Malta to scrap compulsory cycle helmet law since it hinders efforts to get more people cycling

Valbrona wrote:

And who is the Government to tell people that they must wear a seatbelt in their own vehicle? Or a helmet on their own motorbike (Sikh's excepted)?

You might be very surprised at the data about seat belts and motorcycle helmets.  Basically, exactly the same myth, rumour and fairy stories we get about cycle helmets were spread liberally around, but the actual evidence shows either no benefit or a reduction in safety.

You might google for the Isles Report about seat belts, which was commissioned by Parliament to investigate what had happened in other countries which already had a law, but although it was completed before the vote, it was never issued.  It found that although some car occupants would be saved, because of risk compensation, drivers taking more risks because they felt safer, more pedestrians and cyclists would die, more than the number of car occupants.

The motorcycle helmet law has never been shown to reduce risks to motorcyclists.  There was a signficant drop in motorcycle fatalities when it was introduced, so all the zealots did a victory dance and celebrated.  Then someone dug a little deeper into the data and found that almost all of the reduction was during the hours of 2200-0200, so unless the helmets became magically effective during those hours, something else was responsible, and in this case, a whole raft of road related laws were enacted at the same time, including drink driving and the breathalyser, which are far more likely to be the cause of the fall in deaths.

burtthebike wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

And who is the Government to tell people that they must wear a seatbelt in their own vehicle? Or a helmet on their own motorbike (Sikh's excepted)?

You might be very surprised at the data about seat belts and motorcycle helmets.  Basically, exactly the same myth, rumour and fairy stories we get about cycle helmets were spread liberally around, but the actual evidence shows either no benefit or a reduction in safety.

You might google for the Isles Report about seat belts, which was commissioned by Parliament to investigate what had happened in other countries which already had a law, but although it was completed before the vote, it was never issued.  It found that although some car occupants would be saved, because of risk compensation, drivers taking more risks because they felt safer, more pedestrians and cyclists would die, more than the number of car occupants.

The motorcycle helmet law has never been shown to reduce risks to motorcyclists.  There was a signficant drop in motorcycle fatalities when it was introduced, so all the zealots did a victory dance and celebrated.  Then someone dug a little deeper into the data and found that almost all of the reduction was during the hours of 2200-0200, so unless the helmets became magically effective during those hours, something else was responsible, and in this case, a whole raft of road related laws were enacted at the same time, including drink driving and the breathalyser, which are far more likely to be the cause of the fall in deaths.

Top marks burt the bike.

And for someone like me, a strong advocate of personal freedom, there is also the notion that adults should be free to make their own decisions about personal safety.

burtthebike wrote:

You might be very surprised at the data about seat belts and motorcycle helmets.  Basically, exactly the same myth, rumour and fairy stories we get about cycle helmets were spread liberally around, but the actual evidence shows either no benefit or a reduction in safety.

You might google for the Isles Report about seat belts, which was commissioned by Parliament to investigate what had happened in other countries which already had a law, but although it was completed before the vote, it was never issued.  It found that although some car occupants would be saved, because of risk compensation, drivers taking more risks because they felt safer, more pedestrians and cyclists would die, more than the number of car occupants.

The motorcycle helmet law has never been shown to reduce risks to motorcyclists.  There was a signficant drop in motorcycle fatalities when it was introduced, so all the zealots did a victory dance and celebrated.  Then someone dug a little deeper into the data and found that almost all of the reduction was during the hours of 2200-0200, so unless the helmets became magically effective during those hours, something else was responsible, and in this case, a whole raft of road related laws were enacted at the same time, including drink driving and the breathalyser, which are far more likely to be the cause of the fall in deaths.

Compulsory seat belt legislation came into force in the UK in 1983.

If the risk compensation theory were correct you would expect to see a large increase in the pedestrian and cyclist fatality rate after this date.

There was no significant increase in the pedestrian or cyclist fatality rate after 1983.

