Motor cycle helmets
Mike Sales
Congress by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation on "the effect of motorcycle
helmet use law repeal". This shows a graph of motorcycle deaths (per number
of motorcycles) over the years when 40 states introduced helmet compulsion
and then 27 of them repealed the law. This shows a decline in deaths as
compulsion laws were passed and an increase when some states repealed. The
figures are for deaths nationally, not for individual states. It looks like
a cast iron case for compulsion.
However, Adams then splits the states which repealed from the ones which
kept compulsion. In all states deaths went up, but by rather more in the
states which kept the law. Throughout the period of repeals the death rate
in the repeal states was on average 19% lower than in the non repeal states.
The effectiveness of motorcycle helmet compulsion is a myth. The use of
this graph is typical of the helmeteers, and shows how the myth is
maintained.
In the first full year of the British motor cycle helmet law fatality
rates for motorcyclists increased 2%, while for all classes of road user
they decreased 3%.
Mike Sales
A.lee
> The effectiveness of motorcycle helmet compulsion is a myth. The use of
> this graph is typical of the helmeteers, and shows how the myth is
> maintained.
> In the first full year of the British motor cycle helmet law fatality
> rates for motorcyclists increased 2%, while for all classes of road user
> they decreased 3%.
This helmet debate is completely boring, and has been done so many times
before on this group.Perhaps its time to start a new group just for helmets
- then we wouldnt have to trudge through the usual responses when anyone
mentions them.
Comparing Motorcycle helmets with Cycle helmets is also a non starter -
motorcycle helmets are made a lot sturdier than Cycle helmets, and
motorcycle riders can expect to be going a lot faster than a cyclist for
the majority of the time,thus they will have a far greater risk of injury
if falling off.
I wont be following up again on this as the subject is so tedious.
Alan.
--
To reply by e-mail, change the 'minus' to 'plus'.
http://www.dvatc.co.uk - Off-road cycling in the North Midlands.
Richard Goodman
news:3fe58514$0$8564$4c56...@master.news.zetnet.net...
> However, Adams then splits the states which repealed from the ones
which
> kept compulsion. In all states deaths went up, but by rather more in the
> states which kept the law. Throughout the period of repeals the death rate
> in the repeal states was on average 19% lower than in the non repeal
states.
> The effectiveness of motorcycle helmet compulsion is a myth. The use
of
> this graph is typical of the helmeteers, and shows how the myth is
> maintained.
> In the first full year of the British motor cycle helmet law fatality
> rates for motorcyclists increased 2%, while for all classes of road user
> they decreased 3%.
>
But again, it would still be interesting to know the cause of death. Did
the rates of death attributable to head injury change at all? Was there
any change in the rates of non-fatal accident-related disablement
attributable to head injury?
Rich
Mike Sales
"A.lee" wrote
> This helmet debate is completely boring, and has been done so many times
> before on this group.Perhaps its time to start a new group just for
helmets
> mentions them.
I find many posts on this group boring, but I don't trudge through them, I
just click "mark conversation as read". I don't try to stifle them.
> Comparing Motorcycle helmets with Cycle helmets is also a non starter -
> motorcycle helmets are made a lot sturdier than Cycle helmets, and
> motorcycle riders can expect to be going a lot faster than a cyclist for
> the majority of the time,thus they will have a far greater risk of injury
> if falling off.
> I wont be following up again on this as the subject is so tedious.
>
expected to? The myth that motorcycle helmets worked is used as evidence in
favour of cycle helmet compulsion.
Mike Sales
Mark Thompson
> before on this group.Perhaps its time to start a new group just for
helmets
> - then we wouldnt have to trudge through the usual responses when anyone
> mentions them.
I sympathise. The problem is that people are trying to make many members of
this group into criminals for popping down to the shops. It's probably the
biggest single issue facing the cycling community, thus it will be
discussed. The problem is that those discussing it (including me) are as
incompetent at statistics as those writing the websites we get our
information from. Thus the debate is generally of a low standard.
Fortunately over the past couple of months a consensus has emerged which
should shorten the threads. Helmets are a Good Thing if you're going to
fall off. They're Worth A Go if you're going to be hit by a car. People on
this group very rarely fall off because, despite its perception, cycling is
pretty safe. Thus it's really not that suprising if you don't wear a
helmet.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>This helmet debate is completely boring, and has been done so many times
>before on this group
The post above yours in my newsreader notes that a private members'
bill on compulsory helmets, drafted by BeHIT, will be brought in the
next parliamentary session. Still think it's not important?
