Any helmet laws successfully overturned?

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Michael Malak, Jun 26, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I'm considering embarking upon a campaign to overturn bicycle helmet laws in my area. I was
    wondering if this has been done successfully anywhere in the world? I'm looking for "lessons
    learned" on how it was done (petitions, etc).

    To those who are pro-helmet: I do not feel you have a right to dictate that children wear a helmet
    and miss out on feeling the wind, freedom, independence, and the foundation toward a lifetime of
    physical activity.

    If every U.S. jurisdiction had a juvenile helmet law, only 137 lives would be saved. 687 * 0.29 *
    (2/3) = 137 http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

    Australia's helmet law caused a 36% decrease in ridership in chidlren.
    http://www.general.monash.edu.au/muarc/rptsum/ab32.htm

    Everyone has different perceptions and tolerances of risk. When the cost/benefit ratio of a safety
    behavior is in question, the government has no right to demand it.

    --
    Michael Malak http://www.underreported.com [email protected] Surprising stories from the media and
    primary sources
     
    Tags:


  2. Pete

    Pete Guest

    "Michael Malak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > I'm considering embarking upon a campaign to overturn bicycle helmet laws in my area. I was
    > wondering if this has been done successfully anywhere in the world? I'm looking for "lessons
    > learned" on how it was done (petitions, etc).
    >
    > To those who are pro-helmet: I do not feel you have a right to dictate that children wear a helmet
    > and miss out on feeling the wind, freedom, independence, and the foundation toward a lifetime of
    > physical activity.
    >
    > If every U.S. jurisdiction had a juvenile helmet law, only 137 lives would be saved. 687 * 0.29 *
    > (2/3) = 137 http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm
    >
    > Australia's helmet law caused a 36% decrease in ridership in chidlren.
    > http://www.general.monash.edu.au/muarc/rptsum/ab32.htm
    >
    > Everyone has different perceptions and tolerances of risk. When the cost/benefit ratio of a safety
    > behavior is in question, the government has no right to demand it.
    >

    Now THIS should be interesting!

    Pete
     
  3. "Michael Malak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > If every U.S. jurisdiction had a juvenile helmet law, only 137 lives would be saved. 687 * 0.29 *
    > (2/3) = 137 http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm
    >

    There would probably be many more lives saved by introducing greater physical activity to our
    population of overweight under-exercised children.

    How many childrens lives would be saved if there were mandatory helmet laws for riding in cars?

    How many childrens lives would be saved if all speed limits were lowered by 10 mph? At the same time
    how much longer would the average motor vehicle trip then take?

    How many childrens lives would be saved here and now and also in generations to come all over the
    world if we exchanged our system of personal combustion engine transportation with mass
    transportation?

    How many children under 21 will be killed directly and indirectly in oil inspired wars over the next
    50 years if our consumption levels aren't radically reduced?
     
  4. Dedcat

    Dedcat Guest

  5. > How many childrens lives would be saved if there were mandatory helmet laws for riding in cars?

    Trying to redirect the flame war here....

    The risk from being in a car is of a similar magnitude to the risk from being on a bike. How about a
    push for manditory helmet laws in cars? Perhaps that would discourage car use, as similar laws
    discourage bike use.

    Peter
     
  6. On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:09:20 -0700, "one of the six billion" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >How many childrens lives would be saved if all speed limits were lowered by 10 mph?

    Accident rates would go up, not down.

    Jasper
     
  7. > To those who are pro-helmet: I do not feel you have a right to dictate that children wear a helmet
    > and miss out on feeling the wind, freedom, independence, and the foundation toward a lifetime of
    > physical activity.
    >
    > If every U.S. jurisdiction had a juvenile helmet law, only 137 lives would be saved. 687 * 0.29 *
    > (2/3) = 137 http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm
    >
    > Australia's helmet law caused a 36% decrease in ridership in chidlren.
    > http://www.general.monash.edu.au/muarc/rptsum/ab32.htm
    >
    > Everyone has different perceptions and tolerances of risk. When the cost/benefit ratio of a safety
    > behavior is in question, the government has no right to demand it.
    >
    > --
    > Michael Malak http://www.underreported.com [email protected] Surprising stories from the media and
    > primary sources
    >

    Just keep in mind you'll be fighting the helmet manufacturer's lobby with little or no help.
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
     