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

The motorcycle helmet law has never been shown to reduce risks to motorcyclists.  There was a signficant drop in motorcycle fatalities when it was introduced, so all the zealots did a victory dance and celebrated.  Then someone dug a little deeper into the data and found that almost all of the reduction was during the hours of 2200-0200, so unless the helmets became magically effective during those hours, something else was responsible, and in this case, a whole raft of road related laws were enacted at the same time, including drink driving and the breathalyser, which are far more likely to be the cause of the fall in deaths.

Compulsory seat belt legislation came into force in the UK in 1983. If the risk compensation theory were correct you would expect to see a large increase in the pedestrian and cyclist fatality rate after this date. There was no significant increase in the pedestrian or cyclist fatality rate after 1983.

Bloomin' 'eck, I feel a thread with graphs about to kick off

Rich_cb][quote=burtthebike wrote:

Compulsory seat belt legislation came into force in the UK in 1983. If the risk compensation theory were correct you would expect to see a large increase in the pedestrian and cyclist fatality rate after this date. There was no significant increase in the pedestrian or cyclist fatality rate after 1983.

If there was a step change in seat belt use in 1983 from 0 to 100%, you might have a point, but the government had been running a seat belt campaign, using the odious Jimmy Saville, for years, and the wearing rate was probably already 75% and didn't change much when the law came in, with many people still driving without one.  Therefore there would not have been much, if any change in pedestrian/cyclist fatalities.

burtthebike wrote:

If there was a step change in seat belt use in 1983 from 0 to 100%, you might have a point, but the government had been running a seat belt campaign, using the odious Jimmy Saville, for years, and the wearing rate was probably already 75% and didn't change much when the law came in, with many people still driving without one.  Therefore there would not have been much, if any change in pedestrian/cyclist fatalities.

If the seat belt wearing rate really was 75% by 1983 then it must have risen pretty quickly in the previous two decades.

So if the risk compensation theory were true you'd see a big rise in pedestrian and cyclist deaths over the same period?

Edit:
The rate wasn't 75% pre 1983. It was 40%, it jumped to 93% immediately post legislation.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...)

So my original point stands.

If risk compensation is true why was there no spike in pedestrian or cyclist deaths when the seatbelt wearing rate more than doubled overnight?

Rich_cb wrote:

So my original point stands.

Unlikely. Can you show us in the form of a graph?

Or interpretive dance if that easier...

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

If there was a step change in seat belt use in 1983 from 0 to 100%, you might have a point, but the government had been running a seat belt campaign, using the odious Jimmy Saville, for years, and the wearing rate was probably already 75% and didn't change much when the law came in, with many people still driving without one.  Therefore there would not have been much, if any change in pedestrian/cyclist fatalities.

If the seat belt wearing rate really was 75% by 1983 then it must have risen pretty quickly in the previous two decades.

So if the risk compensation theory were true you'd see a big rise in pedestrian and cyclist deaths over the same period?

Edit:
The rate wasn't 75% pre 1983. It was 40%, it jumped to 93% immediately post legislation.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...)

So my original point stands.

If risk compensation is true why was there no spike in pedestrian or cyclist deaths when the seatbelt wearing rate more than doubled overnight?

Change in car design to add more safety features perhaps. If you can stop faster you are less likely to hit someone and kill them.

Plus at the same time they were doing the seat belt thing there was also a massive as campaign to get people, especially kids, to cross the road properly.

Bluebug wrote:

Change in car design to add more safety features perhaps. If you can stop faster you are less likely to hit someone and kill them.

Plus at the same time they were doing the seat belt thing there was also a massive as campaign to get people, especially kids, to cross the road properly.

So the spike in pedestrian/cyclist deaths caused by seatbelts just happened to be exactly masked by decreases caused by other factors?

Or, alternatively, there was no spike caused by seatbelts.

Rich_cb wrote:

Bluebug wrote:

Change in car design to add more safety features perhaps. If you can stop faster you are less likely to hit someone and kill them.

Plus at the same time they were doing the seat belt thing there was also a massive as campaign to get people, especially kids, to cross the road properly.

So the spike in pedestrian/cyclist deaths caused by seatbelts just happened to be exactly masked by decreases caused by other factors?

Or, alternatively, there was no spike caused by seatbelts.

