Helmet debate.



Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob Incognito <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

<snip>

> Does anyone actually know of anybody that's been fined for failing to wear a helmet?

I don't know of anyone per se, I used to (as in 2 years ago or so) see people without helmets being
pulled up on a regular basis (severl times in a year) and the police issuing tickets (well, writing
into a pad, so I presumed issuing a ticket) Of late, I see police drive past people with no helmets,
enforcing the laws selectively :) I presume there has been a change of philisophy by Police (in
Townsville anyhoo) ? Perhaps targeting someone doing 65 in a 60 zone is more cost effective ;)

Trevor S
 
[email protected] (G) wrote in news:1fwamsx.7woqkf1a4p800N%[email protected]:

<Snip>

>
> Irrelevent, death by falling off a slow moving bike (without the help of a car) is extremely rare.

and you know this how ?

> Seat belt legislation is a good idea because it works.

1. You know this how ? 2. I disagree with the premise, that you know what is better for me then I
do. 3. I am philisophically opposed to laws that attempt to protect me from myself, part of being
an adult IMO is making that decidion for myself. eg censorship, helmet laws, seat belt laws etc.
I do agree with being given all the facts, having an intelligent debate and then letting adults
make there own mind up, a quirky and unreasoable idea I know but there you have it.

> Bicycle helmet legislation does't. Pretty clear cut really.

You know this how ?

Your name isn't Rod Speed is it ? You seem to use the same mainfest logic.

Trevor S
 
Bob Incognito <[email protected]> wrote:
: Does anyone actually know of anybody that's been fined for failing to wear a helmet?

Know of them? Thousands are fined every year

It was reported that in Queensland there have been nearly 23,000 offence notices a year, 6.6% of
all traffic offence notices. In terms of infringements per km, that makes cyclists 3 times more
likely to receive a notice for failing to wear a helmet than other road users were for all other
offences - speeding, drink-driving, failure to stop or give way as required or obey any other
traffic regulation. It is debatable whether this represents the best possible use of police road
patrol time!

My data for Qld refer to a few years ago. However, a letter written in March 2003 from the
Assistant Commissioner of Police in Victoria states:

"'Fail to wear a securely fitted approved bicycle helmet' applies to both this practice [wearing the
helmet on the back of the head] the non-wearing of approved helmets. Police issue over 20,000
penalty notices each year for this offence."

As well as knowing people who have been fined, I've even met one of the people who went to jail
for not paying the fine!

A lot probably depends on what the police feel like at the time. Personally, I don't take the
risk. Except for riding to work (where the helmet doesn't bother me too much) I just take the
car instead. Pity the police can't spend more time on issues that have a greater impact on
cyclist safety!

Dorre
 
Trevor S <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (G) wrote in news:1fwamsx.7woqkf1a4p800N%[email protected]:
>
> <Snip>
>
> >
> > Irrelevent, death by falling off a slow moving bike (without the help of a car) is
> > extremely rare.
>
> and you know this how ?

I don't even have to know, helmet law didn't change the death rate anyway.

> > Seat belt legislation is a good idea because it works.
>
> 1. You know this how ? 2. I disagree with the premise, that you know what is better for me then
> I do. 3. I am philisophically opposed to laws that attempt to protect me from myself, part of
> being an adult IMO is making that decidion for myself. eg censorship, helmet laws, seat belt
> laws etc. I do agree with being given all the facts, having an intelligent debate and then
> letting adults make there own mind up, a quirky and unreasoable idea I know but there you
> have it.
>
> > Bicycle helmet legislation does't. Pretty clear cut really.
>
> You know this how ?

This is the crux, statistically, cycling death rate remained unchanged with the helmet law. This
little gem has been around the world more than once, used buy MHL opponents everywhere. Infact it
was this data from Australia which helped the UK college of surgeons (forget their real name - I'm
not looking them up) to oppose similar legislation in their country. With Australia being the first
nation to introduce MHL, we were the test case and the results are out.

> Your name isn't Rod Speed is it ? You seem to use the same mainfest logic.

Interesting you feel yourself qualified to join a helmet debate but are blissfully unaware of the
history. So I am Rod Speed now. Who is logic impaired?

