Hi,
I've really learned a lot from this discussion. My two cents to the
discussion:
1- The only research I believe is one anecdote from a former ECF member
who told me that various years ago they hired a statistician (sp?) who
looked into the actual effect of helmets on safety based on road
accident records, and the conclusion was that there wasn't any
statistical evidence against or pro- helmets. But I do think that the
cultural side of it and the image that helmets provide to people is not
at all useful, plus the fact that it may well be that helmets discourage
discretionary riders and increases the risk of health problems due to
lack of exercise.
2- Apart from the academic discussion about whether or not there is an
effectiveness of helmets in improving road safety, whenever I engage
into this discussion with people who say "a helmet saved my life, thus
it is definitely useful", I always ask them for a detailed description
of the incident where the piece of hard foam saved their lives. The
invariant response includes a non-urban setting and a high speed, and in
many cases they were wearing lycra. I think the discussion lies there:
we shouldn't say helmets are useless, rather we should point out that in
an urban setting at an appropriate speed they are totally useless
(someone was pointing out a similar remark). Of course, if they like
dressing like Spiderman and jumping off ceilings, then they might as
well complement their disguise with a helmet!
Best regards,
Carlos.
On 11/05/2012 02:42 a.m., burton richard wrote:
> The situation is analogous to climate change: all the good science is
> on one side, and all the assumption and bad science is on the other,
> but the good science was able to put its case before the sceptics
> could put theirs. The difference in the helmet case being that the
> pro helmet lobby got their extremely dodgy research in first and it is
> embedded in the public consciousness, and it doesn't matter how many
> times it is proved wrong, all the public remembers is that helmets are
> extremely effective. A single olympian holding up his cracked helmet
> is much more effective than scientifically valid evidence, and more so
> when almost all the media, especially the BBC, refuse to report it.
>
> I'm not aware of anyone who has looked at all the evidence who remains
> in favour of helmet laws or promotion. It seems to be only those who
> refuse to examine the evidence or who deny it, who are still in
> favour, but it has been obvious for some time that the helmet
> proponents do not base their demands on factual evidence, relying on
> assumption and appeals to emotion. As other people have commented,
> it's more like a religious thing, with "true believers" on one side,
> and scientific rationality on the other.
>
> On 10 May 2012 23:59, Stu Clement <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> 1205100830
>
> The terrific helmet debate: one of those where every opinion is
> right and no one is absolutely right. You gotta love it!
>
> Stu
>
> ---
> Dr Stuart Clement
> Director, World Cycling Research Forum
>
> Co-Convenor, WOCREF 2012
> +61 (0)405 702 483
> www.wocref.org <http://www.wocref.org>
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> On 2012-05-11 06:41, Kevin Hickman wrote:
>
> says that almost half of the people responding thought
> that cycling
> on the road was too dangerous. Now where would they get
> that idea,
> except from helmet promotion?
>
>
> To be fair Richard, there's a lot more out there to be afraid of -
> it's not all down to the reinforcing effect of promoting
> cycling as an
> inherently dangerous activity.
>
> I view helmets, and hi-viz, as just an indicator of how safe
> people
> feel. If we get the everyday environment people are cycling in
> right
> then the personal protective equipment will vanish.
>
> The truth will out eventually, and either we'll all be putting
> helmets on as our heads leave the pillow in the morning, or
> they'll
> just fade away, or people will continue to use them where they
> feel
> exposed to risk.
>
> I agree that helmets aren't helping the normalising of
> cycling, but
> it can probably be sidestepped by getting the environment
> right, and
> thankfully that's where the focus is shifting to now. And
> let's not
> forget, helmets are such a phaff that if we do get the masses
> cycling
> they're not going to bother taking helmets with them
> everywhere. And
> conversely, if people still feel helmets are necessary, the masses
> won't cycle.
>
> Apart from the issue of compulsion, which where it occurs
> appears to
> mean 'game over' for mass cycling until it's repealed, helmets are
> just a distraction.
>
> Kevin.
