Helmet debate, helmet debate

[EuanB]

Wearing a Helmet Law is not going away... end of discussion on that...

That being the case we'll never get cycling up to the same levels enjoyed by some countries in Europe. End of discussion on that...

Wearing a Helmet Properly, is more of what this discussion should be focussed on...

Regardless of helmet compulsion, I agree. A poorly fitted helmet can be more dangerous than not wearing a helmt at all.

Lance Armstrong would be dead without a helmet, he did a clear cranial impact into a wall at high speed and survived, because of a decent well fitting helmet, then grew up ( some might say he will never) and won 7 LeTours...

Lance has also had several accidents involving significant head injury without a helmet and pulled through OK.

The overwhelming majoriy of pro-compulsion arguements are based on single incident anecdotal evidence, in other words no real evidence at all. The overwhelming majority of anti-compulsion arguements are based on proveable statistics.

Whilst personal anecdotal evidence may tug at the heart strings it's the wrong arguement. Prove to me that helmet compulsion has saved more lives in preventing head injury than have been lost to obesity related diseases caused by declining physical activity of the Australian population.

 

[EuanB]

That's the same problem with electricity, people think it's dangerous
because we have laws that require wires to be insulated. It's only
dangerous if you touch the wires.
More people would use electricty if the government didn't make it appear
to be so dangerous. Insulation on electrical appliances should be
optional, the government shouldn't be telling us what to do!

That is a ridiculous arguement. Cycling is inherently a low risk activity, in some countires it's lower risk than being a pedestrian.

Helmet compulsion makes a low risk activity such as cycling appear more dangerous than it is.

 

[John Stevenson]

Plodder wrote:

> Further probing almost always reveals "I put myself at risk because I didn't
> think through the situation sufficiently". I wonder if similar figures apply
> to road users?

If so, and I'd have no trouble believing it, then road engineers still
have a duty to design roads that stop people putting themselves in
harm's way. That doesn't necessarily mean segregating traffic types - I
like the ideas of traffic engineers who want to mix different traffic
types to encourage people to look out for each other.

The alternative is to stop treating driving as a right and make it a
hard-won privilege with a much higher test of competence than at
present. It should at least be escalated from 'are you breathing' to
'are you breathing through your nose'.

 

[John Stevenson]

Plodder wrote:

> Kid's

For the love of God, won't somebody think of the children!

Obviously parents aren't scared enough about all the things that can
harm their kids. Heavy enforcement of helmet wearing among under-16s is
essential to scare parents into buying even bigger light trucks to ferry
their little darlings around the place. Way better to ensure they lead
completely sedentary lives, exit their teens 20kg overweight with the
beginnings of type 2 diabetes and cark it at 40 of heart attacks than
that they be exposed to the risk of landing on their heads from bicycles.

 

[stu]

> The overwhelming majoriy of pro-compulsion arguements are based on
> single incident anecdotal evidence, in other words no real evidence at
> all.
and in my (limited) experience doctors like to help this along
story 1. guy falls of bike(no helmet), cuts hand and head is taken to the
doctor..... "where you wearing a helmet?". "no" . words to the effect "lucky
you arent dead"
story 2. guy fall off (motor) bike, lands on back busrting his camelback
bladder, taken to the doctors with back pain....words to the effect " if you
hadnt been wearing the camel back you would be paralysed" (who would have
thought a doctor would have so much experience with camelback V non camel
back accidents lol)
so you better be carerful or we will all be wearing camel backs

 

[Zebee Johnstone]

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:55:27 +1000
stu <[email protected]> wrote:
> you arent dead"
> story 2. guy fall off (motor) bike, lands on back busrting his camelback
> bladder, taken to the doctors with back pain....words to the effect " if you
> hadnt been wearing the camel back you would be paralysed" (who would have
> thought a doctor would have so much experience with camelback V non camel
> back accidents lol)

Who'd have thought hospital docs were so clueless about trauma....

IF the camelback had been full and survived the fall, back injury
would be more likely not less - most motorcycle back injuries are
torsion, not impact.

If my experience is any guide, the poor buggers in the white coats
aren't experienced knowledgeable docs but interns. Not-quite-docs.
Who spout as much rubbish as any other learner does.

