Cyclists in Cyprus call for repeal of compulsory helmet law

AndyRed3d wrote:

I think there is an important distinction between helmet efficacy on their own and when combined with mandatory helmet wearing, whihc skews behaviour. I don't think there are many people on here saying that it should be made mandatory to wear them in the UK.

The bit of science you can't argue with is that they do help cushion the blow IF you have an accident (even if it's faster than they are designed for). So in most instances they will reduce brain damage, so perhaps where it wouldn't have been survivable, you could live, albeit with serious concussion.

The bit where there is grey areas is the behaviour change a helmet can cause (either from car drivers, or superman syndrome for the rider), which may be where the data gets very questionable either way, especially when combined with helmet laws causing additional behaviour changes, like less riders etc.

But please don't be confused about the efficacy of having some impact protection if your head is heading towards tarmac, as thinking they are completely useless because burtthebike says so, is just as dangerous as assuming they are making you safer and therefore taking more risks. Just treat them the same as you would insurance, i.e. you still don't want to have an accident!

Well, as I always wear a helmet whilst cycling, this is largely academic to me. There may be some advantage to not having much faith in the use of bike helmets in collisions though, as that may moderate any risk compensation on my part.

eburtthebike wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Honestly the "ThE wOrSt Of BaD sCiEnCe" chorus is tiresome. Change the record. It is very likely that helmets have prevented deaths that would otherwise have happened. Of course, we cannot know that for sure because we cannot peer into the alternate universe where the exact same things have happened but without a helmet.

Sorry, but I'm going to keep on repeating that the original TRT research was the worst of bad science, because it was; I won't be adopting your random capitals though.

Since the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase, rather the opposite seems to be true, it is not "...very likely that helmets have prevented deaths that would otherwise have happened."  If they did prevent some deaths, they must also have caused other deaths, but in at least equal or greater quantity; not exactly a glowing testimony to their efficacy.

We may not be able to peer into alternative universes, but we can examine the effects on cyclist deaths, the only reliable metric, of helmet laws and helmet propaganda campaigns, and we know that they are not effective.  We can also examine places which have a much lower death rate than places with helmet laws and find out what does work, because it definitely isn't helmets.

I'd love to see the reasoning for helmets causing deaths. You're not supposed to eat them, maybe that's where you've gone wrong?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

I'd love to see the reasoning for helmets causing deaths. You're not supposed to eat them, maybe that's where you've gone wrong?

There are several reasons; risk compensation and rotational injuries to name but two.

The fact that you have to ask clearly demonstrates your lack of knowledge.

eburtthebike wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

eburtthebike wrote:

I'd love to see the reasoning for helmets causing deaths. You're not supposed to eat them, maybe that's where you've gone wrong?

There are several reasons; risk compensation and rotational injuries to name but two.

The fact that you have to ask clearly demonstrates your lack of knowledge.

Helmets cause rotational injuries? Walk me through that one. I've never suffered a rotational injury caused by wearing a helmet. Perhaps I've been lucky.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Helmets cause rotational injuries? Walk me through that one. I've never suffered a rotational injury caused by wearing a helmet. Perhaps I've been lucky.

You're clearly being disingenuous now.

I've provided links to you previously about some of the problems with helmets, and I remember at least one of the links was to do with rotational injuries. Either you had no interest in reading them (despite you previously asking for information) or you just choose to ignore the info because you're trying to push your agenda.

hawkinspeter wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Helmets cause rotational injuries? Walk me through that one. I've never suffered a rotational injury caused by wearing a helmet. Perhaps I've been lucky.

You're clearly being disingenuous now.

I've provided links to you previously about some of the problems with helmets, and I remember at least one of the links was to do with rotational injuries. Either you had no interest in reading them (despite you previously asking for information) or you just choose to ignore the info because you're trying to push your agenda.

I'm not being disingenuous. Eburt said that helmets cause deaths, and that helmets cause rotational injuries.