>
> On 10 May 2012, at 20:06, burton richard wrote:
>
> And things like this
>
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142157/Bicycle-sales-hit-record-high-20-ride-one.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
>
> [30]
>
> which says that almost half of the people responding
> thought that
> cycling on the road was too dangerous. Now where would
> they get
>
> that
>
> idea, except from helmet promotion? The story itself implicity
> promotes helmets, and almost all media reports of collisions
> involving cyclists report either that a helmet saved the
> cyclist's
> life, or its absence killed them. There is some very good
> research
> about the persistence of myths which I would recommend
> reading, and
> this phenomenon goes a long way to explaining why the myth of
>
> helmet
>
> effectiveness is so strong. Ever since the reports of 85%
> effectiveness were published, it has been almost impossible to
> change the public perception that cycle helmets are effective,
> despite the evidence. On The One Show last year, the
> infamous James
> Cracknell one, the chair of BHIT, Angie Lee, was
> interviewed and
> said "just ignore the evidence......." and needless to
> say, the
> interviewer didn't see fit to ask her why someone dedicated to
> promoting helmets wants people to ignore the evidence - in
> line
>
> with
>
> the unstated and denied but blatant BBC policy to promote
> cycle
> helmets.
>
> On 10 May 2012 18:49, Dave du Feu <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [31]> wrote:
>
> There is a great deal of material [with sources] here...
> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1020.html [19]
>
> Whether any of them can be said to constitute 'proof'
> I don't
> know, but the material is certainly very extensive.
>
> On 10 May 2012 17:34, Jason Meggs
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [20]>
> wrote:
>
> Burton,
>
> Please forgive my ignorance, but I'm not aware of
> proof that
> promoting
> helmets reduces cycling, can you cite the source(s)?
>
> Very interested,
> Jason
>
> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 6:29 PM, burton richard
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [1]> wrote:
> > Since the only two proven effects of helmet
> promotion and
> laws are a fall in
> > the number of cyclists and obscene profits for
> the helmet
> manufacturers, I
> > have some difficulty understanding why a cycling
> organisation would even
> > consider promoting them. At the very least, it
> makes that
> organisation look
> > as if they are more interested in the
> manufacturer's profits
> than the safety
> > of cyclists. It was said some time ago, but is
> still true
> "You can promote
> > helmets or you can promote cycling, but you
> can't do both."
> >
> > The promotion of cycle helmets is entirely
> counterproductive, and no
> > organisation which has the interests of cyclists
> in mind
> would do so.
> >
> > Is there someone from the Cycling Embassy of
> Denmark on this
> group who could
> > explain why they are doing something which won't
> improve the
> safety of
> > cyclists but will reduce the number of them?
> >
> >
> > On 10 May 2012 15:53, Jennings Gail
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [2]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Glad you included us all. I agree with you. In
> SA helmets
> are mandatory,
> >> and there's pressure on cyclists to police each
> other if we
> don't wear
> >> helmets! I've even been yelled at by drivers
> for not
> wearing a helmet, as
> >> if I'm breaking some law that puts them at
> risks! Whenever
> the question of
> >> bike-share / bike-rental comes up, there's the
> helmet issue
> that just won't
> >> go away...
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10 May 2012, at 4:45 PM, Dave du Feu wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry all, I intended this to go to Jacob, but
> I guess no
> harm in it
> >> appearing in the forum in case there are other
> views!
> >>
> >> On 10 May 2012 15:42, Dave du Feu
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [3]>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks Jakob - I've already received another
> email about
> this, and had a
> >>> quick look. Seems a really exciting publication.
> >>>
> >>> One thing, I really cannot understand why you
> are pushing
> helmets. We
> >>> are doing our best over here to try and reduce the
> pressure for helmets, as
> >>> they put people off from cycling (which also
> has the side
> effect of reducing
> >>> the 'safety in numbers' effect which you also
> endorse!)
> >>>
> >>> I'm concerned about publicising your book in
> some circles,
> as coming from
> >>> the one of the places which Britain looks up
> to as an
> example, it will be
> >>> taken as a powerful endorsement of helmets.
> >>>
> >>> We are worried that they are gaining such
> credibility that
> there is a
> >>> fear of compulsion coming in. There are
> already some
> charity bike rides,
> >>> aimed at ordinary cyclists, not racers, where
> under-18s
> are banned from
> >>> taking part if they are unhelmeted.