You don't get the real trauma surgeons with clue unless you are
seriously damaged. If you are just a bit hurt you get the trainees
doing 80+ hour weeks and trying like hell to remember their training
while looking for a new matchstick to prop their eyes open with.

Zebee
- who has the scars to prove that an intern at the end of a 80 hour
week can carve you up with those cast-removal things that aren't
supposed to cut flesh...

 

[Peter Keller]

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:09:20 +1100, EuanB wrote:

>
> rooman Wrote:
<snip>
>
> Whilst personal anecdotal evidence may tug at the heart strings it's
> the wrong arguement. Prove to me that helmet compulsion has saved more
> lives in preventing head injury than have been lost to obesity related
> diseases caused by declining physical activity of the Australian
> population.

I have heard many more stories of "My helmet saved my life" than ever were
people who died before helmet-wearing became common.

Peter

--
No Microsoft involved. Certified virus free --

 

[Donga]

EuanB:
>Lance has also had several accidents involving significant head injury without a helmet and pulled through OK.

Are you sure of that?
;-)

 

[Bleve]

Plodder (remove DAKS to reply) wrote:

>
> I have trouble with the idea that poor road design is as bad as it's made
> out to be. Yes, risk is increased at, say, poorly designed intersections *if
> people do not drive/ride/walk according to conditions*. It seems to me that
> an intersection with 5000 vehicle movements per day (failry typical on a
> reasonably busy urban road) has a crash once a month (that's a lot!) too
> often road design is to blame. If that's the case, what have the other 14999
> users done right?

Agreed. We have to drive/ride/walk/ski/swim etc according to the
conditions, blaming them is just an excuse. Eg: When I ride country
roads with no shoulder (bad!) I pull off the road when I see a car
coming and there's a car/truck coming behind as well. PITA? Yes, but a
-lot- safer. Riding to how things should be gets you killed, riding to
how they are keeps you alive and uninjured. Luck does not pay a
significant part in this, I believe.

There's riders that crash a lot (motorbike, pushbike etc) and those of
us that crash very very rarely despite a -lot- of time spent on the
roads.

> I think a focus on driving to the conditions is a far more productive method
> of sorting out the 'black spots'. Roads are used by people - people's road
> behaviour needs to change. I wonder if there are any stats that show the
> number of people who are serial crashers?

Hands up, Tim! He means you!

> I work in industrial safety.
> Around 80% or the injuries I see are sustained by around 20% of the people
> (Pareto at work!). That means around 80% of the people I work with (about
> 400) do not hurt themselves. At injury investigations the initial response
> of the injured person is almost always "X condition caused my injury".
> Further probing almost always reveals "I put myself at risk because I didn't
> think through the situation sufficiently". I wonder if similar figures apply
> to road users?

A quick straw survey of the riders here would probably corroborate your
argument.

 

[Bleve]

John Stevenson wrote:
> Plodder wrote:
>
> > Further probing almost always reveals "I put myself at risk because I didn't
> > think through the situation sufficiently". I wonder if similar figures apply
> > to road users?
>
> If so, and I'd have no trouble believing it, then road engineers still
> have a duty to design roads that stop people putting themselves in
> harm's way. That doesn't necessarily mean segregating traffic types - I
> like the ideas of traffic engineers who want to mix different traffic
> types to encourage people to look out for each other.

The *only* way to eliminate the possibility that people can put
themselves in harms way, is to stop people using the facility. You
*cannot* stop idiots being idiots. You can make the roads into one
huge padded cell, and some clown will choke on the walls or something.
You cannot make an idiotproof world.

 

[Resound]

"Bleve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Plodder (remove DAKS to reply) wrote:
>
>>
>> I have trouble with the idea that poor road design is as bad as it's made
>> out to be. Yes, risk is increased at, say, poorly designed intersections
>> *if
>> people do not drive/ride/walk according to conditions*. It seems to me
>> that
>> an intersection with 5000 vehicle movements per day (failry typical on a
>> reasonably busy urban road) has a crash once a month (that's a lot!) too
>> often road design is to blame. If that's the case, what have the other
>> 14999
>> users done right?
>
> Agreed. We have to drive/ride/walk/ski/swim etc according to the
> conditions, blaming them is just an excuse. Eg: When I ride country
> roads with no shoulder (bad!) I pull off the road when I see a car
> coming and there's a car/truck coming behind as well. PITA? Yes, but a
> -lot- safer. Riding to how things should be gets you killed, riding to
> how they are keeps you alive and uninjured. Luck does not pay a
> significant part in this, I believe.
>
> There's riders that crash a lot (motorbike, pushbike etc) and those of
> us that crash very very rarely despite a -lot- of time spent on the
> roads.
>

