Victoria (Australia) - recent report on cycling casualties

New report may interest some. Apparently, "of the 30 cyclists with a
fatal injury for whom coronial data were available, 23 (77%) wore a
helmet, a proportion consistent with a 1994 Victorian survey of helmet
wearing."

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/...tml#0_CHDJEIJA

"restricting access for bicycle riders to major roads with high-speed
vehicles, especially in peak periods — may not be well received by
cyclists." Mustn't interfere with those high-speed vehicles of course.

"Injuries to the extremities, although not life-threatening, were
common among ED and hospital presentations and often involved long-
term morbidity, so strategies to target these injuries are also
needed."

So, Victoria, watch out for compulsory Mad Max-style chain mail gear,
seven-fold hide codpieces and winkle-warmers, and skateboarder pads.
Or just scrub the trip to the grocers and phone for a delivery. You
know it makes sense.

On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 16:28:33 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
said in
:

New report may interest some. Apparently, "of the 30 cyclists with a
fatal injury for whom coronial data were available, 23 (77%) wore a
helmet, a proportion consistent with a 1994 Victorian survey of helmet
wearing."

Yup, this is what's been found in all helmet law jurisdictions, as
far as I know. The proportion of head injured cyclists who are
helmeted is the same as the proportion of cyclists who are helmeted.
It's not really a surprise, most hospital presentations are due to
road traffic collisions and as we are all well aware helmets are
simply not designed for that.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Contents packed by intellectual weight and may settle
after posting. May contain traces of irony.

On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 09:07:39 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:

On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 16:28:33 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
said in
:

New report may interest some. Apparently, "of the 30 cyclists with a
fatal injury for whom coronial data were available, 23 (77%) wore a
helmet, a proportion consistent with a 1994 Victorian survey of helmet
wearing."

Yup, this is what's been found in all helmet law jurisdictions, as
far as I know. The proportion of head injured cyclists who are
helmeted is the same as the proportion of cyclists who are helmeted.
It's not really a surprise, most hospital presentations are due to
road traffic collisions and as we are all well aware helmets are
simply not designed for that.

Guy


Your understanding of what has been stated is intentionally wrong - I
will help you with it:

They do not state that:"The proportion of head injured cyclists who
are helmeted is the same as the proportion of cyclists who are
helmeted" - or even anything like it.

What they are saying is that if you look at the proportion of deaths -
then 77% of deaths wore a helmet- the same as before the helmet
legislation.

Indeed, the only reason I would expect this figure to change is if
helmet effectiveness was changed.

Did you perhaps not see the summary:

Despite the increasing number of bicyclists in Victoria, the number of
reported bicycle casualty accidents does not seem to have changed
substantially between 2002 and 2007. Controversy about the requirement
for all cyclists to wear helmets continues, but the 1990 legislation
making helmets compulsory for bicyclists in Victoria was associated
with a decrease in non-fatal head injuries and fatalities

Wearing an approved safety helmet substantially reduces the risk of
serious head injury in cyclists who fall or are involved in collisions
with motor vehicles.

So - helmets introduced.
Number of cyclists goes up - all wearing helmets
Number of accidents has gone down. So no Risk Compensation here then.

And giving an overall decrease in non-fatal head injuries and
fatalities.

That to me looks like a resounding success for the legislation.

(It's usually only when *you* comment on something do I look at it in
detail. Many thanks for drawing my attention to it)

Feel free to point out any unintentional errors I may have made.

I will continue to point out the intentional errors which you make.

Another Chapman "gem"

The despicable Chapman strikes again.




--




The Bicycle Helmet Research Foundation (BHRF) is an independent body with the message:
Helmets are not beneficial to cyclists - unless the evidence forces them to a dramatically different conclusion.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Sun, 5 Apr 2009 16:28:33 -0700 (PDT), Squashme
said in
:

New report may interest some. Apparently, "of the 30 cyclists with a
fatal injury for whom coronial data were available, 23 (77%) wore a
helmet, a proportion consistent with a 1994 Victorian survey of helmet
wearing."

It's not really a surprise, most hospital presentations are due to
road traffic collisions and as we are all well aware helmets are
simply not designed for that.

Do you have a source for that assertion?

