Cyclists in Cyprus call for repeal of compulsory helmet law

You're happy to recommend gloves while cycling? I haven't seen a single peer-reviewed study that concludes that gloves protect against brain injury. What could possibly be the point?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

You're happy to recommend gloves while cycling? I haven't seen a single peer-reviewed study that concludes that gloves protect against brain injury. What could possibly be the point?

There's a reason for the lack of that study.

Gloves are ideal to prevent minor abrasion injuries to your hands and they also have a benefit of providing extra comfort whilst cycling due to shock absorption (for some gloves, anyway) and keeping your hands warm. I've found that when I've come off my bike, I have an instinctive reaction to use my hands to protect myself, so they're often the first point of contact with the ground. As I work on computers, minor hand injuries can be really annoying, but luckily a pair of gloves works really well.

Now gloves aren't being pushed by any organisations that I know of, so there's little reason to go looking for evidence one way or another as gloves aren't used as a victim-blaming device.

hawkinspeter wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

You're happy to recommend gloves while cycling? I haven't seen a single peer-reviewed study that concludes that gloves protect against brain injury. What could possibly be the point?

There's a reason for the lack of that study.

Gloves are ideal to prevent minor abrasion injuries to your hands and they also have a benefit of providing extra comfort whilst cycling due to shock absorption (for some gloves, anyway) and keeping your hands warm. I've found that when I've come off my bike, I have an instinctive reaction to use my hands to protect myself, so they're often the first point of contact with the ground. As I work on computers, minor hand injuries can be really annoying, but luckily a pair of gloves works really well.

Now gloves aren't being pushed by any organisations that I know of, so there's little reason to go looking for evidence one way or another as gloves aren't used as a victim-blaming device.

So you admit that there is no evidence that gloves reduce brain injuries, and provide no evidence of their efficacy other than your own anecdotes, and you still recommend them?

If that's not BaD sCiEnCe, I don't know what is.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

So you admit that there is no evidence that gloves reduce brain injuries, and provide no evidence of their efficacy other than your own anecdotes, and you still recommend them? If that's not BaD sCiEnCe, I don't know what is.

I don't recall anyone making such a claim and if they did, then they should provide the evidence to support that claim. I recommend gloves for preventing minor hand abrasion injuries - they're unlikely to prevent broken bones in bigger collisions, so I don't think they're particularly helpful with collisions with motor vehicles.

I don't shout at other cyclists and call them idiots if they choose to not wear gloves and I certainly wouldn't consider that a gloveless cyclist should be considered negligent in court cases. I also don't think that police should be spending time recommending that cyclists wear gloves and I certainly don't think that road safety campaigns should waste time mentioning them at all.

Now, if you're claiming that gloves help mitigate brain injuries, then you should provide decent evidence to support that view.

Yes I would recommend gloves as well, they keep my hands warm and toasty when cycling. I have three pairs - Castelli fingerless, Altura and Galibier which are by far the warmest of the three. I wouldn't wear them on my head though, that's where I put my helmet. Sometimes I've got home and forgotten to take my helmet off. It would be nice if my wife would let me know but she never does, so I just sit there looking like an idiot.

They also provide grip. I sweat when I ride so they enable more traction on the grips than not. Full finger and I'm up to a choice of 10 pairs at the moment.

I'd say they have prevented more minor injuries than my shockingly expensive and constantly worn helmets ever have. And frostbite.

Indeed, I have noticed that as my hands are not frozen I am able to use the brakes properly.
Doubtless this has saved countless lives, if only we could peer into the gloveless alternate universe.

perce wrote:

Yes I would recommend gloves as well, they keep my hands warm and toasty when cycling. I have three pairs - Castelli fingerless, Altura and Galibier which are by far the warmest of the three. I wouldn't wear them on my head though, that's where I put my helmet. Sometimes I've got home and forgotten to take my helmet off. It would be nice if my wife would let me know but she never does, so I just sit there looking like an idiot.

Well I don't think you're an idiot for wearing a helmet at home. As commenters like HP and Eburt frequently tell us, pedestrians are much more likely to be injured than cyclists, so it's actually pedestrians that should have mandatory helmets.

You're just ahead of the curve

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

 Well I don't think you're an idiot for wearing a helmet at home. As commenters like HP and Eburt frequently tell us, pedestrians are much more likely to be injured than cyclists, so it's actually pedestrians that should have mandatory helmets. You're just ahead of the curve

I mainly recommend the pedestrian helmets for dangerous activities such as showering, using stairs/ladders and replacing light bulbs. It's surprising how many head injuries those activities cause.

I'm not above average height but a pedestrian helmet could have saved me from a lot of dangerous doorways, cupboard doors etc. And I often wear a hat indoors too... If only there was a purpose-designed head covering for "overhead" environments...

chrisonatrike wrote:

I'm not above average height but a pedestrian helmet could have saved me from a lot of dangerous doorways, cupboard doors etc. And I often wear a hat indoors too... If only there was a purpose-designed head covering for "overhead" environments...