I wonder how many death certificates say "wearing a helmet" in the section about cause of death. How many death certificates in the history of forever do you think have ever said "wearing a helmet" in that section?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I'm not being disingenuous. Eburt said that helmets cause deaths, and that helmets cause rotational injuries. I wonder how many death certificates say "wearing a helmet" in the section about cause of death. How many death certificates in the history of forever do you think have ever said "wearing a helmet" in that section?

Okay, in the interest of the discussion, firstly eburtthebike didn't make that particular claim in the way you're presenting it:

eburtthebike wrote:

Since the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase, rather the opposite seems to be true, it is not "...very likely that helmets have prevented deaths that would otherwise have happened."  If they did prevent some deaths, they must also have caused other deaths, but in at least equal or greater quantity; not exactly a glowing testimony to their efficacy.

Now, he mentioned a couple of things that might be happening - risk compensation and rotational injuries. Risk compensation has had a handful of small studies, so it's difficult to draw conclusions, but it may well have a real world effect. Risk compensation can apply to cyclists taking greater risks as they believe they are protected and also it can apply to drivers leaving less room for helmetted cyclists.

Rotational injuries can happen with non-direct hits that cause a sudden twisting motion of the head. There's good reason to think that those kinds of impacts can lead to severe brain injuries and here's a link that discusses it some more: https://www.shponline.co.uk/common-workplace-hazards/understanding-the-risk-of-rotational-head-injury/

There's been more interest in helmets and rotational injuries and that has led to bike helmets that are designed to 'slip' rather than 'grab' the road surface and also technologies such as MIPS.

One important point to consider is that helmets increase the diameter of the head and thus will tend to increase the likelihood of rotational injuries. This is a problem as bike helmets are only tested for direct impacts (linear acceleration) rather than oblique impacts (rotational acceleration).

hawkinspeter wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

I'm not being disingenuous. Eburt said that helmets cause deaths, and that helmets cause rotational injuries. I wonder how many death certificates say "wearing a helmet" in the section about cause of death. How many death certificates in the history of forever do you think have ever said "wearing a helmet" in that section?

Okay, in the interest of the discussion, firstly eburtthebike didn't make that particular claim in the way you're presenting it:

eburtthebike wrote:

Since the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase, rather the opposite seems to be true, it is not "...very likely that helmets have prevented deaths that would otherwise have happened."  If they did prevent some deaths, they must also have caused other deaths, but in at least equal or greater quantity; not exactly a glowing testimony to their efficacy.

Now, he mentioned a couple of things that might be happening - risk compensation and rotational injuries. Risk compensation has had a handful of small studies, so it's difficult to draw conclusions, but it may well have a real world effect. Risk compensation can apply to cyclists taking greater risks as they believe they are protected and also it can apply to drivers leaving less room for helmetted cyclists.

Rotational injuries can happen with non-direct hits that cause a sudden twisting motion of the head. There's good reason to think that those kinds of impacts can lead to severe brain injuries and here's a link that discusses it some more: https://www.shponline.co.uk/common-workplace-hazards/understanding-the-risk-of-rotational-head-injury/

There's been more interest in helmets and rotational injuries and that has led to bike helmets that are designed to 'slip' rather than 'grab' the road surface and also technologies such as MIPS.

One important point to consider is that helmets increase the diameter of the head and thus will tend to increase the likelihood of rotational injuries. This is a problem as bike helmets are only tested for direct impacts (linear acceleration) rather than oblique impacts (rotational acceleration).

They didn't make that claim? They said that "they [helmets] must also have caused other deaths".

I'll ask the question again: How many death certificates in the history of forever do you think have ever said "wearing a helmet" in the cause of death section? It's a simple question.

If helmets cause deaths, it'd be easy to prove wouldn't it? You could just tell me the number of death certificates that have "wore a helmet" or similar for cause of death.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

They didn't make that claim? They said that "they [helmets] must also have caused other deaths". I'll ask the question again: How many death certificates in the history of forever do you think have ever said "wearing a helmet" in the cause of death section? It's a simple question. If helmets cause deaths, it'd be easy to prove wouldn't it? You could just tell me the number of death certificates that have "wore a helmet" or similar for cause of death.