GK
 
Theo Bekkers <[email protected]> wrote:

> "G" wrote
>
> > Irrelevent, death by falling off a slow moving bike (without the help of a car) is extremely
> > rare. Seat belt legislation is a good idea because it works. Bicycle helmet legislation does't.
> > Pretty clear cut really.
>
> Motorcycle helmets are designed to protect the rider in an impact of not more than 22 km/h. Guess
> what that figure means. It means you can fall over from a standing position and survive when your
> head hits the ground (impact speed slightly less than 20km/h). So bicycle helmets do ...... what?
>
> Buy a clue.
>
> Theo

We can go on about how people "could" be killed, ad nauseam. Of course someone can die falling over.
But so what? A person can die from a shark biting a chunk out of them, (ignore the fact it happens
only once every 50 years on Perth beaches..) Why don't you outlaw beach swimming in Perth? I have
another idea, introduce helmet legisltaion for cyclist, and see no change in the mortality
rate...hang on, we've already done that.. with that reasult too...

Buy a clue yourself.

GK
 
"Bob Incognito" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Bumping your head is extremely rare? What the
> hell are you talking about? It makes me wish that
> mouth gags were compulsory for some people......

So which brand of helmet do you wear while you walk down the street, just in case you bump
your head?

(See http://agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/UKCycling_health.pdf especially table 4, p22 for comparison of
cycling vs. walking risks)

Cheers Peter
 
Theo Bekkers wrote:

> Motorcycle helmets are designed to protect the rider in an impact of not more than 22 km/h. Guess
> what that figure means. It means you can fall over from a standing position and survive when your
> head hits the ground (impact speed slightly less than 20km/h). So bicycle helmets do ...... what?

Statistically, they reduce the total head injury count, but they increase total neck injury count.

--
Linux Registered User # 302622 <http://counter.li.org
 
Whilst rampantly masturbating, on Tue, 10 Jun 2003
20:23:39 +1000, "Peter Signorini" <[email protected]> wrote:

>

>
>So which brand of helmet do you wear while you walk down the street, just in case you bump
>your head?
>
What a ridiculous argument. Are you 12 years old? It's rather simple. If you think your head's
worth protecting...wear a helmet. Even if there's only a 1% chance that it may save your life isn't
that worth it?
 
Many comments in here refer to death rates blah blah and how helmet laws make little difference, but what I am interested to know is - has there been any difference in the number of (non-fatal) head-injuries pre and post helmet law. For me, the greatest fear is being left incapacitated because of brain injury rather than death itself. One would assume helmets have had an impact in this area?

Lets face it, if you are involved in an incident serious enough to kill you (helmetless) then wearing a helmet probably doesn't improve your chances much...
 
>>So which brand of helmet do you wear while you walk down the street, just in case you bump
>>your head?

Bob Incognito <[email protected] [email protected]> wrote:

> What a ridiculous argument. Are you 12 years old? It's rather simple. If you think your head's
> worth protecting...wear a helmet. Even if there's only a 1% chance that it may save your life
> isn't that worth it?

It's also worth eating three nutritious meals a day, avoiding alcohol and tobacco, keeping fit by
walking or cycling to the local shops instead of taking the car, getting 8 hours' sleep every night
and seeing your GP for a checkup occasionally. They're all good for you but we don't make them
compulsory.

But you didn't respond to the previous point. Are you wearing a helmet right now? If not, why not?
Aren't you concerned you might hit your head?

I've hit my head numerous times in my life but on not one of those occasions was I riding a bicycle
at the time.

Tony M.
 
"Bob Incognito" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Whilst rampantly masturbating, on Tue, 10 Jun 2003
> 20:23:39 +1000, "Peter Signorini" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >So which brand of helmet do you wear while you walk down the street, just
in
> >case you bump your head?
> >
> What a ridiculous argument.

S you haven't read the web page quoted. Shame

> Are you 12 years old? It's rather simple.

Yes, I thought so to. But you can hold the insults.

Quoting from the paper on Cycling and Health by the British National Cycling Strategy: Death rates
per billion kms (2000) car 3 cycling 30 walking 48 "This shows that while cyclists do bear a higher
risk than car drivers per billion kilometres travelled, they bear a lower risk than pedestrians" and
"the actual risk remains small - amounting to one cyclist death per thirty three million kilometres
of cycling. This distance would take the average cyclist 21,000 years to cycle"

> If you think your head's worth protecting...wear a helmet. Even if there's only a 1% chance that
> it may save your life isn't that worth it?

And equally if there's an nX1.6 chance of losing your life due to walking surely it would be twice
as improtant to wear a helmet. Pretty simple really, but everyone demands that we wear helmets
cycling (which I do, by the way) yet noone claims that we should wear one while walking. There's
real risks and then there's perceived risks - often the two do not match up.

Cheers Peter
 
"troyq" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Many comments in here refer to death rates blah blah and how helmet laws make little difference,
> but what I am interested to know is - has there been any difference in the number of (non-fatal)
> head-injuries pre and post helmet law.

For some data on this take a look at: http://agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html in particular
fig 2 and 4

> For me, the greatest fear is being left incapacitated because of brain injury rather than death
> itself. One would assume helmets have had an impact in this area?

