Do I really have to wear a helmet while cycling in Victoria?



Duracell Bunny

New Member
Sep 20, 2006
190
0
0
dave said:
Duracell Bunny wrote:

The only thing I object to is you telling me it saved you from serious
injury when your evidence, however much you believe it is purely
anecdotal and does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Do you see
what I mean? You may believe it. Hell it may even be true. But there
is absolutely no convincing and by that I mean without any offense
statistically convincing evidence to that effect.

Dave
I have no doubt you're also convinced that the earth is flat, the Pope isn't Catholic & the Americans didn't go to the moon. To me, it's glaringly obvious that helmets are a wise choice, & the dings in my helmet are more than adequate proof. To me at least.

Open the brain bay doors, Hal.
 
E

Euan

Guest
Duracell Bunny wrote:

> I have no doubt you're also convinced that the earth is flat, the Pope
> isn't Catholic & the Americans didn't go to the moon. To me, it's
> glaringly obvious that helmets are a wise choice, & the dings in my
> helmet are more than adequate proof. To me at least.


So you're sticking to using anecdotal evidence that helmets are a good
thing. Fair enough, I'll stick to using facts to prove that when it
comes to saving lives, the reason they were mandated, they've failed
miserably.

> Open the brain bay doors, Hal.


Shame you can't have a difference of opinion without resorting to
personal insults.
--
Cheers
Euan
 

Duracell Bunny

New Member
Sep 20, 2006
190
0
0
Euan said:
Duracell Bunny wrote:

Shame you can't have a difference of opinion without resorting to
personal insults.
--
Cheers
Euan
Not meant as an ad hominem, I assure you.

It just appears your mind is utterly closed on this one. The damage to my helmet, and those of others on this forum, is proof enough to me that a helmet does improve chances of no damage or reduced damage (not guarantee, I'll admit) and does have no adverse effects on the wearer. I cannot see any reason at all for NOT wearing one.
 
D

Donga

Guest
Duracell Bunny wrote:
SNIP
> I've had quite a few stacks in the 8 months or so since I came back to
> cycling, all of which were at very slow speeds, and most of which
> resulted in my helmet taking quite a bashing. And no other vehicles
> involved.

UNSNIP

Hmmm, I wasn't aware of this. *Makes mental note to stay in front of DB
on LA rides*
;-)

Donga
 

Duracell Bunny

New Member
Sep 20, 2006
190
0
0
Donga said:
Duracell Bunny wrote:
SNIP
> I've had quite a few stacks in the 8 months or so since I came back to
> cycling, all of which were at very slow speeds, and most of which
> resulted in my helmet taking quite a bashing. And no other vehicles
> involved.

UNSNIP

Hmmm, I wasn't aware of this. *Makes mental note to stay in front of DB
on LA rides*
;-)

Donga
It's only on the MTB that I'm still dodgy :)
I did stack the Corsa the first week I had it, wasn't used to the trackie-like front forks & slippery cycling shoes ...

I'm working on the MTB skills though, riding 3- 4 times a week at present.

Road - well, the LA ride is about the only road riding I do these days, so when that's called off, as it was yesterday, the Corsa just collects dust for another week.
 
T

TimC

Guest
On 2006-11-22, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Duracell Bunny wrote:
>> I wore a helmet long before they were compulsory, and will continue to
>> do so.

>
> As did I. Now people are telling me my very comfortable Bell V1Pro is
> dangerous because it doesn't have a compliance sticker. Doe sthe sticker
> really make it safer?


Yes, it does.

Imagine if a 1e19 eV cosmic ray passed through the atmosphere, passed
through the helmet, through your skull, and unleashed its energy in
your brain, causing instant death by head vapourisation, and possibly
small explosions? Sure, they usually pass straight through you, and
pop out on the other side of the world, but there is a tiny chance
that it could interact with a particle in your head. Now if it was
going to interact with your head, then there's a small chance that had
it passed through the sticker, it would have interacted with a
particle in the sticker instead, thereby saving your brain.