His statement was predicated on helmets saving some lives.

I don't think that death certificates work in the way that you're expecting and to be honest your question is a bit childish.

hawkinspeter wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

They didn't make that claim? They said that "they [helmets] must also have caused other deaths". I'll ask the question again: How many death certificates in the history of forever do you think have ever said "wearing a helmet" in the cause of death section? It's a simple question. If helmets cause deaths, it'd be easy to prove wouldn't it? You could just tell me the number of death certificates that have "wore a helmet" or similar for cause of death.

His statement was predicated on helmets saving some lives.

I don't think that death certificates work in the way that you're expecting and to be honest your question is a bit childish.

Is that just a petty way of saying 'zero'?

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Is that just a petty way of saying 'zero'?

I'm not going to go looking for stats on death certificates, but then I don't expect them to list all possible effects that resulted in death - it's just going to be the main cause that seems relevant to the doctor/coroner. Identifying death causes by death certificate is a whole topic by itself and certainly there seems to have been some 'gaming' of the system with Covid deaths.

I would be very surprised if there's any death certificates that list 'smoking' or 'sedentary lifestyle' as a cause of death, so by all means go and have a look at death certificates if you think they're of any use to this discussion, but don't expect people to take you seriously if you do.

hawkinspeter wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Is that just a petty way of saying 'zero'?

I'm not going to go looking for stats on death certificates, but then I don't expect them to list all possible effects that resulted in death - it's just going to be the main cause that seems relevant to the doctor/coroner. Identifying death causes by death certificate is a whole topic by itself and certainly there seems to have been some 'gaming' of the system with Covid deaths.

I would be very surprised if there's any death certificates that list 'smoking' or 'sedentary lifestyle' as a cause of death, so by all means go and have a look at death certificates if you think they're of any use to this discussion, but don't expect people to take you seriously if you do.

And there we have it. A death certificate might identify lung cancer as the cause of death, and someone might reasonably say "it was all the smoking that caused that". But if it said "head injury from road traffic collision" is it reasonable to say that "it was the helmet that caused that"? Or even "it was the rotational injury from the helmet that caused that"? Would it not be the cause of the road traffic collision that is considered the cause of death?

We argue a similar point when Martin/Nigel posts their little table purportedly showing that cyclists cause more pedestrian deaths than cars - just because something is involved does not mean than something is the cause.

So how many deaths are caused by wearing a helmet? Zero.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Is that just a petty way of saying 'zero'?

I'm not going to go looking for stats on death certificates, but then I don't expect them to list all possible effects that resulted in death - it's just going to be the main cause that seems relevant to the doctor/coroner. Identifying death causes by death certificate is a whole topic by itself and certainly there seems to have been some 'gaming' of the system with Covid deaths.

I would be very surprised if there's any death certificates that list 'smoking' or 'sedentary lifestyle' as a cause of death, so by all means go and have a look at death certificates if you think they're of any use to this discussion, but don't expect people to take you seriously if you do.

And there we have it. A death certificate might identify lung cancer as the cause of death, and someone might reasonably say "it was all the smoking that caused that". But if it said "head injury from road traffic collision" is it reasonable to say that "it was the helmet that caused that"? Or even "it was the rotational injury from the helmet that caused that"? Would it not be the cause of the road traffic collision that is considered the cause of death? We argue a similar point when Martin/Nigel posts their little table purportedly showing that cyclists cause more pedestrian deaths than cars - just because something is involved does not mean than something is the cause. So how many deaths are caused by wearing a helmet? Zero.

Following that logic (that the cause of road traffic collision is the cause of death) then the number of deaths caused by not wearing a helmet would also be zero because not wearing a helmet does not cause road traffic collisions.

Backladder wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Is that just a petty way of saying 'zero'?

I'm not going to go looking for stats on death certificates, but then I don't expect them to list all possible effects that resulted in death - it's just going to be the main cause that seems relevant to the doctor/coroner. Identifying death causes by death certificate is a whole topic by itself and certainly there seems to have been some 'gaming' of the system with Covid deaths.

