Who quit cycling because of the helmet law
John Kane
bill in the provincial parliament that proposes a mandatory
helmet law. This of course has re-ignited the perpetual helmet
flame wars in our local cycling ng :).
However one of the combatants has come up with a very interesting
question He asked if there was any study where which sought to
identify the type of rider who quits cycling because of the
introduction of a helmet law. I would rephrase the question as :
Are there any studies that have identified key reasons why people
stop cycling when a mandatory helmet law is introduced but is
essentially the same thing.
Given Australia's relatively long experience with mandatory
helmet laws I thought that this ng would be a good place to ask.
I know that I have seem references to why in specific groups do
but it looked essentially anecdotal. I seem to have a vague
memory that some one in Australia may have done some work (Gov't
of Victoria?) but I have no citation. Does anyone know if there
is any such study?
Thanks
--
John Kane
The Rideau Lakes, Ontario Canada
Ross MacPherson
not as the case may be) here -
http://www.pcug.org.au/~psvansch/crag/
and here
David S. Maddison
: We here in Ontario Canada seem to be facing a private member's
: bill in the provincial parliament that proposes a mandatory
: helmet law. This of course has re-ignited the perpetual helmet
: flame wars in our local cycling ng :).
[..]
When looking at laws of this type, its always handy to follow the money
trail. In the state of Victoria, I understand one of the principal
lobbyists for the helmet law was actually a certain helmet manufacturer...
That being said, I think helments are, in general, a good idea, but I am
strongly opposed to the nanny-state that forces me to where one. In fact,
I had been voluntarily wearing one for many years before the laws.
Having to "helmet up" is a little bit of a hassle and discourages me from
doing very short, slow and safe rides such as to a nearby convenience
store. I would normally not wear a helmet for such a trip, but the law
forces me to. So I often won't ride there and will walk or drive.
David
kingsley
> Given Australia's relatively long experience with mandatory helmet laws
> I thought that this ng would be a good place to ask. I know that I have
> seem references to why in specific groups do but it looked essentially
> anecdotal. I seem to have a vague memory that some one in Australia may
> have done some work (Gov't of Victoria?) but I have no citation. Does
> anyone know if there is any such study?
IMHO it's not somuch that hemlets were/are needed that stops
people riding, but the suggestion that bicycling is quite
dangerous *because* you have to wear a helmet.
I remember as a kid riding my bike to school, living in a
neighbourhood of poor-sighted lead-footed retirees (Umina, Central Coast
NSW). I couldn't think of a more dangerous place to ride,
yet my mum was OK with it. Fast forward 20 years later, and
now she percieves riding a bike as an inherently dangerous
activity, I reckon that's down to the helmet laws.
Would I have ever learned (been allowed) to ride a bike as a kid with
existsing helmet laws? Nah, never.
-kt
PS> You can use exactly the same bicycle helmet law arguments
as for advocating that car drivers *must* wear helmets. Try that
on for size.
hippy
> Having to "helmet up" is a little bit of a hassle and discourages me from
> doing very short, slow and safe rides such as to a nearby convenience
> store. I would normally not wear a helmet for such a trip, but the law
> forces me to. So I often won't ride there and will walk or drive.
You would rather walk to the car, unlock the car, start the car (maybe
let it warm up?), drive, lock the car (maybe clublock it too?) and park
than take the few seconds to put a helmet on?!?! Tell me it ain't so! :)
hip
P.S. walking is ok...but only when all bike options have been removed :)
roofi
really in for the riding anyway.
I've seen first hand what happens to someone coming off at 60 kmh and
destroying their helmet. I'd hate to think of how bad the injuries would
have been without the skid lid.
On the other hand I've been following someone who got caught in Melbourne's
tram tracks and land on their cheek bone and helmet. Result? Knocked out
cold and another destroyed helmet. Did the helmet prevent more serious
injurious? Who knows. One thing is for sure though, I'll always wear mine.
"John Kane" <jka...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3D3DCB9E...@sympatico.ca...
John Kane
> There is some discussion and more links on helmets and their merits (or
> not as the case may be) here -
>
> http://www.pcug.org.au/~psvansch/crag/
>
> and here
>
> http://www.cycle-helmets.com/
>
> John Kane wrote:
>
> > We here in Ontario Canada seem to be facing a private member's
Thanks.
Theo Bekkers
> Why not stay home in front of the tele? Sure, in some cases helmets
prevent
> injury, in other cases they may have caused accidents by "Overheating"
your head and
> heatstroke.
Please insert "overheating"
Theo
How come proofreading only works after you've posted?
Theo Bekkers
> Did the helmet prevent more serious
> injurious? Who knows. One thing is for sure though, I'll always wear mine.
Why not stay home in front of the tele? Sure, in some cases helmets prevent
injury, in other cases they may have caused accidents by your head and
heatstroke. Who really knows whether they are a positive or a negative. As
they are a secondary safety device they have not prevented even one
accident.
Why not allow the user to make up his own mind. When I was a kiddie
everybody over 5 rode a pushie because it was a safe quick way to get to
your mate's place. Now it is dangerous. Why? Partly because of helmet laws?
I don't consider bicycles to be more unsafe than they were 50 years ago.
Cheers
Theo
John Retchford
you contact Doris Robinson at the University of New England, NSW,
Australia. drob...@lash.une.edu.au She wrote several reports on the
results of helmet legislation. There was also an editorial in the
British Medical Journal written by Anne Johnstone. My copy carries the
date June 3, but not the year! The article mentions experience from
Australia, Britain, the Netherlands and Denmark.
Hope this is of some help.
John Retchford
j
> Anyone who stops riding just because they have to wear a helmet wasn't
> really in for the riding anyway.
Absolute garbage - your statement shows how little you know about the
whole issue. Many people cycle as a means of transport, not just for the
"fun" of it. They are the ones who don't dress in the lycra "uniform"
and the ones who are most likely to give up riding.
Irregardless, it is a well-documented fact that the legislation had
reduced the number of people cycling by up to 40%, wherever it's been
introduced. That is bad for public health and in itself is a sufficient
reason to scrap the law.
>
> I've seen first hand what happens to someone coming off at 60 kmh and
> destroying their helmet. I'd hate to think of how bad the injuries would
This is the old repetition of the boring "My helmet saved my life, because it broke on impact"
refrain.
The fact is it's bullshit. There is so much information available after
12 years of the law, that it does not take much research to find out
helmets have made bugger all difference to injury rates. To the contrary
- there is reason to believe increased rates of helmet wearing lead to
increase in injuries.
If you don't believe it, I'll be happy to let you have the relevant
links. Chris Gillam's site from WA is a good one to start, and
meticoulously referenced & researched.
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/
> On the other hand I've been following someone who got caught in Melbourne's
> tram tracks and land on their cheek bone and helmet. Result? Knocked out
> cold and another destroyed helmet. Did the helmet prevent more serious
> injurious? Who knows. One thing is for sure though, I'll always wear mine.
Feel free to wear yours, but don't pass judgement on others. Also, don't
expect your helmet to save you if it really comes to the crunch!
j
Ross MacPherson
riding a bike, occasionally the police have blitzes and start booking people,
but not very often. They are generally too busy setting up $peed camera$ at
the bottom of a hill on a multi-lane freeway to worry about anything
resembling road safety...
Why is "helmeting up" a hassle? It's only one strap!
Rick Jones
j wrote:
> roofi wrote:
>
> > Anyone who stops riding just because they have to wear a helmet wasn't
> > really in for the riding anyway.
>
> [snip]
> Feel free to wear yours, but don't pass judgement on others. Also, don't
> expect your helmet to save you if it really comes to the crunch!
>
>
Have you ever smacked your head at 60 kmh without a helmet ?
I have seen countless high speed helmet splitting stacks, and think (as do others around), that
that person would have been in a big pile of poo if they didn't have a helmet.
I'm convinced, sorry if your not.
Zebee Johnstone
Rick Jones <rick....@vcp.monash.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>
>Have you ever smacked your head at 60 kmh without a helmet ?
>
YOu won't have either. Your average cycle helmet has less protection
than your average motorcycle helmet, and those are only good to 20kmh.
Most people slow down rather a lot when they crash, long before their
head hits the ground. Those who don't, die.
Zebee
Bernard G (Perth)
bad................I came off 4years ago commuting to work doing around
40kmh downhill & hill bend in kerb.landed on top left
forehead..........wearing Bell hemet suffered black eye.............If i
wasnt brain damage ........
No different from motorcycle helmet........................Is the only
reason people stopped riding is the look ???????? piss weak.........
Putting a helmet on is as simple as a seat belt....Im sure when compulsory
seat belts came along people didnt give up driving...........just whinge a
bit ....
I've fallen off 2 more times since then doing around 35Kmh............head
didnt hit but will never ride without even if just a leisurely ride with
kids in parkland
"John Kane" <jka...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3D3DCB9E...@sympatico.ca...
zog
>
>> On the other hand I've been following someone who got caught in
>> Melbourne's tram tracks and land on their cheek bone and helmet.
>> Result? Knocked out cold and another destroyed helmet. Did the helmet
>> prevent more serious injurious? Who knows. One thing is for sure
>> though, I'll always wear mine.
>
>
>
> Feel free to wear yours, but don't pass judgement on others. Also, don't
> expect your helmet to save you if it really comes to the crunch!
>
well its your head, must be solid bone, right!
I wasn't going all that fast, but have gone over on the road and was
knocked out, and if wasn't for the helmet I was wearing I am sure I would
have had a cracked skull judging by the dent the helmet
Fakhina Sohl
> Given Australia's relatively long experience with mandatory
> helmet laws I thought that this ng would be a good place to ask.
Uh...we're the ones who kept riding bikes, so it wasn't us :-P
Maybe you should try aus.cars and/or aus.fat.bastards instead :-)
fs
Rick Jones
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:20:49 +1100
> Rick Jones <rick....@vcp.monash.edu.au> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >Have you ever smacked your head at 60 kmh without a helmet ?
> >
>
> YOu won't have either.
Nope, 'cos I wear a helmet
> Your average cycle helmet has less protection
> than your average motorcycle helmet, and those are only good to 20kmh.
>
>
> Most people slow down rather a lot when they crash, long before their
> head hits the ground. Those who don't, die.