You know the rules ... no graph, no evidence. The isles repirt proved seatbelts directly negatively affected the number/rate of injuries. That ongoing reductions elsewhere due to other interventions may have seen overall figures remain same (which have gone on to reduce casualty/incident figures) but the rate and absolute number would have been lower without. The same is seen post helmet law in Australia where people on bikes suffered higher rates of incidents/injuries yet there was already a refuction in incidents for all modes due to specific intervention BEFORE helmets were introduced. This is shown in the data. So rather than just a flatlining of casualties/incidents thus was the negative effect of helmets it actually raised the cadualty/incident rate and only for that one group. Other modes continued to get safer due to those other interventions.
You're not very good at this understanding basic concepts and data lark are you!

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

You know the rules ... no graph, no evidence. The isles repirt proved seatbelts directly negatively affected the number/rate of injuries. That ongoing reductions elsewhere due to other interventions may have seen overall figures remain same (which have gone on to reduce casualty/incident figures) but the rate and absolute number would have been lower without. The same is seen post helmet law in Australia where people on bikes suffered higher rates of incidents/injuries yet there was already a refuction in incidents for all modes due to specific intervention BEFORE helmets were introduced. This is shown in the data. So rather than just a flatlining of casualties/incidents thus was the negative effect of helmets it actually raised the cadualty/incident rate and only for that one group. Other modes continued to get safer due to those other interventions.
You're not very good at this understanding basic concepts and data lark are you!

The seatbelt wearing rate doubled between 1982 & 1983.

Where was the associated rise in pedestrian and cyclist injuries?

The fact that there was no rise despite the dramatic increase in seatbelt wearing shows that the predictions made in the Isles report were incorrect.

How else do you explain the data?

Rich_cb][quote=burtthebike wrote:

So my original point stands. If risk compensation is true why was there no spike in pedestrian or cyclist deaths when the seatbelt wearing rate more than doubled overnight?

Well, one reason is that the increasing numbers of motor vehicles and increasingly dangerous driving deterred walking and cycling, so there were fewer of them to kill.  Also, the people transferring walking and cycling trips to driving meant that there were fewer of them to kill because they were driving instead.

burtthebike wrote:

Well, one reason is that the increasing numbers of motor vehicles and increasingly dangerous driving deterred walking and cycling, so there were fewer of them to kill.  Also, the people transferring walking and cycling trips to driving meant that there were fewer of them to kill because they were driving instead.

The fatality rate is given per billion miles travelled so is unaffected by the number of participants.

Unfortunately for you the data simply doesn't fit.

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Well, one reason is that the increasing numbers of motor vehicles and increasingly dangerous driving deterred walking and cycling, so there were fewer of them to kill.  Also, the people transferring walking and cycling trips to driving meant that there were fewer of them to kill because they were driving instead.

The fatality rate is given per billion miles travelled so is unaffected by the number of participants. Unfortunately for you the data simply doesn't fit.

You could be right.  So why wasn't the Isles report published?  And Professor John Adams says it was right.

burtthebike wrote:

You could be right.  So why wasn't the Isles report published?  And Professor John Adams says it was right.

I don't know why it wasn't published. Probably because the politicians of the day didn't like its predictions.

That doesn't make those predictions right.

How does the good professor explain the unchanged pedestrian/cyclist KSI rate post 1983?

Rich_cb wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

You could be right.  So why wasn't the Isles report published?  And Professor John Adams says it was right.

I don't know why it wasn't published. Probably because the politicians of the day didn't like its predictions. That doesn't make those predictions right. How does the good professor explain the unchanged pedestrian/cyclist KSI rate post 1983?

Well we went through precisely this before.  He explains it by pointing out it wasn't unchanged, it went up for period, but resumed its previous downward trend...except that the upward tick meant the subsequent figures all remained higher than they would have been if the pre-law trend had continued unchanged, and the point where the law was introduced remained as a visible inflection point in the graph.

(He also claims the data doesn't support the claim that it saved drivers lives

e.g.

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/Seat%20belts%20for%20...