I would be very surprised if there's any death certificates that list 'smoking' or 'sedentary lifestyle' as a cause of death, so by all means go and have a look at death certificates if you think they're of any use to this discussion, but don't expect people to take you seriously if you do.

And there we have it. A death certificate might identify lung cancer as the cause of death, and someone might reasonably say "it was all the smoking that caused that". But if it said "head injury from road traffic collision" is it reasonable to say that "it was the helmet that caused that"? Or even "it was the rotational injury from the helmet that caused that"? Would it not be the cause of the road traffic collision that is considered the cause of death? We argue a similar point when Martin/Nigel posts their little table purportedly showing that cyclists cause more pedestrian deaths than cars - just because something is involved does not mean than something is the cause. So how many deaths are caused by wearing a helmet? Zero.

Following that logic (that the cause of road traffic collision is the cause of death) then the number of deaths caused by not wearing a helmet would also be zero because not wearing a helmet does not cause road traffic collisions.

Now you're getting it. A helmet is not a cause of death nor is not wearing a helmet. But it can prevent a death.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Backladder wrote:

 

Now you're getting it. A helmet is not a cause of death nor is not wearing a helmet. But it can prevent a death.

But that is another not proven statement, just because 1+1 does not equal 3 does not mean that 1+1 equals 4

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

  So how many deaths are caused by wearing a helmet? Zero.

Can guarantee at least 3. As EU helmet regulations for children were changed due to one country having 3 deaths from strangulation by helmet strap (req for childrens helmets to break under force) over a relatively short period...

ChuckSneed wrote:

You can't argue with the fact that helmets save lives

I can because it's not a fact.

Have all your 51 posts to date on road.cc been this crap? It certainly feels that way...

Back from your holiday ?

Got suspended for a week for calling the author of an article out in a thread where he wrote 'I'm happy to be called out'. Clearly wasn't that happy to be called out.

Given your approach to posting is being offensive, no doubt your 'call out' was the equivalent of telling them to eff off.

ChuckSneed wrote:

You can't argue with the fact that helmets save lives, but I don't think people should be forced to wear one. All laws like this do is discourage cycling because people don't want to mess up their hair

Well, you managed to get one thing right; helmet laws discourage cycling. 

Unfortunately, everything else you say is, not to put too fine a point on it, bolox.  If that was slightly too nuanced, too subtle, too fine a distinction for you, then let me say this; it was total, complete and utter drivel, and no data supports your claims, which are nonsense, untrue and existing purely in your imagination.

But because cycle helmets discourage cycling, their overall effect on public health is huge and negative.  Ditto for public wealth.

Four deaths, two wearing helmets and two not, are they recommending body armour to eliminate the deaths while wearing helmets? Perhaps the ultimate protection is to wrap a car around the cyclist?

Backladder wrote:

Four deaths, two wearing helmets and two not, are they recommending body armour to eliminate the deaths while wearing helmets? Perhaps the ultimate protection is to wrap a car around the cyclist?

What you should be asking is: Is wearing body armour a reasonable control to put in place by law? They would seem to think not, and I for one (not that it matters) would agree with them. And also: is wearing a helmet a reasonable control to put in place by law? They would seem to think so, though I disagree with them (again, not that it matters).

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Backladder wrote:

Four deaths, two wearing helmets and two not, are they recommending body armour to eliminate the deaths while wearing helmets? Perhaps the ultimate protection is to wrap a car around the cyclist?

What you should be asking is: Is wearing body armour a reasonable control to put in place by law? They would seem to think not, and I for one (not that it matters) would agree with them. And also: is wearing a helmet a reasonable control to put in place by law? They would seem to think so, though I disagree with them (again, not that it matters).

Actually I would be asking what the other two died of because they could have died of head injuries as well but they're just leaving out that information.

Backladder wrote:

Actually I would be asking what the other two died of because they could have died of head injuries as well but they're just leaving out that information.