>
>
That's crap. I've seen crashes involving high speed sprints where guys go
over the bars and land on their heads. Speeds are inxs of 50 kmh. Sure
they were knocked out, but helmets were in a million bits. They are back
and racing again. Once again I point out if you had seen the crashes,
you'd probably feel the same way as I do.
Bernard G (Perth)
"Fakhina Sohl" <spamme...@soon.com> wrote in message
news:d5d7568b.02072...@posting.google.com...
roofi
from smacking the tar at a great rate of knots.
An accident preventing helmet? I'd buy one of those for sure!
I rode bikes sans lid as a kid too, even BMXed my old Malvern Star chopper
in the 70's when BMX was just something they used to put as an oddity in
American MiniCycle Action magazines. In all the 100s (?) slow speed crashes
I had on Victorian country dirt roads a helmet would have only saved once.
However riding down the Nepean Highway / St. Kilda Rd in peak hour traffic
at 40 kmh is a different story. I know if I get hit by a car my chances are
not good, but if I go down and don't get run over, I'd like the chance to be
conscious enough to call an ambulance :-)
I agree that bikes are no more dangerous than 50 (30) years ago, but I
reckon cars and the density of traffic ARE more dangerous. The difference
between a smashed helmet and a smashed head is a small price to pay for the
law.
"Theo Bekkers" <th...@bekkers.com.au> wrote in message
news:3d3ee615$1...@news.bekkers.com.au...
j
Look, I honestly don't give a shit what you think you've seen. I am more
interested in the fact that, as more people wear helmets, more of them
end up with serious head and other injuries.
Your "I have seen" evidence is worth absolutely S.F.A. It is the real
evidence out there that is important. If you wish to find it, use some
of the links provided in this thread.
Feel free to wear a helmet - I'm not stopping you. But, unlike you, I
don't think it'll do you any good if it comes to the crunch. No matter
what you think.
j.
j
As I said to your spiritual brother elsewhere - I don't give a shit what
you people think.
For your information - I have ridden over 400 thousand kilometres in my
life, always without a helmet. I have never come near a head injury.
What does it prove?
But in any case - if you need a nanny state to tell you what you should
do, feel free to do that. Just don't think a helmet will make ANY
difference if you ever have a serious stack.
Christ, why do you zealots never bother to check the evidence? I'm sick
of this crap about "I have seen blah, blah, blah..."! You're on the Net
- check out the studies and the statistics, before spewing this
quasi-religious garbage about "my oversized stubbie holder I had on my
head saved my life!" Talk about being naive...
The evidence is out there. Go and educate yourself, before blithely
hitting a concrete wall with your hollow, albeit helmeted, skull! And
don't tell me what I should be doing!
j.
j
> These days helmets have come a long way in looks so its not so
> bad................I came off 4years ago commuting to work doing around
> 40kmh downhill & hill bend in kerb.landed on top left
> forehead..........wearing Bell hemet suffered black eye.............If i
> wasnt brain damage ........
> No different from motorcycle helmet........................Is the only
> reason people stopped riding is the look ???????? piss weak.........
> Putting a helmet on is as simple as a seat belt....Im sure when compulsory
> seat belts came along people didnt give up driving...........just whinge a
> bit ....
> I've fallen off 2 more times since then doing around 35Kmh............head
> didnt hit but will never ride without even if just a leisurely ride with
> kids in parkland
Christ, another helmet fundamentalist...
Proves absolutely NOTHING! How do you know your head would perhaps not even touched the
ground had you not been wearing a helmet?
If helmets are so great, how then do you explain the fact that the more
people wear them, the more of them end up with head injuries? And people
DID stop cycling in droves - despite your belief it was not so.
Check the links and the info - there is plenty of it around. Your
anectodal vidence is worth absolutely SFA!
FYI - there is also evidence form the US, showing that states with no
motorcycle helmet laws have fewer head injuries - and many more
motorcyclists - than the ones with a helmet law.
How do you explain that?
j.
roofi
"j" <la...@anything.here> wrote in message
news:3D3E5A79...@anything.here...
roofi
"j" <la...@anything.here> wrote in message
roofi wrote:
> Anyone who stops riding just because they have to wear a helmet wasn't
> really in for the riding anyway.
Absolute garbage - your statement shows how little you know about the
whole issue. Many people cycle as a means of transport, not just for the
"fun" of it. They are the ones who don't dress in the lycra "uniform"
and the ones who are most likely to give up riding.
Irregardless, it is a well-documented fact that the legislation had
reduced the number of people cycling by up to 40%, wherever it's been
introduced. That is bad for public health and in itself is a sufficient
reason to scrap the law.
Tell me more. If you cycle as a means of transport, then what difference
does wearing a helmet make?
Beware of using the same arguments used by the anti-seatbelt lobby :-)
>
> I've seen first hand what happens to someone coming off at 60 kmh and
> destroying their helmet. I'd hate to think of how bad the injuries would
This is the old repetition of the boring "My helmet saved my life, because
it broke on impact"
refrain.
The fact is it's bullshit. There is so much information available after
12 years of the law, that it does not take much research to find out
helmets have made bugger all difference to injury rates. To the contrary
- there is reason to believe increased rates of helmet wearing lead to
increase in injuries.
If you don't believe it, I'll be happy to let you have the relevant
links. Chris Gillam's site from WA is a good one to start, and
meticoulously referenced & researched.
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/
Bullshit eh? You can prove it to yourself quite easliy. Smack the top of
your head against a large imovable object. It hurt didn't it? Now try the
same with a helmet on. Bet it wasn't nearly so bad.
As an aside, I've noticed a proliferation of helmets in skiing and snow
boarding where it is NOT law. Used to be that just little kiddies were
wearing them, but now it's all age groups. I reckon there's something in
that.
> On the other hand I've been following someone who got caught in
Melbourne's
> tram tracks and land on their cheek bone and helmet. Result? Knocked out
> cold and another destroyed helmet. Did the helmet prevent more serious
> injurious? Who knows. One thing is for sure though, I'll always wear mine.
Feel free to wear yours, but don't pass judgement on others. Also, don't
expect your helmet to save you if it really comes to the crunch!
I wasn't judging anyone, my opinion (based on anecdotal evidence at that!)
is they are a good thing.
If this makes you angry, take a chill pill
j
roofi
>FYI - there is also evidence form the US, showing that states with no
>motorcycle helmet laws have fewer head injuries - and many more
>motorcyclists - than the ones with a helmet law.
Got a link?
roofi
For your information - I have ridden over 400 thousand kilometres in my
life, always without a helmet. I have never come near a head injury.
What does it prove?
That you've ridden for 555.5555555 days at 30 kmh?
j
> "j" <la...@anything.here> wrote in message
> news:3D3E24AE...@anything.here...
> roofi wrote:
>
>
>>Anyone who stops riding just because they have to wear a helmet wasn't
>>really in for the riding anyway.
>>
>
>
> Absolute garbage - your statement shows how little you know about the
> whole issue. Many people cycle as a means of transport, not just for the
> "fun" of it. They are the ones who don't dress in the lycra "uniform"
> and the ones who are most likely to give up riding.
> Irregardless, it is a well-documented fact that the legislation had
> reduced the number of people cycling by up to 40%, wherever it's been
> introduced. That is bad for public health and in itself is a sufficient
> reason to scrap the law.
>
> Tell me more. If you cycle as a means of transport, then what difference
> does wearing a helmet make?
> Beware of using the same arguments used by the anti-seatbelt lobby :-)
>
>
Nothing to do with seatbelts, mate. Even though, even that area is
nowhere near as clear cut as you think...Do you know that when seatbelts
were introduced, the rate of pedestrian and other fatalities went thru
the roof, as drivers compensated for feeling "safer"? No, of course you
don't...yet another parrot repareting the officisal line, huh?
The general cycling public has given up cycling because they don't see
themselves as "serious" cyclists, so they don't wish to wear a uniform
and because the emphasis on helmets has made many people think cycling
is dangerous.
Hell, even the so-called experts don't quite know all the reasons - but
the decline in numbers has been very well documented. Why don't you just
look up the figures? They don't lie.
>>I've seen first hand what happens to someone coming off at 60 kmh and
>>destroying their helmet. I'd hate to think of how bad the injuries would
>>
>
>
> This is the old repetition of the boring "My helmet saved my life, because
> it broke on impact"
> refrain.
>
> The fact is it's bullshit. There is so much information available after
> 12 years of the law, that it does not take much research to find out
> helmets have made bugger all difference to injury rates. To the contrary
> - there is reason to believe increased rates of helmet wearing lead to
> increase in injuries.
> If you don't believe it, I'll be happy to let you have the relevant
> links. Chris Gillam's site from WA is a good one to start, and
> meticoulously referenced & researched.
> http://www.cycle-helmets.com/
>
> Bullshit eh? You can prove it to yourself quite easliy. Smack the top of
> your head against a large imovable object. It hurt didn't it? Now try the
> same with a helmet on. Bet it wasn't nearly so bad.
Look, I'll repeat it again - I don't give a flying fuck what you think
happens when you hit your head on a "large immovable object". Unlike
you, I have not managed to do that - and prefer that state of affairs to
testing the presumed protective qualities of a piece of smelly polystyrene.
The bottom line is - AS MORE PEOPLE ARE WEARING HELMETS, MANY MORE ARE
ENDING UP IN HOSPITAL WITH HEAD INJURIES! Simple, really. That's what
convinces me. Also the fact that when you look at fatalities figures,
the HELMETED cyclists are overepresented as pecentage of total cyclist
numbers.
That's why I say your claims are bullshit. They have been disproved by
the real life experience. Go and find out.
> As an aside, I've noticed a proliferation of helmets in skiing and snow
> boarding where it is NOT law. Used to be that just little kiddies were
> wearing them, but now it's all age groups. I reckon there's something in
> that.
>
Like what?
The fact that we are becoming a nanny society?
Seriously, though - I can't comment on helmet efficiency in other walks
of life. There is simply not enough data as yet. However, you may find
it interesting that even several doctors have stated rugby helmets are
worse that useless - and still they are being pushed and worn.
A lesson, perhaps?
>>On the other hand I've been following someone who got caught in
>>
> Melbourne's
>
>>tram tracks and land on their cheek bone and helmet. Result? Knocked out
>>cold and another destroyed helmet. Did the helmet prevent more serious
>>injurious? Who knows. One thing is for sure though, I'll always wear mine.
>>
>
>
>
> Feel free to wear yours, but don't pass judgement on others. Also, don't
> expect your helmet to save you if it really comes to the crunch!
