Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

nzma.org.nz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 50 posts

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#41

Post by snowwrestler »

nols wrote: post #16
cpearce wrote: post #8

My bicycle helment saved my life. You'll never convince me they're a bad idea.

No one is saying you shouldn't wear them, the debate is whether or not countries should make it mandatory. If you require bicycle helmets then fewer people ride their bikes, leading to fewer people pushing for safe bicycling laws, more cars on the road, and a less active (and thus less healthy) population.

You're correct about what the evidence actually shows. But unfortunately quite a few people misinterpret it and end up saying that no one should wear a helmet at all, even voluntarily.

See for example this stupid article, which was originally titled "The Case for Ditching Your Helmet." I came across it because a friend posted it to Facebook as "proof" that wearing a helmet never made anyone safer.

http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/bodywork/the-fit-list/H...

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#42

Post by adwf »

The study makes some comparisons to UK cycling which should be taken with a pinch of salt. The UK has some of the highest density road traffic in the world - NZ nowhere near.

Not to mention the argument that increased cycling deaths offsets deaths by obesity is completely specious. Obesity kills when you're 40-50+, not wearing a helmet kills kids when they're 10. I know which I'd prefer as a parent.

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#43

Post by snowwrestler »

alrs wrote: post #18
cpearce wrote: post #8

My bicycle helment saved my life. You'll never convince me they're a bad idea.

You are guided by faith, not data. You wore a helmet when you crashed, and you lived. You also wore socks and underwear. EDIT: I realize that there is no debate, as I will "never convince (you) they're a bad idea." I'm talking to the people who are coming at this with an open mind.

One minute from now, someone is going to hit you in the head. You have the choice of whether to put on a helmet first, or not. Which would you choose? Thus the benefit of wearing a helmet is demonstrated.

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#44

Post by WalterBright »

analog31 wrote: post #17
nzealand wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fewer children are cycling and walking to school. More children are being dropped off at school by car. More cars and less cyclists ultimately results in less safe conditions for cyclists.

>>>>> Fewer children are cycling and walking to school. More children are being dropped off at school by car. I'm actually astounded by this. I grew up in a fairly typical suburban neighborhood, and everybody walked to school. A few weeks before I started kindergarten, my mom walked me to school, to make sure I knew the way. The kids who got driven to school, were teased for it. Today, every kid in that neighborhood…

When I went to school, the bike racks were large and jammed with bikes. These days, there's maybe one 6 foot rack for the whole school, with 3 bikes in it.

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#45

Post by tjradcliffe »

This is barely above junk. Most strikingly, there is no data that shows trends prior to the introduction of the helmet law. Therefore there is no model for comparing the before and after scenario to the "do nothing scenario", which is what you care about.

There are good, well-known, well-understood methods for handling all the problems with this paper, but since the author hasn't used any of them this work does not do more than incrementally increase the plausibility of the proposition that "Helmet laws make cycling less safe".

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#46

Post by tjradcliffe »

awjr wrote: post #2

For those with too little time, the basic premise is that helmet laws appear to suppress cycling significantly, increase the risk of cycling and cause premature deaths through lack of exercise TL;DR "The following trends were observed following the introduction of New Zealand’s helmet law: Cycling usage reduced by 51%. Cyclist’s injury risk per hour increased by 20–32%. Estimated to have contributed to 53 premature d…

You are correct that the basic premise is that cycling laws cause problems. Unfortunately, there is no data or analysis that would tend more than incrementally toward that conclusion.

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#47

Post by andreasvc »

shasheene wrote: post #15

Correlation does not imply causation - the observed 75% reduction of cycling among children aged 5-17 (from 40 minutes to 10 minutes per person per week) from 1989/90 to 2005/08 coincides with the increase in popularity of internet/video games etc (and I believe, a drop in all forms of outdoor activity) Also this article is 3 years old and should probably be appended with [2012]

I am so tired of this phrase. Please stop citing it as if it is some kind of knockdown argument.

Evidence for causation consists of a correlation and a proposed causal mechanism. Presenting us with random correlations does not disprove anything.

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#48

Post by andreasvc »

Svip wrote: post #25
shasheene wrote: post #15

Correlation does not imply causation - the observed 75% reduction of cycling among children aged 5-17 (from 40 minutes to 10 minutes per person per week) from 1989/90 to 2005/08 coincides with the increase in popularity of internet/video games etc (and I believe, a drop in all forms of outdoor activity) Also this article is 3 years old and should probably be appended with [2012]

In the latter half of the period you mention, distance cycled in Copenhagen has gone up about 25%.[0] I realise that Denmark and the Netherlands are the 'exceptions' to the rule, because there cycling is used to actually get places rather than for fun. But I know Denmark has no strict helmet laws. Not sure about the Netherlands. [0] http://cyclehelmets.org/1257.html

No helmet laws in the Netherlands.

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#49

Post by allendoerfer »

I think the problem with laws like this is drawing a line when to stop. How much should a state protect you from yourself? I would argue, that the state should indeed protect mentally ill people from doing harm to themselves but should not hinder me to harm myself if I do not endanger others with my actions. I value my freedom much higher than winning the world life-expectancy competition.

Unfortunately our society works around fears. You need fear to get attention or political approval. Everything is getting more complex and thus more and more people want the to step in and regulate things for them.

Additionally this liberal [0] thinking is a bit elitist. To make it actually work in a society drifting apart, you would have to invest huge amounts in education and welfare to prevent typical health problems of the underclass. This would ironically increase the size of the state.

[0]: In the European meaning of the word.

Re: Evaluation of New Zealand’s bicycle helmet law (2012)

#50

Post by glomph »

enraged_camel wrote: post #30
shoegumfoot wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, except that the same thing has been found in other studies as well. The results of this study are completely unsurprising to anyone who has read any other study of helmet laws in his/her life. At some point you just have to accept the evidence.

It's not about accepting the evidence. It's about making sure we interpret it correctly. The main question to ask is this: why exactly do mandatory helmet laws reduce bicycle usage, and what needs to be done to address it? Is it that helmets are too expensive? (They aren't.) Is it that they are too difficult to put on and take off? (They aren't.) Is it that they are too uncomfortable? (Maybe, but not any more so than…

It may well be that it makes cycling seem more dangerous.
Post reply on HN