There's definitely something to be said for that theory. At the risk of
haring off on a tangent, It sounds very much like the frequency with which
cyclists cop verbal abuse from motorists. I very rarely get abused, despite
claiming the lane and riding fairly assertively. Of the few times that I
have scored abuse, a couple of them were deserved (I brain-faded) and most
of the rest were troglodytic Commodore drivers, and even those are few and
far between. I don't consider myself to be particularly gifted or skilled
but I've come across a few people who get abuse all the time and as a result
complain about motorists. It takes a fair amount of restraint not to point
out the one glaring common factor in all of the incidents they experience.

 

[endroll]

If they are so concerned about the helmet messing up their carefully arranged hair (of course the blowing wind whilst on the bike would do the same) and not so concerned about their personal safety, the social cost of health care if they crash, etc then why don't they just go for a walk!? it's cheaper anyway. So we can't say that helmets are even remotely responsible for heart disease. If they don't walk then why on earth would they take up cycling - a more expensive, time and energy consuming activity?

"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

 

[rooman]

> Lance Armstrong would be dead without a helmet, he did a clear cranial
> impact into a wall at high speed and survived, because of a decent well
> fitting helmet, then grew up ( some might say he will never) and won 7
> LeTours...
you cant be "sure" of that. he may have survived(or maybe he wouldnt have
been going so fast without a helmet... who knows....)

but at least one child has died by being strangled by their bike helmet

so we can score that as 1 all?

well he did survive.... so what's the point? and on the little child..IMHO you couldnt be more wrong...likely the poor kid died because the didnt fit/and or helmet wasnt being worn properly, so...my point exactly in the other bits you chose to cut out...too many kids have them hanging off their heads and if they dont get strangled they are lucky, unless they break their necks or belt their exposed temples on something.

Sure the human body is an amazing thing and can survive much trauma, however it has evolved ( or was created whatever you wish to think) to help us hunt, gather and fight for our meals, and seek shelter and to prevent us from becoming other creature's meals. Hence an internal soft package of vital bits on a rugged and adaptable frame with specail sections to further add protection for a mature adult human to survive. Immature humans rely on the mature members of the group to protect them...nothing there has changed except that rather than run and hunt, we now use projectiles to propell our bodies through time and space and thus place ourselves in risk of higher impact we werent designed to absorb without greater consequences...all sounds very elementary right...thus should it not follow that a little bit of armour just might be the smart thing to do...we are meant to be the clever species... how clever is it to ignore this... maybe skill and fortuitous outcomes will help some, but the world is littered with the corpses and twisted bodies of those unfortunate enough to not use the grey matter and white matter enough to think about protecting it just a little bit....and perhaps the gene pool is in some cases better off...

I am all about choice, and an adult's freedom to make an informed choice, however, here I am not so sure non compulsory helmets is the way to go. This is the case especially for kids whose skulls are still developing and we have a responsibility to protect them until they too can make their informed choice.

All the other arguments against helmet compulsion are, to me, a crock of horse manure and as I dont have a great deal of faith in joe average to make a proper and informed choice on this issue. Thus, our governments can do it for us on the issue of helmets until a substantial weight of evidence exists to show helmet wearing for cyclists does substantially more harm than good and our governments then change the law based on rational and factual argument.

In the meantime, if you don't have a brain ...you don't need a helmet!

I think nature got it right in the first place and we have to help her out if we want to place our human frames and its contents at risk.

TiMHO...here endeth the lesson... beer time!

 

[TimC]

On 2006-03-25, Euan (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Bleve wrote:
>> Gemma_k wrote:
>>>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.
>
> Oh yes, the common seatbelt justification. Seatbelts are an undoubted
> boon to motoring safety...or are they?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation

The rest of this thread is going to be boring same old same old, but
that's intersting.

--
TimC
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.