>
> I wasn't judging anyone, my opinion (based on anecdotal evidence at that!)
> is they are a good thing.
> If this makes you angry, take a chill pill
>
>
> j
>
No, it does not make me angry. But your blind faith is even worse than someone concluding smoking's
good for you because they knew somebody who smoked all his life & lived till 95 in perfect health.
The helmet law has been a bad policy, which has cost our society dearly.
The evidence of it is there, plain to see.
What makes me angry is when people perpetuate a myth irregardless of the
facts. So go and educate yourself.
j.
j
No, I'm a person who used to race in Europe for a living. Race bikes,
that is. Hate cars!
I'll send you the link - but tomorrow. My wife's standing over my
shoulder - we're going out for dinner! :-)
So, make sure your helmet's on before you go out to brave the big, bad
world and I'll have the link for you tomorrow!
j.
Kane
> Christ, why do you zealots never bother to check the evidence? I'm sick
> of this crap about "I have seen blah, blah, blah..."! You're on the Net
> - check out the studies and the statistics, before spewing this
> quasi-religious garbage about "my oversized stubbie holder I had on my
> head saved my life!" Talk about being naive...
>
Just gotta remember the words of Homer
"Anyone can make a statistic support their argument, 90% of people know
that" (BTW if your a simpsons fan please don't tell me that this isn't
exactly right, but its the general gist of it)
As for whoever "i" is, geez, a helmet helps, do you also know that cars are
also only required to prevent death or injury up to 58km/h, so i guess if
your going to have a crash at 150km/h your better off jumping?
Kane
Well?
Paul Bartram
"Rick Jones" <rick....@vcp.monash.edu.au> wrote
> Have you ever smacked your head at 60 kmh without a helmet ?
Nearly 40 years (off & on) on two wheels, a couple of fairly spectacular
spills when I was a young tearaway and not even a graze other than elbows
and knees.
> I have seen countless high speed helmet splitting stacks, and think (as do
others around), that
> that person would have been in a big pile of poo if they didn't have a
helmet.
If you ride at 'high speed' on the grotty road surfaces I have to, you take
your life in your hands, no doubt about it. Maybe then helmets are of
benefit. But as an old school
'plodder' I hate the damn things.
Frankly I think we should keep the triathletes / racing cyclist groups
separate from the 'nipping down the shops on a pushie' folk in this debate.
Were I still capable of riding from London to Brighton and back in a day I
would wear a helmet by choice. But for riding up the bike path to SouthBank
I can't see the benefit, sorry.
Incidentally, anyone know if there is provision in the legislation for
medical exemptions
to the helmet law? I have chronic long-term hypertension, and I find that
the helmet causes extreme discomfort as I go very red in the face and sweat
buckets going up hill (especially in summer). I'd rather wear a sunhat than
a
helmet - I ride mainly for my health, after all!
Paul
j
Try this one:
http://www.sasnet.com/bro/statistics/stats.html
It clearly shows lower fatality rates for non-helmet ststes.
or this one:
http://www.sasnet.com/bro/statistics/goldstein/goldstein.html
Note the following passage in red:
"It is concluded that (1) motorcycle helmets have no statistically
significant effect on the probability of fatality; (2) helmets reduce
the severity of head injuries; and (3) past a critical impact speed [13
MPH], helmets increase the severity of neck injuries. Further analysis
establishes the qualitative and quantitative nature of the head-neck
injury trade-off."
or how about this one:
http://www.sasnet.com/bro/statistics/goldstein/reviews/1.html
I like this quote:
"This accident victim study (Seattle) finds: (1) the death rate for
helmeted and non helmeted was not significantly different."
This one here is VERY much applicable to the bike helmet scenario:
http://www.sasnet.com/bro/statistics/goldstein/reviews/5.html
"Finally, the inference that mandatory motorcycle helmet use could
dramatically reduce such costs is unfounded. This inference is based on
the results of helmet effectiveness studies that systematically
overstate the effectiveness of helmet use and that totally ignore the
negative impacts (costs) of helmets which occurs through an increase in
neck injuries, potential increase in the probability of a motorcycle
accident and risk compensating behavior."
And, as one parting shot:
http://www.sasnet.com/bro/statistics/goldstein/reviews/cdc90.html
Note the following quotes:
- "The number of motorcycle registrations per 1000 population is
dramatically higher in states without a comprehensive law--in these
states, people are more likely to own/register/ride a motorcycle.", and
- "In conclusion, the CDC Study attributes differences in
population-based fatality rates (associated with head injury) across
states with different helmet-use law coverage solely to differences in a
state's helmet-use law. The study concludes that lower fatality rates
are the direct result of comprehensive helmet- use laws. The study fails
to control for important differences in registration/usage, average
driving speed, and alcohol consumption in determining fatality rates. In
particular, states with comprehensive laws have lower registration/usage
rates, lower driving speeds, and lower alcohol consumption all of which
lower the fatality rate. Failure to control for these factors leads to
distorted estimates of helmet law effectiveness which systematically and
dramatically overstate their effectiveness. Once these factors are
appropriately controlled for, no statistically significant differences
in fatality rates across states with different helmet law coverage can
be found.
"
I hope these will do you. The situation is the same when it comes to
bicycle helmets. You now see why I am extremely sceptical when it comes
to the kind of "evidence" you presented earlier.
The truth is out there. It's up to you to find it & make up your own mind.
j.
j
> "Rick Jones" <rick....@vcp.monash.edu.au> wrote
>
>
>>Have you ever smacked your head at 60 kmh without a helmet ?
>>
>
> Nearly 40 years (off & on) on two wheels, a couple of fairly spectacular
> spills when I was a young tearaway and not even a graze other than elbows
> and knees.
>
>
>>I have seen countless high speed helmet splitting stacks, and think (as do
>>
> others around), that
>
>>that person would have been in a big pile of poo if they didn't have a
>>
> helmet.
>
> If you ride at 'high speed' on the grotty road surfaces I have to, you take
> your life in your hands, no doubt about it. Maybe then helmets are of
> benefit. But as an old school
> 'plodder' I hate the damn things.
>
> Frankly I think we should keep the triathletes / racing cyclist groups
> separate from the 'nipping down the shops on a pushie' folk in this debate.
> Were I still capable of riding from London to Brighton and back in a day I
> would wear a helmet by choice.
Why would it make a difference to you? The things are next to useless no
matter what type of riding you do.
But for riding up the bike path to SouthBank
> I can't see the benefit, sorry.
>
> Incidentally, anyone know if there is provision in the legislation for
> medical exemptions
> to the helmet law? I have chronic long-term hypertension, and I find that
> the helmet causes extreme discomfort as I go very red in the face and sweat
> buckets going up hill (especially in summer). I'd rather wear a sunhat than
> a
> helmet - I ride mainly for my health, after all!
>
It depends which state you live in. Queensland does allow medical exemptions, but I know for sure that SA and NSW
do not.
I'm not sure about the other states. Ring the local cop shop and ask them.
And yes - the old sun protection is yet another casualty of the helmet
crusaders. No wonder people have abandoned cycling in droves!
j.
j
Well what?
The fact is helmets have made NO difference to the injury rate -
allowing for fewer cyclists, there are actually MORE head and other
injuries per cycled kilometer than before the law came into effect.
Well?
j.
G
"j" <la...@anything.here> wrote in message
> Bernard G (Perth) wrote:
>
> > These days helmets have come a long way in looks so its not so
> > bad................I came off 4years ago commuting to work doing around
> > 40kmh downhill & hill bend in kerb.landed on top left
> > forehead..........wearing Bell hemet suffered black eye.............If i
> > wasnt brain damage ........
> > No different from motorcycle helmet........................Is the only
> > reason people stopped riding is the look ???????? piss weak.........
> > Putting a helmet on is as simple as a seat belt....Im sure when
compulsory
> > seat belts came along people didnt give up driving...........just whinge
a
> > bit ....
> > I've fallen off 2 more times since then doing around
35Kmh............head
> > didnt hit but will never ride without even if just a leisurely ride with
> > kids in parkland
>
>
> Christ, another helmet fundamentalist...
>
>
> Proves absolutely NOTHING! How do you know your head would perhaps not
even touched the
> ground had you not been wearing a helmet?
>
>
> If helmets are so great, how then do you explain the fact that the more
> people wear them, the more of them end up with head injuries? And people
> DID stop cycling in droves - despite your belief it was not so.
>
just happen to be wearing helmets when they ride. The ones that went droving
don't count.
> Check the links and the info - there is plenty of it around. Your
> anectodal vidence is worth absolutely SFA!
>
> FYI - there is also evidence form the US, showing that states with no
> motorcycle helmet laws have fewer head injuries - and many more
> motorcyclists - than the ones with a helmet law.
>
> How do you explain that?
>
More facts. More people are riding motorcycles with helmets. Doesn't that
explain it.
Maybe those states without the laws don't keep stats.
I will keep wearing mine because I am not perfect and I have fallen off. I
have the dings and scrapes in my helmet to remind me.
Thank you Mr Maddison for some light reading to keep me focused.
hippy
but I've crashed twice where I'm certain the helmet prevented more serious
injury to my brain/skull. What do I believe?
I will say now that I ride with and without helmet depending on the situation,
much more often with.
Could it be that there are less injuries when helmets are not worn because of
a reduction in speed due to the cyclists' feeling upsafe?
I have not seriously looked into this issue so forgive any obvious blunders..
hip
wearing his helmet to avoid the fines... :-)
Steve Reynolds
@maddogsbreakfast.com.au>, king...@maddogsbreakfast.com.au says...
> IMHO it's not somuch that hemlets were/are needed that stops
> people riding, but the suggestion that bicycling is quite
> dangerous *because* you have to wear a helmet
Cycling is dangerous. I rode BIG motorcycles for 25 years and I'm
certain riding a bike is more dangerous than riding a motorcycle.
GK
Me too, numerous big motorcycles (not for 25 years though, the numerous
"accidents" scared me off eventually).
Motorcyclist are 20 times more likely to die than car drivers. Car
drivers are 10% more likely to die than cyclists.
Stick to the treadly, mate.
Gary King
Gemma Kernich
"Paul Bartram" <p.bartram...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3d3e782a$0$16945$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Incidentally, anyone know if there is provision in the legislation for
> medical exemptions
> to the helmet law?