So, nyer.

--
TimC
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
-- Ferenc Mantfeld
 
T

TimC

Guest
On 2006-11-22, Friday (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> dave wrote:
>> Give me a fence picket and see how well your helmet survives :)

>
> Lets see how your head survives.
>
>>
>> And last but not least how likely is a blow from a fence picket to
>> actually kill or cause life threatening injury? Yes it could happen but
>> its more likely to be a mild concussion. And a stitch or two. The
>> helmet I will grant you might well save you from the stiches.
>>

> Once again, let someone whack you on the head with one and put your
> theory to test.


I can pretty confidently say that my helmet did me some good when
knocked a couple (2, maybe 3?) of times over the head with a tire
iron.

What would the usual injuries be for such an attack if you weren't
wearing a helmet?

--
TimC
"If American bicycle advocacy leaders had championed the civil rights
movement, the "Dream" would have been reserved seating in the back
of the bus." - Jack R. Taylor
 
E

Euan

Guest
Duracell Bunny wrote:
> Euan Wrote:
>> Duracell Bunny wrote:
>>
>> Shame you can't have a difference of opinion without resorting to
>> personal insults.
>> --
>> Cheers
>> EuanNot meant as an -ad hominem-, I assure you.

>
> It just appears your mind is utterly closed on this one. The damage to
> my helmet, and those of others on this forum, is proof enough to me
> that a helmet does improve chances of no damage or reduced damage (not
> guarantee, I'll admit) and does have no adverse effects on the wearer.
> I cannot see any reason at all for NOT wearing one.


You say potato I say potato. Here's a few to kick off.

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_damage.html

There is heaps of data demonstrating conclusively that mandating helmet
use has no effect, or worse makes cycling less safe. One of the safest
countries cycling wise is the Netherlands where wearing a helmet is rare.

I point to facts, you claim superior knowledge through flawed anecdotal
`evidence' and I'm the one with a closed mind?
--
Cheers
Euan
 
D

Donga

Guest
Euan wrote:
> Duracell Bunny wrote:
> > Euan Wrote:
> >> Duracell Bunny wrote:
> >>
> >> Shame you can't have a difference of opinion without resorting to
> >> personal insults.
> >> --
> >> Cheers
> >> EuanNot meant as an -ad hominem-, I assure you.

> >
> > It just appears your mind is utterly closed on this one. The damage to
> > my helmet, and those of others on this forum, is proof enough to me
> > that a helmet does improve chances of no damage or reduced damage (not
> > guarantee, I'll admit) and does have no adverse effects on the wearer.
> > I cannot see any reason at all for NOT wearing one.

>
> You say potato I say potato. Here's a few to kick off.
>
> http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_damage.html
>
> There is heaps of data demonstrating conclusively that mandating helmet
> use has no effect, or worse makes cycling less safe. One of the safest
> countries cycling wise is the Netherlands where wearing a helmet is rare.
>
> I point to facts, you claim superior knowledge through flawed anecdotal
> `evidence' and I'm the one with a closed mind?
> --
> Cheers
> Euan


Is Netherlands data relevant to here? If you have thousands of
commuters pootling about on norm bikes on flat roads at low speeds,
they are hardly likely to need a helmet. Comparing potatoes with
potatoes?

Donga
 
E

Euan

Guest
Donga wrote:
> Euan wrote:
>> Duracell Bunny wrote:
>>> Euan Wrote:
>>>> Duracell Bunny wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Shame you can't have a difference of opinion without resorting to
>>>> personal insults.
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers
>>>> EuanNot meant as an -ad hominem-, I assure you.
>>> It just appears your mind is utterly closed on this one. The damage to
>>> my helmet, and those of others on this forum, is proof enough to me
>>> that a helmet does improve chances of no damage or reduced damage (not
>>> guarantee, I'll admit) and does have no adverse effects on the wearer.
>>> I cannot see any reason at all for NOT wearing one.

