|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet debate, helmet debate
In da Age today... http://tinyurl.com/g2ml7 Helmets fail fitness 'test' FORCING cyclists to wear helmets damages public health because they discourage many people from riding, an academic says. Dorothy Robinson, a former senior statistician at the University of New England, found that while laws that make wearing helmets mandatory reduced the seriousness of some head injuries, the cost to public health and fitness outweighed their benefit. But some researchers have suggested Ms Robinson's conclusions "crumble" under scrutiny. Writing in The British Medical Journal, Ms Robinson, a keen cyclist, said: "The overall effect on public health is bad, with less people getting fit by cycling since the laws came in, and more driving." -- SuzieB |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet debate, helmet debate
This report in the BMJ was _years_ ago wasn't it?
Sounds good to me, though ;-) Bloody helmets... flame suit on SuzieB wrote: In da Age today... http://tinyurl.com/g2ml7 Helmets fail fitness 'test' FORCING cyclists to wear helmets damages public health because they discourage many people from riding, an academic says. Dorothy Robinson, a former senior statistician at the University of New England, found that while laws that make wearing helmets mandatory reduced the seriousness of some head injuries, the cost to public health and fitness outweighed their benefit. But some researchers have suggested Ms Robinson's conclusions "crumble" under scrutiny. Writing in The British Medical Journal, Ms Robinson, a keen cyclist, said: "The overall effect on public health is bad, with less people getting fit by cycling since the laws came in, and more driving." |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet debate, helmet debate
"Jules" wrote in message ... This report in the BMJ was _years_ ago wasn't it? It's all originally based upon the 'safety in numbers' principle doen by P L Jacobson - Safety in Numbers: More walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and cycling. Summary he Objective: To examine the relationship between the numbers of people walking or bicycling and the frequency of collisions between motorists and walkers or bicyclists. The common wisdom holds that the number of collisions varies directly with the amount of walking and bicycling. However, three published analyses of collision rates at specific intersections found a non-linear relationship, such that collisions rates declined with increases in the numbers of people walking or bicycling. Data: This paper uses five additional data sets (three population level and two time series) to compare the amount of walking or bicycling and the injuries incurring in collisions with motor vehicles. Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communities of varying size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time periods. Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the people walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are larger, it indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the likelihood of collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears that motorists adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling. There is an urgent need for further exploration of the human factors controlling motorist behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling. Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling. This work was then looked at by D Robinson, you can view it he http://www.bfa.asn.au/bfanew/pdf/pub...in_numbers.pdf It shows that the safety in Numbers principle 'works' for Australia, and draws the conclusion that discouraging cycling by whatever means (even if 'safety focussed') is more detrimental to public health than encouraging it. The helmet stuff comes in to the mix because there was an approx 30% instant drop in the numbers of cyclists at the time of mandatory helmet wearing. And now she's published another article, which I can't access until I get to work on Monday..... :-) And.... look out soon for some South Australian research on the Safety in Numbers principle..... to be published. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet debate, helmet debate
On 2006-03-25, Gemma_k (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea: And.... look out soon for some South Australian research on the Safety in Numbers principle..... to be published. First the safety ad, and now this! Thanks Gemma_k! You're my hero. -- TimC Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet debate, helmet debate
"TimC" wrote in message ... On 2006-03-25, Gemma_k (aka Bruce) was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea: And.... look out soon for some South Australian research on the Safety in Numbers principle..... to be published. First the safety ad, and now this! Thanks Gemma_k! You're my hero. The State Cycling Strategy for SA funnily enough uses the Safety in Numbers Principle too..... Released mid Feb. http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/pdfs/...g_strategy.pdf ;-) Cheers Gemma |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet debate, helmet debate
"Gemma_k" wrote in message news:1143255900.438754@teuthos... "Jules" wrote in message ... This report in the BMJ was _years_ ago wasn't it? It's all originally based upon the 'safety in numbers' principle doen by P L Jacobson - Safety in Numbers: More walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and cycling. Summary he Objective: To examine the relationship between the numbers of people walking or bicycling and the frequency of collisions between motorists and walkers or bicyclists. The common wisdom holds that the number of collisions varies directly with the amount of walking and bicycling. However, three published analyses of collision rates at specific intersections found a non-linear relationship, such that collisions rates declined with increases in the numbers of people walking or bicycling. Data: This paper uses five additional data sets (three population level and two time series) to compare the amount of walking or bicycling and the injuries incurring in collisions with motor vehicles. Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communities of varying size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time periods. Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the people walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are larger, it indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the likelihood of collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears that motorists adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling. There is an urgent need for further exploration of the human factors controlling motorist behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling. Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling. This work was then looked at by D Robinson, you can view it he http://www.bfa.asn.au/bfanew/pdf/pub...in_numbers.pdf It shows that the safety in Numbers principle 'works' for Australia, and draws the conclusion that discouraging cycling by whatever means (even if 'safety focussed') is more detrimental to public health than encouraging it. The helmet stuff comes in to the mix because there was an approx 30% instant drop in the numbers of cyclists at the time of mandatory helmet wearing. And now she's published another article, which I can't access until I get to work on Monday..... :-) And.... look out soon for some South Australian research on the Safety in Numbers principle..... to be published. I wonder if there's a volume of bicycle traffic, a critical mass if you will, where motorist behaviour changes substantially. There's probably a point where it stop being considered the behaviour of the radical nutbag and starts being something that most or at least a lot of people do. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet debate, helmet debate
"Resound" wrote in message ... I wonder if there's a volume of bicycle traffic, a critical mass if you will, where motorist behaviour changes substantially. There's probably a point where it stop being considered the behaviour of the radical nutbag and starts being something that most or at least a lot of people do. There's a few theories why this phenomenon works. I think you picked it, but I don't think it's a 'critical mass' thing (smeed's law says it's not a linear relationship either) Theories: One is that there's more people that actually ride, who also drive. Therefore they understand and can 'read' cyclists' behavious better. One is that it's like a herd of beasts - there's only a certin number of lions (drivers) out to get you (make mistakes), the larger the number/herd of beasts the less chance an individual one will get picked out and eaten (run into) And the one I think is more likely - that motorists always seeing cyclists on a road or junction begin to expect them there, and reacting correctly and safely becomes a subconscious driving task rather than a conscious one. But it's more likely to be a combination of all three.... further work reqd :-) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet debate, helmet debate
Gemma_k wrote:
"Resound" wrote in message ... I wonder if there's a volume of bicycle traffic, a critical mass if you will, where motorist behaviour changes substantially. There's probably a point where it stop being considered the behaviour of the radical nutbag and starts being something that most or at least a lot of people do. There's a few theories why this phenomenon works. I think you picked it, but I don't think it's a 'critical mass' thing (smeed's law says it's not a linear relationship either) Theories: One is that there's more people that actually ride, who also drive. Therefore they understand and can 'read' cyclists' behavious better. One is that it's like a herd of beasts - there's only a certin number of lions (drivers) out to get you (make mistakes), the larger the number/herd of beasts the less chance an individual one will get picked out and eaten (run into) And the one I think is more likely - that motorists always seeing cyclists on a road or junction begin to expect them there, and reacting correctly and safely becomes a subconscious driving task rather than a conscious one. But it's more likely to be a combination of all three.... further work reqd :-) Another possibility, more cyclists means less drivers which leads to less destructive potential on the roads. -- Cheers | ~~ __@ Euan | ~~ _-\, Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet debate, helmet debate
Gemma_k wrote:
Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the people walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are larger, it indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the likelihood of collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears that motorists adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling. There is an urgent need for further exploration of the human factors controlling motorist behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling. There's overlap with second generation traffic engineering here? As I understand it the point of second generation traffic engineering is to remove most of the `guaranteed' road space for motorists forcing them to think about how they're interacting with other traffic. http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feat...ign/index.html -- Cheers | ~~ __@ Euan | ~~ _-\, Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet debate, helmet debate
Gemma_k wrote:
The helmet stuff comes in to the mix because there was an approx 30% instant drop in the numbers of cyclists at the time of mandatory helmet wearing. And now she's published another article, which I can't access until I get to work on Monday..... :-) From BFA Mail List: On 25/03/2006, at 5:45 PM, Dorothy Robinson wrote: Temporary links can be found at: http://web.aanet.com.au/d-e/BMJ/Robinson_06_BMJ.pdf http://web.aanet.com.au/d-e/BMJ/Hage...MJ_HL_resp.pdf My draft comments on Hagel's arguments http://web.aanet.com.au/d-e/BMJ/BMJ_PS.doc -- Peter McCallum Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trikki Beltran's bad concussion and his helmet | gwhite | Techniques | 1015 | August 27th 05 08:36 AM |
Ontario Helmet Law being pushed through | Chris B. | General | 1379 | February 9th 05 04:10 PM |
What doctors/researchers think about wearing a helmet. | John Doe | UK | 304 | December 5th 04 01:32 PM |
Does public health care pay for your head injuries? | John Doe | UK | 187 | November 30th 04 02:51 PM |
education | davek | UK | 67 | September 3rd 04 02:22 PM |