We need to ensure that as many people as possible are armed with all
the facts. Whether one wears a helmet or not, I don't think anybody
here believes that compulsion would be anything other than a disaster
for cycling. It's an experiment that's failed in other countries and
set back the cause of cycling by decades, it's a measure which has
repeatedly failed to deliver the promised benefit, and in the case of
BeHIT in particular it relies on figures which even the original
authors have now admitted are greatly exaggerated.
You don't need to respond. You can kf or ignore the thread. If you
are already fully informed, then fine.
I believe that this issue is the biggest challenge facing UK cyclists
right now. Compulsory helmet laws would be a massive setback in the
ongoing campaign to place the blame for cyclist injuries where it
belongs, with careless drivers, and to seek to reduce injuries by
means which work, including increasing cycling and reducing traffic
speeds.
Weasel lawyers already try to claim that injured cyclists are
responsible for their own demise if they are not wearing a helmet. At
present they are failing. A law (even if only for minors) will change
that, have no doubt.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
dwb
> If motorcycle helmets don't work, then how can a scrap of polystyrene be
> expected to? The myth that motorcycle helmets worked is used as evidence
in
> favour of cycle helmet compulsion.
From my very personal experience motorcycle helmets most definitely do work.
Twice in fact.
I've also crashed a bicycle wearing a bicycle helmet - that saved my bonce
too (the helmet was smashed just behind my ear).
If you don't believe they work, would you be so kind as try the following :
Bash your head against a brick wall wearing a nice trendy hat.
Have someone else do the same while wearing a motorcycle helmet.
Discuss results.
In the case of a whiplash injury - yes, motorcycle helmets can cause injury.
In the case of object penetration, impact, abrasion they are extremely
tough.
I'd suggest you do a bit more research into the design of a modern helmet
before you say it's a 'scrap' of polystyrene.
Just zis Guy, you know?
news:bs6frq$9su40$1...@ID-114060.news.uni-berlin.de...
> If you don't believe they work, would you be so kind as try the following
:
> Bash your head against a brick wall wearing a nice trendy hat.
> Have someone else do the same while wearing a motorcycle helmet.
If you believe they work, would you be so kind as to try the following:
Ask someone to bash their head against a wall wearing a nice trendy hat
Ask someone else to do the same while wearing motorcycle helmet
See who is more likely to agree.
While awaiting results, read up on risk compensation theory.
--
Guy
===
WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
Mark Thompson
> If you believe they work, would you be so kind as to try the following:
> Ask someone to bash their head against a wall wearing a nice trendy hat
> Ask someone else to do the same while wearing motorcycle helmet
>
> See who is more likely to agree.
>
> While awaiting results, read up on risk compensation theory.
So basically you two will agree that helmets are a Good Thing if you are
going to fall off (even though they sometimes cause other injuries, the Good
Thing bit outways this) BUT the knowledge that you're that little bit safer
wearing one ensures that when you look at the whole population of
motorcyclists they take ever so slightly more risks, so fall off more often.
Falling off more often outweighs the increased protection of the helmet,
thus making helmets, on a population level, a Bad Thing. Not because of the
helmet, which is a Good Thing, but because we're stupid and go in for risk
compensation?
Is this what you were getting at? Please say yes otherwise I've not got a
clue what your point was :-)
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote in message news:bs6jbd$4g3$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
> So basically you two will agree that helmets are a Good Thing if you are
> going to fall off (even though they sometimes cause other injuries, the
Good
> Thing bit outways this) BUT the knowledge that you're that little bit
safer
> wearing one ensures that when you look at the whole population of
> motorcyclists they take ever so slightly more risks, so fall off more
often.
> Falling off more often outweighs the increased protection of the helmet,
> thus making helmets, on a population level, a Bad Thing. Not because of
the
> helmet, which is a Good Thing, but because we're stupid and go in for risk
> compensation?
Indeed. My understanding is that PFDBs reduce the severity of consequences
of impact by an unspecified margin; this margin is undoubtedly well short of
the inflated claims of liddites but the 16% (from memory) figure quoted by
TRL (again, from memory) is plausible.
Hence my past advice that you should never wear a lid unless you absolutely
believe it won't save your life.
Alex Ferrier
>
> So basically you two will agree that helmets are a Good Thing if you are
> going to fall off (even though they sometimes cause other injuries, the
Good
> Thing bit outways this) BUT the knowledge that you're that little bit
safer
> wearing one ensures that when you look at the whole population of
> motorcyclists they take ever so slightly more risks, so fall off more
often.
I'd say they take far greater risks. I know that how I behave on either a
motorbike, MTB or snowboard is greatly influenced by how subjectively safe
I feel. Wearing a helmet greatly increases this feeling of safety.