> >>>
> >>> Dave du Feu
> >>> Spokes, the Lothian Cycle Campaign
> >>> [Edinburgh, Scotland]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 10 May 2012 15:32, Jakob Schiøtt Stenbæk Madsen
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [4]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear All,
> >>>>
> >>>> The Cycling Embassy of Denmark has just
> finished up a new
> publication
> >>>> "Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012". The
> first edition of
> Collection of
> >>>> Cycle Concepts was published in 2000 and
> enjoyed a wide
> circulation among
> >>>> everyone interested in bicycle traffic. The
> simultaneous
> publication of the
> >>>> English version spread the Danish bicycle traffic
> experience to many parts
> >>>> of the world. The second edition, Collection
> of Cycle
> Concepts 2012, updates
> >>>> the field, featuring new challenges and the
> latest
> knowledge.
> >>>>
> >>>> Collection of Cycle Concepts 2012 is not
> intended to be a
> summary of
> >>>> Danish road standards, but to provide
> inspiration and
> motivation for
> >>>> creating more and safer bicycle traffic - in
> Denmark as
> well as the rest of
> >>>> the world.
> >>>>
> >>>> You can have a look and download the
> publication here:
> >>>>
> http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2012/05/10/cycle-concepts2012/
>
> [5]
>
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>> Jakob Schiøtt Stenbæk Madsen
> >>>> Project Officer
> >>>>
> >>>> M. +45 40 70 83 62 [6]
> >>>>
> >>>> Danish Cyclists' Federation
> >>>> Rømersgade 5
> >>>> DK-1362 København K
> >>>>
> >>>> T. +45 33 32 31 21 [7]
> >>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [8]
> >>>> www.cyklistforbundet.dk
> <http://www.cyklistforbundet.dk> [9]
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> ** Spokes: spokes.org.uk <http://spokes.org.uk>
> [10]; twitter.com/SpokesLothian
> <http://twitter.com/SpokesLothian>
> [11]
> >> ** Personal: twitter.com/DaveduFeu
> <http://twitter.com/DaveduFeu> [12];
> flickr.com/photos/34847720@N03/sets
> <http://flickr.com/photos/34847720@N03/sets> [13]
> >> ** Great sites: badscience.net
> <http://badscience.net> [14], 38degrees.org.uk
> <http://38degrees.org.uk> [15],
> copenhagenize.com <http://copenhagenize.com> [16],
> >> thebikestation.org.uk
> <http://thebikestation.org.uk> [17], ghgonline.org
> <http://ghgonline.org> [18]
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> ** Spokes: spokes.org.uk <http://spokes.org.uk> [21];
> twitter.com/SpokesLothian
> <http://twitter.com/SpokesLothian> [22]
> ** Personal: twitter.com/DaveduFeu
> <http://twitter.com/DaveduFeu> [23];
> flickr.com/photos/34847720@N03/sets
> <http://flickr.com/photos/34847720@N03/sets> [24]
> ** Great sites: badscience.net <http://badscience.net>
> [25], 38degrees.org.uk <http://38degrees.org.uk> [26],
> copenhagenize.com <http://copenhagenize.com> [27],
> thebikestation.org.uk <http://thebikestation.org.uk>
> [28], ghgonline.org <http://ghgonline.org>
> [29]
>
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [2] mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [3] mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [4] mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [5] http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2012/05/10/cycle-concepts2012/
> [6] http://www.wocref.org/tel:%2B45%2040%2070%2083%2062
> [7] http://www.wocref.org/tel:%2B45%2033%2032%2031%2021
> [8] mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [9] http://www.cyklistforbundet.dk/
> [10] http://spokes.org.uk/
> [11] http://twitter.com/SpokesLothian
> [12] http://twitter.com/DaveduFeu
> [13] http://flickr.com/photos/34847720@N03/sets
> [14] http://badscience.net/
> [15] http://38degrees.org.uk/
> [16] http://copenhagenize.com/
> [17] http://thebikestation.org.uk/
> [18] http://ghgonline.org/
> [19] http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1020.html
> [20] mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> [21] http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress
> [22] http://twitter.com/SpokesLothian
> [23] http://twitter.com/DaveduFeu
> [24] http://www.flickr.com/photos/34847720@N03/sets
> [25] http://badscience.net/
> [26] http://38degrees.org.uk/
> [27] http://copenhagenize.com/
> [28] http://thebikestation.org.uk/
> [29] http://ghgonline.org/
> [30]
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2142157/Bicycle-sales-hit-record-high-20-ride-one.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
> [31] mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>
|