>> You say potato I say potato. Here's a few to kick off.
>>
>> http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_damage.html
>>
>> There is heaps of data demonstrating conclusively that mandating helmet
>> use has no effect, or worse makes cycling less safe. One of the safest
>> countries cycling wise is the Netherlands where wearing a helmet is rare.
>>
>> I point to facts, you claim superior knowledge through flawed anecdotal
>> `evidence' and I'm the one with a closed mind?
>> --
>> Cheers
>> Euan

>
> Is Netherlands data relevant to here? If you have thousands of
> commuters pootling about on norm bikes on flat roads at low speeds,
> they are hardly likely to need a helmet. Comparing potatoes with
> potatoes?


The Australian helmet standard is to protect the head in the event of a
fall from head height, that is if I'm decapitated the helmet need only
protect my the weight of my head falling to the ground. The added
leverage, weight etc of the body is not taken in to account.

Kinetic energy = Mass/2 * V^2.

IMO that makes helmets irrelevant at speed.

Let's be clear: I am not saying that helmets do not reduce injury. In
the event of a crash they may. What I'm saying is that it is very
unlikely that a helmet will save your life and believing that a helmet
may save your life is dangerous.

Focusing on helmets as a means of reducing cycling fatalities is doomed
to failure because helmets will not protect cyclists from the most
common cause of death to a cyclist; colliding with another vehicle. the
proof is in the population level data readily available to anyone who
cares to look.

The Netherlands understood this and concentrated on making cycling safer
so that the likelihood of colliding with other vehicles is reduced.
We'd do well to follow their example.
--
Cheers
Euan
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 01:04:55 GMT
Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Duracell Bunny wrote:
>
>> I have no doubt you're also convinced that the earth is flat, the Pope
>> isn't Catholic & the Americans didn't go to the moon. To me, it's
>> glaringly obvious that helmets are a wise choice, & the dings in my
>> helmet are more than adequate proof. To me at least.

>
> So you're sticking to using anecdotal evidence that helmets are a good
> thing. Fair enough, I'll stick to using facts to prove that when it
> comes to saving lives, the reason they were mandated, they've failed
> miserably.
>


I think that's the key really.

That they have a use, ain't no doubt. That the vocal helmet proponents
almost always mistake that use in their rhetoric also ain't no doubt.

I think that the lid helps in some circumstances and that's so obvious
that people think "they've been mandated, it must be because they save
your life, they obviously do help in crashes, so they *must* also save
lives in major collisions". Confusing the two things, the usefulness
in minor spills and "you'll die, the government said so".

Still waiting for a person saying anyone who doesn't wear one on a
pushbike is a fool and will die to also say they currently wear one
when travelling in a car.

I wonder how long I will have to wait?

Zebee
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 06:39:40 GMT
Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Focusing on helmets as a means of reducing cycling fatalities is doomed
> to failure because helmets will not protect cyclists from the most
> common cause of death to a cyclist; colliding with another vehicle. the
> proof is in the population level data readily available to anyone who
> cares to look.
>


It's the same as focusing on speed. A simple, easily policed solution
that doesn't really deal with the real problem.

Because of course the real problem in motorvehicle crashes is the same
as cycling crashes.

Poor performance by human beings.

Zebee
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:03:23 +1100
TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I can pretty confidently say that my helmet did me some good when
> knocked a couple (2, maybe 3?) of times over the head with a tire
> iron.
>
> What would the usual injuries be for such an attack if you weren't
> wearing a helmet?


Depends on how hard they were whacking.

I could whack you on the head with a 1 1/4" rattan stick and you
wouldn't notice it. I could also whack you on the head with it and
both split your helmet and concuss you.

Now, the only way to tell if the helmet would lead to less damage is
to do it once with and once without....

Alternatively don't headbutt either tyreirons or rattan sticks.