Evidence from from NL[2] shows that 90% of all cyclist casualties result
from cyclist-only crashes, Australian evidence[3] suggests that "80% of
cyclists hospitalised in WA are injured in single-vehicle crashes; ie
those not involving a motor vehicle" and evidence from the UK[1] shows
that 64% of pedal cyclist casualties resulted from accidents involving
no other vehicle.

[1]
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme5/roadaccidentscasualtiescomp.pdf
[2] http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Bicycle_helmets.pdf
[3] http://web.aanet.com.au/d-e/VELO/Bruce_velo.htm

--
Matt B

On 6 Apr, 00:28, Squashme wrote:
"restricting access for bicycle riders to major roads with high-speed
vehicles, especially in peak periods — may not be well received by
cyclists." Mustn't interfere with those high-speed vehicles of course.

In peak time, in cities, a high speed vehicle is one of these:
http://www.infovisual.info/05/img_en/033%20Bicycle.jpg

And a congestion causing vehicle is one of these
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/regul...mages/cars.jpg
http://www.freefoto.com/images/2030/...on-Bus_web.jpg
http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Travel/...xi/TaxiCab.jpg

On Mon, 06 Apr 2009, Matt B wrote:

Evidence from from NL[2] shows that 90% of all cyclist casualties

That's the one were the percentage changes each time the paper
quotes the figure, isn't it? Very reliable.

--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 04:30:17 -0700 (PDT), Paul Weaver
said in
:

And a congestion causing vehicle is one of these
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/regul...mages/cars.jpg
http://www.freefoto.com/images/2030/...on-Bus_web.jpg
http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Travel/...xi/TaxiCab.jpg

Shamelessly stolen (not at the original source any more, I think):

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Highway_robbery

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Contents packed by intellectual weight and may settle
after posting. May contain traces of irony.

Judith Smith wrote:
So - helmets introduced.
Number of cyclists goes up - all wearing helmets
Number of accidents has gone down.

As expected.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/...stract/9/3/205

BugBear

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 04:30:17 -0700 (PDT), Paul Weaver
said in
:

And a congestion causing vehicle is one of these
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/regul...mages/cars.jpg
http://www.freefoto.com/images/2030/...on-Bus_web.jpg
http://www.ukstudentlife.com/Travel/...xi/TaxiCab.jpg

Shamelessly stolen (not at the original source any more, I think):

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Highway_robbery

Except, as you have been told before (more than once iirc), that yours
is based on the fallacy that buses always travel at full occupancy, and
that cars carry no more than the driver.

If you used real-world occupancy figures (1.6 passengers per car, 9
passengers per bus) you'd see that typically 22 cars, or 4 buses would
be needed to carry the 35 people in the picture, occupying approximately
the same road space.

[1]
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk.rec.cycling/msg/c306097cc222dcc8?hl=en

--
Matt B

On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:11:59 +0100, bugbear
said in
:

Judith Smith wrote:
So - helmets introduced.
Number of cyclists goes up - all wearing helmets
Number of accidents has gone down.

As expected.
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/...stract/9/3/205

As has been said many times, the effect of the Aus laws was to
reduce injuries by rather less than they reduced numbers cycling,
thus increasing the risk per cyclist. What we see here is that
numbers of cyclists increasing is not associated with any increase
in injury rates, consistent with the "safety in numbers" hypothesis.
Studies of the head injury rates in law countries show that the %HI
vs. %HW shows no helmet effect.

In other words, the Aus (and NZ) experience proves that cycle safety
has no provable connection to helmets despite the concerted efforts
of helmet proponents to show otherwise (it's an article of faith,
they always say how well they work even when posting data that shows
they don't). It's not in the least surprising, the dominant source
of serious injury is road traffic collisions and helmets simply are
not designed for that. What's surprising is the fact that they will
still claim efficacy, usually referenced back to the same old TR&T
nonsense, even when analysing the populations that most clearly
demonstrate the opposite!

The report originally cited does use proof by assertion to try to
prove the point that helmets are effective in preventing cyclist
injuries, but actually it turns out that there is no evidence to
support this. Actually their proportion of head injuries looks to
be rather higher than that in the UK, despite the prevalence of
helmets.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

Contents packed by intellectual weight and may settle
after posting. May contain traces of irony.