Cyclists

[Ogre Moran]

The evidence on 30kmph speed limits is pretty clear too, that saves a lot of lives, with a bunch of other benefits:

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/11/4382
"Results from 40 different cities across Europe, including Brussels, Paris, and Zurich, indicated that reductions in speed limits improved road safety by decreasing the likelihood of crash risk and the severity of crashes that do occur. On average, the implementation of 30 km/h speed limits in European cities demonstrated a 23%, 37%, and 38% reduction in road crashes, fatalities, and injuries, respectively. Lower speed limits also yielded environmental benefits, with emissions decreasing on average by 18%, noise pollution levels by 2.5 dB, and fuel consumption by 7%, indicating enhanced fuel efficiency and reduced environmental impact."


An almost 40% reduction in fatalities and injuries is huge.

Where would you have 30 km/h applying? Housing estates most certainly (supplemented, IMO, by speed bumps and such like). But what about, say, the Western Road or the Carrigrohane Straight?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

It's not unambigious.

As an example, you can explain a very large proportion of the fatality reduction in australia from mandatory helmets as being down to fewer cyclists.

And the effectiveness of helmets is disputed, e.g.

https://academicstrive.com/IJARO/IJARO180008.pdf

"the prevalence of all significant trauma was 26% in the group of patients with helmet and 20% in the group without helmets (p-value=0.048). The overall mortality was 1%. There was no difference in mortality between helmeted and non-helmeted patients"

Rethinking bicycle helmets as a preventive tool: a 4-year review of bicycle injuries - European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery

Introduction Traumatic brain injury is a leading cause of disability in bicycle riders. Preventive measures including bicycle helmet laws have been highlighted; however, its protective role has always been debated. The aim of this study was to determine the utility of bicycle helmets in...

link.springer.com

"A total of 864 patients were reviewed of which, 709 patients (helmeted = 300, non-helmeted = 409) were included. Non-helmeted bicycle riders were more likely to be young (p < 0.001) males (p = 0.01). There was no difference in the median ISS between the two groups (p = 0.3). Non-helmeted riders were more likely to have a skull fracture (p = 0.01) and a scalp laceration (p = 0.01) compared to the helmeted riders. There was no difference in intra-cranial hemorrhage between the two groups (p = 0.1). Wearing a bicycle helmet was not independently associated (p = 0.1) with development of intra-cranial hemorrhage."

So for serious brain injuries, no difference.

Ridiculous post.


Wearing a bicycle helmet significantly reduces the risk of head trauma (including head injuries, serious head/brain injuries, and fatalities) in the event of a crash or fall.

Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies consistently show this protective effect, with helmets absorbing and distributing impact forces to the head.

Key findings from major meta-analyses and reviews include:

Helmets are associated with a reduction in head injury risk by approximately 48–60% (odds ratios often around 0.49–0.53, meaning roughly halved odds).


For serious head injury (e.g., severe brain injury or requiring neurosurgery), reductions are typically higher, around 60–69% (e.g., odds ratio ~0.31–0.40).


Fatal head injury risk is reduced by about 65–71% in many estimates (e.g., odds ratios around 0.29–0.35).


Facial injuries are also reduced (often 23–33%), while there's no clear increase in neck injury risk (and often no association).


For example:A widely cited 2017 meta-analysis (covering 40 studies and over 64,000 cyclists) found helmet use linked to 51% lower odds of head injury, 69% for serious head injury, and 65% for fatal head injury.


A 2018 meta-analysis estimated 60% reduction in serious head/brain injury and 71% in fatal head/brain injury.
Earlier foundational work (e.g., Cochrane reviews and 2000 meta-analysis) showed reductions in head/brain injury ranging from 63–88% in some contexts, with consistent evidence across ages, crash types (single-vehicle or motor vehicle involved), and settings.