But personally I just don't really care about that question either way, whether he's right or wrong, I just don't care, it's up to drivers if they want to accept a law that may or may not be good for them, I'm only bothered by what it means to those outside the vehicle...[edit] though I can't help thinking if drivers are quite happy to accept a compulsory seat-belt law, why don't they just voluntarily wear the things thus making a law unnecessary?)

In honestly I have to point out this document mentions John Adams claims (not by name) but goes on to say "However, extensive statistical work disproved this.".   But annoyingly, that claim is one of the only such in the report that has no reference given to support it.  I for one would be interested to see this extensive statistical work.

Quote:

Road deaths fell by just under 500 in 1983(1) but there was a rise in pedestrian and cyclist deaths, provoking many to argue that because drivers felt safer themselves they had taken more risks, killing others. However, extensive statistical work disproved this.

https://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/aa-seat-belt-report.pdf

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

I don't know why it wasn't published. Probably because the politicians of the day didn't like its predictions. That doesn't make those predictions right. How does the good professor explain the unchanged pedestrian/cyclist KSI rate post 1983?[/quote]

Well we went through precisely this before.  He explains it by pointing out it wasn't unchanged, it went up for period, but resumed its previous downward trend...except that the upward tick meant the subsequent figures all remained higher than they would have been if the pre-law trend had continued unchanged, and the point where the law was introduced remained as a visible inflection point in the graph.

(He also claims the data doesn't support the claim that it saved drivers lives

e.g.

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/Seat%20belts%20for%20...

But personally I just don't really care about that question either way, whether he's right or wrong, I just don't care, it's up to drivers if they want to accept a law that may or may not be good for them, I'm only bothered by what it means to those outside the vehicle...[edit] though I can't help thinking if drivers are quite happy to accept a compulsory seat-belt law, why don't they just voluntarily wear the things thus making a law unnecessary?)

In honestly I have to point out this document mentions John Adams claims (not by name) but goes on to say "However, extensive statistical work disproved this.".   But annoyingly, that claim is one of the only such in the report that has no reference given to support it.  I for one would be interested to see this extensive statistical work.

Quote:

Road deaths fell by just under 500 in 1983(1) but there was a rise in pedestrian and cyclist deaths, provoking many to argue that because drivers felt safer themselves they had taken more risks, killing others. However, extensive statistical work disproved this.

https://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/aa-seat-belt-report.pdf

[/quote]

Thanks.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Well we went through precisely this before.  He explains it by pointing out it wasn't unchanged, it went up for period, but resumed its previous downward trend...except that the upward tick meant the subsequent figures all remained higher than they would have been if the pre-law trend had continued unchanged, and the point where the law was introduced remained as a visible inflection point in the graph.

 

(He also claims the data doesn't support the claim that it saved drivers lives

e.g.

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/Seat%20belts%20for%20...

But personally I just don't really care about that question either way, whether he's right or wrong, I just don't care, it's up to drivers if they want to accept a law that may or may not be good for them, I'm only bothered by what it means to those outside the vehicle...[edit] though I can't help thinking if drivers are quite happy to accept a compulsory seat-belt law, why don't they just voluntarily wear the things thus making a law unnecessary?)

 

 

 

In honestly I have to point out this document mentions John Adams claims (not by name) but goes on to say "However, extensive statistical work disproved this.".   But annoyingly, that claim is one of the only such in the report that has no reference given to support it.  I for one would be interested to see this extensive statistical work.

 

Quote:

Road deaths fell by just under 500 in 1983(1) but there was a rise in pedestrian and cyclist deaths, provoking many to argue that because drivers felt safer themselves they had taken more risks, killing others. However, extensive statistical work disproved this.

 

https://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/aa-seat-belt-report.pdf

I'm not sure where the Professor is getting his data from.

I had a look at the Government statistics.

1982-1983 saw pedestrian deaths up by 2.5% and Cyclist deaths up by 10%.

As cycling fatalities are a much smaller number larger fluctuations are more common and this was not an abnormal change.

For comparison the cyclist fatality rate also rose in 77-78, 78-79, 80-81, 83-84, 86-87 and 88-89.

The pedestrian change was also not abnormal, similar increases had occurred in 71-72, 77-78, 85-86 + 87-88.

