The Afternoon Show: Mandatory Cycle Helmets

rubadub

tomasrojo wrote: »

"unforeseen consequences"

One of my favourite wikipedia pages.

Unintended consequence

Possible causes of unintended consequences include the world's inherent complexity (parts of a system responding to changes in the environment), perverse incentives, human stupidity, self-deception, failure to account for human nature or other cognitive or emotional biases. As a sub-component of complexity (in the scientific sense), the chaotic nature of the universe – and especially its quality of having small, apparently insignificant changes with far-reaching effects (e.g., the Butterfly effect) – applies.

Robert K. Merton listed five possible causes of unanticipated consequences:[8]

1. Ignorance (It is impossible to anticipate everything, thereby leading to incomplete analysis)
2. Error (Incorrect analysis of the problem or following habits that worked in the past but may not apply to the current situation)
3. Immediate interest, which may override long-term interests
4. Basic values may require or prohibit certain actions even if the long-term result might be unfavorable (these long-term consequences may eventually cause changes in basic values)
5. Self-defeating prophecy (Fear of some consequence drives people to find solutions before the problem occurs, thus the non-occurrence of the problem is unanticipated)

The Relevance paradox where decision makers think they know the areas of ignorance about an issue, and go and obtain the necessary information to fill the ignorance, but neglect certain other areas of ignorance, because, due to not having the information, its relevance is not obvious, is also cited as a cause.

In 1990, the Australian state of Victoria made safety helmets mandatory for all bicycle riders. While there was a reduction in the number of head injuries, there was also an unintended reduction in the number of juvenile cyclists – fewer cyclists obviously leads to fewer injuries, all else being equal. Research by Vulcan et al. found that the reduction in juvenile cyclists was because the youths considered wearing a bicycle helmet unfashionable.[21] A health benefit model developed at Macquarie University in Sydney suggests that helmets laws are counterproductive in terms of net health, with net health costs of 0.4 to 5 billions of US dollars per year in Australia, Britain, The Netherlands, and the USA

petethedrummer

All they need to do now is run a fashion segment on how cool cycle helmets are and the kids will flock to them.

tomasrojo

petethedrummer wrote: »

All they need to do now is run a fashion segment on how cool cycle helmets are and the kids will flock to them.

Or a recipe you can cook in a cycle helmet.

Blowfish

tomasrojo wrote: »

Or a recipe you can cook in a cycle helmet.

Or, 'You'll lose 1kg in a month if you wear a cycle helmet.'

tomasrojo

tomasrojo wrote: »

James Hix from the Irish Environment Network, I think it was. He was on Frontline recently.

Actually, James Nix is his name. My mistake.

BostonB

Victor wrote: »

While head injuries may have been sustained, no helmet is going to save you when you also had your chest crushed by a concrete truck, which is the way these things tend to happen.

Thats like saying bullet proof vests are no use because most of those people killed wearing them are shot in the head, or blown up! Or run over by large trucks. Which while probably true really isn't useful.

monument

From the first day: Did she just say "500 people died or were seriously injured cycling in the last 12 year"?... Was a year's worth of cycling deaths or serious injuries not a high enough for them? Not even a decade's worth?

"We're just kicking off this campaign, we're going to keep at it," she added.

mockler007

t0mm wrote: »

If I was a mod I'd ban you.



Not for talking about helmets mind you, but for watching The Afternoon Show.

here here;)

tomasrojo

BostonB wrote: »

Thats like saying bullet proof vests are no use because most of those people killed wearing them are shot in the head, or blown up! Or run over by large trucks. Which while probably true really isn't useful.

The point being, I think, advice on how not to be run over by large vehicles and an emphasis on better road design is more use than making helmets mandatory.

Also, it's another rhetorical sleight of hand to say that "x people died with head injuries" rather than saying "died _of_ head injuries". It allows you to include people who were crushed by trucks (core-body injury being the primary cause of death) in with people who were struck a glancing blow by a vehicle, making it seem as if all we have to do is concentrate on head injuries and we'll fix everything.

tomasrojo

monument wrote: »

From the first day: Did she just say "500 people died or were seriously injured cycling in the last 12 year"?... Was a year's worth of cycling deaths or serious injuries not a high enough for them? Not even a decade's worth?

The odd thing is, those figures aren't really all that bad, over twelve years, compared with other activities.