Zebee
 
E

Euan

Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 06:39:40 GMT
> Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Focusing on helmets as a means of reducing cycling fatalities is doomed
>> to failure because helmets will not protect cyclists from the most
>> common cause of death to a cyclist; colliding with another vehicle. the
>> proof is in the population level data readily available to anyone who
>> cares to look.
>>

>
> It's the same as focusing on speed. A simple, easily policed solution
> that doesn't really deal with the real problem.
>
> Because of course the real problem in motorvehicle crashes is the same
> as cycling crashes.
>
> Poor performance by human beings.


True, however road design can have a large influence in that as
evidenced by shared space, second gen traffic calming etc.
--
Cheers
Euan
 
D

Donga

Guest
Euan wrote:
> Donga wrote:
> > Euan wrote:
> >> Duracell Bunny wrote:
> >>> Euan Wrote:
> >>>> Duracell Bunny wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Shame you can't have a difference of opinion without resorting to
> >>>> personal insults.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Cheers
> >>>> EuanNot meant as an -ad hominem-, I assure you.
> >>> It just appears your mind is utterly closed on this one. The damage to
> >>> my helmet, and those of others on this forum, is proof enough to me
> >>> that a helmet does improve chances of no damage or reduced damage (not
> >>> guarantee, I'll admit) and does have no adverse effects on the wearer.
> >>> I cannot see any reason at all for NOT wearing one.
> >> You say potato I say potato. Here's a few to kick off.
> >>
> >> http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet_damage.html
> >>
> >> There is heaps of data demonstrating conclusively that mandating helmet
> >> use has no effect, or worse makes cycling less safe. One of the safest
> >> countries cycling wise is the Netherlands where wearing a helmet is rare.
> >>
> >> I point to facts, you claim superior knowledge through flawed anecdotal
> >> `evidence' and I'm the one with a closed mind?
> >> --
> >> Cheers
> >> Euan

> >
> > Is Netherlands data relevant to here? If you have thousands of
> > commuters pootling about on norm bikes on flat roads at low speeds,
> > they are hardly likely to need a helmet. Comparing potatoes with
> > potatoes?

>
> The Australian helmet standard is to protect the head in the event of a
> fall from head height, that is if I'm decapitated the helmet need only
> protect my the weight of my head falling to the ground. The added
> leverage, weight etc of the body is not taken in to account.
>
> Kinetic energy = Mass/2 * V^2.
>
> IMO that makes helmets irrelevant at speed.
>
> Let's be clear: I am not saying that helmets do not reduce injury. In
> the event of a crash they may. What I'm saying is that it is very
> unlikely that a helmet will save your life and believing that a helmet
> may save your life is dangerous.
>
> Focusing on helmets as a means of reducing cycling fatalities is doomed
> to failure because helmets will not protect cyclists from the most
> common cause of death to a cyclist; colliding with another vehicle. the
> proof is in the population level data readily available to anyone who
> cares to look.
>
> The Netherlands understood this and concentrated on making cycling safer
> so that the likelihood of colliding with other vehicles is reduced.
> We'd do well to follow their example.
> --
> Cheers
> Euan

That seem reasonable, thanks.
I'll still wear mine, just in case. In fact I feel nude riding without
it.

Donga
 
R

Resound

Guest
"Euan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Duracell Bunny wrote:
>
>> I have no doubt you're also convinced that the earth is flat, the Pope
>> isn't Catholic & the Americans didn't go to the moon. To me, it's
>> glaringly obvious that helmets are a wise choice, & the dings in my
>> helmet are more than adequate proof. To me at least.

>
> So you're sticking to using anecdotal evidence that helmets are a good
> thing. Fair enough, I'll stick to using facts to prove that when it comes
> to saving lives, the reason they were mandated, they've failed miserably.
>
>> Open the brain bay doors, Hal.