> Falling off more often outweighs the increased protection of the helmet,
> thus making helmets, on a population level, a Bad Thing. Not because of
the
> helmet, which is a Good Thing, but because we're stupid and go in for risk
> compensation?
>
I think it's actually rather ironic with regard to the motorcycle helmet
issue
that they have been promoted as a safety benefit and made compulsory. Yet
the
one thing that they do without doubt is increase the average speed of travel
by bikers. Speed (which we know because several interested parties keep
telling
us) is supposedly the major contributor to accidents on the road today.
More cake anyone?
<rantette mode>
Personally I think these people should be made to go out and get jobs which
actually do something useful for society. I'm fed-up paying (through my
taxes)
for bunches of self appointed 'experts' to sit down and create non-sensical
conflicting traffic policies which pander to the government of the day's
need
to be seen to be doing something useful. ObCycle: Like creating a cycling
centric
travel infrastructure. Which'd be greener, cheaper, safer, quieter, more
healthy,
congestion busting, industry promoting, and get these bloody push bikes
off major roads and outta my face. ;-)
</rantette mode>
--
Alex
BMW R1150GS
DIAABTCOD#3 MSWF#4 UKRMFBC#6 Ibw#35 BOB#8
http://www.team-ukrm.co.uk
Windy's "little soldier"
Simon Brooke
> "Mike Sales" <mike....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3fe590f7$0$8571$4c56...@master.news.zetnet.net...
>
> > If motorcycle helmets don't work, then how can a scrap of polystyrene be
> > expected to? The myth that motorcycle helmets worked is used as evidence
> in
> > favour of cycle helmet compulsion.
>
> From my very personal experience motorcycle helmets most definitely do work.
> Twice in fact.
I too have personal experience that motorcycle helmets do
work. Skating down the road after a 40 mph crash - not much above high
push bike speeds - I abraded through 3mm of glassfibre layup down to
the foam layer. Had it not been there, I would have had severe injury
to my jaw.
Which is just the point. Bicycle helmets have virtually no abrasion
resistance, and do not protect the side of the head or the face at
all. Bicycle helmets also have virtually no penetration resistance -
in fact, they have large holes, with a streamlined surface which will
tend to deflect protruding objects into those holes in a collision
situation. All they have is a small amount - a very small amount - if
impact resistance, and that only works if you hit more or less square
on.
If bicycle helmets were better there might be some point - but they're
not.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
'You cannot put "The Internet" into the Recycle Bin.'
James Annan
>
> I too have personal experience that motorcycle helmets do
> work. Skating down the road after a 40 mph crash - not much above high
> push bike speeds - I abraded through 3mm of glassfibre layup down to
> the foam layer. Had it not been there, I would have had severe injury
> to my jaw.
I slid along a road at 30mph a few years ago, and abraded though a few
mm of lycra and some skin. Had I not been wearing anything, I would have
suffered slightly worse abrasion to my bottom. As it was, it was
uncomfortable to sit down for a couple of days.
James
Steve R.
> I slid along a road at 30mph a few years ago, and abraded though a few
> mm of lycra and some skin.
C'mon to do that little damage, you must either have rolled quite a bit, or *slid* at
a considerably slower speed. With the weight of a human body on it lycra would wear
through in a matter of feet.
dwb
"Alex Ferrier" <al...@alex-f.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bs6m0b$mra$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
< snip stuff>
Ferroff back to eating the pies!
Alex Ferrier
>
> Alex Ferrier wrote:
>
> < snip stuff>
>
> Ferroff back to eating the pies!
>
Hah! Jealousy will get you nowhere sunshine.
Best get back out on t'track and learn how to
use that bike of yours... Slow boy. ;-)
Mike Gayler
news:87isk9y...@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk:
> I too have personal experience that motorcycle helmets do
> work. Skating down the road after a 40 mph crash - not much above high
> push bike speeds - I abraded through 3mm of glassfibre layup down to
> the foam layer. Had it not been there, I would have had severe injury
> to my jaw.
> Which is just the point. Bicycle helmets have virtually no abrasion
> resistance, and do not protect the side of the head or the face at
> all. Bicycle helmets also have virtually no penetration resistance -
> in fact, they have large holes, with a streamlined surface which will
> tend to deflect protruding objects into those holes in a collision
> situation. All they have is a small amount - a very small amount - if
> impact resistance, and that only works if you hit more or less square
> on.
> If bicycle helmets were better there might be some point - but they're
> not.
>
and elbow after coming of a 250cc bike at about 40mph. The front of the
helmet was a complete mess, and I broke my elbow.
The area covered by a bicycle helmet was not damaged in the slightest.
It was a standard SMIDSY collision which could have happened on a bicycle
on the same road, albeit going in the opposite direction (ie downhill)to
get the same speed.