You can't have zero-risk physical activities. Some people are killed having a shower every year. And a lot of people are killed walking up and down stairs. Lump all the injured in with the dead, total it over ten twelve years, and you probably have a scary enough number to start a new safety campaign. After all, it's enjoyable bossing other people around, particularly when you don't really like those people to begin with.

tomasrojo

For example, in the UK:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1026.html
Swimming, athletics, football and tennis all seem to carry more risk of death than cycling.

petethedrummer

more dangerous than "Cosmic radiation from transcontinental flights"

RobFowl

petethedrummer wrote: »

more dangerous than "Cosmic radiation from transcontinental flights"

Make tinfoil hats compulsary and this can be reduced as well,


Maybe even tinfoil suits :eek:

blorg

BostonB wrote: »

Thats like saying bullet proof vests are no use because most of those people killed wearing them are shot in the head, or blown up! Or run over by large trucks. Which while probably true really isn't useful.

I wouldn't wear a bullet proof vest while cycling personally.

In fact empirical evidence has shown that wearing a helmet is more effective in these circumstances.

ednwireland

RobFowl wrote: »

Make tinfoil hats compulsary and this can be reduced as well,


Maybe even tinfoil suits :eek:

tinfoil round the helmet maybe , best of both worlds

Doctor Bob

petethedrummer wrote: »

All they need to do now is run a fashion segment on how cool cycle helmets are and the kids will flock to them.

Barbara O'Connell, ABII wrote:

Last year the Peter Bradley Foundation launched the Mind Your Head campaign to get people to be aware of wearing bicycle helmets with the support of Dr. Mark Delargy from the NRH and Sammy Fleming. Sammy fell from his bicycle and suffered a severe brain injury. He has since continued talking in schools on the need to wear a cycling helmet. We received a backlash with some claiming we were preventing people from cycling because we were scaring them. One of the largest challenges is to persuade teenagers that it is cool to wear a cycling helmet. The only way to do that is to make it mandatory. It was the same years ago with motorcycle helmets. Dustin the Turkey launched our Christmas campaign for Santa to bring cycle helmets to children getting bicycles at Christmas. Any impact sport where people could be in danger of damaging their heads is targeted by our campaigns. The GAA, for example, is a strong supporter of people wearing helmets playing hurling.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=HEJ20080520.xml&Page=1&Ex=202#N202

If there's a logic in there, I'm not seeing it.

petethedrummer

Obeying Roolz is Cool.

Doctor Bob

tomasrojo wrote: »

Crafty attempt at the end to say that motorcycle helmets and bicycle helmets are equivalent. They are radically different in construction and design (and the level of protection against impact for which they are certified).

I knew I had this link to an article on the efficacy of motorbike helmets saved somewhere. Just took me a little while to find it. It's a bit off topic, but I suspect some of ye will be interested in it all the same (as an example of counter-intuitive thinking and statistical interpretation, etc.).

It's from 1999. Perhaps it's not accurate any more, but it probably was at the time. I'd be curious to know whether the stats add up, in fact. They look sufficiently sciencey to me, but I ain't no expert. (@tomasrojo, maybe?)

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-life-magazine/1999/0503/041.html

(Also, re the tinfoil hat/anti-radiation thing, I recall reading an article - probably one of Ben Goldacre's Bad Science columns from The Guardian - that cited a study which found that wearing a tinfoil hat has no protective effect on the wearer, and that it might in fact attract more radiation to the wearer's head. But now I'm really getting off topic...)

pedal.ready

Moderate cycling has many physical and mental benefits (BMA 1992) by reducing the risk of developing heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, colon cancer and depression, and helping to control weight and increase fitness. Dr Hillman from the UK's Policy Studies Institute calculated the life years gained by cycling outweigh life years lost in accidents by a factor of 20 to 1.


A New Zealand report Sage 1985 stated;
” Cyclist deaths were also investigated in Auckland, New Zealand. 16 of 19 non-helmeted cyclists died from mulitple injuries, so helmets would not have changed the outcome. Only one cyclist died of head injuries in a bike-only crash, the most likely situation for a helmet to help. That cyclist died despite wearing a helmet and a fall at moderate speed. The researchers concluded: "This study indicates that the compulsory wearing of suitable safety helmets by cyclists is unlikely to lead to a great reduction in fatal injuries, despite their enthusiastic advocacy".