  8. In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
    >
    > "Michael Malak" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > If every U.S. jurisdiction had a juvenile helmet law, only 137 lives would be saved. 687 * 0.29
    > > * (2/3) = 137 http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm
    > >
    >
    > There would probably be many more lives saved by introducing greater physical activity to our
    > population of overweight under-exercised children.
    >
    > How many childrens lives would be saved if there were mandatory helmet laws for riding in cars?
    >
    > How many childrens lives would be saved if all speed limits were lowered by 10 mph? At the same
    > time how much longer would the average motor vehicle trip then take?
    >
    > How many childrens lives would be saved here and now and also in generations to come all over the
    > world if we exchanged our system of personal combustion engine transportation with mass
    > transportation?
    >
    > How many children under 21 will be killed directly and indirectly in oil inspired wars over the
    > next 50 years if our consumption levels aren't radically reduced?
    >

    How many lives would be saved if the automakers didn't have the money to buy off the law makers?
    --
    _________________________
    Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia http://www.ramsays-online.com
     
  9. Rich Clark

    Rich Clark Guest

    "Peter Gardner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > > How many childrens lives would be saved if there were mandatory helmet
    laws
    > > for riding in cars?
    >
    > Trying to redirect the flame war here....
    >
    >
    > The risk from being in a car is of a similar magnitude to the risk from being on a bike. How about
    > a push for manditory helmet laws in cars? Perhaps that would discourage car use, as similar laws
    > discourage bike use.

    The helmet laws don't discourage cycling because people don't want to wear helmets. They discourage
    cycling because they increase the perception of cycling as being inherently dangerous.

    There are already mandatory seat-belt and air-bag laws for cars, and their existence doesn't seem to
    discourage driving. People's capacity for self-delusion should never be underestimated; they will
    choose their desired result (I want to drive, I don't want to cycle) and then choose whatever
    evidence supports it and ignore the rest.

    RichC
     
  10. >If every U.S. jurisdiction had a juvenile helmet law, only 137 lives would be saved. 687 * 0.29 *
    >(2/3) = 137 http://www.bhsi.org/stats.htm

    This is a phony argument. For every bicycle head injury that results in death there are about a
    thousand head injuries which result in various other problems including permanent disabilities. Do a
    google search on bicycle head injury statistics and look at any of the more than 14,000 hits to get
    a better idea of the real potential impact of helmet usage.
     
  11. Michael Malak wrote:

    > Australia's helmet law caused a 36% decrease in ridership in chidlren.
    > http://www.general.monash.edu.au/muarc/rptsum/ab32.htm
    >

    I think a more accurate statement is that it is correlated with a decrease in ridership. No
    causation is shown in the abstract cited.

    Scott
     
  12. Blech

    Blech Guest

    [email protected] (Michael Malak) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > I'm considering embarking upon a campaign to overturn bicycle helmet laws in my area. <snip>

    You should focus your attention on all the strange aircraft noise in the DC area.
     
  13. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:11:17 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Dave Rabinowitz) wrote:

    > Do a google search on bicycle head injury statistics and look at any of the more than 14,000 hits
    > to get a better idea of the real potential impact of helmet usage.

    Treat the results with caution, though, for many reasons including:

    - some studies which claim to prove helmet effectiveness also prove that helmets reduce leg injuries
    - helmet laws do not generally apply on private land which is where over 90% of child head injury
    cycle accidents happen
    - cyclist injury rates in Virginia, Australia, rose following compulsory helmet legislation
    - claims of up to 85% head injury reductions from helmet use fail tyo account for the proportion of
    head injuries which are to parts of the head & face not covered by helmets
    - helmets are designed for loss-of-control accidents up to about 12mph so most adult cyclists will
    be riding outside their design parameters much of the time, and all accidents involving motor
    vehicles will exceed the design capabilites of the helmet.

    I am of the view that children are the one group for helmets definitely work, but since the majority
    of these accidents happen offroad legislation is not an effective way to promote helmet use for
    these children. Nor are helmets the first, best way to improve their safety on or off road (better
    bike skills are the starting point there). It is not a coincidence that the most ardent helmet
    advocates are paediatricians.

    There is a danger that helmets are seen as some kind of panacea, the polystyrene foam deflector
    beanie as magic talisman. They distract attention from primary safety and increase the perception of
    danger, which is a self-fulfilling prophecy in that it deters cycling, and the best way of making
    cycling safer is undoubtedly for more people to do
    it.

