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



T

TimC

Guest
On 2006-11-25, dave (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>> On 2006-11-22, Friday (aka Bruce)
>> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>>> 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.


I came out with no injuries, not even a headache. Other than small
scratches on my ear and cheek, from where the helmet straps dug in.

A year later, having an MRI, they discovered I had prior injuries in
my C6/C7 vertibrae, but I can't imagine it coming from that, given
that I don't recall any neckpain coming from the attack.

--
TimC
Weeks of coding can save you hours of planning. --unknown
 
E

Euan

Guest
Resound wrote:
> "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.


Anecdotal:
``I fell off my bike and cracked my helmet. If I'd not been wearing my
helmet I'd have cracked my skull, my helmet saved my life.''

Fact:
The force required to crack a skull is approximately ten times the force
required to crack a helmet.
--
Cheers
Euan
 

ritcho

New Member
May 24, 2004
934
0
0
Euan said:
[snip]

Anecdotal:
``I fell off my bike and cracked my helmet. If I'd not been wearing my
helmet I'd have cracked my skull, my helmet saved my life.''

Fact:
The force required to crack a skull is approximately ten times the force
required to crack a helmet.
--
Cheers
Euan

Fact 2: You don't have to crack your skull to have a life threatening head injury.



Wtf is this hook in my mouth? Arghhh!


Ritch
 
P

Parbs

Guest
ritcho wrote:
>
> Wtf is this hook in my mouth? Arghhh!



You should have been wearing a full-faced helmet. Stops foot in mouth too.

Parbs
 

MikeyOz

New Member
Aug 12, 2003
942
0
0
52
Euan said:
Let's be clear: I am not saying that helmets do not reduce injury. In
the event of a crash they may.

Is that not what all this was about in the first place, my point has always been that when I have crashed my helmet as assisted me admirably in reducing any damage to my noggin. I have never stated anywhere it would save my life and don't believe it would save my life, I'm stupid, but not that stupid.

You go on and on and produce articles from the web backing up your argument, statistic and then came out and say the above. ?????????
 
D

Dave Hughes

Guest
On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:03:23 +1100, TimC wrote:

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


Wanting to move to Coonabarabran?

--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"There is nothing, absolutely nothing, quite so worthwhile as simply
messing about on bicycles." - Tom Kunich
 
T

TimC

Guest
On 2006-11-26, Dave Hughes (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006 16:03:23 +1100, TimC wrote:
>
>> What would the usual injuries be for such an attack if you weren't
>> wearing a helmet?

>
> Wanting to move to Coonabarabran?


What a daft idea. Why would anyone, even with drain bamage want to do
such a rediculous thing?

I've got a 35 38 and 39 to append to that last list I posted. I
preferred the weather of 2 weeks ago.

--
TimC
"Saving four times is just paranoia. Unless you're using an Exabyte
5gig/8mm tapedrive." -- Graham Reed
 
E

Euan

Guest
MikeyOz wrote:
> Euan Wrote:
>> Let's be clear: I am not saying that helmets do not reduce injury. In
>> the event of a crash they may.
>>

>
> Is that not what all this was about in the first place, my point has
> always been that when I have crashed my helmet as assisted me admirably
> in reducing any damage to my noggin.


No, I'm saying that in all probability you're attributing too much
damage mitigation to the helmet.

You have no conclusive data to support your assertion that your helmet
saved you from concussion. You see your helmet split in to four pieces
and assume that such a failure would require a force which would be
significant enough to cause you severe head trauma if the helmet wasn't
there. It is very unlikely that that's the case because the energy
required to destroy a helmet is not that significant. Noggins are a lot
tougher than most people think.
--
Cheers
Euan
 
W

Wally

Guest
Most cops are fine, its the odd one who gives you the *****, country
cops have better things to do than give people a hard time.
My advice is to spin some ******** story to the cops (if needed) about
where your helmet is or how it broke and they will leave you alone.

Unfortunately with the helmet nonsense instinct trumps logic.