Olivier and Creighton (2017): A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw153). It summarized 40 studies and found helmet use associated with:

• 51% reduction in odds of head injury
• 69% reduction in serious head injury
• 33% reduction in facial injury
• 65% reduction in fatal head injury

Attewell et al. (2001): An earlier foundational meta-analysis in Accident Analysis & Prevention (doi: 10.1016/S0001-4575(00)00048-8). Based on studies from 1987–1998, it estimated:

• ~60% reduction in head injury (summary OR = 0.40)
• Significant protection against brain injury and fatal injury (OR = 0.27 for fatal)

A 2023 systematic review of meta-analyses (Büth et al., Scientific Reports, confirmed helmets are beneficial regardless of age, crash severity, or type, synthesizing prior meta-analyses like Olivier/Creighton and Høye.


A 2024 Norwegian trauma center study (published in Acta Neuro om hospitalized cyclists found helmet use linked to lower rates of serious head injuries (OR 0.29), fewer neurosurgical procedures (OR 0.36), and overall fewer/severe head traumas.




People trying to argue the toss on the safety benefits of wearing helmets are total cranks.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

As HBB establishes, the international evidence does not support the measure.

Nonsense.

 

[Ogre Moran]

Ridiculous post.


Wearing a bicycle helmet significantly reduces the risk of head trauma (including head injuries, serious head/brain injuries, and fatalities) in the event of a crash or fall.

Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies consistently show this protective effect, with helmets absorbing and distributing impact forces to the head.

Key findings from major meta-analyses and reviews include:

Helmets are associated with a reduction in head injury risk by approximately 48–60% (odds ratios often around 0.49–0.53, meaning roughly halved odds).


For serious head injury (e.g., severe brain injury or requiring neurosurgery), reductions are typically higher, around 60–69% (e.g., odds ratio ~0.31–0.40).


Fatal head injury risk is reduced by about 65–71% in many estimates (e.g., odds ratios around 0.29–0.35).


Facial injuries are also reduced (often 23–33%), while there's no clear increase in neck injury risk (and often no association).


For example:A widely cited 2017 meta-analysis (covering 40 studies and over 64,000 cyclists) found helmet use linked to 51% lower odds of head injury, 69% for serious head injury, and 65% for fatal head injury.


A 2018 meta-analysis estimated 60% reduction in serious head/brain injury and 71% in fatal head/brain injury.
Earlier foundational work (e.g., Cochrane reviews and 2000 meta-analysis) showed reductions in head/brain injury ranging from 63–88% in some contexts, with consistent evidence across ages, crash types (single-vehicle or motor vehicle involved), and settings.



Olivier and Creighton (2017): A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw153). It summarized 40 studies and found helmet use associated with:

• 51% reduction in odds of head injury
• 69% reduction in serious head injury
• 33% reduction in facial injury
• 65% reduction in fatal head injury

Attewell et al. (2001): An earlier foundational meta-analysis in Accident Analysis & Prevention (doi: 10.1016/S0001-4575(00)00048-8). Based on studies from 1987–1998, it estimated:

• ~60% reduction in head injury (summary OR = 0.40)
• Significant protection against brain injury and fatal injury (OR = 0.27 for fatal)

A 2023 systematic review of meta-analyses (Büth et al., Scientific Reports, confirmed helmets are beneficial regardless of age, crash severity, or type, synthesizing prior meta-analyses like Olivier/Creighton and Høye.


A 2024 Norwegian trauma center study (published in Acta Neuro om hospitalized cyclists found helmet use linked to lower rates of serious head injuries (OR 0.29), fewer neurosurgical procedures (OR 0.36), and overall fewer/severe head traumas.




People trying to argue the toss on the safety benefits of wearing helmets are total cranks.

Let them wear them if they want. Excellent AI synopsis BTW.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Let them wear them if they want. Excellent AI synopsis BTW.

Nah they need to make it mandatory as fuckwits like Ginty will always be arguing against the overwhelming scientific evidence

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Hi Vis for cyclists


Positive evidence (reduced risk): A prominent 2018 Danish randomised controlled trial (Lahrmann et al., Safety Science involved over 6,700 cyclists assigned to wear (or not wear) a yellow hi-vis jacket for a year. It reported:

• 47% lower overall accident rate (self-reported incidents per person-month).
• 55% lower rate for collisions with motor vehicles.

Bring in mandatory helmets and hi vis for cyclists, save lives.


