Helmet debate, helmet debate



SuzieB

New Member
Oct 15, 2005
282
0
0
In da Age today... http://tinyurl.com/g2ml7

Helmets fail fitness 'test'

FORCING cyclists to wear helmets damages public health because they discourage many people from riding, an academic says.

Dorothy Robinson, a former senior statistician at the University of New England, found that while laws that make wearing helmets mandatory reduced the seriousness of some head injuries, the cost to public health and fitness outweighed their benefit.

But some researchers have suggested Ms Robinson's conclusions "crumble" under scrutiny.

Writing in The British Medical Journal, Ms Robinson, a keen cyclist, said: "The overall effect on public health is bad, with less people getting fit by cycling since the laws came in, and more driving."
 

Resound

New Member
May 15, 2004
430
2
0
51
We don't need helmets. We just need to replace everything with exact replicas made out of nerf.
 
J

Jules

Guest
This report in the BMJ was _years_ ago wasn't it?

Sounds good to me, though ;-) Bloody helmets... <flame suit on>

SuzieB wrote:
> In da Age today... http://tinyurl.com/g2ml7
>
> Helmets fail fitness 'test'
>
> FORCING cyclists to wear helmets damages public health because they
> discourage many people from riding, an academic says.
>
> Dorothy Robinson, a former senior statistician at the University of
> New England, found that while laws that make wearing helmets mandatory
> reduced the seriousness of some head injuries, the cost to public
> health and fitness outweighed their benefit.
>
> But some researchers have suggested Ms Robinson's conclusions
> "crumble" under scrutiny.
>
> Writing in The British Medical Journal, Ms Robinson, a keen cyclist,
> said: "The overall effect on public health is bad, with less people
> getting fit by cycling since the laws came in, and more driving."
>
>
 
N

Nick Payne

Guest
Just make helmets compulsory for motorists as well...discourage people from
driving cars.

"SuzieB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> In da Age today... http://tinyurl.com/g2ml7
>
> Helmets fail fitness 'test'
>
> FORCING cyclists to wear helmets damages public health because they
> discourage many people from riding, an academic says.
 
T

TimC

Guest
On 2006-03-24, SuzieB (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In da Age today... http://tinyurl.com/g2ml7

....
> But some researchers have suggested Ms Robinson's conclusions
> "crumble" under scrutiny.


Darn, small article not going into enough depth. I would love to have
read a bit more about these researchers, and the nature of the
crumbling.

I've seen plenty of doubts about this kind of research, but nothing
that leads me to beleive that the theory that helmets cause more halm
than good is so obviously flawed.

Getting this kind of debate out into the public is a good thing -- the
people making the laws need to realise that the argument for helmets
is not so simplistic "it saves lives", but it's such a short article
that it will go missed by the vast majority of people.

--
TimC
A mouse is a device used to focus xterms.
 

endroll

New Member
Jul 6, 2005
115
0
0
from recent personal experience....take cyclist, make him fall head first into ground at 37km/hr, have another rider on bike run over head - take away helmet - what next?

yuh sure helmets are useless....yup yup....get rid of them!
 
T

TimC

Guest
On 2006-03-25, Gemma_k (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> And.... look out soon for some South Australian research on the Safety in
> Numbers principle..... to be published.


First the safety ad, and now this!


Thanks Gemma_k! You're my hero.

--
TimC
Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is
moving faster.
 
On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 08:18:05 +1100, SuzieB <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> In da Age today... http://tinyurl.com/g2ml7
>
> Helmets fail fitness 'test'
>
> FORCING cyclists to wear helmets damages public health because they
> discourage many people from riding, an academic says.
>
> Dorothy Robinson, a former senior statistician at the University of
> New England, found that while laws that make wearing helmets mandatory
> reduced the seriousness of some head injuries, the cost to public
> health and fitness outweighed their benefit.
>
> But some researchers have suggested Ms Robinson's conclusions
> "crumble" under scrutiny.
>
> Writing in The British Medical Journal, Ms Robinson, a keen cyclist,
> said: "The overall effect on public health is bad, with less people
> getting fit by cycling since the laws came in, and more driving."


The report is ********.

Last I heard sales of cycles is at an all time high.
 
G

Gemma_k

Guest
"TimC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> On 2006-03-25, Gemma_k (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> And.... look out soon for some South Australian research on the Safety in
>> Numbers principle..... to be published.

>
> First the safety ad, and now this!
>
>
> Thanks Gemma_k! You're my hero.
>


The State Cycling Strategy for SA funnily enough uses the Safety in Numbers
Principle too..... Released mid Feb.
http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/pdfs/personal_transport/bike_direct/cycling_strategy.pdf

;-)

Cheers
Gemma
 

HughMann

New Member
Jun 22, 2004
285
0
0
endroll said:
from recent personal experience....take cyclist, make him fall head first into ground at 37km/hr, have another rider on bike run over head - take away helmet - what next?

yuh sure helmets are useless....yup yup....get rid of them!

Without anything being cited the article is pointless.
What research ?
First reaction to the article also in WE Australian was that how do they capture data of accidents where person falls off bike, head hits road, person gets up un- injured and rides off, buy new helmet. No injury report - no data.

That guy who used to be on 3LO from the Melb Childrens Hospital had all the numbers about deaths and lives saved.

Better go now I can hear the thundering of troll footfalls.

Hugh
 
G

Gemma_k

Guest
"Resound" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>> I wonder if there's a volume of bicycle traffic, a critical mass if you

> will, where motorist behaviour changes substantially. There's probably a
> point where it stop being considered the behaviour of the radical nutbag
> and starts being something that most or at least a lot of people do.