In general, for fatal accident instances, the force of impact is considered to be so significant that most protection would fail. see Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation, http://cyclehelmets.org/1012.html

In 2008 Civil Liberties Australia published an assessment of the helmet laws in Australia and concluded they were not justified, this report considered a range of issues in its assessment. Refer Clarke CF, 'Mandatory Can Have Unexpected Consequences, Civil Liberties Australia, 25 Nov. 2008
http://www.cla.asn.au/Article/081125BikesHelmetPolicy.pdf

Curnow WJ. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 2008 Apr;19(1):10-15
After helmet legislation was introduced, rates of cycling declined sharply with loss of benefits for health, but the risk of casualty increased. Compulsion to wear a bicycle helmet is detrimental to public health in Australia.

2007
Research findings suggest an increase in accidents has occurred due to wearing helmets. Link below, page 28 of report, Erke and Elvik 2007 stated: “There is evidence of increased accident risk per cycling-km for cyclists wearing a helmet. In Australia and New Zealand the increase is estimated to be around 14 per cent.”


2006
World Transport Policy & Practice Volume 12, No. 2, 2006 ‘The case against bicycle helmets and legislation’ http://www.eco-logica.co.uk/pdf/WTPP12.3.pdf

This report mentions a comparison of impacts that could occur to a bare head compared to one helmeted, refer Figure 3, and states “Average impact forces for the helmeted profile were 85% of the value of the bare head but they incurred 80% more impacts - 9 compared to 5.” The report also mentions details of helmet use resulting in an increased accident rate. In practice a helmeted cyclist will probably double their risk of hitting their head/helmet compared to bare headed cyclist, eg in 2007 a figure for the increase in accidents was published of 14% and combining with a 80% increase (9 compared to 5) leads to an estimate for the increase risk of hitting a helmeted head, 1.14 x 1.8 = 2.05, showing the impact rate can likely double.

Rodgers 1988
Rodgers examined accident data over a 14 year period and found "increased helmet use is associated with an increased fatality rate". The report findings therefore suggest it is a possibility that accident involvement may increase with helmet wearing.

1990
Victorian Bicycle Strategy 1990
Detailed statistics for the years 1984-1989 showed accidents and the estimated helmet wearing rates were as follows:

1984 - 1534 - 20%
1985 - 1505 - 24%
1986 - 1752 - 25%
1987 - 2121 - 26%
1988 - 2400 - 27%
1989 - 2244 - 32%

A change in reporting procedures resulted in a slight decrease from 1988 to 1989. In the three-year period from 1985 to 1988, accidents increased by 59%, some of which could have been due to increased numbers of cyclists.

1991
Details have been published showing how cycling has been discouraged by the helmet law requirement, ‘Australian Cyclist 1991, Helmet Law discourages cycling, Riding numbers plummet’ refer;
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/australian-cyclist.html

1996
A detailed report by Robinson in 1996, ( HEAD INJURIES AND BICYCLE HELMET LAWS, Robinson DL. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 1996 Jul;28(4):463-75.) provided the following information.

Table 1 provided details of surveys of children cycling in NSW,

pre law 1991 count 6072,
post law 1992 count 3857, down 36%,
post law 1993 count 3414, down 44%.

Not only were children discouraged from cycling but also their accident rate increased, as shown by details in Table 2 below.

Table 2 provided details of children admitted to hospital in NSW for cycling accidents, and calculates the equivalent number of injuries (both head and all other injuries) for pre law number of cyclists.

.................…….head injury rate

---

other injury rate
1991 pre law .…....…384.............…….......... 926
1992 post law....…....425..................…........1273
1993...……...…...…..488....................……...1595

The general accident rate compared with the number of cyclists, increased by 72% (1595 divided by 926).

2009, for Canada see
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/canada-helmet-assessment.doc

See www.cyclehelmets.org for additional information

Doctors should know they advise on treatment, not force people to have it, but in this case their advice is not the best. Roughly helmet use increases the accident rate by 14% or more, doubles the head impact rate and discourages people from cycling.

article Australian Cyclist 1991




vic bike stratergy 1990




Rodgers 88




British Medical Association; Cycling towards Health and Safety, Oxford University Press,1992.

petethedrummer

You can come here with your researched opinions and rigorous studies, but my gut tells me otherwise.

p

I'm a designer, and i'd like to put my skills to good use on this issue. To pedal.ready and others who've researched this issue.

I'd like to put together a nice press-ready PDF or presentation on these issues that presents the argument in a simple concise fashion.

I've only passing familiarity with the research on this, so I'd love to get some collaborators on this.

PM me if anyone would like to take this further.

