documented and proven, and international evidence suggests that
compulsory helmet laws will reduce cycling at a population level. Initial research has indicated that a
compulsory helmet law may lead to more risky behaviour from both cyclists and other road users, however
a lack of studies with sufficient sample sizes means no firm conclusions can be made on this at this stage.
An assessment of the impacts of a compulsory helmet law on fatalities associated with cycling was
undertaken, based upon the best available evidence showing the impact of said legislation on cycling levels
and fatalities in road traffic crashes. The results of this assessment were clear: even if compulsory helmet
legislation reduced cyclist road traffic fatalities to zero, this is more than offset by the increases in
population-level premature deaths associated with reduced physical activity.
This is not to say that cycle helmets have no role for safety at the individual level. Individuals may
subjectively feel that wearing a cycle helmet offers them a level of protection that provides them with piece
of mind whilst cycling. This may be the case even if, scientifically, the helmet would offer them little or no
protection in the event of a crash.
This paper sought to assess the impacts of compulsory cycle helmet legislation should it be applied in the
UK. It provides estimates that compelling cyclists to wear helmets by law is likely to both reduce cycling
levels, and lead to more premature deaths than the legislation would save. Transport professionals now
have a much wider health and safety remit than simply reducing the number of road crash casualties. If
transport professionals wish to save the lives of cyclists, our focus should be on other measures that will
encourage more people to cycle by making the bike a safer and more attractive transport option.
]
I hear babies cry,
I watch them grow,
They'll learn much more,
Than I'll ever know.
And I think to myself,
What a wonderful world.

Bob Thiele & George David Weiss

Post Reply