Looking at the KSI figures there was actually a decrease for pedestrians in 82-83. Whilst there was an increase in cyclists in 82-83 it was almost identical to the increase in 81-82.

Overall the fluctuations seen in 82-83 were similar to those seen in other years and certainly not what would be expected if there had been a seismic change in risk taking.

Finally there was a decline in the overall number of car accidents 82-83 which seems odd if risk taking really did increase.

Data:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Well we went through precisely this before.  He explains it by pointing out it wasn't unchanged, it went up for period, but resumed its previous downward trend...except that the upward tick meant the subsequent figures all remained higher than they would have been if the pre-law trend had continued unchanged, and the point where the law was introduced remained as a visible inflection point in the graph.

 

(He also claims the data doesn't support the claim that it saved drivers lives

e.g.

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/Seat%20belts%20for%20...

But personally I just don't really care about that question either way, whether he's right or wrong, I just don't care, it's up to drivers if they want to accept a law that may or may not be good for them, I'm only bothered by what it means to those outside the vehicle...[edit] though I can't help thinking if drivers are quite happy to accept a compulsory seat-belt law, why don't they just voluntarily wear the things thus making a law unnecessary?)

 

 

 

In honestly I have to point out this document mentions John Adams claims (not by name) but goes on to say "However, extensive statistical work disproved this.".   But annoyingly, that claim is one of the only such in the report that has no reference given to support it.  I for one would be interested to see this extensive statistical work.

 

Quote:

Road deaths fell by just under 500 in 1983(1) but there was a rise in pedestrian and cyclist deaths, provoking many to argue that because drivers felt safer themselves they had taken more risks, killing others. However, extensive statistical work disproved this.

 

https://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/aa-seat-belt-report.pdf

I'm not sure where the Professor is getting his data from. I had a look at the Government statistics. 1982-1983 saw pedestrian deaths up by 2.5% and Cyclist deaths up by 10%. As cycling fatalities are a much smaller number larger fluctuations are more common and this was not an abnormal change. For comparison the cyclist fatality rate also rose in 77-78, 78-79, 80-81, 83-84, 86-87 and 88-89. The pedestrian change was also not abnormal, similar increases had occurred in 71-72, 77-78, 85-86 + 87-88. Looking at the KSI figures there was actually a decrease for pedestrians in 82-83. Whilst there was an increase in cyclists in 82-83 it was almost identical to the increase in 81-82. Overall the fluctuations seen in 82-83 were similar to those seen in other years and certainly not what would be expected if there had been a seismic change in risk taking. Finally there was a decline in the overall number of car accidents 82-83 which seems odd if risk taking really did increase. Data: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...

Well, he makes his argument in the paper I linked to.  As I say, it's cycle helmet laws I'm bothered about, I don't particularly care about the seat belt law as such, and certainly I've always accepted it did good overall in terms of total death rates (even if it _might_ have redistributed risk from drivers to those outside)...but actually, having read his take on it linked to  above, I'm wondering whether that law itself might have been oversold.

His point is based on international comparisons to argue that rates also fell in countries without such a law, plus noting that 1983 also saw a big crackdown on drink driving.  He seems to be arguing that almost all the fall in death rates occured during the post-pub hours, while rates at other times of day were hardly affected.

  Still it's only of academic interest to me, I'm not going to be campaigning against seat-belt laws, and I think its a racing certainty that when that paper appeared there were subsequent papers that contested or debunked its claims.  But I'm just curious what such papers said.

I'm not a libertarian blindly fixated on 'personal freedom', but I'm also not a paternalist liberal who thinks every possible restriction in the name of health and safety is necessarily right.  Some are, some aren't.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Well, he makes his argument in the paper I linked to.  As I say, it's cycle helmet laws I'm bothered about, I don't particularly care about the seat belt law as such, and certainly I've always accepted it did good overall in terms of total death rates (even if it _might_ have redistributed risk from drivers to those outside)...but actually, having read his take on it linked to  above, I'm wondering whether that law itself might have been oversold.