In South Australia you don't have to wear a helmet if you are a Sikh
(turbans probably work just as well ;) - they are exempted under law. Don't
know about medical exemptions though - but I do know if you're over 12 yrs
and have a written medical exemption you are allowed to ride on the
footpath.
Gemm
Rick Jones
j wrote:
> Rick Jones wrote:
>
> >
> > j wrote:
> >
> >
> >>roofi wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Anyone who stops riding just because they have to wear a helmet wasn't
> >>>really in for the riding anyway.
> >>>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >
> >>Feel free to wear yours, but don't pass judgement on others. Also, don't
> >>expect your helmet to save you if it really comes to the crunch!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Have you ever smacked your head at 60 kmh without a helmet ?
> >
> > I have seen countless high speed helmet splitting stacks, and think (as do others around), that
> > that person would have been in a big pile of poo if they didn't have a helmet.
> >
> > I'm convinced, sorry if your not.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Look, I honestly don't give a shit what you think you've seen. I am more
> interested in the fact that, as more people wear helmets, more of them
> end up with serious head and other injuries.
>
> Your "I have seen" evidence is worth absolutely S.F.A. It is the real
> evidence out there that is important.
For you maybe, stats seems to be what is most important on your stance on helmets, for me, it's what
I have seen and experienced.
Even if the helmet law is revoked, I'd still wear mine.
Cameron
Cycling is as dangerous as you choose to make it.
Motorcycling is as dangerous as you choose to make it.... and I'm coming
up to 38 years doing that!
Car driving is as dangerous as you choose to make it.
Breathing is....well, I suppose you haven't got much choice there.
regards,
CrazyCam
roofi
Chris Gillams site is very well presented and researched. It is slanted
towards non-helmet wearing "facts" but
many of these don't stand up to hard evidence.
He quotes 50% less people riding in the year after helmet laws were
introduced, citing helmets laws as the only factor.
There was so much economic and social upheaval around that time in Australia
that I'm afaraid his argument is a bit thin. He only considers helmet laws
and nothing else. I agree that helmet laws would have made some difference,
but he needs to reearch a little more thoroughly before drawing such a long
bow.
One of the UK reports was writen is such a passive voice that it was not
worth including. It contained way too many "maybe's" and "might's" to be
taken seriously.
This report, which I found from my own searhing, then also found on Chris's
links page, suggest contrary information to your POV.
http://www.general.monash.edu.au/muarc/rptsum/es76.htm
This bit supports my argument:
"The detailed analysis of the data relating to bicyclist head injuries
presented in this report indicates that the mandatory helmet wearing
legislation has had a significant, positive impact on both the number of
head-injured bicyclists and on the severity of injuries for bicyclists
admitted to hospital. These changes have continued through the first four
years post-legislation and are apparent in spite of recent anomalies in the
Hospital Admissions data."
I don't care whether you wear a helmet or not, and I don't necessarily agree
with the legislation, I wear my skid lid by choice.
PS: If you EVER insinuate I am RELIGIOUS again, I will seek you out and beat
you to death - with a bike helmet if necessay :-)
Rick Jones
roofi wrote:
> [snip]
>
> http://www.general.monash.edu.au/muarc/rptsum/es76.htm
>
> This bit supports my argument:
>
> "The detailed analysis of the data relating to bicyclist head injuries
> presented in this report indicates that the mandatory helmet wearing
> legislation has had a significant, positive impact on both the number of
> head-injured bicyclists and on the severity of injuries for bicyclists
> admitted to hospital. These changes have continued through the first four
> years post-legislation and are apparent in spite of recent anomalies in the
> Hospital Admissions data."
>
Uh oh, I dunno how j is gonna deal with this. Dismiss it ?
>
> I don't care whether you wear a helmet or not, and I don't necessarily agree
> with the legislation, I wear my skid lid by choice.
>
> PS: If you EVER insinuate I am RELIGIOUS again, I will seek you out and beat
> you to death - with a bike helmet if necessay :-)
Come on, in is a WELL KNOWN FACT that bike helmets are only tested up to a mild
thrashing. Anything above that, including a beating to death, a helmet is
useless for. I don't give a shit what you have seen, it's that facts that
count.
Now I'll post a URL for my facts as soon as I can make a dodgy web page with
half arse stats..........
Dorre
: > http://www.general.monash.edu.au/muarc/rptsum/es76.htm
: > This bit supports my argument:
: > "The detailed analysis of the data relating to bicyclist head injuries
: > presented in this report indicates that the mandatory helmet wearing
: > legislation has had a significant, positive impact on both the number of
: > head-injured bicyclists and on the severity of injuries for bicyclists
: > admitted to hospital. These changes have continued through the first four
: > years post-legislation and are apparent in spite of recent anomalies in the
: > Hospital Admissions data."
:
: Uh oh, I dunno how j is gonna deal with this. Dismiss it ?
No need to. There *was* a dramatic fall in both the number of head
injuries, and number of severe head injuries. There was also a
dramatic fall in the number of *non-head* injuries and the number of
severe non-head injuries. I obtained the data and graphed it.
http://whip.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html#HeadInjuries
To make the demonstration more graphic, I omitted to say which line
(red or blue) was head and which was non-head. How many can tell
which line is which?
This graph indicates only too clearly that the main effect was
a drop in cycling participation. Here's a summary of the survey
counts for Victoria.
May 90 May 91 reduction
Children 261 235 10%
Teenagers 1293 670 48%
Adults 1567 1106 29%
http://whip.une.edu.au/~drobinso/AAP1996DLRHI.pdf
is a journal paper discussing the helmet laws.
Personally, I find it hard to understand why people take an obvious
effect of the helmet law - the reduction in the number of head
injuries due to reduced cyling, and try to pass it off as a benefit.
Sure, if we had no cyclists there'd be no cycling injuries, but
the rewards in terms of better health, reduced pollution, cheap and
convenient transport are well worth the few small risks of cycling.
Dorre
Stewart
say ...
>These days helmets have come a long way in looks so its not so
>bad................I came off 4years ago commuting to work doing around
>40kmh downhill & hill bend in kerb.landed on top left
>forehead..........wearing Bell hemet suffered black eye.............If i
>wasnt brain damage ........
>No different from motorcycle helmet........................Is the only
>reason people stopped riding is the look ???????? piss weak.........
>Putting a helmet on is as simple as a seat belt....Im sure when compulsory
>seat belts came along people didnt give up driving...........just whinge a
>bit ....
>I've fallen off 2 more times since then doing around 35Kmh............head
>didnt hit but will never ride without even if just a leisurely ride with
>kids in parkland
I always use a helmet but wearing it in during summer is like putting
your head in a hotbox. I'm one of the older varieties from Melbourne,
Victoria and no doubt you have experienced some like me in Perth.
Achieving anything like 40kmh in the foreseeable future is highly
unlikely for me unless I get accidently get caught up with a bus or a
truck. I use the bike to ride to and stock up from the local shops and
supermarkets etc. ie: "use it or lose it"
I often ride (or walk) on the foot path where I feel to ride on the road
is too dangerous and when confronting pedestrians I dismount to avoid
inconveniencing them if there is no clear passage around them.
BTW are you sure there is no brain damage there, you seem to be
slur...ring yo.....ur words .......a....little. <gd&r>
--
Stewart Naylor (rusty.nayles)
Paul Bartram
"Cameron" <craz...@ar.com.au> wrote
> Cycling is as dangerous as you choose to make it.
Definately.
> Motorcycling is as dangerous as you choose to make it.... and I'm coming
> up to 38 years doing that!
I gave it away more because of the cost of registration than the safety
angle, but would be reluctant to ride Queensland roads on a MB now anyway.
> Car driving is as dangerous as you choose to make it.
28 years without as much as a broken tail light, but I'm a very defensive
driver - in my forward control van I'm the one who loses his legs...
> Breathing is....well, I suppose you haven't got much choice there.
Just don't inhale :-)
One angle I haven't seen in this debate (this time round) is setting an
example to the children. I think the little ones are the ones most likely to
benefit from helmets, because they do silly things and seem to end up
kissing the tarmac with alarming frequency. I feel that adults should lead
by example in situations where children are present, e.g. SouthBank
Parklands on a Sunday afternoon. On the roads, you need to wear them because
you get fined if you don't. My little bit of law-breaking is only done on
commuting bike paths away from anywhere cops can drive past and see you. It
is great to get that thing off for just a couple of K's and let the wind
blow through what's left of my hair!
And if cycling is deemed dangerous enough to warrant compulsory head
covering 'for our own good' then what of rollerblades, scooters and
skateboards? All these things are, IMHO, far more likely to have you
bouncing off the road than a carefully ridden bicycle (which at least has
*brakes!*) so how come you don't need a bone-dome for those?
Bernard G (Perth)
participants to leap from chair head first onto pavement
first time without helmet as this is less likey to result in injury
second time with helmet secured
this willl enable us to finish this argument once & for
all...............................................
"John Kane" <jka...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3D3DCB9E...@sympatico.ca...
> We here in Ontario Canada seem to be facing a private member's
> bill in the provincial parliament that proposes a mandatory
> helmet law. This of course has re-ignited the perpetual helmet
> flame wars in our local cycling ng :).
>
> However one of the combatants has come up with a very interesting
> question He asked if there was any study where which sought to
> identify the type of rider who quits cycling because of the
> introduction of a helmet law. I would rephrase the question as :
> Are there any studies that have identified key reasons why people
> stop cycling when a mandatory helmet law is introduced but is
> essentially the same thing.
>
> Given Australia's relatively long experience with mandatory
> helmet laws I thought that this ng would be a good place to ask.
> I know that I have seem references to why in specific groups do
> but it looked essentially anecdotal. I seem to have a vague
> memory that some one in Australia may have done some work (Gov't
> of Victoria?) but I have no citation. Does anyone know if there
> is any such study?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> John Kane
> The Rideau Lakes, Ontario Canada
>
>
roofi
read that one of the reasons that littlies have so many crashes is that
weight of the helmet is causing them to become unbalanced and fall over.
*sigh*
roofi
I have used MET and Specialized, in QLD and VIC both were light and well
ventilated (the helmets, not the states)
The older style helmets i.e. Stack Hat, left a lot to be desired.
Maybe this was partly to blame for the down turn in cycling with the helmet
laws. Helmets were a lot daggier 10 years ago.