>
> Shame you can't have a difference of opinion without resorting to personal
> insults.
> --
> Cheers
> Euan
>


How does "anecdotal evidence" differ from "facts"? Seems to me they're both
empirically observed data.
 
R

Resound

Guest
"Zebee Johnstone" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> In aus.bicycle on Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:03:23 +1100
> TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I can pretty confidently say that my helmet did me some good when
>> knocked a couple (2, maybe 3?) of times over the head with a tire
>> iron.
>>
>> What would the usual injuries be for such an attack if you weren't
>> wearing a helmet?

>
> Depends on how hard they were whacking.
>
> I could whack you on the head with a 1 1/4" rattan stick and you
> wouldn't notice it. I could also whack you on the head with it and
> both split your helmet and concuss you.
>
> Now, the only way to tell if the helmet would lead to less damage is
> to do it once with and once without....
>
> Alternatively don't headbutt either tyreirons or rattan sticks.
>
> Zebee
>


I wouldn't want to cycle or crash in a 16 guage steel helm either though :)
 
D

dave

Guest
Duracell Bunny wrote:
> dave Wrote:
>> Duracell Bunny wrote:
>>
>> The only thing I object to is you telling me it saved you from serious
>> injury when your evidence, however much you believe it is purely
>> anecdotal and does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Do you
>> see
>> what I mean? You may believe it. Hell it may even be true. But
>> there
>> is absolutely no convincing and by that I mean without any offense
>> statistically convincing evidence to that effect.
>>
>> DaveI have no doubt you're also convinced that the earth is flat, the Pope

> isn't Catholic & the Americans didn't go to the moon. To me, it's
> glaringly obvious that helmets are a wise choice, & the dings in my
> helmet are more than adequate proof. To me at least.
>
> Open the brain bay doors, Hal.
>
>

Ahhh scientific proof at last. You make a convincing argument and yet
without being rude.
Time for new batteries Dura

Dave
 
D

dave

Guest
Duracell Bunny wrote:
> Euan Wrote:
>> Duracell Bunny wrote:
>>
>> Shame you can't have a difference of opinion without resorting to
>> personal insults.
>> --
>> Cheers
>> EuanNot meant as an -ad hominem-, I assure you.

>
> It just appears your mind is utterly closed on this one. The damage to
> my helmet, and those of others on this forum, is proof enough to me
> that a helmet does improve chances of no damage or reduced damage (not
> guarantee, I'll admit) and does have no adverse effects on the wearer.
> I cannot see any reason at all for NOT wearing one.
>
>

Wow. You are having a go at Euan for having a closed mind. Amazing.
Any real evidence you can dig up either of us will listen too, Yet you
have only come out with "The dings on my helmet are proof it works" and
personal invective. Yet we have the closed minds. Amazing.
 
D

dave

Guest
TimC wrote:
> On 2006-11-22, Friday (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> dave wrote:
>>> Give me a fence picket and see how well your helmet survives :)

>> Lets see how your head survives.
>>
>>> And last but not least how likely is a blow from a fence picket to
>>> actually kill or cause life threatening injury? Yes it could happen but
>>> its more likely to be a mild concussion. And a stitch or two. The
>>> helmet I will grant you might well save you from the stiches.
>>>

>> Once again, let someone whack you on the head with one and put your
>> theory to test.

>
> I can pretty confidently say that my helmet did me some good when
> knocked a couple (2, maybe 3?) of times over the head with a tire
> iron.
>
> What would the usual injuries be for such an attack if you weren't
> wearing a helmet?
>

Oh I dunno. Something between a head ache and a caved in skull and
death. So if your injuries wearing a helmet were somewhere inside that
range then its possible (since you are not dead) that it made the
difference. Or conversely possible that it made no difference at all.
The only reasonable test is to hit you on both sides of the head with a
tire iron with exactly the same force. Once while wearing a helmet and
once while not. (after taking xRays to make sure your skull was not
differentially thick).

Dave
 

Similar threads