For the life of me I can't understand why all these people who wear
helmets on their bicycles fail to wear a helmet in their car.

raisethe wrote:
> I cycle in the UK and don't wear a helmet because I do not want too. On
> my forthcoming cycle tour in Australia I understand it is a law for
> cyclists to wear them. Whilst I accept that it isn't a good idea to
> deliberately flout laws whilst in a foriegn country, I was wondering to
> what extent I am likely to be pulled over by the police and fined for
> not wearing one? Is it more acceptable to ride helmetless in country
> areas rather than in Melbourne?
>
> Alternatively, do all cyclists obey this law, much like motorcyclists?
> If so, then I suppose I will get one. Do you have any recommendations
> for the cheapest and most unobtrusive helmet available?
>
> Cheers
> Ray
 
D

DaveB

Guest
Wally wrote:

> For the life of me I can't understand why all these people who wear
> helmets on their bicycles fail to wear a helmet in their car.
>


Is it really that difficult to understand? Because a car already offers
a level of protection.

DaveB
 
E

Euan

Guest
DaveB wrote:
> Wally wrote:
>
>> For the life of me I can't understand why all these people who wear
>> helmets on their bicycles fail to wear a helmet in their car.
>>

>
> Is it really that difficult to understand? Because a car already offers
> a level of protection.


Unfortunately it's the interior of a car which presents the most danger
to occupants in terms of head injury.
--
Cheers
Euan
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:05:16 GMT
Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
> DaveB wrote:
>>
>> Is it really that difficult to understand? Because a car already offers
>> a level of protection.

>
> Unfortunately it's the interior of a car which presents the most danger
> to occupants in terms of head injury.


my understanding is that the majority of occupants of head injury
wards in Oz are there because of car crashes.

The usual culprit is the side pillar.

Zebee
 
P

Plodder

Guest
--
Frank
[email protected]
Drop DACKS to reply
"Euan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> MikeyOz wrote:
> > Euan Wrote:
> >> Let's be clear: I am not saying that helmets do not reduce injury. In
> >> the event of a crash they may.
> >>

> >
> > Is that not what all this was about in the first place, my point has
> > always been that when I have crashed my helmet as assisted me admirably
> > in reducing any damage to my noggin.

>
> No, I'm saying that in all probability you're attributing too much
> damage mitigation to the helmet.
>
> You have no conclusive data to support your assertion that your helmet
> saved you from concussion. You see your helmet split in to four pieces
> and assume that such a failure would require a force which would be
> significant enough to cause you severe head trauma if the helmet wasn't
> there. It is very unlikely that that's the case because the energy
> required to destroy a helmet is not that significant. Noggins are a lot
> tougher than most people think.
> --
> Cheers
> Euan


I think the utility of a helmet depends on the activity and intent. For
example, I fall off my bike with astonishing regularity, especially when
MTBing. It's part of the learning process of improving handling skills. If I
fall hard enough I'll get a concussion (wearing my silly hat). Without my
hat I'll get concussion and abrasions - my injury is mitigated, not
eliminated.

I've no argument with the view that a helmet can (not always) mitigate
injury. I have problems with the idea that it's a lifesaver. Lifesaving may
happen occasionally, but I think the helmet propoganda should be more clear
about the limitations of a bit of plastic strapped to the head.

nuff from me...

me
 
T

Theo Bekkers

Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

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


But it's all so simple and in handy sound-bite size.

Speed kills
Helmets save lives.
They have WMDs.

Theo
 
T

Theo Bekkers

Guest
TimC wrote:

> 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.


I'll get some more stickers straight away.

Theo
 
P

PiledHigher

Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> In aus.bicycle on Sun, 26 Nov 2006 11:05:16 GMT
> Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > DaveB wrote:
> >>
> >> Is it really that difficult to understand? Because a car already offers
> >> a level of protection.

> >
> > Unfortunately it's the interior of a car which presents the most danger
> > to occupants in terms of head injury.

>
> my understanding is that the majority of occupants of head injury
> wards in Oz are there because of car crashes.
>
> The usual culprit is the side pillar.
>
> Zebee


If you read this article, you will be pushing for helmets all the time
for the over 50's and under 14's, the greatest reason for TBI
(traumatic brain injury) is falls. Think of the children (and the old
people).
http://www.nisu.flinders.edu.au/pubs/reports/2002/injcat43.pdf
 
T

Theo Bekkers

Guest
Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> 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?