If you're going to be wearing that hat you might as well go the whole hog and deal with dangerous drivers with this 

Well I've mostly banged my head indoors.  So that addition looks useful outside but for indoor hat use I think the wheels would scuff the floor.  And make it harder to get the bicycles out of the flat.

Guaranteed to save your life!

In order to prove that helmet are beneficial you must compare two similar populations, one helmeted, one not and then compare injury rates.

We know that the cycling population, that is people who cycle, changes dramatically after compulsory helmet laws. Fewer cyclists in general but the reduction is more concentrated I some groups than others so there groups become overrepresented. As such, a comparison of injury rates pre and post law is misleading.

A randomised control trial where cyclists were randomly assigned to helmet/no helmet groups and then knocked off their bicycles in various ways would likely provide that proof but would struggle to get past the ethics committee.

Given that, the best, feasible, option is a case control study.

Many of these have been done and whilst some, like TR&T, have been correctly criticised for methodology failures others have produced robust, reliable results that show a clear benefit from wearing helmets.

Should helmets be compulsory? Definitely not.

Are they beneficial? According to the best evidence available, they are.

Example of case control study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51159929_Bicycle_helmet_wearing...

Rich_cb wrote:

In order to prove that helmet are beneficial you must compare two similar populations, one helmeted, one not and then compare injury rates.

We know that the cycling population, that is people who cycle, changes dramatically after compulsory helmet laws. Fewer cyclists in general but the reduction is more concentrated I some groups than others so there groups become overrepresented. As such, a comparison of injury rates pre and post law is misleading.

A randomised control trial where cyclists were randomly assigned to helmet/no helmet groups and then knocked off their bicycles in various ways would likely provide that proof but would struggle to get past the ethics committee.

Given that, the best, feasible, option is a case control study.

Many of these have been done and whilst some, like TR&T, have been correctly criticised for methodology failures others have produced robust, reliable results that show a clear benefit from wearing helmets.

Should they be compulsory, definitely not.

Are they beneficial, according to the best evidence available, they are.

Example of case control study:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51159929_Bicycle_helmet_wearing...

Very interesting, thank you for sharing.

Does this conclusion take into account the killer helmets that I have been told cause so many deaths per year that they actual outnumber the lives saved per year? Asking for a friend.

I assume you're referring to that old chestnut of 'risk compensation/homeostasis'?

The Wikipedia page on the subject has a great quote.

" It commands about as much credence as the flat earth hypothesis"

I couldn't put it better myself.

Rich_cb wrote:

I assume you're referring to that old chestnut of 'risk compensation/homeostasis'?

The Wikipedia page on the subject has a great quote.

" It commands about as much credence as the flat earth hypothesis"

I couldn't put it better myself.

Well I initially thought that too, but some commenters on here have told me about helmets that actually cause deaths.
I'd never heard of such a thing myself, but that's possibly because 'big helmet' have suppressed publicity of the issue. I hear that 'big helmet' has lots of governments in their pocket, including of course the Cypriot government. The Cypriot government are actually only bringing in mandatory helmet use because 'big helmet' have made them do it.

If you don't hear from me in the future, it's probably because 'big helmet' have gotten to me.

Watch your back, they could be anywhere. Even in our helmets.

Rich_cb wrote:

I assume you're referring to that old chestnut of 'risk compensation/homeostasis'? The Wikipedia page on the subject has a great quote. " It commands about as much credence as the flat earth hypothesis" I couldn't put it better myself.

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation

The quote is right there in your link.

Rich_cb wrote:

The quote is right there in your link.

You forgot to mention that the statement is the opinion of one person and is specific to risk homeostasis.

The idea of risk homeostasis is disputed. One author claimed that it received "little support",[n 10] another suggested that it "commands about as much credence as the flat earth hypothesis"

There is a wealth of evidence and data supporting risk compensation.

I think I specifically stated that it was a quote.

The fact that said quote reflects somebody's opinion shouldn't need a separate explanation.

You've previously stated that helmets lead to more harm as increased risk taking negates any and all additional impact protection.

Is that still your view?

No the earth isn't flat. I think I've mentioned De Selby's theory before - he believed that the earth is sausage shaped and if we were able to travel along the "barrel" of the sausage we would be able to experience more dimensions than are currently available. A visionary man, well ahead of his time. Possibly.

Just make sure you're wearing appropriate interdimensional head protection when traversing the sausage of reality.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Just make sure you're wearing appropriate interdimensional head protection when traversing the sausage of reality.

That doesn't just cut the mustard, it positively purees it.

