Bicycle helmet law can save lives

[Just Zis Guy]

On Mon, 3 May 2004 13:47:47 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>> >Bicycle helmet law can save lives
>> Yet strangely never does.

>How about "yet proof of this fact is [elusive]
>[inconclusive] [statistically difficult to prove]." Choose
>a discriptor. There is no way anyone can say categorically
>that a helmet did not save somebody's life somewhere.
>"Saving life" meaning that the victim lived, regardless of
>the degree of morbidity.

Not the point. Bicycle helmet *laws* have never saved lives.

>Everytime we have this thread (and it seems to be about
>every five months or so), we trot out the same arguments
>pro and con -- with decreasing support on either side. What
>always amazes me is the reaction from the folks in U.K. and
>Australia who claim a huge decrease in ridership when
>helmet laws pass. What is up with that?

Street counts of cyclists before and after passage of a
law, showing reductions of over 1/3 following passage of
the law, and the fact that ten years later, despite a
growing population, cyclist numbers in Aus. are still below
pre-law levels.

>When I was 15 or 16, I rode for one reason -- to get
>somewhere. My mother was not going to drop everything and
>give me a ride to school just so I would not have to muss-
>up my hair with a stinky ol' bicycle helmet.

And now cycling is officially so dangerous it can't be done
without a plastic hat, how many mothers are goign to forbid
their children to ride for transport? Or simply not buy them
bikes? Or never get them started with road cycling, keeping
them confined ot parks and bikeways, so the kids grow up
with no concept of cycling for transport?

>I really cannot figure out why helmet helmet laws are such
>a "live free or die" issue for so many.

It's not a "live free or die" issue at all. It's
exasperation with the monomaniac focus on plastic hats over
and above all other cycling safety issues. British
government figures show that a universally obeyed helmet law
might result in the saving of exactly one life per year, but
as a consequence of promoting helmets as the panacea for all
cycling deaths, there is a bery real risk that injuries and
deaths will actually be caused through risk compensation.
People are told that a helmet makes them invulnerable, how
is that going to affect their riding? And, given that
helmets are not designed for crashes involving motor
vehicles, what will be the overall effect? Will it be, as in
Australia and Alberta, an increase in the death and serious
injury rate?

And what about child pedestrians, who suffer comparable
proportions of head injuries, comparable severity ratio, but
with many times more cases? Wouldn't it be better, rather
than forcing helmets on children in one activity which is
statistically no more dangerous than walking (and by some
measures actually much safer), to concentrate on reducing
danger at source? Not just for the small proportion of
children on bikes? Because that's the reality, it's a law
which may at best prevent a small proportion of injuries to
a small proportion of children, while completely ignoring
the cause of danger. Motor vehicles accoutn for one in ten
injury hospitalisations in the UK, but half of all deaths.
It's not cycling that's dabngerous, it's cars. And they kill
far more pedestrians than cyclists.

So I am against helmet compulsion because it is a dangerous
distraction from the real business of safety.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

 

[Drs]

"Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

[...]

> Everytime we have this thread (and it seems to be about
> every five months or so), we trot out the same arguments
> pro and con -- with decreasing support on either side.
> What always amazes me is the reaction from the folks in
> U.K. and Australia who claim a huge decrease in ridership
> when helmet laws pass. What is up with that? Considering
> that most of the U.S. helmet laws only apply to kids under
> 16 (or 15 under the law in this case, which is said to be
> "like" the one recently defeated in the U.K.), how is that
> going to affect ridership?

The Australian laws affect all riders. I remember them being
brought in. Those ultra-daggy helmets were a definite turn-
off. They were the ultimate in uncool. To say they were
hideous is to praise them too highly. Beyond that I don't
have a comprehensive analysis of what happened and why. But
the helmets were shitful and arguably aren't hugely better
now. I like helmets in principle. At least with a Snell-
rated Shoei full-face motorcycle helmet I can see the
benefit. And they're cool. Bike helmets are uncool and I
can't see much benefit if any unless I should happen to turn
exactly upside down and land firmly on my crown.

