Plans to make cycle helmets compulsory in the North.

gsxr1 wrote: »

In a proper helmet there is the outer shell. the hard bit. But the inside is lined the a proper man made shock absorbent martial which compresses in the event of impact. This cushion can be the lifesaver. This subject has been done to death on other forums with overwhelming proof that in a 25mph impact your chance of survival is greatly increased with a lid...

Specifically in relation to your reference to "overwhelming proof" that helmets offer "greatly" increased chances of survival in certain circumstances, I've yet to see anyone present overwhelming evidence either in favour of, or against, helmets. The most considered studies that I have read tend to fall in the middle, stating that it remains unclear whether helmets actually help or hinder your chances of avoiding serious injury or death. It could very well be that I've just not come across well-researched reports that do provide the proof that you refer to though, in which case I'd appreciate you providing links/references to such reports.

In the meantime though, I linked to it in an earlier post in this thread but here again is a link to a (Word) document that discusses Evaluating bicycle helmet use and legislation in Canada (in HTML format here). There are some interesting statistics in there. The long and the short of it is that in provinces where helmet use was made mandatory the rate of injury and death did not reduce in comparison to provinces where such laws were not introduced. In fact, given that levels of cycling dropped in areas where the laws were introduced, the adjusted statistics may even suggest that the levels of injuries and deaths increased as a result of mandatory helmet usage, though the main thrust of the report is to raise questions rather than to provide such generalisations. And it is a particularly interesting report because it raise questions in a number of areas which often tend to be neglected when helmet laws are being argued for (e.g. health benefits of cycling, infringement of civil liberties, the affect on compensation culture, etc.).

As for this topic being done to death, that's in no small part due to the use of such sweeping generalisations as "overwhelming proof that [helmets kill/save people]" without providing any actual data to support such a claim.

Another Australian bike share scheme is starting up, in October.

It'll be interesting to see whether it fares any better than the Melbourne scheme.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/court-battle-turns-focus-on-helmet-laws-20100904-14vgo.html

The Brisbane City Council last week introduced subscriptions for a bike hire scheme, CityCycle, due to start in October.

The scheme will have up to 2000 bikes at 150 stations across the city with annual subscriptions costing $60.50, quarterly $27.50 or casual $11.

But as with other states’ bike schemes, the uptake is expected to be slow because cyclists don’t want to carry around helmets.

In a bid to save Melbourne's troubled scheme, the Victorian Government is considering providing collapsible helmets that could fold up and be carried in a briefcase or handbag.

EDIT: according to Google, 60.50 Australian dollars = 43.0579238 Euros

In Colorado, helmets are compulsory for 17 year olds and younger, for both motorbikes and cycling. It must be nice to live in a place where you're treated like a grown up, and allowed to make your own choices.

Rob A. Bank wrote: »

I think you are definately splitting hairs...

If a DB Bike scheme user were knocked down (God forbid) they would be recorded as a cycling casualty.

Does your definition of a cyclist include lycra or shaved legs and a snotty attitude to 'Freds' ?

;-))

I guess I didn't express myself very well.

I'm a utility cyclist who doesn't have a car. All my journeys are made in the same clothes as I wear off the bike. I don't do any training or racing or anything like that. So my perception of what a cyclist is a person who travels at least occasionally by bicycle or tricycle.

But the point I was getting at is that cyclists in Australis DO carry helmets around with them. That is, people who get around on bikes habitually HAVE to carry helmets around with them. Bike-share schemes are not really for such people, since habitual cyclists generally have a bike with them already -- they're for people who are in town without a bike. So they're not cyclists, as such, until they're on the bike.

So, what I'm getting at is that to say "cyclists don’t want to carry around helmets" is misleading. "Cyclists" aren't the target of such schemes. It would be better to say something like "The legal obligation to wear bicycle helmets means that people who might otherwise be spontaneous users of the scheme are unable to particpate. People are unwilling to carry around helmets all the time, on the off chance that they'll want to use the scheme."

Though that's a bit long.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-12330639

Northern Ireland Assembly members have voted in favour of a bill to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory.

Is it for all ages? I thought it was only for children, but that article gives the impression that it's a universal law.

Anyone know what obstacles remain for this before it becomes law?

tomasrojo wrote:

Anyone know what obstacles remain for this before it becomes law?

The surgical removal of any sense of reason or common sense amongst those with the power (if any) to stop this (i.e. no, I don't know, but I despair that it has got this far).

Yes, all ages.

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/legislation/primary/2010/niabill9_10.htm

Cyclists (Protective Headgear) Bill
Requirement to wear protective headgear

1. -(1) No person aged 16 years or over shall without reasonable excuse ride a cycle -

(a) on a road, or

(b) in any open space,

unless the person is wearing protective headgear of such description as is specified in regulations, in such manner as is so specified.

(2) No person who has responsibility for a child shall without reasonable excuse cause or permit the child to ride a cycle -

(a) on a road, or

(b) in any open space,

unless the child is wearing protective headgear of such description as is specified in regulations, in such manner as is so specified.

el tonto wrote: »

These people?

Almost certainly they were behind this.

FG will be quite willing to listen to this lot too. Going to be a tricky year.

I've heard from someone that this bill can expire if it isn't passed before the next Assembly elections. Not sure how true this is. It isn't passed yet anyway.

This was CTC's response when they heard it was in the pipeline.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=5480

This is a transcript of the debate:

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2010/110131.htm#j

A few interest groups in Germany launched a petition for making helmets compulsory in Germany in 2007 to the parliament. They failed. Maybe more success here, since I see loads of cyclists without a helmet

tomasrojo wrote: »

This is a transcript of the debate:

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2010/110131.htm#j

All 2 hours 22 mins of the debate is available on BBC Democracy Live for those who have trouble sleeping.

tomasrojo wrote: »

This is a transcript of the debate:

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/record/reports2010/110131.htm#j

Question put.