Rich_cb wrote:

I assume you're referring to that old chestnut of 'risk compensation/homeostasis'? The Wikipedia page on the subject has a great quote. " It commands about as much credence as the flat earth hypothesis" I couldn't put it better myself.

That quote is specifically about risk homeostasis - that people adjust behaviour so that risk reduction measures end up with the same level of risk overall. I'd agree that doesn't seem realistic as usually there's some overall effect e.g. when urban speed limits of 20mph are introduced, drivers seem to reduce their speed by a few mph (2-3?) and there are less fatalities (I believe - haven't checked the actual figures).

Risk compensation is a less demanding hypothesis - that people take more risks when they believe themselves to be better protected and take more care when they think it's more dangerous. That effect has numerous examples in real life, but the size of that effect is certainly up for debate.

Helmet mandation changes the cycling population.

High risk activities, eg time trialling, would be almost unaffected by a law change as helmets are almost ubiquitous in this area already.

Relatively low risk activities, with lower existing rates of helmet wearing, like cycling to the shops would be far more likely to be reduced by mandation.

The risk profile of the cycling population therefore changes with high risk activities making up a higher proportion of cycling overall and comparisons between pre and post law injury rates become impossible to make.

Case control studies aren't perfect by a long way but, in this context, they are the best evidence available and there are multiple such studies showing that helmets reduce the risk of serious head injury and death.

Risk homeostasis is the theory pushed by Burt. That is, helmets increase the overall risk as people modify their behaviour so much when wearing one that they entirely negate the protective effects.

It's nonsense.

Rich_cb wrote:

Helmet mandation changes the cycling population. High risk activities, eg time trialling, would be almost unaffected by a law change as helmets are almost ubiquitous in this area already. Relatively low risk activities, with lower existing rates of helmet wearing, like cycling to the shops would be far more likely to be reduced by mandation. The risk profile of the cycling population therefore changes with high risk activities making up a higher proportion of cycling overall and comparisons between pre and post law injury rates become impossible to make. Case control studies aren't perfect by a long way but, in this context, they are the best evidence available and there are multiple such studies showing that helmets reduce the risk of serious head injury and death. Risk homeostasis is the theory pushed by Burt. That is, helmets increase the overall risk as people modify their behaviour so much when wearing one that they entirely negate the protective effects. It's nonsense.

Case control studies only demonstrate a reduction of head injuries to the cyclists presenting at hospital. That doesn't necessarily extrapolate well to the population of cyclists as it'll only be a tiny sample (I've never presented at hospital for a cycling injury). The sample bias could be exaggerating the data either way (i.e. helmets may be much more protective than the studies show or they could be much less effective).

I don't believe you've accurately presented Burt's position at all.

Ultimately, the question of cycle helmets is just a huge victim blaming distraction and has almost nothing to do with reducing road danger.

Edit: I think I've mentioned this before in other discussions, but Berkson's Paradox can easily come into play with looking at hospital studies. If you consider the two variables being "wearing a helmet" and "having a cycle incident", then "being hospitalised" is a collider for those two variables. This can lead to unintuitive results that don't represent the wider population such as the Dutch cyclists being more likely to be injured when wearing helmets: https://www.cyclehelmets.org/1261.html

"Victim blaming" - being as charitable as I can doesn't it come down to something like:

An imaginary legislator wrote:

Here's *something* we can do because we're not going to actually tackle the main issues of road danger OR simply ban cycling.  Or indeed do some joined up thinking and calculate whether it might be more effective to legislate for people to wear head protection in other circumstances (e.g. some people most of the time - GP to assess etc).

It may help some people just falling off their bikes.  (Although many of the most vulnerable wouldn't dream of cycling in the UK anyway).  It could maybe have some effect in some other collisions.  It's not a major imposition.  Why not?

Plus it involves minimal funding!  Result!  We're not going to buy helments for people.  In fact it costs nothing more than a bit of admin and police time.  That's assuming the police are told to spend much time on it of course.  Which otherwise they might well not.  Or maybe enforce it sporadically to "send a message" or if they feel that a particular person deserves sanctioning.  Like happens in the case of many crimes we have on our books.

As noted before - in the UK we have "made the roads safe" by removing all but the motorised road users* and then working on saving drivers from themselves.  So doing something like that here wouldn't have a giant impact on our head injury stats or indeed cycling.  Which - excuse pun - in many places doesn't have far to fall anyway.

* Non-drivers can choose between safety or convenience.  We don't have jaywalking laws and we normally make it so it's possible to get about if go the long way round or climb stairs (if you're lucky there's a ramp) or wait at some lights.  We're not the USA after all!

It's a tiny sample yes but that's why any evidence is hard to obtain.

Case control studies are the best evidence we have.

They show a benefit.

I've had many discussions with Burt on this, he takes a very extreme view on this topic. He's refused to even read papers in the past because they referenced TR&T in the introduction!

As a result I don't think I'm misrepresenting his viewpoint.