    For adult cyclists riding a bike even without a helmet, and with only the average level of skill,
    the health benefits outweight the increased dangers by up to 20:1, depending on the particular
    study and methodology used. Cycling is *not* dangerous in terms of whole-life risk, so helmets are
    one possible way of making a safe activity even safer. Your chances of suffering serious head
    injury in a car crash, particularly the worst type of torsional brain injury, are greater than in a
    bike crash.

    As an aside there is only one study I know of which incontrovertibly links helmets with fatality,
    and that relates to children strangled by their helmet straps while on play equipment.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
    notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
    between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
    the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.
     
  14. Zeldabee

    Zeldabee Guest

    [email protected] (blech) wrote:
    > [email protected] (Michael Malak) wrote...
    > > I'm considering embarking upon a campaign to overturn bicycle helmet laws in my area. <snip>
    >
    > You should focus your attention on all the strange aircraft noise in the DC area.

    Yes indeed! The helmet makes a good substratum for the tinfoil.

    --
    z e l d a b e e @ p a n i x . c o m http://NewsReader.Com/ Honest, never intended to contribute to a
    helmet-flame thread...
     
  15. Walter Mitty

    Walter Mitty Guest

    Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive wit when in
    news:p[email protected] he conjectured that:

    > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:09:20 -0700, "one of the six billion" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>How many childrens lives would be saved if all speed limits were lowered by 10 mph?
    >
    > Accident rates would go up, not down.
    >
    > Jasper
    >

    I'm sober, and still don't get that. Is it some play on how rates are expressed mathematically?

    --
    Walter Mitty.
     
  16. On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 08:14:01 +0200, Walter Mitty <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> brightened my day with his incisive wit when in
    >news:p[email protected] he conjectured that:
    >> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 19:09:20 -0700, "one of the six billion" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>How many childrens lives would be saved if all speed limits were lowered by 10 mph?
    >>
    >> Accident rates would go up, not down.

    >I'm sober, and still don't get that. Is it some play on how rates are expressed mathematically?

    No, it just happens. Not entirely sure why, but the mechanism, I suspect, would be that the morons
    who don't obey speed limits still don't, and will probably continue to ride their old speed, and a
    nigger proportion of the rest will alse be speeding, and so the difference in speeds between various
    cars increases. V doesn't kill, delta-v does.

    Jasper
     
  17. Just Zis Guy

    Just Zis Guy Guest

    On Fri, 27 Jun 2003 13:16:39 GMT, Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>How many childrens lives would be saved if all speed limits were lowered by 10 mph?

    >Accident rates would go up, not down.

    Unless you believe the research evidence, of course. Injury and fatality rates would still fall even
    if accident rates rose, though.

    Guy
    ===
    ** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com Advance
    notice: ADSL service in process of transfer to a new ISP. Obviously there will be a week of downtime
    between the engineer removing the BT service and the same engineer connecting the same equipment on
    the same line in the same exchange and billing it to the new ISP.
     
  18. Gary Mishler

    Gary Mishler Guest

    "Rich Clark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]net...
    >

    >> ... they will choose their desired
    result (I want to drive, I don't want to cycle) and then choose whatever evidence supports it and
    ignore the rest. <<

    Bingo!

    That simply and distinctly describes the entire helmet-law issue (as well as many other
    life issues).
     
  19. Pat

    Pat Guest

    x-no-archive:yes

    > >>>How many childrens lives would be saved if all speed limits were lowered by 10 mph?
    > >>
    > >> Accident rates would go up, not down.
    >
    > >I'm sober, and still don't get that. Is it some play on how rates are expressed mathematically?
    >
    > No, it just happens. Not entirely sure why, but the mechanism, I suspect, would be that the morons
    > who don't obey speed limits still don't, and will probably continue to ride their old speed, and a
    > nigger proportion of the rest will alse be speeding, and so the difference in speeds between
    > various cars increases. V doesn't kill, delta-v does.
    >
    > Jasper

    I think the word you are looking for is "niggardly." Well, maybe not, as that word means
    "Ungenerously or pettily reluctant to spend money." So, what word WERE you trying to use there?

    Pat in Texas
     
  20. On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:02:17 -0500, "Pat" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >I think the word you are looking for is "niggardly." Well, maybe not, as that word means
    >"Ungenerously or pettily reluctant to spend money." So, what word WERE you trying to use there?

    He meant "bigger". Look at the "B" and the "N" on your keyboard, and hang up on your SPLC lawyer.
    It's a damn typo.

    Nice try, though.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...