The Assembly divided: Ayes 20; Noes 18.

AYES

Mr Attwood, Mr D Bradley, Mrs M Bradley, Mr PJ Bradley, Mr Burns, Mr Callaghan , Mr Dallat, Dr Farry, Mr Gallagher, Mrs D Kelly, Mr Lunn, Mr A Maginness, Mr McCallister, Mr B McCrea, Mr McDevitt, Dr McDonnell, Mr McGlone, Mr P Ramsey, Ms Ritchie, Mr Wells.

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr PJ Bradley and Mr A Maginness.

NOES

Mr S Anderson , Mr Armstrong, Mr Bell, Mr Boylan, Mr Butler, Mr T Clarke, Mr Girvan, Mr Hamilton, Mr Kinahan, Miss McIlveen, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr Poots, Ms S Ramsey, Mr G Robinson, Mr Ross, Ms Ruane, Mr Storey, Mr Weir.

Go Lance! w00t!

monument wrote: »

Many Labour TDs could too. But I think members of both parties would likely have split views.

Just remember, apparently more liberal parties can be the least liberal, these voted no: Alliance 2 members, UUP 2, DUP 1, and SDLP 15. Far more UUP and DUP members voted against it, and SF were the only ones to only vote against it.

It's by far an SDLP move.

Point taken. Similarly, the Democrats push helmet laws (bicycle and motorcycle) far harder in the USA than the Republicans.

Perhaps Andrew Montague would be an important figure in shaping Labour opinion against compulsion. He's well informed, and he has the success of the bike-share scheme as an example of what would be imperilled by such a law.

It looks as if Headway are going to be a thorn in the side of utility cycling for quite some time to come anyway.

I think one major problem is that most medical people have trouble understanding statistics, and often prefer "expert testimony", which is when all is said and done, just opinion.

I'm not saying they can't understand statistics, for whatever reason they don't have a good grasp of it.

For example:

http://www.badscience.net/2005/06/vital-statistics/

So, on to Professor Roy Meadows and Meadows’ Law, that: “One sudden infant death is a tragedy, two is suspicious and three is murder until proved otherwise.” Pay attention: flaky statistics can get you jailed, or erased from the GMC register if you’re not careful. Meadows said the likelihood of there being two sudden infant deaths in the same family was one in 73 million. People are queueing up to point out that the Royal Statistical Society said this aspect of the case involved flaky reasoning. Nobody in newspapers was geeky enough to explain why.

Meadows appears to have taken a figure for sudden infant death syndrome (Sids), about one in 8,500, and squared it to find the likelihood of Sids happening twice in the same family. This would only be valid if we could be sure Sids always happened by chance and independently of family factors such as genetics and environment. In fact, there are strong reasons to believe that there are, unknown, genetic and environmental factors which will make Sids more likely in any child, and since genetic factors and environment tend to be shared in families, you may be more likely to find Sids twice in the same family than the initial calculation suggests. The error in the figure 73m is therefore likely to be extremely large, and in one direction only, that is, overestimating. The true figure may be much less incriminating.

What the jury ought to have considered is: which is the more likely rare event, double murder or double Sids? If anything we want the relative probabilities. The original case did not consider this; if it had, you would have thought a conviction to be less likely. The appeal court ruling accepted flaws with the figure, but said it established “a very broad point, namely the rarity of double Sids”. Scream now.

If you want to know whether a treatment really works, or a phenomenon really exists, ask a statistician, not a doctor.

Also:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1245921/?page=1

The statistical knowledge of most doctors is so limited that they cannot be expected to draw the right conclusions from those statistical analyses which are found in medical journals.

niceonetom wrote: »

It occasionally scares me quite how much unquestioning respect we pay to doctors on issues they are not directly trained in - it's like a relic of the way the opinions of the clergy used to be treated.

I'm all for rejection of appeals to authority, but I think maybe you're overextending yourself just a wee bit there.

Incidentally, I used to work as a research assistant in Biology, and most biologists, in my experience, even though they do statistical courses as undergraduates, also do not understand in any depth the statistical techniques they use every time they publish a research paper.

There's something about the human brain that renders most people incapable of understanding probability. Or maybe just leaves most people disinclined to engage with it.

Lumen wrote: »

Both statistics and medicine are rational professions. All doctors have basic statistical training. They may have forgotten it, but they were at least taught it.

Theology is a willfully irrational discipline, and therefore the radius of its sphere of rational expertise is precisely zero.

Read my edit above to further gain insight into the brilliant analogy I was drawing.

Also, because someone has training in a rational, reality based, discipline does not automatically bestow them with some overarching insight into all areas of reality. We're all prone to subjective evidence, and doctors are subjected to very misleading evidence just by the nature of their work.

There's no reason why doctors should be taken any more seriously than say, chemists, or physicists or whatever when it comes to opinions on policy, statistics or the price of rice - their authority seems to stem from the perception of the profession as part of the intellectual elite and, I think, from the fact in the public perception the profession has accrued a sort of ju-ju magical control over life and death (are a likely to be called upon in both events - just like priests).

niceonetom wrote: »

Actually, I wonder if there's any statistical basis on which I could argue that a reduction in the number of cyclists due to the introduction of a mandatory helmet law would actually increase the total number of brain injuries in the population due to the increased likelihood of stroke among the sedentary... unforeseen consequences and all that.

I prefer the pragmatic arguments which do not require statistical or medical training, like LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE!

Many things are provably dangerous but perfectly legal. The state should not legislate against self-harming behaviours.