It is extremely unusual for a cyclist to die of head injury alone, most often they have other extremely serious injuries which would have killed them without the head injury.  Yet another reason why helmets are not a rational answer to the question of cyclist safety.

Backladder wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Backladder wrote:

Four deaths, two wearing helmets and two not, are they recommending body armour to eliminate the deaths while wearing helmets? Perhaps the ultimate protection is to wrap a car around the cyclist?

What you should be asking is: Is wearing body armour a reasonable control to put in place by law? They would seem to think not, and I for one (not that it matters) would agree with them. And also: is wearing a helmet a reasonable control to put in place by law? They would seem to think so, though I disagree with them (again, not that it matters).

Actually I would be asking what the other two died of because they could have died of head injuries as well but they're just leaving out that information.

And, assuming for a moment that they did die of head injuries despite wearing a helmet, what conclusion would you draw from that information? If it's that helmets are ineffective for protecting against head injuries, you would be jumping to a false conclusion. If it's that helmets are ineffective for protecting against some head injuries, you would of course be correct, but we already knew that, didn't we.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Backladder wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Backladder wrote:

Four deaths, two wearing helmets and two not, are they recommending body armour to eliminate the deaths while wearing helmets? Perhaps the ultimate protection is to wrap a car around the cyclist?

What you should be asking is: Is wearing body armour a reasonable control to put in place by law? They would seem to think not, and I for one (not that it matters) would agree with them. And also: is wearing a helmet a reasonable control to put in place by law? They would seem to think so, though I disagree with them (again, not that it matters).

Actually I would be asking what the other two died of because they could have died of head injuries as well but they're just leaving out that information.

And, assuming for a moment that they did die of head injuries despite wearing a helmet, what conclusion would you draw from that information? If it's that helmets are ineffective for protecting against head injuries, you would be jumping to a false conclusion. If it's that helmets are ineffective for protecting against some head injuries, you would of course be correct, but we already knew that, didn't we.

Yes, we already know that but it might give us evidence to present to the Cypriot governement

Backladder wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Backladder wrote:

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Backladder wrote:

Four deaths, two wearing helmets and two not, are they recommending body armour to eliminate the deaths while wearing helmets? Perhaps the ultimate protection is to wrap a car around the cyclist?

What you should be asking is: Is wearing body armour a reasonable control to put in place by law? They would seem to think not, and I for one (not that it matters) would agree with them. And also: is wearing a helmet a reasonable control to put in place by law? They would seem to think so, though I disagree with them (again, not that it matters).

Actually I would be asking what the other two died of because they could have died of head injuries as well but they're just leaving out that information.

And, assuming for a moment that they did die of head injuries despite wearing a helmet, what conclusion would you draw from that information? If it's that helmets are ineffective for protecting against head injuries, you would be jumping to a false conclusion. If it's that helmets are ineffective for protecting against some head injuries, you would of course be correct, but we already knew that, didn't we.

Yes, we already know that but it might give us evidence to present to the Cypriot governement

Do the Cypriot government expect helmets to completely prevent all head injuries? I don't know but I highly doubt it. In my experience some civil servants are at least slightly intelligent.

ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:

Backladder wrote:

Do the Cypriot government expect helmets to completely prevent all head injuries? I don't know but I highly doubt it. In my experience some civil servants are at least slightly intelligent.

From what I've read, they do think that cycle helmets do protect against death and expect to see a reduction in the death rate of cyclists as a result of their law.  This means that they have done no research at all, or are being paid by helmet makers.

There appears to have been no consultation, no public debate, and just one misled but determined minister is apparently sufficient.

eburtthebike wrote:

This means that they have done no research at all, or are being paid by helmet makers.

Ha yes this must be the only 2 possible options. It's either that they're stupid or a conspiracy by 'big helmet'. You're on a different planet, seriously.

It couldn't possibly be that they acknowledge that their roads are hazardous for cyclists and they are trying to do something to reduce road-related mortality. Couldn't possibly be that, could it.