--

A: Top-posters.
B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

 

[BaCardi]

Why is it important for the HELMET NAZIS to tell everybody what to do???

 

[Chalo]

"jquinn1" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I am a firm believer in everybody wearing helmets.
> Probably because I have been in two crashes where my
> helmets were destroyed due to impact with the ground.

If, like me and many others here, you had instead been in
multiple crashes during which your head struck the ground
hard enough to break the average styrofoam object, and you
had suffered no lasting injury as a result, then you'd
probably see what we see when folks make claims like yours:
an inexperienced cyclist impressed with how rugged and wise
he is after breaking his widdle foam hat.

Please, do continue to wear your hat, though. It is one of
the easy clues by which we can identify you on the road or
trail, so we can stay out of harm's way.

Chalo Colina

 

[Chalo]

"Bran" <[email protected]> wrote:

> my reasons are my own injured head and broken helmetsover
> my nearly 40 years of riding. other folks my land
> differently.
>
> you could always wear the thing on your elbow...

Aye, even my motorcycle helmets would have yielded me far
more long-term benefit if I'd worn them on my knees!

Chalo Colina

 

[BaCardi]

Can we just put all the Helmet Nazis in one large overseas cargo container and ship them all off to some socialist country where they would better fit in.

 

[Tim McNamara]

"Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> writes:

> I really cannot figure out why helmet helmet laws are such
> a "live free or die" issue for so many. I wish these
> people approached tax reform with the same vigor.

Many of them do that, as well. Many of the "anti" helmet
folks are logically consistent with their dislike of
government interventions. It's the oddball liberals like me
who want the government out of running people's private
lives, want reform of the current draconian copyright laws,
figure Jesus was right when he said "render unto Caesar" and
that taxes aren't that big a deal, and don't want mandatory
helmet laws because the governemnt doesn't always know
best... we're the ones that are hard to figure out because
it doesn't seem logically consistent.

 

[Tim McNamara]

BaCardi <[email protected]> writes:

> Why is it important for the HELMET NAZIS to tell everybody
> what to do???

Why do the reactionaries have to call people they don't
agree with "nazis?" The pro-helmet folks are not Nazis,
although some of them are too convinced of their rightness
and think it's a good thing to make everybody do what they
think is right. Sort of like the neo-con evangelists now and
the Great Society liberals 35 years ago.

 

[Tim McNamara]

BaCardi <[email protected]> writes:

> Can we just put all the Helmet Nazis in one large overseas
> cargo container and ship them all off to some socialist
> country where they would better fit in.

Ah, Rumboy, you need to learn a bit more about the political
history of the 20th century. Were you sleeping in World
History class?

 

[The Real Bev]

Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> "Jay Beattie" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > I really cannot figure out why helmet helmet laws are
> > such a "live free or die" issue for so many. I wish
> > these people approached tax reform with the same vigor.
>
> Many of them do that, as well. Many of the "anti" helmet
> folks are logically consistent with their dislike of
> government interventions. It's the oddball liberals like
> me who want the government out of running people's private
> lives, want reform of the current draconian copyright
> laws, figure Jesus was right when he said "render unto
> Caesar" and that taxes aren't that big a deal, and don't
> want mandatory helmet laws because the governemnt doesn't
> always know best... we're the ones that are hard to figure
> out because it doesn't seem logically consistent.

Actually, you're right, sort of, even if you are one of
those hated liberals. All I have to do to deal with taxes is
feed info into TurboTax or equivalent and write eight checks
a year +/-2, but the proliferation of insane regulations
causes me grief every day.

Still, it's good to keep money out of their hands because
they not only waste it, they waste it in ways that are
harmful to us.