All the times I've come off a bicycle - I've never hit my head. Two out
of the three times I've come off a motorbike I have - what statistically
does that prove? - Bugger all!
Mike - Leicester
dwb
> Hah! Jealousy will get you nowhere sunshine.
> Best get back out on t'track and learn how to
> use that bike of yours... Slow boy. ;-)
Maybe in the spring... ;-)
Gwyn
Helmets increase the risk of hitting your head?
--
Gwyn
Simon Brooke
That's quite probable. They make it at least 50% bigger.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
-- mens vacua in medio vacuo --
Helen Deborah Vecht
> That's quite probable. They make it at least 50% bigger.
They also make it heavier...
--
Helen D. Vecht: helen...@zetnet.co.uk
Edgware.
AndyMorris
> Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk>typed
>
>
>> That's quite probable. They make it at least 50% bigger.
>
> They also make it heavier...
Dosn't that make it safer for your head, maybe at the expense of your neck
and spinal cord?
Assuming accidents happen too quickly tolet you actually do much before your
head hits anything, adding mass to your head would tend to protect it and
cause more damage to whatever it hit?
--
Andy Morris
"I fought the kerb and the kerb won"
AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK
Love this:
Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
Simon Brooke
> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> > Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk>typed
> >
> >
> >> That's quite probable. They make it at least 50% bigger.
> >
> > They also make it heavier...
>
> Dosn't that make it safer for your head, maybe at the expense of your neck
> and spinal cord?
>
> Assuming accidents happen too quickly tolet you actually do much before your
> head hits anything, adding mass to your head would tend to protect it and
> cause more damage to whatever it hit?
That's a big assumption.
The problem is bicycle helmets are not very strong. Therefore, they're
almost irrelevent in accidents which _do_ happen very fast. Your body
evolved over several million years as a plains dwelling predator,
where running fast over uneven ground was an essential skill for
survival; consequently, your reactions are finely tuned to cope with
falls at normal cycling speeds.
They aren't tuned to cope with being hurled at the road at 60 mph, but
then a cycle helmet isn't going to protect you in those circumstances
either.
Clive George
> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>> Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk>typed
>>
>>
>>> That's quite probable. They make it at least 50% bigger.
>>
>> They also make it heavier...
>
> Dosn't that make it safer for your head, maybe at the expense of your
> neck and spinal cord?
>
> Assuming accidents happen too quickly tolet you actually do much
> before your head hits anything, adding mass to your head would tend
> to protect it and cause more damage to whatever it hit?
Since on the whole you're tending to worry about hitting things that are
significantly heaver (the ground, which includes things like lampposts,
walls, etc), then this additional mass won't help.
cheers,
clive
Helen Deborah Vecht
> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
> > Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk>typed
> >
> >
> >> That's quite probable. They make it at least 50% bigger.
> >
> > They also make it heavier...
> Dosn't that make it safer for your head, maybe at the expense of your neck
> and spinal cord?
> Assuming accidents happen too quickly tolet you actually do much before your
> head hits anything, adding mass to your head would tend to protect it and
> cause more damage to whatever it hit?
Probably, but I'm not an expert...
Just zis Guy, you know?
<AndyM...@DeadSpam.com> wrote:
>adding mass to your head would tend to protect it and
>cause more damage to whatever it hit?
Unless the thing you hit is an order of magnitude more massive than
your head, or greater. Like the earth, for example, or a car, or a
piece of street furniture, or a tree.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
Mike Gayler
news:bsamen$a41$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk:
> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>> Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk>typed
>>
>>
>>> That's quite probable. They make it at least 50% bigger.
>>
>> They also make it heavier...
>
> Dosn't that make it safer for your head, maybe at the expense of your
> neck and spinal cord?
>
> Assuming accidents happen too quickly tolet you actually do much
> before your head hits anything, adding mass to your head would tend to
> protect it and cause more damage to whatever it hit?
>
No I don't *think* so.
Based on my non-statistical experiences quoted above (and that's why I
think that bugger-all can be infered from them - statistics) - in a typical
bicycle fall - that is the type that a bicycle helmet would protect against
- the natural instinct is to fall such that you protect your head - hence
fractured limbs and collar bones.
In a collision where a motor vehicle is involved - that is the type that a
bicycle helmet is unlikely to protect you in - then you are correct -
things happen too quickly due to the speeds and masses involved.
Hence the motorcycle helmet has a different design and construction which
affords protection where a motor vehicle is involved - that is every time
it is 'used' (ie affords protec (Unless like me you hit the garage ceiling
while wearing it!)
I'm sure that someone will point out the flawed logic in this!
Mike - Leicester