Its that simple.


Next.

 

[How bad boy]

Ridiculous post.


Wearing a bicycle helmet significantly reduces the risk of head trauma (including head injuries, serious head/brain injuries, and fatalities) in the event of a crash or fall.

Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies consistently show this protective effect, with helmets absorbing and distributing impact forces to the head.

Key findings from major meta-analyses and reviews include:

Helmets are associated with a reduction in head injury risk by approximately 48–60% (odds ratios often around 0.49–0.53, meaning roughly halved odds).


For serious head injury (e.g., severe brain injury or requiring neurosurgery), reductions are typically higher, around 60–69% (e.g., odds ratio ~0.31–0.40).


Fatal head injury risk is reduced by about 65–71% in many estimates (e.g., odds ratios around 0.29–0.35).


Facial injuries are also reduced (often 23–33%), while there's no clear increase in neck injury risk (and often no association).


For example:A widely cited 2017 meta-analysis (covering 40 studies and over 64,000 cyclists) found helmet use linked to 51% lower odds of head injury, 69% for serious head injury, and 65% for fatal head injury.


A 2018 meta-analysis estimated 60% reduction in serious head/brain injury and 71% in fatal head/brain injury.
Earlier foundational work (e.g., Cochrane reviews and 2000 meta-analysis) showed reductions in head/brain injury ranging from 63–88% in some contexts, with consistent evidence across ages, crash types (single-vehicle or motor vehicle involved), and settings.



Olivier and Creighton (2017): A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw153). It summarized 40 studies and found helmet use associated with:

• 51% reduction in odds of head injury
• 69% reduction in serious head injury
• 33% reduction in facial injury
• 65% reduction in fatal head injury

Attewell et al. (2001): An earlier foundational meta-analysis in Accident Analysis & Prevention (doi: 10.1016/S0001-4575(00)00048-8). Based on studies from 1987–1998, it estimated:

• ~60% reduction in head injury (summary OR = 0.40)
• Significant protection against brain injury and fatal injury (OR = 0.27 for fatal)

A 2023 systematic review of meta-analyses (Büth et al., Scientific Reports, confirmed helmets are beneficial regardless of age, crash severity, or type, synthesizing prior meta-analyses like Olivier/Creighton and Høye.


A 2024 Norwegian trauma center study (published in Acta Neuro om hospitalized cyclists found helmet use linked to lower rates of serious head injuries (OR 0.29), fewer neurosurgical procedures (OR 0.36), and overall fewer/severe head traumas.




People trying to argue the toss on the safety benefits of wearing helmets are total cranks.

Do those papers account for reduction in cycling rates?

I checked the paper I cited, to make sure it did. Did you?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Do those papers account for reduction in cycling rates?

I checked the paper I cited, to make sure it did. Did you?

Erra stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[How bad boy]

Where would you have 30 km/h applying? Housing estates most certainly (supplemented, IMO, by speed bumps and such like). But what about, say, the Western Road or the Carrigrohane Straight?

The approach taken by some countries is to just reduce the standard urban speed limit from 50 to 30 or in the case of Wales, from 30 to 20mph.

In that case:
"Figures from the Welsh government revealed there were 2,638 people injured, including deaths, on low-speed roads in the most recent 18 months, compared with 3,520 injuries between April 2022 and September 2023, a reduction of 25%."

Nearly 900 fewer people injured since 20mph introduction in Wales

Figures show a 25% reduction in the number of injuries on Wales' roads in the past 18 months.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[How bad boy]

Erra stop embarrassing yourself.

If you made every cyclist pay €1M for a license fee annually and insist they wear an inflatable outfit with large flashing orange lights attached to their heads, along with a siren blasting at all times, you could reduce cycling fatalities to zero.


The denominator matters. If you introduce measures that cut cycling by 40%, then claim a 40% reduction in fatalities, well there's an obvious flaw in the logic if you're claiming helmets save lives.

I think they probably do, but they're nowhere near as effective as that AI "research" claims, and the resultant reduction in cycling carries huge negative public health implications that's generally ignored by those advocating for compulsory helmets