Bernard G (Perth)
"Stewart" <my_us...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:rj1vjukk8aqdcvvkv...@4ax.com...
John Kane
> John Kane wrote:
> >
> > We here in Ontario Canada seem to be facing a private member's
> > bill in the provincial parliament that proposes a mandatory
> > helmet law. This of course has re-ignited the perpetual helmet
> > flame wars in our local cycling ng :).
> >
> > However one of the combatants has come up with a very interesting
> > question He asked if there was any study where which sought to
> > identify the type of rider who quits cycling because of the
> > introduction of a helmet law. I would rephrase the question as :
> > Are there any studies that have identified key reasons why people
> > stop cycling when a mandatory helmet law is introduced but is
> > essentially the same thing.
> >
> > Given Australia's relatively long experience with mandatory
> > helmet laws I thought that this ng would be a good place to ask.
> > I know that I have seem references to why in specific groups do
> > but it looked essentially anecdotal. I seem to have a vague
> > memory that some one in Australia may have done some work (Gov't
> > of Victoria?) but I have no citation. Does anyone know if there
> > is any such study?
> >
> I do not have any direct information of use to you, but I would suggest
> you contact Doris Robinson at the University of New England, NSW,
> Australia. drob...@lash.une.edu.au She wrote several reports on the
> results of helmet legislation. There was also an editorial in the
> British Medical Journal written by Anne Johnstone. My copy carries the
> date June 3, but not the year! The article mentions experience from
> Australia, Britain, the Netherlands and Denmark.
>
> Hope this is of some help.
>
> John Retchford
Thank you, John. I am in contact with Dorre and she has been very
helpful. I have read most of her work but there is one out last year in
AAP (2001) that I have not read yet.
I don't believe I have seen the Johnstone editorial so I'll see what I can
track down.
John Kane
> Bernard G (Perth) wrote:
>
> > These days helmets have come a long way in looks so its not so
> > bad................I came off 4years ago commuting to work doing around
> > 40kmh downhill & hill bend in kerb.landed on top left
> >
clip
>
> Christ, another helmet fundamentalist...
clip
Do you mind if I borrow the phrase ?
I still have a silly smirk on my face. :)
John Kane
> John Kane <jka...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<3D3DCB9E...@sympatico.ca>...
>
> > Given Australia's relatively long experience with mandatory
> > helmet laws I thought that this ng would be a good place to ask.
>
> Uh...we're the ones who kept riding bikes, so it wasn't us :-P
>
> Maybe you should try aus.cars and/or aus.fat.bastards instead :-)
>
> fs
They are unlikely to have done the research on the "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth"
principle :)
John Kane
> Statistically it seems that helmets are bad (at least from the links j provided),
> but I've crashed twice where I'm certain the helmet prevented more serious
> injury to my brain/skull. What do I believe?
Try both. Statistics are talking about the population. Any given case might be an
exception. The chances of wining the lottery is vanishingly small but someone does,
and so on. The real issue is not that helmets are bad: They may be good or bad
depending on all sorts of circumstances. I don't believe that there is much
evidence either way and I suspect that they can prevent minor injures in many cases.
The problem is that all experience with mandatory helmet laws shows that the laws
have bad effects on cycling or cycling safety.
>
> I will say now that I ride with and without helmet depending on the situation,
> much more often with.
> Could it be that there are less injuries when helmets are not worn because of
> a reduction in speed due to the cyclists' feeling upsafe?
This is quite possible, or other methods of risk reduction. If you are interested,
have a look at Dr. Gerry Wilde's book Target Risk
http://pavlov.psyc.queensu.ca/target/index.html
I don't know of the state of the issue in terms of further or conflicting research
but it is a good read and Wilde is very respectable university professor (Emeritus,
IIRC) in Canada.
John Retchford
>
> Thank you, John. I am in contact with Dorre and she has been very
> helpful. I have read most of her work but there is one out last year in
> AAP (2001) that I have not read yet.
>
> I don't believe I have seen the Johnstone editorial so I'll see what I can
> track down.
>
I doubt that the BMJ editorial is a key document as far as facts and
analysis are concerned, but it does present the community health view
pretty well. Don't suppose they would mind my reproducing it, so I
append it below.
Cycle safety more than just a helmet
ANNE JOHNSTONE
The British Medical Association has claimed legislation to
make it compulsory for all pedal cyclists to wear helmets
could do more harm than good.
Doctors, obviously, have a vested interest in cycling. They
are the ones left to pick up the pieces after road
accidents. Accident rates for British cyclists are
abnormally high - pedestrians and cyclists account for 45%
of all road deaths in Britain, while in the Netherlands the
figure is 30%.
Also, as more and more evidence indicates we are becoming a
nation of hefty, lazy, car-loving couch potatoes, with all
the accompanying major health risks, doctors are keen to
stress the health benefits of swapping four wheels for two.
On the face of it, there is an unassailable case for making
cycling helmets compulsory. Following the 1973 crash helmet
legislation for motorcyclists, the number dying from head
injuries fell as compliance rose. In Australia, following
crash helmet legislation for cyclists, deaths and head
injuries among riders have fallen sharply.
However, behind such statistics there is a more complex
story. In Australia, the drop in accidents was probably due
to the numbers who abandoned their bikes rather than wear a
helmet. One survey in Melbourne indicated a 60% drop in the
number of children cycling and a decline of 40% among
adults. Lobby groups opposed to the law argue the
improvement in the head injury rate cannot outweigh this
loss of health benefits.
"There is also a risk of transferring cyclists to cars, with
the accompanying increase in air pollution and traffic
congestion," says the BMA report.
Nor can you compare a cycle helmet with a motorcycle crash
helmet. While the latter is designed to minimise serious
head injuries, cycling helmets offer scant protection
against a tonne of pressed steel hurtling towards you at
even 20mph.
Helmet legislation could also deflect attention from equally
important issues, such as reducing traffic speeds in
built-up areas and providing separate cycle routes. A
spokesperson for Sustrans, which constructs cycle routes,
said: "Danish cyclists are 12 times less likely to be
injured or killed per mile cycled than British ones. Yet few
cyclists in Denmark wear helmets." Instead, the emphasis has
been on constructing vast networks of cycle paths.
The BMA fears cycling helmet legislation could prove
unenforcable in a country where it is estimated only 18% of
riders currently wear one regularly. In Australia, there was
an intensive 10-year campaign before legislation was
introduced. The BMA wants a similar initiative here, aimed
especially at children.
However, its head of policy and research, Dr Vivienne
Nathanson, warned: "If children are going to wear them
consistently, they must be comfortable, stylish,
well-designed, and affordable."
Though the BMA criticises the high cost of helmets, research
in Glasgow yesterday showed cheaper models were available
which complied with European Standards (EN 1078 or Snell
B95), though they tended to be less stylish and colourful.
Dales Cycles sell children's versions from a Raleigh one at
£12.99. Helmets for adults' ranged from a Specialized at £20
to a £125 Giro Exodus. Argos offer the Pulse 2000 children's
helmet at £7.99 and an adults' F16 Airglider at £12.99, both
by Oxford Products.
The BMA also wants cycling proficiency education to become
part of the national curriculum.
Ultimately, however, cycling will become safer and more
popular only when there is a change in attitude and
awareness from other road users.
The report concludes: "Children should have the freedom to
cycle in safety and to achieve this requires a change in the
behaviour of adults, rather than 'suits of armour' for
children." - June 3
Hope this is of interest.
John Retchford
Dorre
: I don't believe I have seen the Johnstone editorial so I'll see what I can
: track down.
from http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/3-6-1999-22-47-13.html
(no idea if the link still works!)
ANNE JOHNSTONE
one regularly.In Australia, there was an intensive 10-year
campaign before legislation was introduced. The BMA wants a similar
initiative here, aimed especially at children.
However, its head of policy and research, Dr Vivienne Nathanson,
warned: "If children are going to wear them consistently, they must
be comfortable, stylish, well-designed, and affordable."
Though the BMA criticises the high cost of helmets, research in
Glasgow yesterday showed cheaper models were available which
complied with European Standards (EN 1078 or Snell B95), though
they tended to be less stylish and colourful.
Dales Cycles sell children's versions from a Raleigh one at £12.99.
Helmets for adults ranged from a Specialized at £20 to a £125 Giro Exodus.
Argos offer the Pulse 2000 children's helmet at £7.99 and an adults' F16
Airglider at £12.99, both by Oxford Products.
The BMA also wants cycling proficiency education to become part of the
national curriculum.
Ultimately, however, cycling will become safer and more popular
only when there is achange in attitude and awareness from other
road users.
The report concludes: "Children should have the freedom to cycle
in safety and to achieve this requires a change in the behaviour
of adults, rather than 'suits of armour' for children."
- June 3
================================================================
The BMA article also notes that a much greater number of lives
would be saved if pedestrians and car occupants were encouraged
to wear helmets. Indeed, in Australia, the FORS has produced a
report on helmet wearing for car occupants.
http://whip.une.edu.au/~drobinso/carhel.htm
In terms of helmet laws and health, the BMA is almost certainly
correct to want to encourage cycling, rather than discourage it by
helmet laws. It has been estimated that if another 40% of Australians
undertook regular, moderate and effective exercise the community
would save $2.4 billion/year in reduced costs associated with heart
disease, low back pain, absenteeism and workplace productivity.
Cycling for transport is an excellent way of keeping fit, without
having to find the time to go to gyms and use exercise bicycles.
It reduces air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, costs virtually
nothing compared with other forms of transport, and, personally, I
find it more enjoyable that commuting by car!
Dorre
j
> "Cameron" <craz...@ar.com.au> wrote
>
>
>> Cycling is as dangerous as you choose to make it.
>>
>
> Definately.
>
Ken Keifer, an American cycling activist, has this to say to the subject:
"I have decided that I better add a summary to this discussion, since
some people still don't get it. To the question, is bicycling dangerous,
we have to acknowledge that there are between 700 and 1,000 fatalities
in the US each year, which is a small number compared to the million or
so who die from diseases that cycling could help prevent and the
approximately 150,000 people killed in other kinds of accidents. In
comparing the fatality rate of cyclists and motorists, we find that the
statistics about bicycle use do not all agree; however, it seems that
bicycling is less dangerous or no more dangerous per hour than driving a
car, and since motorists spend more time driving, the lifelong risk of
the average motorist is two to four times greater than that of the
average cyclist without the 20X compensating health benefits of cycling.