BostonB

Does it say anywhere in those stats, if the increase in helmet use was related to an increase in numbers cycling overall. Ditto the increase in accidents. Perhaps it takes that into account. I couldn't see at a quick glance anyway.

tomasrojo

BostonB wrote: »

Does it say anywhere in those stats, if the increase in helmet use was related to an increase in numbers cycling overall. Ditto the increase in accidents. Perhaps it takes that into account. I couldn't see at a quick glance anyway.

After compulsion, in both New Zealand and Australia, cycling numbers fell, especially among girls and women.

tomasrojo

Doctor Bob wrote: »

I knew I had this link to an article on the efficacy of motorbike helmets saved somewhere. [...]

It's from 1999. Perhaps it's not accurate any more, but it probably was at the time. I'd be curious to know whether the stats add up, in fact. They look sufficiently sciencey to me, but I ain't no expert. (@tomasrojo, maybe?)

http://www.forbes.com/forbes-life-magazine/1999/0503/041.html

It's another interesting question. Note an old statistical trick unmasked at the start of that article: using deaths per million residents to suggest that motorcycling is safer in states with motorcyclist helmet laws, rather than deaths per million motorcyclists. You can see a similar trick done with bicycle helmets occasionally when it is pointed out that head injuries dropped after compulsion in Australia. This omits the fact that numbers of cyclists dropped even more.

Other than that, it's not a subject I've looked too closely into, becuase motorcycling has no net heatlh benefit to a population, so I'm not as concerned by people being put off travelling by motorbike.

I do suspect that risk compensation is a serious issue with motorbike helmets, since they do offer quite good protection from lower speed falls (much better than a bicycle helmet) and appear very reassuring, but that probably leads the risk-taker who now has to wear a helmet to push the motorbike even further than he would have before.

They're not a cure-all, that's for sure. If a close friend or relative was to take up motorcycling, I'd be much more interested in whether they'd taken an advanced motorcycling course than what helmet they were wearing.

tomasrojo

[motorbike helmet protects you from] the equivalent of a 13.66-mph impact. If you ride at speeds less than 14 mph and are involved only in accidents involving stationary objects, you're golden. A typical motorcycle accident, however, would be a biker traveling at, say, 30 mph, and being struck by a car making a left turn at, maybe, 15 mph. That's an effective cumulative impact of 45 mph. Assume the biker is helmet-clad, and that he is struck directly on the head. The helmet reduces the blow to an impact of 31.34 mph.

This bit is completey wrong. Kinetic energy increases as a square of velocity. You can't just subtract the speed for which the helmet is certified from the speed you were travelling at. Beginner's mistake. However, that does mean that the protective effect is even lower than stated in the article.

BostonB

tomasrojo wrote: »

After compulsion, in both New Zealand and Australia, cycling numbers fell, especially among girls and women.

Did the numbers fall in other countries without compulsion?

From 1986 until 2006 the number of bike riders in Ireland slipped immensely.
In 1986 roughly 7% of all trips to the workplace were done by bike. By 2006 that number had fallen to just 2%

Theres a habit these days of giving stats in isolation with no context.

tomasrojo

Good point. No, the numbers fell substantially between counts done before and after compulsion, at a very noticeably steeper rate. I think in Victoria numbers had been rising until compulsion.

I'll try to find the numbers

tomasrojo

The states with enforced laws at the time of the 1991 census (red line on the graph below) saw a reversal of the trend of increasing percentages of people cycling to work. In contrast, the percentage cycling to work in states with no enforced helmet laws (blue line on graph – WA, ACT and Qld) continued to increase, the sharp decline occurring only in the 1996 census, when helmet laws were enforced throughout Australia.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1194.html

sumone

I remembered reading somewhere that golf was one of the most dangerous sports, more injuries on the golf course than other sports (that probably includes the heart attacks). I found this when I went looking for this again (couldn't find the research I was looking for though).

http://www.neuroskills.com/pr-golf.shtml

Golf caused more or less the same number of head injuries as cycling! Should we ask the afternoon show to start a campaign for golfers to wear helmets?

tomasrojo

Much like a 1996 study in North Carolina that showed a 32 percent increase in golf-cart related injuries in children age 10 and younger, the increasing use of golf carts by children in the Augusta area has resulted in an increase in injuries, Dr. Rahimi says. Children can be easy targets for head and spine injuries in these types of moving accidents because their heads are larger proportionally to their growing bodies, he says.

Children are driving golf carts?