--
Cheers, Bev
-------------------------------------------------------
----------
"Luge strategy? Lie flat and try not to die." -- Tim Steeves

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Tim McNamara wrote:

> Many of the "anti" helmet folks are logically consistent
> with their dislike of government interventions. It's the
> oddball liberals like me who want the government out of
> running people's private lives, want reform of the
> current draconian copyright laws, figure Jesus was right
> when he said "render unto Caesar" and that taxes aren't
> that big a deal, and don't want mandatory helmet laws
> because the governemnt doesn't always know best... we're
> the ones that are hard to figure out because it doesn't
> seem logically consistent.

Hmm. Do you perhaps mean "idealogically consistent" in place
of "logically consistent"?

Personally, if I feel that someone is anti-tax, pro-gun, anti-
abortion, anti-union, pro-Iraq invasion, anti-environmental-
regulation, pro-school prayer, anti-gay-marriage, pro-
business...

... OR if they are pro-tax, anti-gun, pro-abortion, pro-
union, anti-Iraq invasion, pro-environmental-regulation, anti-
school prayer, pro-gay-marriage, anti-business...

... then they're not thinking for themselves.

If you really do think for yourself, you'll be hard for most
people to figure out, simply because they don't think for
themselves!

--
-------------
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot
com, replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

 

[Dane Jackson]

Curtis L. Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> They must do better road maintenance in your area. My
> helmet is excellant for keeping the Charlie W. helmet
> mirror in place and to block low hanging branches. The
> latter is a great help in riding in Anne Arundel County,
> MD (USA) most of the year.

I can't say my helmet has done anything for me, but my
cycling glasses have certainly saved me a good bit of
trauma. Dust, rocks, insects, tree branches, etc. My glasses
have at least saved me some facial scratches and bruises, if
not my vision. Glasses and gloves are my two favorite pieces
of safety equipment.

--
Dane Jackson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g I
wasn't born a killer. Daleks like you made me this way!

 

[BaCardi]

Originally posted by Tim McNamara
BaCardi <[email protected]> writes:

> Can we just put all the Helmet Nazis in one large overseas
> cargo container and ship them all off to some socialist
> country where they would better fit in.

Ah, Rumboy, you need to learn a bit more about the political
history of the 20th century. Were you sleeping in World
History class?

Unfortunately yes. Ahhh! I actually got a good chuckle out of that one.

 

[Callistus Valer]

> Helmet _laws_ do not save lives.
>
> Helmets may save lives in certain curcumstances like ones
> I described
above.

I hit a curb head first, that still knocked me out with a
giro pneumo
helmet on. Put a dent in the helmet where it impacted the
edge of the curb.
The important lesson was that I did not intend to have an
accident that day.

 

[Doug Huffman]

'Transcription' and NOT statistics! Anecdote. The conspiracy
of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

"Melinda Meahan - remove TRASH to reply"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| I do medical transcription and see bicycle riders without
| helmets being killed or having permanent brain damage in
| accidents, whereas those who wear helmets are better off
| -- much the same as drivers with airbags in their cars.
|
| In California helmets are mandatory for those under 18
| and optional for those over 18. That sounds reasonable to
| me, although I think everybody should wear a helmet when
| they ride.
|

 

[Curtis L . Russ]

On Mon, 3 May 2004 13:47:47 -0700, "Jay Beattie"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Considering that most of the U.S. helmet laws only apply to
>kids under 16 (or 15 under the law in this case, which is
>said to be "like" the one recently defeated in the U.K.),
>how is that going to affect ridership?

Our insistence that he wear a helmet led to my son riding
far less about ten to twleve years ago. Helmets were
definitely uncool. Shortly thereafter, skateboarding made
helmets far less uncool and I would guess the entire 'helmet
discouraging riding' is much less an issue than before for
that age group.

For a lot of us, the issue is less the helmet and more the
claims and using those claims to make laws that will
ulitmately be slackly enforced, if that.

Second post puts me two over my quota for these threads. so
I'm out of here.

Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on
two wheels...