 

His point is based on international comparisons to argue that rates also fell in countries without such a law, plus noting that 1983 also saw a big crackdown on drink driving.  He seems to be arguing that almost all the fall in death rates occured during the post-pub hours, while rates at other times of day were hardly affected.

 

  Still it's only of academic interest to me, I'm not going to be campaigning against seat-belt laws, and I think its a racing certainty that when that paper appeared there were subsequent papers that contested or debunked its claims.  But I'm just curious what such papers said.

 

I'm not a libertarian blindly fixated on 'personal freedom', but I'm also not a paternalist liberal who thinks every possible restriction in the name of health and safety is necessarily right.  Some are, some aren't.

There are huge amounts of experimental data from crash test laboratories showing that seatbelts benefit those who wear them.

The argument is that this benefit is cancelled out by the harm that seatbelt wearing does to other road users.

In order to demonstrate that you'd have to see evidence of harm after the law was introduced.

The evidence is mixed at best, KSIs for cyclists showed an almost identical rise in the year before the law as they did in the year after, KSIs for pedestrians actually dropped in the year after the law.

The Professor ignores this data as they are not as reliable as fatality data, that is a fair point but I can't help cynically wondering if he would have included it if it had supported his argument.

The fatality data did rise but as I mentioned in my previous post fluctuations are quite normal in smaller data sets and the changes were not abnormal year on year.

Car ownership was increasing rapidly at that point in time, from 19m to 21m between 1980-85. (Data in original link).

Despite this huge increase in car numbers and a massive jump in seatbelt wearing the overall number of accidents went down after the seatbelt law was introduced.

There was also a decrease in pedestrian or cyclist fatalities after rear seatbelts became compulsory in 1991.

Apart from the 1983 fatality data there really isn't much to support an argument that risk taking increased with increasing seatbelt use.

I'm also not hugely interested in seatbelts per se but the risk modification argument is often wheeled out in regards to cycling safety equipment so I am more interested in that side of the discussion.

burtthebike wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

And who is the Government to tell people that they must wear a seatbelt in their own vehicle? Or a helmet on their own motorbike (Sikh's excepted)?

You might be very surprised at the data about seat belts and motorcycle helmets.  Basically, exactly the same myth, rumour and fairy stories we get about cycle helmets were spread liberally around, but the actual evidence shows either no benefit or a reduction in safety.

You might google for the Isles Report about seat belts, which was commissioned by Parliament to investigate what had happened in other countries which already had a law, but although it was completed before the vote, it was never issued.  It found that although some car occupants would be saved, because of risk compensation, drivers taking more risks because they felt safer, more pedestrians and cyclists would die, more than the number of car occupants.

The motorcycle helmet law has never been shown to reduce risks to motorcyclists.  There was a signficant drop in motorcycle fatalities when it was introduced, so all the zealots did a victory dance and celebrated.  Then someone dug a little deeper into the data and found that almost all of the reduction was during the hours of 2200-0200, so unless the helmets became magically effective during those hours, something else was responsible, and in this case, a whole raft of road related laws were enacted at the same time, including drink driving and the breathalyser, which are far more likely to be the cause of the fall in deaths.

Unfortunately Burtthebike, this kind of zealotry reduces the credibility of your helmet arguments to a Trumpian "zero". The idea or implication that seatbelts don't reduce road deaths is quite ridiculous. An enormous amount of highly reliable (crash test and other) data shows that the chance of a driver surviving a 30 mph crash in 1950 was about 50%. In 2018 it is >95%. The relative risk is one tenth. About 60% of this reduction in risk is due to seatbelt technology. The chances of surviving a 60 mph crash in 1950 was about 1%, in 2018 it is about 50%. Per mile covered / fatal accidents rate is less than 20 percent in 2018 of what it was in 1950 taken across all road users. The per mile covered fatality rate for cyclists is lower now than in 1950. Your idea that the rate of driver deaths has been outweighed or matched by pedestrian and cyclist deaths is not borne out, nor is the idea that there is a higher rate of cyclist and pedestrian deaths related to the introduction of seatbelts. 