In addition, motor vehicles kill over five thousand pedestrians each
year while bicycles kill at most one or two. Finally, the majority of
cycling deaths occur to the minority who are not following such simple
safety proceedures as riding with the traffic, stopping for traffic
lights and stop signs, and using lights at night.
Putting all this together, a person who choses a bicycle over an
automobile for daily travel and who obeys the traffic laws and uses care
at all times will experience greatly improved health and a greatly
reduced risk of death as a result. Thus rather than being dangerous,
cycling greatly reduces major health risks."
Common sense, huh?
(http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/health/risks.htm)
...snip...
>
> One angle I haven't seen in this debate (this time round) is setting
> an example to the children. I think the little ones are the ones
> most likely to benefit from helmets, because they do silly things
> and seem to end up kissing the tarmac with alarming frequency. I
> feel that adults should lead by example in situations where
> children are present, e.g. SouthBank Parklands on a Sunday
> afternoon.
Your reasoning, while well meant, does not hold water:
How many situations can you think of that adults could lead by example,
but don't? And how many of those concern a hell of a lot more damaging
behaviour than cycling with no helmet (even assuming for a moment that
helmets do work). How about smoking? Eating junkfood as main/only part
of one's diet? Drinking alcohol in immoderate amounts? No exercise
whatsoever? - The list could go on...
You cannot legislate these away. So, with regards to helmets for
children, your argument is spurious. Add to that the well - documented
fact that in American and Canadian provinces with helmet laws for under
16-year olds the effect on injuries has been zero, and the effect on
cycling numbers has been devastating, and you will understand why making
kids wear helmets by law is as couterproductive as it is for adults.
Some would argue it's even more so, because children these days tend to
grow up in mollycoddled circumstances of perceived danger
everywhere...they never even attempt to cycle. Pushing helmets
exacerbates the perception of danger.
Just talk to your local school about how many kids still ride there. Or,
even better - have a look in the morning or in the afternoon at the
stream of traffic, dropping their little ones off and/or picking them up
again. Can you remember that happening 15-20 years ago? What's changed?
> On the roads, you need to wear them because you get fined if you
> don't.
Now that's of course a very persuasive reason...
Of course, the fact that they actually do bugger all to protect you,
despite what the authrities preach, and the fact that many have chosen
simply not to ride at all rather than face a fine, is not so important, huh?
Just put up and shut up...
> My little bit of law-breaking is only done on commuting bike paths
> away from anywhere cops can drive past and see you. It is great to
> get that thing off for just a couple of K's and let the wind blow
> through what's left of my hair!
>
> And if cycling is deemed dangerous enough to warrant compulsory head
covering
> 'for our own good' then what of rollerblades, scooters and skateboards?
> All these things are, IMHO, far more likely to have you bouncing
> off the road than a carefully ridden bicycle (which at least has
*brakes!*)
> so how come you don't need a bone-dome for those?
>
Don't worry, the helmet fundamentalists are at it too - day and night,
in fact!
There are periodic calls for compulsory helmets for all of these
activities; I have even seen some proposals for helmets for pedestrians!
(Well, at least that would be consistent with the proportionate
dangers). Plenty of parents already insist on their kids' wearing
helmets for just about any outdoor activity - seeing little kiddies at
the Townsville Strand recently riding the little aluminium fold up
scooters, at what amounts to walking pace anyway, with the oversized
smelly stubbie coolers bouncing all over their heads, would make one cry
with impotent rage...Or when you see 4-5-year olds, riding their little
12-inch Toyworld plastic pushbikes, with training wheels, at 1-2 km per
hour - slower that walking - and being in fact much lower from the
ground than when walking; with those obnoxious helmets on....
Of course, parents like to buy the helmet as big as possible, so it
would "last" and the kid would "grow into it"; they put the thickest
pads in to make it at least semi-stable, and are oh-so-happy that their
loved one is now "safe"...or when you watch little kids, with their
wobbly helmet still on, running around playgrounds, thus risking
possibly hanging themselves on something by the straps (yes, it has
happened - many times, in fact!)...what farce! What a joke!
It seems that for some people, helmets are panacea - they can cure every
ill! Recent advertisement in WA talked about reducing the risks of
cancer - and showed a photo of a bike helmet! Forget your chemo, mate -
just make sure you have that helmet on!
Curiously, though, those same people tend to be strangely silent whe it
comes to making car occupants wear the things; the one situation where
protective headgear could actually make quite a bit of difference (see
Federal Office of Road Safety study into the subject).
Wonder why???? Could it be that cars can do no wrong? No problem that a
few extra billions of dollars on new freeway could not fix?
j.
j
Well, mate, no need for me to refute your claim; Dorothy Robinson has done it for me.
In any case, don't take my - or her - word for it: The same picture
emerges in other countries, too; irregardless of what social or other
upheavals may have been happening in Australia (BTW - can't see what
you're trying to say by that; surely a severe recession of the kind we
had then would make _more_ people cycle, not less!). Even the British
Medical Journal concluded that the more common helmets have become in
Greater London, the more head injured cyclists there have
been...Perversely, it does not stop the doctors from recommending
helmets; they have, however, stopped short of pushing for compulsion -
quoting the Australian experience as evidence of why compulsion is bad.
At least they are still doing better than some of their Canadian
counterparts: a study from Nova Scotia shows clearly that cycling
numbers after the law was introduced dropped by more than half, and yet
they think the law has been wonderful and should be enacted everywhere -
because - wait for it - more people are wearing helmets now they are
forced by law to do so! (what an earth-shattering conclusion!) and
injury rates dropped...by not quite as much as the number of cyclists,
mind you, but who cares! Mind boggles!
If you are really interested in the subject, try to explore some of the
links on Cyclists' Rights Action Group's site
(http://www.pcug.org.au/~psvansch/crag/).
Or have a browse thru some of the links I posted elsewhere on this forum
- and do that quickly before I get flamed/get my ISP account cancelled
for promoting "irresponsible behaviour"!
In any case, whether you wear a helmet or not by choice is not the
point. I am far from stopping you to do whatever you want. I want some
reciprocal treatment though - and I'm not getting that. Not from you,
true, but from others, who think helmets are just absolutely wonderful,
they save thousands of lives a year (even of those people who don't
cycle, of course!), they prevent cancer, they reduce instances of sex
abuse and they even stop you from getting AIDS - even South Africa is
considering a MHL! :-) That's why you MUST wear one...praise the Lord!
You may not be religious, but to many helmets have become the new
crusade; it is akin to religion and they spread the gospel with the
vigor of Born Again Christians.
Personally, I prefer to do my own research and to draw my own
conclusions. And to ride without a helmet without being abused for doing so.
Cheers!
j.
j
...snip...
With respect to opinions presneted in the article you posted regarding
the effectiveness of motorcycle helmets:
See the link (one of several) I also posted elsewhere on this NG,
dealing with the subject:
http://www.sasnet.com/bro/statistics/stats.html
It clearly shows that even the old motrorbike helmet argument is nowhere
near as clear cut as one would think.
j.
j
No worries...go right ahead.
We are witnessing the rise of the TaliBell - the helmet terrorists! :-)
Now where's Dubya with his Axis of Evil, when we really need him?
j.
Shane Stanley
> Just talk to your local school about how many kids still ride there. Or,
> even better - have a look in the morning or in the afternoon at the
> stream of traffic, dropping their little ones off and/or picking them up
> again. Can you remember that happening 15-20 years ago? What's changed?
So many things that it would take a blind -- or biased -- individual to
blame just one factor.
Shane
Stewart
>>I always use a helmet but wearing it in during summer is like putting
>>your head in a hotbox. I'm one of the older varieties from Melbourne,
>
>I'd be interested to know the type and manufacturer of the helmet you use.
>
>I have used MET and Specialized, in QLD and VIC both were light and well
>ventilated (the helmets, not the states)
Vic is fairly well ventilated by southerly winds during winter. <g>
What are "Met and Specialized" made of?
>The older style helmets i.e. Stack Hat, left a lot to be desired.
I wear a "Protector" model made of polystyrene and licenced under
AS2063. The manufacturer is/was Fabulous Improvements (Vic).
Although it has vents they are effectively sealed of by my full head of
hair and is very hot to wear in summer when pedalling.
>Maybe this was partly to blame for the down turn in cycling with the helmet
>laws. Helmets were a lot daggier 10 years ago.
In this thread people have been quoting various sources of information
which I haven't the time to investigate, but I'd reckon a primary
concern for many people would be, they consider the roads are unsafe for
bikes or their life styles don't allow for bikes.
My Doctor urged me to ride a bike for health reasons and I often see a
smirk on his face at the start of the consultation when he sees me
carrying my bike helmet, even though unknown to him I've sometimes used
a taxi because of rain or high winds.
--
Stewart Naylor (rusty.nayles)
Dorre
Unless, of course, you ask them!!!
see http://whip.une.edu.au/~drobinso/ozdoc.html
A survey of 1210 secondary schoolchildren questioned in Blacktown,
Sydney, found helmet restriction was the most common reason (33.8%)
for not having ridden last week. Other reasons were not owning
a bike (33.4%) and safety fears (11.8%).
A telephone survey of adults in WA found a figure equivalent to 64%
of current adult cyclists would ride more if not legally required
to wear a helmet.
There were also a couple of other surveys with similar results
conducted by CRAG in the ACT and P Mead of CTRAC in the NT.
: Shane
Shane Stanley
> Unless, of course, you ask them!!!
If I didn't like wearing a helmet, I'd probably say the same thing if
surveyed. Many people tell surveys what they want to turn up in the results.
I'd probably be less sceptical if the figures weren't so high.
I'm not particularly persuaded either way on the question of helmets -- too
much of the "evidence" looks narrowly based to me, and when people start
talking about attacks on democratic freedoms and using terms like "nanny
state", I question their ability to look at things impartially.
But even if I were convinced helmets did no good, I can't for the life of me
see the point in cutting off my nose to spite my face, and giving up riding.
I guess I just don't see it as that big an imposition. Not like the state of
the roads around here, for instance, or the way some people drive their
cars.
Shane
Zebee Johnstone
>
>But even if I were convinced helmets did no good, I can't for the life of me
>see the point in cutting off my nose to spite my face, and giving up riding.
>I guess I just don't see it as that big an imposition. Not like the state of
>the roads around here, for instance, or the way some people drive their
>cars.