There's a few theories why this phenomenon works. I think you picked it, but
I don't think it's a 'critical mass' thing (smeed's law says it's not a
linear relationship either)
Theories:
One is that there's more people that actually ride, who also drive.
Therefore they understand and can 'read' cyclists' behavious better.
One is that it's like a herd of beasts - there's only a certin number of
lions (drivers) out to get you (make mistakes), the larger the number/herd
of beasts the less chance an individual one will get picked out and eaten
(run into)
And the one I think is more likely - that motorists always seeing cyclists
on a road or junction begin to expect them there, and reacting correctly and
safely becomes a subconscious driving task rather than a conscious one.
But it's more likely to be a combination of all three....
further work reqd :)
 
G

Gemma_k

Guest
"endroll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> from recent personal experience....take cyclist, make him fall head
> first into ground at 37km/hr, have another rider on bike run over head
> - take away helmet - what next?
>
> yuh sure helmets are useless....yup yup....get rid of them!


It's not that they're useless, it's the fact you're forced to wear one that
is the point here.
For every cyclist who hits head on the ground and gets run over, there's
probably 1000 people sitting on a sofa getting ready to have a heart attack
from obesity, after having diabetes their whole adult lives.

One could further argue, that 'making' people wear helmets automatically
makes the practice of cycling look inherantly dangerous... because it must
be, the government makes you wear a helmet!!!

Gemm
 
D

Donga

Guest
Gru:
>The report is ********. Last I heard sales of cycles is at an all time high.


You'll have to do better than that. Do they ride them? Do kids ride to
school any more?
 

Marx SS

New Member
Jun 8, 2004
810
0
0
Wot?
I only got back into cycling as an adult because of the headgear. Without a helmet cycling looks alittle amaturish.

Can i still shave my legs?
 
B

Bleve

Guest
Gemma_k wrote:
> "endroll" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> >
> > from recent personal experience....take cyclist, make him fall head
> > first into ground at 37km/hr, have another rider on bike run over head
> > - take away helmet - what next?
> >
> > yuh sure helmets are useless....yup yup....get rid of them!

>
> It's not that they're useless, it's the fact you're forced to wear one that
> is the point here.
> For every cyclist who hits head on the ground and gets run over, there's
> probably 1000 people sitting on a sofa getting ready to have a heart attack
> from obesity, after having diabetes their whole adult lives.
>
> One could further argue, that 'making' people wear helmets automatically
> makes the practice of cycling look inherantly dangerous... because it must
> be, the government makes you wear a helmet!!!


They make you wear a seatbelt too.
 
B

Bleve

Guest
Donga wrote:
> Gru:
> >The report is ********. Last I heard sales of cycles is at an all time high.

>
> You'll have to do better than that. Do they ride them? Do kids ride to
> school any more?


Three kids got bikes today at my LBS that they (claim) will be ridden
to school. We're seeing a lot of commuters too. A -lot-

The dip can possibly be explained by a generation that wasn't used to
helmets, and thus objecting to them (I know I did, I hated that damn
awful stackhat). Now, they've been compulsory for what, 15 years? The
current generation doesn't seem to worry so much about helmets. Modern
helmets are comfortable and lightweight and no-one I know seems to
object to them. People sooked about seatbelts in the 60's ... drink
driving laws in the 50's ... blah...

Why has this dead horse cropped up again? In a British publication?
They haven't made them (helmets) compulsory in the UK, but it's a hot
topic at the moment.
 

cfsmtb

New Member
Apr 11, 2003
4,963
0
0
Resound said:
We don't need helmets. We just need to replace everything with exact replicas made out of nerf.

Why not use fimo? Nice polymer clay and great range of bright colours.
 
W

Wilfred Kazoks

Guest
Well a few weeks ago I saw some cyclist ,who's name i've forgotten, on the
6 o'clock news, in a race run onto the soft shoulder and lose it. He hit the
road hard and fast. I decided to slo-mo it and watch the moment of impact as
his head hit the road. Purely out of scientific interest.

I'm glad it wasn't my skull. I'm sure he's glad he had a helmet.

I am a fat man who rides for exercise. I think there are a lot of reasons
people don't ride as much anymore. Helmets might be one of them. The roads
being a lot busier is another one.

Wilfred



"SuzieB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> In da Age today... http://tinyurl.com/g2ml7
>
> Helmets fail fitness 'test'
>
> FORCING cyclists to wear helmets damages public health because they
> discourage many people from riding, an academic says.
>
> Dorothy Robinson, a former senior statistician at the University of
> New England, found that while laws that make wearing helmets mandatory
> reduced the seriousness of some head injuries, the cost to public
> health and fitness outweighed their benefit.
>
> But some researchers have suggested Ms Robinson's conclusions
> "crumble" under scrutiny.
>
> Writing in The British Medical Journal, Ms Robinson, a keen cyclist,
> said: "The overall effect on public health is bad, with less people
> getting fit by cycling since the laws came in, and more driving."
>
>
> --
> SuzieB
>
 
E

Euan

Guest
Jules wrote:
> This report in the BMJ was _years_ ago wasn't it?


Yep, don't count on The Age to come up with original content.

> Sounds good to me, though ;-) Bloody helmets... <flame suit on>


See I knew you were intelligent when I met you :) (against compulsion,
not against helmets).
--
Cheers | ~~ [email protected]
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
 

Similar threads

J
Replies
18
Views
765
UK and Europe
Simon Brooke
S
D
Replies
200
Views
6K
UK and Europe
Simon Brooke
S