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> BaCardi <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Why is it important for the HELMET NAZIS to tell everybody
>>what to do???
>
>
> Why do the reactionaries have to call people they don't
> agree with "nazis?" The pro-helmet folks are not Nazis,
> although some of them are too convinced of their rightness
> and think it's a good thing to make everybody do what they
> think is right. Sort of like the neo-con evangelists now
> and the Great Society liberals 35 years ago.

Yeah, "Nazi" is overkill.

But there _is_ a difference in attitude between the folks on
the two sides of this debate. The helmet promoters include a
spectrum ranging from "It's always a good idea to wear a
helmet," all the way up to "You should never, ever ride
without a helmet; riding without one should be illegal."

The helmet skeptics range from "It isn't always necessary"
to, perhaps, "It harms us by making cycling look dangerous."
But I've never heard a helmet skeptic advocate making
helmets illegal.

All the compulsion freaks are pro-helmet.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot
com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu]

------------ And now a word from our sponsor ---------------------
For a secure high performance FTP using SSL/TLS encryption
upgrade to SurgeFTP ---- See
http://netwinsite.com/sponsor/sponsor_surgeftp.htm ----

 

[Frank Krygowski]

Melinda Meahan wrote:

> I do medical transcription and see bicycle riders without
> helmets being killed or having permanent brain damage in
> accidents, whereas those who wear helmets are better off
> -- much the same as drivers with airbags in their cars.

Have you ever compared the number of brain damaged cyclists
with the number of brain damaged motorists? Nationally, the
motorist numbers absolutely dwarf the bicyclist numbers,
despite seat belts and air bags
- yet, we have people such as yourself making cycling sound
dangerous. Why not advocate helmets where they'll do the
most good?

And by the way, I'm a bit skeptical about the number of
"riders ... being killed" you've encountered. There are only
about 800 cycling deaths per year in the US, from _all_
causes. Unless you do _all_ the medical transcriptions for
many hospitals, I'll bet you see far less than one cycling
fatality per year, helmets or no helmets.

>
> In California helmets are mandatory for those under 18
> and optional for those over 18. That sounds reasonable to
> me, although I think everybody should wear a helmet when
> they ride.

I think you know far less about this issue than I do, and I
think I should be free to decide for myself and for my
family. One person's fuzzy opinion shouldn't take away
another person's freedom of choice.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot
com. Substitute cc dot ysu dot edu]

 

[Austinmn]

Del Cecchi wrote:
>
> If we're doing testimonials, I believe my helmet saved me
> when I went down on a Rochester MN bike path. I don't
> remember much, but I had a
concussion
> and a broken arm (impact fracture of humerus). I was
> picked up by a neighbor at a gas station, walking home and
> not making much sense. I
don't
> remember much of anything for about a 6 hour period. Not a
> scratch on me(broken bone and concussion but no scratches)
> from what seems to have
been
> a pretty good belly flop and face plant. Hit a little
> patch of loose dirt that was deeper than I thought.
> Usually it is wet, so I go slow or walk. This time it
> was dry....
>
> So for me a helmet was a good idea.
>
> del cecchi

The problem is, neither you nor anyone else knows what the
outcome would have been without the helmet. The statistical
evidence is that it would either have been the same or
worse, but as said before, there's a lot of problems with
the statistics.

There have been some really spectacular head-plant impacts
that resulted in no serious injury without a helmet.

Austin

 

[Top Sirloin]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> We have just defeated such a law in the UK.
The outright lies which
> were quoted in its support are enough to persuade me that
> the compulsion lobby have a very weak case indeed. Why
> else would they need to use distortion to portray the
> problem as big enough to justify their "solution?"

Typically the group in favor of government action _has_ to
inflate the problem because so few problems really need the
attention of legislation.

Just think, if the helmet adovocates were as powerful as the
global warming freaks Hollywood would be producing summer
blockbusters about Timmy's trip to the corner store:

http://www.thedayaftertomorrowmovie.com/

> If anyone's interested, the campaign is described here:
> <url:http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Docum-
> ents/martlew_bill>

Wow, great stuff. Why can't the UK apply such common sense
to gun control? <ducks>

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com