>
you like to ride. You ride even though there's idiots in cars.
It seems that a lot of people don't like to ride as much as that, they
figured that the helmet was enough to stop them riding.
that doesn't matter *if* there are enough committed cyclists to get
things done, enough to make bikes a known road user, enough to have
people in cars accept the riders. enough to have decent facilities.
Are there that many?
Zebee
Anthony Morton
>I'm not particularly persuaded either way on the question of helmets -- too
>much of the "evidence" looks narrowly based to me, and when people start
>talking about attacks on democratic freedoms and using terms like "nanny
>state", I question their ability to look at things impartially.
Yes, I admit a lot of the civil-rights talk is a bit hyperbolic. But even
setting all of that aside, there are good reasons to make a noise about
helmet compulsion, as the British Medical Association among others realise.
If compulsory bike helmets are a deterrent to cycling and don't really do
that much to prevent head injuries anyway, they are a bad thing and should
be opposed, purely on utilitarian grounds without a word about civil rights.
There's also the discrimination angle. If driving a car and riding a bike
carry the same head injury risk per hour of activity, why are cyclists made
to wear helmets and not motorists? A person can complain about being
discriminated against without insisting on some God-given constitutional
right to not wear a bike helmet. (You might say compulsory helmets as a
form of discrimination is a trivial issue, but the financial impost alone
is about equivalent to that of a GST on tampons - and clearly enough people
thought that was an issue worthy of concern.)
>But even if I were convinced helmets did no good, I can't for the life of me
>see the point in cutting off my nose to spite my face, and giving up riding.
>I guess I just don't see it as that big an imposition. Not like the state of
>the roads around here, for instance, or the way some people drive their
>cars.
Nobody is claiming that people who stopped cycling because of helmet laws
were doing so as some form of political protest. They were just 'casual'
cyclists with no heavy emotional investment in cycling, who just couldn't
be bothered keeping up the habit if it meant buying and wearing a helmet.
I don't take the view that people like this are irrelevant to the cycling
cause. I want to see a lot more 'ordinary people' on bikes, and one way
to do so is to reassure them that they're not doing anything dangerous or
eccentric: two strong impressions that are conveyed by the supposed 'need'
for protective helmets.
Regards,
Tony M.
Mikea at leisure
they have to wear a helmet, or secondary school students who won't ride at all
because they have to wear a helmet amaze me!
I am definitely not advocating breaking the law but .....A tip for you guys -
the enforcement levels are abysmal in most Australian jurisdictions and you
would probably get away with a warning the first time - so stop blaming the
helmet laws and admit that you just don't like riding a bike!
Mike
Owen Cook
>These days helmets have come a long way in looks so its not so
>bad................I came off 4years ago commuting to work doing around
>40kmh downhill & hill bend in kerb
Ditto, two ribs and a total write off with the helmet..smashed to smitherenes.
I'm a convert and don't bother with these arguments anymore.
Owen
John Kane
Extremely well put.
John Kane
Excellent and just before I started search for the article!
Thanks
Suzy Jackson
landing on my head. Good thing for me I wasn't wearing a helmet, as I'd
have been up for a couple of hundred dollars to replace it :)
End result was some concussion and a dozen or so stitches to the back of my
head. I still think helmets are a bad idea.
Regards,
Suzy
--
---
Suzy Jackson su...@bigpond.com http://www.suzyj.net
"Owen Cook" <rc...@pcug.org.au> wrote in message
news:0p32kuoofmcq2o31c...@4ax.com...
Stewart
>I am definitely not advocating breaking the law but .....A tip for you guys -
>the enforcement levels are abysmal in most Australian jurisdictions and you
>would probably get away with a warning the first time - so stop blaming the
>helmet laws and admit that you just don't like riding a bike!
Last Summer I wasn't wearing a helmet and on the way back from the
supermarket the Police pulled me over to discuss the issue at great length.
At the time I had ice cream and frozen foods in the basket which was
rapidly thawing while I was being interviewed, eventually I told them to
either book me or let me piss off (exact wording). They let me go without
booking me, but I always wear a helmet now so that won't happen again.
--
Stewart Naylor (rusty.nayles)
Paul
introduced as I deemed that more risky than training or riding to school.
(back in the days of choice)
Of the 5 crashes I have had on my bicycles,
1 i had no helmet and had a nice cheek graze at 50kph (first bike with hand
brakes so splat with too much front brake).
2. was brought down in the middle of a bunch in a race, splat but no
hitting of head
3. hit by car at intersection - landed on my feet!
4. slipped road in wet at lights on Beach Road and only a grazed thigh.
5. caught in tram tracks in Camberwell Junction in peak hour and splat! -
only wound was pride. Plenty of spectators that day!
So, helemts have been of no use to me in my crashes. I stil wear one though.
Back when helets were 1st made compulsory, my lid cost me over $260 (Giro
Hammerhead). Now helmets all seem to be around $30-$50. So this is a
positive
From what I can deduce, I need to land head first for my bike helmet to
work. My face, above the region below my temples and ears is all
unprotected. I ride a motorcycles as well and wear a full face helemt
there. I like the look of the full face mountain bike helmets, but cannot
see myself wearing such unless I was competeing in a down hill event
(wearing full body armour). Speaking of that. I gear up with leathers when
I ride my motorbike, but will don only lycra on my bicycle and fly down
hills at 60-80kph, so it would be ouchy ouch if I came off!!
j
Don't be silly. I ended up in jail some years ago for refusing to wear a
helmet/not paying the resulting fine.
I went to court and argued that I had good reasons to believe helmets
not only did FA to protect my head, but in some instances could even
make accidents worse.
The magistrate agreed that my arguments were strong, but concluded that
it was not her job to decide whether the law was good or bad, but simply
to enforce it.
Now if this is a "benign" system where you only don't cycle because you
don't want to in the first place, than I think the weed you've been
smoking is way too strong for you.
j.
Paul Bartram
"Mikea at leisure" <mikeaat...@aol.com> wrote
> A tip for you guys -
> the enforcement levels are abysmal in most Australian jurisdictions and
you
> would probably get away with a warning the first time - so stop blaming
the
> helmet laws and admit that you just don't like riding a bike!
I was riding through SouthBank one weekday lunchtime and two mounted police
came the other way. One said in a loud voice "Excuse me sir, would you put
your helmet on or I'll book you". This in front of about twenty people. Yes,
I 'got away with a warning' but it was bloody embarrassing. I decided not to
complain about the heap of horseshit their mounts left behind for some other
cyclist to skid into...
Paul
j
> I used to race bicycles and would wear a helmet before the law was
> introduced as I deemed that more risky than training or riding to school.
> (back in the days of choice)
Actually, you were most likely wrong - unless you were racing in a
low(ish) grade, where people's bike handling skills were not too good.
Overall, racing has a much better safety record than the average cyclist
would think - you are riding with other cyclists and don't have to worry
about the everyday encounters with aggressive motorists.
Irregardless; you would have had to wear a helmet in races anyway; the
leather "hairnets" were compulsory in Australia ever since the late 60s,
I believe.
> Of the 5 crashes I have had on my bicycles,
> 1 i had no helmet and had a nice cheek graze at 50kph (first bike with hand
> brakes so splat with too much front brake).
> 2. was brought down in the middle of a bunch in a race, splat but no
> hitting of head
> 3. hit by car at intersection - landed on my feet!
> 4. slipped road in wet at lights on Beach Road and only a grazed thigh.
> 5. caught in tram tracks in Camberwell Junction in peak hour and splat! -
> only wound was pride. Plenty of spectators that day!
> So, helemts have been of no use to me in my crashes. I stil wear one though.
Helmets would have been of no use in the crashes you had, and had you
ever had a serious "head plant", then they would have still been of
hardly any use. But you may then have had a story about a "helmet that
saved your life"!
> Back when helets were 1st made compulsory, my lid cost me over $260 (Giro
> Hammerhead). Now helmets all seem to be around $30-$50. So this is a
> positive
There are still quite a few helmets in the $200+ bracket. I actually
believe that the Hammerhead used to cost $169, but that's irrelevant
now...It was the Ventoux, I think, that broke the $200 tag ($229). Of
course, you were largely paying for the fact it was Greg LeMond signature...
> From what I can deduce, I need to land head first for my bike helmet to
> work.
Not quite accurate; the bottom line is no matter how you land, a helmet
will have a very limited effect on what will actually happen to you.
This can be positive (less tissue damage) as well as negative -
increased rotational force, as the helmet "grabs" the ground, resulting
in more severe rotational closed head injury - the most dangerous of all.
Surprisingly, this type of injury, which helmets can do absolutely
nothing to mitigate, hardly ever rates a mention amongst the helmet
believers - probably because it inconveniently shows the major
limitation of their favourite "protective" device.
> My face, above the region below my temples and ears is all
> unprotected. I ride a motorcycles as well and wear a full face helemt
> there.
Motorcycle helmets are not much more usefull than the bike ones in
saving your life. Just read some of the links I posted below in the
other helmet thread.
I like the look of the full face mountain bike helmets, but cannot
> see myself wearing such unless I was competeing in a down hill event
> (wearing full body armour).
Full face helmets are totally useless for any practical use in
commuter-type cycling. Not only they are hot and heavy, but they also
restrict periferal vision and hearing.
> Speaking of that. I gear up with leathers when
> I ride my motorbike, but will don only lycra on my bicycle and fly down
> hills at 60-80kph, so it would be ouchy ouch if I came off!!
>
Yes, crashes can be painful. But so is sometimes just tripping over on a footpath. That's life...
j.
Marty Wallace
newsgroup, and that includes some pretty poor ones on the helmet debate. I
only hope you don't believe the rubbish you write.
Marty
"j" <la...@anything.here> wrote in message
news:3D44CEE6...@anything.here...
j
> "J", your posting is the biggest load of dribble I've ever seen on
> any newsgroup, and that includes some pretty poor ones on the
> helmet debate. I only hope you don't believe the rubbish you write.
>
> Marty
>
Marty, I do seem to remember from my past "visits" (non-posting) to this
NG that you have always been a blind supporter of the helmet laws.
I also recall that you are one of those people, so common on usenet, who
simply cannot be persuaded to change their viewpoint - or even modify
it, no matter what evidence can be produced contradicting it.