Similar is true of your suggestion about motor cycle helmets where, in racing, the major cause of death in motorcycle races is major head trauma, and this has reduced directly in line with increase in helmet technologies in spite of an increase in accident speeds, where as the protective clothing has had little impact on death rates, but major impact on minor trauma. issues. Other research shows that in the US, states that roll back compulsory helmet laws show an increase in motorcyclist deaths of about 40% (showing amongst other measures, that in a motorcyclist vs car accident, with helmet the motorcyclist is 70 times more likely to die than the car occupant, and without helmet they are > 100 times more likely to die)

As you trawl through your statistics, you should be acutely aware of confirmation bias. Don't try to prove your preconceived notions correct; Try to prove them wrong.

madcarew wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

And who is the Government to tell people that they must wear a seatbelt in their own vehicle? Or a helmet on their own motorbike (Sikh's excepted)?

You might be very surprised at the data about seat belts and motorcycle helmets.  Basically, exactly the same myth, rumour and fairy stories we get about cycle helmets were spread liberally around, but the actual evidence shows either no benefit or a reduction in safety.

You might google for the Isles Report about seat belts, which was commissioned by Parliament to investigate what had happened in other countries which already had a law, but although it was completed before the vote, it was never issued.  It found that although some car occupants would be saved, because of risk compensation, drivers taking more risks because they felt safer, more pedestrians and cyclists would die, more than the number of car occupants.

The motorcycle helmet law has never been shown to reduce risks to motorcyclists.  There was a signficant drop in motorcycle fatalities when it was introduced, so all the zealots did a victory dance and celebrated.  Then someone dug a little deeper into the data and found that almost all of the reduction was during the hours of 2200-0200, so unless the helmets became magically effective during those hours, something else was responsible, and in this case, a whole raft of road related laws were enacted at the same time, including drink driving and the breathalyser, which are far more likely to be the cause of the fall in deaths.

Unfortunately Burtthebike, this kind of zealotry reduces the credibility of your helmet arguments to a Trumpian "zero". The idea or implication that seatbelts don't reduce road deaths is quite ridiculous. An enormous amount of highly reliable (crash test and other) data shows that the chance of a driver surviving a 30 mph crash in 1950 was about 50%. In 2018 it is >95%. The relative risk is one tenth. About 60% of this reduction in risk is due to seatbelt technology. The chances of surviving a 60 mph crash in 1950 was about 1%, in 2018 it is about 50%. Per mile covered / fatal accidents rate is less than 20 percent in 2018 of what it was in 1950 taken across all road users. The per mile covered fatality rate for cyclists is lower now than in 1950. Your idea that the rate of driver deaths has been outweighed or matched by pedestrian and cyclist deaths is not borne out, nor is the idea that there is a higher rate of cyclist and pedestrian deaths related to the introduction of seatbelts. 

Similar is true of your suggestion about motor cycle helmets where, in racing, the major cause of death in motorcycle races is major head trauma, and this has reduced directly in line with increase in helmet technologies in spite of an increase in accident speeds, where as the protective clothing has had little impact on death rates, but major impact on minor trauma. issues. Other research shows that in the US, states that roll back compulsory helmet laws show an increase in motorcyclist deaths of about 40% (showing amongst other measures, that in a motorcyclist vs car accident, with helmet the motorcyclist is 70 times more likely to die than the car occupant, and without helmet they are > 100 times more likely to die)

As you trawl through your statistics, you should be acutely aware of confirmation bias. Don't try to prove your preconceived notions correct; Try to prove them wrong.

And listing statistics without references is credible?! At least Trump peddles his unreferenced shit in <140 chars, so this is surely sub-Trump.

Links, both, FFS.

Davel

The source of information for my discussion is David Grant of LTNZ, and Mia Cheun of Statistics NZ, both personal friends. The statistics they use in their work (both rather accomplished statisticians) are globally sourced and not just relevant to NZ. You can find corroborating information with very simple google searches. I don't pretend to be a statistician or even have any particular depth of understanding of statistics. I'm pretty confident in understanding conclusions of research papers and the limitations contained within the methodology.