Peter Brock was wearing one.

Some mob is marketing helmets for babies on the premise that babies fall
over a lot and walk into things. Keep your baby safe, put a helmet on it
before it leaves the hospital. You're a bad parent if you don't buy our
styrofoam shell.

Theo
 
T

Theo Bekkers

Guest
DaveB wrote:
> Wally wrote:
>
>> For the life of me I can't understand why all these people who wear
>> helmets on their bicycles fail to wear a helmet in their car.
>>

>
> Is it really that difficult to understand? Because a car already
> offers a level of protection.


What percentage of head injuries are caused by cars?

Theo
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:43:52 +0800
Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> What percentage of head injuries are caused by cars?



From
http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/paed-neuro/HeadInjury/injury.html

No date on the stats are given.

"It is estimated that about 3000 people leave hospital with some sort
of permanent brain injury, mainly from road accidents. Brain injury is
10 times more common than spinal injury. Road accidents cause 70% of
all brain injury.The young ,between 17 and 25comprise 15% of
population but account for 40% of brain injury caused by road
accidents."

That doesn't split data into occupants and targets though.


Other SA data:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9376833&dopt=Abstract
"The results indicate that SA experiences a high incidence of TBI. At
322 per 100,000 head of population annually, it exceeds studies (with
comparable methodologies) in communities in the United States and
Europe. The causes; nature and severity of the injuries were similar
to those found in the international literature, as were the profiles
of the population most at risk. Specifically, young males living in
the country and working in manual trades showed the highest incidence,
and were most likely to have sustained their TBI whilst driving a
motor vehicle."


A WA one has a similar story:
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/do...1433.2001.02229.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=ans
"The rural population of Western Australia is overrepresented in head
injury-related RC deaths. Single-vehicle crashes where unsafe driving
behaviour is implicated comprise a large proportion of these."

but note that while "Poor driver behaviour was identified in 72% of
single-vehicle deaths, compared with 38% of multivehicle crashes ",
"lack of safety restraints/devices was implicated in 22%" so it wasn't
just young idjuts not wearing seatbelts.

I can't find the stats quoted by the NSW trauma surgeons, have to see
if the MCC has them.

All the sites I looked at cited car occupant head injuries as a
significant number of both minor and serius hospital admissions in all
countries.

So those who feel strongly that bicycle helmets are important and
those not wearing them are stupid and/or suicidal should wear them in
the car too....

Zebee
 
Z

Zebee Johnstone

Guest
In aus.bicycle on 27 Nov 2006 00:25:46 GMT
Zebee Johnstone <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I can't find the stats quoted by the NSW trauma surgeons, have to see
> if the MCC has them.
>


Did find this though. Amazing number of people getting beaten up!
http://www.nisu.flinders.edu.au/pubs/reports/2002/injcat43.php

(look at the PDF, can't be arsed fitting the table into 80 cols)

Have to match this with exposure to get much out of this though)

The car data is:

Motor vehicle Motor vehicle Other road
traffic accident - traffic accident vehicle
occupant -unprotected accident -
road user unprotected
Age group road user
0­4 10.0 7. 1 7.8
5­9 7.5 10.9 21.5
10­14 8.8 19.1 44.0
15­19 54.4 25.1 31.8
20­24 50.4 18.7 12.9
25­29 26.5 11.4 10.0
30­34 19.2 8. 8 5.5
35­39 13.2 7. 0 5.6
40­44 11.3 5. 3 4.9
45­49 11.1 5. 8 4.2
50­54 10.0 4. 7 4.0
55­59 9.2 3. 9 3.5
60­64 9.4 3. 0 2.7
65­69 7.6 5. 3 2.6
70­74 10.3 5. 2 2.4
75­79 5.3 5. 9 0.0
80­84 10.8 7. 3 2.8
85 + 8. 7 9.2 0. 9


That's incidents I think.

I think it means lots of people in the peak age groups for travelling
in cars and having crashes have head injuries.

Zebee
 

Similar threads