Now, you are, of course, allowed to post whatever you like. Alas, your
retort above is rather piss weak. You have not bothered to make any
specific comments on anything I have posted. You have not bothered to
try to refute anything that I have provided links to.
What does it say about you? Well, I would suspect that it just shows
what I have just said about you: you've been there, you have argued, you
have had your arse comprehensively kicked on the subject, but you still
push your point of view. It's just that these days you don't even
bother to argue a point, because you know you don't have a leg to stand on.
So, excuse me if I state you're full of shit and do not take you seriously.
j.
Bernard G (Perth)
hit suffering critical head injuries & is in PMH...............he was not
wearing a helmet............................hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
"j" <la...@anything.here> wrote in message
news:3D44CEE6...@anything.here...
Adrian Tritschler
> this morning in riverton/rivervale?? a boy rode out in front of a car & was
> hit suffering critical head injuries & is in PMH...............he was not
> wearing a helmet............................hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
And without the benefit of a time machine, *nobody* can prove that he would
have been any less injured had he been wearing a helmet.
I'm all for wearing a helmet to protect my head.
I'm not in favour of a government that mandates helmet laws as a substitute
for educating and enforcing motorist behaviour.
Adrian
*sigh* note to self. do not get involved in helmet war. do not get involved in
helmet war. do not get involved in helmet war...
j
> this morning in riverton/rivervale?? a boy rode out in front of a car & was
> hit suffering critical head injuries & is in PMH...............he was not
> wearing a helmet............................hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
>
>
Bernard, guess what:
Last month a cyclist got killed in the town I live in, because he was
riding on the wrong side of the road and got hit by a bus. He had been
wearing a helmet. The newspaper article reporting the accident was
unable to claim that this person died because of his failure to wear a
helmet - something they would never have missed to broadcast to the
world had that been the case.
Moral of the story: How do you know the boy you refer to would not have
suffered critical injuries had he been wearing a helmet? - You don't.
That's why the only reasonable way to look at the effectiveness of
helmets is in the context of the studies/statistical figures that have
been compiled and are now available to anyone who wants to look.
Trouble is, there are plenty of people like Marty in post above who just
don't give a shit about real evidence. By putting a few pictures of
cracked helmets and accompanying that by a few sob stories of the type
"thank god I was wearing...bla,blah,blah..." he thinks his case is
unassailable. Pity him...
BTW - the case you mention, as well as the dead cyclist in our town,
only highlight the need of making cyclists (and kids especially) aware
of road rules, so they try to avoid being hit in he first place. That
way you don't need to rely on the flimsy helmet saving your life.
j.
j
...snip...
>
> *sigh* note to self. do not get involved in helmet war. do not get
> involved in helmet war. do not get involved in helmet war...
>
Adrian, if you do not get involved in helmet wars, how will you ever
convince the helmet crusaders that mandatory helmet laws are bad for the
nation's health?
I do not particularly enjoy it, either - I am all too aware of the fact
some people's opinions simply cannot be changed, no matter what you say
or do.
However, if you don't debate it, then you have essentially given up.
j.
Bernard G (Perth)
I just dumbfounded that its safer to not wear a helmet. I would much rather
have a bit of foam between my skull & the pavement on impact....
especially after i spent Aus$160 on a helmet.........
The stats really need to assess each accident involving head injuries &
determine whether the helmet was at fault......
An increase in the number of head injuries dosnt mean the the helmet is to
blame.............
more cyclist on road particularly commuters ..........more cars & more
ingnorant drivers .....mountain biking has grown.......in new areas less
footpaths even though its ilegall to ride on footpaths forcing childern onto
the roads...........you can make kids aware of rules but kids being kids
will be careless......................
:)
"j" <la...@anything.here> wrote in message
news:3D45FC7B...@anything.here...
Anthony Morton
>I just dumbfounded that its safer to not wear a helmet. I would much rather
>have a bit of foam between my skull & the pavement on impact....
I wouldn't go as far as to say it's safer not to wear a helmet. But there's
certainly no hard evidence that helmets are effective at preventing more
than superficial head injuries.
>especially after i spent Aus$160 on a helmet.........
Methinks you were ripped off, unless your primary concern was aesthetics
rather than head protection. A second-hand Stackhat will probably protect
your head just as well (or badly) as any helmet on the market today.
>An increase in the number of head injuries dosnt mean the the helmet is to
>blame.............
No, but it doesn't exactly reassure me that compulsory helmets are a good
idea either.
>more cyclist on road particularly commuters ..........more cars & more
>ingnorant drivers .....
The solution to which is more driver education and law enforcement.
I'm not against wearing helmets, I'm just against compulsion on the grounds
that it's counterproductive and discriminatory.
Just think: of the hundreds of head injured Australian motorists last year,
virtually 100% were not wearing helmets. How irresponsible is that?
Cheers,
Tony M.
Paul Bartram
"Adrian Tritschler" <Adrian.T...@its.monash.edu> wrote
> *sigh* note to self. do not get involved in helmet war. do not get
involved in
> helmet war. do not get involved in helmet war...
Don't worry, it'll be magpie season in a few weeks and they'll forget all
about the helmet debate (other than what to paint on the back of them to
keep the birds from attacking...)
Paul
Marty Wallace
so you make them anonymously like all cowards do,) I don't see the point in
arguing because I know I won't change anyone's mind on this issue.
I've seen enough accidents personally to know that helmets make a difference
in an accident. I don't care what links or statistics you quote, what I've
seen with my own eyes convinces me.
I've seen others post very long debates as if verbosity means correctness, I
don't want to be another.
Your previous posting only quoted other links and hearsay and didn't add one
extra fact to the debate, hence my comments.
Marty Wallace
"j" <la...@anything.here> wrote in message
news:3D45D456...@anything.here...
j
> "J", (You obviously don't have the balls to put your name to your
> postings so you make them anonymously like all cowards do,)
Look, I have heard this argument before and I truly don't see what
difference it makes to the points raised.
However, if it will make you feel better, I am perfectly happy to e-mail
you privately my name and adress, so you know who you are dealing with.
> I don't see the point in arguing because I know I won't change
> anyone's mind on this issue.
Well, but you can say exactly the same about yourself above anyone else
on this NG.
You see, I have done a search on Google groups on you. So I have read
through most of the old "helmet wars" you have participated in and also
have had a look at your website.
The picture of yourself I got is entirely consistent with what I said
about you in my previous post. You have been proved wrong on numerous
occasions, and when your position became untenable, you simply stopped
responding - until next time, when you re-surfaced with the same argument.
I may be posting anonymously, but I can _always_ back up what I post.
You, on the other hand, are just full of hot air.
> I've seen enough accidents personally to know that helmets make a
> difference in an accident. I don't care what links or statistics
> you quote, what I've seen with my own eyes convinces me.
That's fine, but you need to accept that "seeing something with your own
eyes" is not the same as having proof. Essentially your belief is about
as valid as that of people who "know somebody who has smoked his/her
entire life and lived till s/he was 96", which then "proves" to them
that smoking is not bad for you.
You then take this as gospel, choose to tatally disregard/dismiss any
evidence to the contrary, no matter how well researched it is, and
proceed to preach to everyone who'll listen that helmets are wonderful
and that compulsion is the way to go. You reinforce the image of cycling
with no helmet being dangerous by linking your site to emotive pictures
of cracked helmets and sob stories.
You are most likely a third-grade triathlete who cycles occasionaly on
weekends and after work but you have seen it all and you know best.
You make me sick.
> I've seen others post very long debates as if verbosity means
> correctness, I don't want to be another.
No, you don't wish to debate, because any debate will show your for the
fraud you are - just like it always has in the past.
> Your previous posting only quoted other links and hearsay and didn't
> add one extra fact to the debate, hence my comments.
What extra facts would you like? I can tell you countless stories from
my own cycling career and lifetime cycling experience, refuting your
viewpoint via anectodal "evidence" - your preferred way of "proving"
something, is it not? "I have seen, therefore I know!"
Unlike you, though, I believe that anecdotal evidence has very little
place in a debate such as this one, where it is abundantly clear that
the mandatory helmet laws have been worse than just a failure - they
have contributed to damaging public health. That's why I post links to
serious research, rather that saying "I have seen...blah, blah, blah..."
Despite all this, I do not go out of my way to force people NOT to wear
helmets, or stoop to the ludicrous lows of comparing parents who do not
insist on the kids wearing helmets to paedophiles - unlike you.
You are the worst kind of a fundamentalist; you are convinced of
something, and you don't give a stuff about anything that may challenge
your faith. You do not want to know, because you "have seen"! Worse, you
force your views on others; you continue to spew forth such crap as that
the "government only protects you from yourself" and other such pearls
of wisdom.
Again I conclude - you're full of shit. Why don't you just put your
helmet on and piss off?
j.
John Kane
> Bus Vs Biker...........sounds very messy..................
> I just dumbfounded that its safer to not wear a helmet.
There does not seem to be a lot of evidence either way whether wearing a helmet
makes cycling crashs more dangerous or safer. It probably depends on the
crash .
The argument, supported by a lot of evidence is that mandatory helmet laws
appear to have reduced the number of cyclists and increased the per capita risk
to cyclists. Probably the increase in per capita risk is linked to the fewer
cyclists on the road. With fewer cyclists on the road, it may be that drivers
are be less likely to watch out for cyclists.
The reduced cycling is likely to increase the overall health risks to the
population by reducing the amount of exercise that the former cyclists got.
You might want to have a look at some of the references 'J' has posted earlier
in this threat if you are interested in the issue.
-----------clip of interesting points---------------
Theo Bekkers
> "Bernard G (Perth)" wrote:
> > Bus Vs Biker...........sounds very messy..................
> > I just dumbfounded that its safer to not wear a helmet.
> There does not seem to be a lot of evidence either way whether wearing a
helmet
> makes cycling crashs more dangerous or safer.
I ride a motorcycle to work. Last week I went down the stairs to leave for
home, got to the bike, put on my helmet and gloves, then remembered
something on my desk I needed to take home. I went back upstairs and picked
up the item. Going down the stairs, still with my helmet on, I managed to
hit my head on the ledge where the stairs cross the first floor. I nearly
fell down the stairs. The head clearance is not as much as it probably
should be, one of our guys (195 cms tall) always has to duck, but I would
not have hit my head without the helmet. I've not had to duck in the last
eight years.
Maybe walking around, or walking or riding under things, with a helmet on is
not safe.
:-)
Theo