Burtthebike makes some extraordinary claims:

Regarding seatbelts

" Basically, exactly the same myth, rumour and fairy stories we get about cycle helmets were spread liberally around, but the actual evidence shows either no benefit or a reduction in safety."

He makes this claim based (apparently) on a single source which others have pointed out doesn't match the empirical data shown (and that's what stastics and studies are for, making accurate(ish) predictions of outcomes). It also flys in the face of a considerable body of evidence (you might start at NCAP descriptions of how crash protocols arose and the history behind them). It's also a source which wasn't adopted at the time, possibly because it was realised it failed to match the observable outcomes. 

"The motorcycle helmet law has never been shown to reduce risks to motorcyclists.  "

No safety law is necessarily about reducing total risk. What is clear is that motor cyclists are more likely to die in an acident if they are not wearing a helmet (https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/156/5/483/158023 ) and that long term head injuries are significantly reduced (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4779790/, ) and the MAIDS report, an enormous survey, showed that in over 2/3rds of cases helmet significantly reduced the severity of head injury, where as (in support of BurtThe bike's position) the helmet had no effect in 3.6% of cases. From the same report we see that serious accidents are on the increase, but deaths and serious head injuries remain static (suggesting that either motorcyclists are getting better at bouncing, or cars are becoming less damaging, and just possibly protective equipment is becoming better.) 

These examples of studies are not the be-all and end all of my assertions, but they are a miniscule part of "the large body of evidence" I referred to.

And, taking my own advice, trying to prove this position wrong has thrown  up literally thousands of studies and reports that back up the argument that seatbelts and motorcycle helmets both prevent deaths and reduce some injury rates, and rather fewer reputable, narrower, smaller, more sepcific studies that show it has no effect, and even less that it has a detrimental effect on over all safety outcomes for motorcyclists. 

Burtthebike has referenced a single 30 year old report that was unadopted at the time. Trying to conflate this argument with the bike helmet argument, and use it as supporting evidence for his general position does indeed reduce his credibility on the matter to a Trumpian zero.

For the record, I am against mandatory cycle helmet wearing, but I consistently wear one safe in the knowledge it will help reduce or even prevent some injuries, and almost as secure in the knowledge that wearing it is unlikely to make any potential outcomes worse. I take personal responsiblity for my level of risk taking whilst on a bike, which ,it has to be said is considerably higher than that of the general population. 

Valbrona wrote:

And who is the Government to tell people that they must wear a seatbelt in their own vehicle? Or a helmet on their own motorbike (Sikh's excepted, I believe - turbans, you see)?

Who are the government to tell you not to stab people, incite racial hatred etc.

alansmurphy wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

And who is the Government to tell people that they must wear a seatbelt in their own vehicle? Or a helmet on their own motorbike (Sikh's excepted, I believe - turbans, you see)?

Who are the government to tell you not to stab people, incite racial hatred etc.

The government tells me not to hurt other people, I'm OK with that (even though I don't need telling, some people do).

The government tells me to do or not to do something that can only hurt me, that should be no business of the government. It's not what I pay them for.

FrankH wrote:

The government tells me not to hurt other people, I'm OK with that (even though I don't need telling, some people do).

The government tells me to do or not to do something that can only hurt me, that should be no business of the government. It's not what I pay them for.

You seem to think the Government is your employee. They are quite interested in the things you do that could harm their tax-paying-unit. They want you fit and healthy and working until 67, then you can do whatever you sodding well want. So drink less, get regular exercise and eat your greens, but don't smoke and we would prefer it if you wore your helmet when cycling, but we won't make you because that might be expensive and make some of you shouty, and shouty people aren't busy working. Fitter, happier, more productive.

Leviathan wrote:

You seem to think the Government is your employee. They are quite interested in the things you do that could harm their tax-paying-unit. They want you fit and healthy and working until 67, then you can do whatever you sodding well want. So drink less, get regular exercise and eat your greens, but don't smoke and we would prefer it if you wore your helmet when cycling, but we won't make you because that might be expensive and make some of you shouty, and shouty people aren't busy working. Fitter, happier, more productive.

Most of those points make sense to me, but I want to know why the government doesn't do more to get people cycling as that's the easiest way to improve the population's health.