 

[TimC]

On 2006-03-26, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In aus.bicycle on Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:55:27 +1000
> stu <[email protected]> wrote:
>> you arent dead"
>> story 2. guy fall off (motor) bike, lands on back busrting his camelback
>> bladder, taken to the doctors with back pain....words to the effect " if you
>> hadnt been wearing the camel back you would be paralysed" (who would have
>> thought a doctor would have so much experience with camelback V non camel
>> back accidents lol)
>
> Who'd have thought hospital docs were so clueless about trauma....

You'd think someone smart enough to become a doctor (of medicine, not
a real doctor , would be smart enough to know what biases they have
in their data. It seems not so, unfortunately.

--
TimC
cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.

 

[Friday]

EuanB wrote:
>
> Whilst personal anecdotal evidence may tug at the heart strings it's
> the wrong arguement. Prove to me that helmet compulsion has saved more
> lives in preventing head injury than have been lost to obesity related
> diseases caused by declining physical activity of the Australian
> population.
>
>

Better yet, prove that if you provide any exercise facilities at all, of
any kind, that people will use them. Communities are full of barely used
gyms, walk paths and recreation grounds. Saying if we do this that or
the other doesn't, in the end, make people get up off their butts and
exercise.
Australians will always believe that a cure is easier than prevention.

 

[TimC]

On 2006-03-26, Plodder (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> I think a focus on driving to the conditions is a far more productive method
> of sorting out the 'black spots'. Roads are used by people - people's road
> behaviour needs to change. I wonder if there are any stats that show the
> number of people who are serial crashers? I work in industrial safety.
> Around 80% or the injuries I see are sustained by around 20% of the people
> (Pareto at work!). That means around 80% of the people I work with (about
> 400) do not hurt themselves. At injury investigations the initial response
> of the injured person is almost always "X condition caused my injury".
> Further probing almost always reveals "I put myself at risk because I didn't
> think through the situation sufficiently". I wonder if similar figures apply
> to road users?

Of course it does. A friend of mine was driving through the car park
in an orderly fashion. He got t-boned by an idiot who was cutting
through empty car spots. The driver then started abusing friend,
asking why she should be responsible for repairs; "it's not fair, this
is the third time this has happened in the last month!".


The only punishment she will get is her premiums might go up slightly.

--
TimC
I got told by a friend's ex-girlfriend that she could tell I was
a Linux geek from the way I *walked*. -- Skud

 

[TimC]

On 2006-03-26, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Plodder (remove DAKS to reply) wrote:
>> I think a focus on driving to the conditions is a far more productive method
>> of sorting out the 'black spots'. Roads are used by people - people's road
>> behaviour needs to change. I wonder if there are any stats that show the
>> number of people who are serial crashers?
>
> Hands up, Tim! He means you!
>
>> I work in industrial safety.
>> Around 80% or the injuries I see are sustained by around 20% of the people
>> (Pareto at work!). That means around 80% of the people I work with (about
>> 400) do not hurt themselves. At injury investigations the initial response
>> of the injured person is almost always "X condition caused my injury".
>> Further probing almost always reveals "I put myself at risk because I didn't
>> think through the situation sufficiently". I wonder if similar figures apply
>> to road users?
>
> A quick straw survey of the riders here would probably corroborate your
> argument.

Can't I just blame the people breaking the law?


Yeah, I ride to how things should be, rather than they are. Maybe the
world will change one day, unlikely as it is. Feh.

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

 

[OzCableguy]

More here along those lines - http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
(Just in case it hasn't already been posted and/or not already known/done to
death etc)

 

[Peter Signorini]

"Euan" wrote:

> There isn't a single study to my knowledge that has proven helmets help
> reduce cyclist injury rates or fatality rates.--

No, that's just it Euan. I have seen some data following the introduction of
helmets in Victoria (on a website that I can't lay my hands on right now)
that showed that both cyclist deaths and cyclist non-head injury
hospitalisations decreased in pretty much the same proportions in the years
after compulsory helmet laws. Either helmets somehow prevented arm and leg
injuries, or the reason had more to do with an overall decline in bicycle
use (more logical).

So most of the decline in head injury and deaths was simply due to lower
rates of bicycle use. Subjectively I saw this very graphically at the bike
sheds at the school I taught at, and objectively I believe BV or Vicroads
bicycle counts bore this out - more bikes sold, far fewer (about 30% less)
used for everday transport and recreation.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)