In short, no measurable difference. The major cause of reductions in injuries(of all types) was the
decline in bicycle use, measured by BV surveys, and certainly my personal obserrvations at the
school I taught at in 1988-2001 where cycle use by teenagers to ride to school dropped by around 80%
in a matter of months, and never really recovered.

Cheers Peter who has been wearing a helmet while cycling since 1979.
>
> Lets face it, if you are involved in an incident serious enough to kill you (helmetless) then
> wearing a helmet probably doesn't improve your chances much...
>
>
>
> --
> >--------------------------<
> Posted via cyclingforums.com http://www.cyclingforums.com
 
"Peter Signorini" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
[snip]

> For some data on this take a look at: http://agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html in
> particular fig 2 and
4
>
[snip]

Every time this debate comes up, the same old stats are dragged out. I could argue the validity of
the stats, or I could drag out the counter stats to yours that exist. But then I go home and look at
my shattered helmet. The one that shattered after I spanked out at 40 kmh one day. And I think, how
much energy that would have gone straight into my noggin, was used to blow apart this helmet ?

Then I think about a result one day in a race where a guy slid out, and the guy behind him tried
to bunny-hop, but his back wheel landed smack on the guys head, splitting his $ 200 Helmet down
the middle.

And now, as I did then, think all the stats you and others show mean diddly squat to my
empirical results.
 
The argument isn't about wearing a helmet or not. It is about making into law or not. Two different
matters. I'm concerned about the latter, not the former. Posters on this ng seem to have the matters
confused for some reason.

Besides, I don't know for sure, but I'd consider bike racing a higher risk of falling off than
general cycling. Bike racing can make its own rules, I'm sure if there never were helmet laws in
this country, Cycle Australia would still have a helmet *rule*. Much like the US and Belgium
federations do now. Its the right decision.

Anyway, i'd like to see these counter stats. Since Australia is, as far as I know, the only nation
on earth to have mandantory helmet laws, where would these stats come from?

GK (who too has a smashed up helmet.. from a race)

RMan <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Peter Signorini" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> [snip]
>
> > For some data on this take a look at: http://agbu.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html in
> > particular fig 2 and
> 4
> >
> [snip]
>
> Every time this debate comes up, the same old stats are dragged out. I could argue the validity of
> the stats, or I could drag out the counter stats to yours that exist. But then I go home and look
> at my shattered helmet. The one that shattered after I spanked out at 40 kmh one day. And I think,
> how much energy that would have gone straight into my noggin, was used to blow apart this helmet ?
>
> Then I think about a result one day in a race where a guy slid out, and the guy behind him tried
> to bunny-hop, but his back wheel landed smack on the guys head, splitting his $ 200 Helmet down
> the middle.
>
> And now, as I did then, think all the stats you and others show mean diddly squat to my empirical
> results.
 
RMan <[email protected]> wrote:

>Every time this debate comes up, the same old stats are dragged out. I could argue the validity of
>the stats, or I could drag out the counter stats to yours that exist. But then I go home and look
>at my shattered helmet. The one that shattered after I spanked out at 40 kmh one day. And I think,
>how much energy that would have gone straight into my noggin, was used to blow apart this helmet ?
>Then I think about a result one day in a race where a guy slid out, and the guy behind him tried to
>bunny-hop, but his back wheel landed smack on the guys head, splitting his $ 200 Helmet down the
>middle. And now, as I did then, think all the stats you and others show mean diddly squat to my
>empirical results.

This is like the anecdote of the person who sees a friend get killed in a car crash and vows never
to step inside a car again.

There are a thousand people who get killed in car crashes each year in Australia, ten thousand who
are seriously injured, and perhaps a hundred thousand who are indirectly affected through having a
close personal relationship to the victims. Any one of the hundred thousand could cite a personal
anecdote about how dangerous cars are. But it doesn't change the fact that the risk to the general
population from car crashes is low. People will continue to drive cars, many of them carelessly, and
most will get away with it.

The point is that personal anecdotes can't be used as a basis for public policy. You have to look at
the risk to the general population, and take measures proportionate to the risk.

BTW, about a third of all serious injuries to car occupants are head injuries. Bicycle-style helmets
in cars would prevent a great deal of head trauma in crashes and may even save several lives each
year. Yet the same surgeons who urged helmets on cyclists in Australia haven't agitated to nearly
the same extent to get motorists to wear helmets for their own safety.

Regards, Tony M.
 
"Anthony Morton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> RMan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
> This is like the anecdote of the person who sees a friend get killed in a car crash and vows never
> to step inside a car again.
>

********, nothing like it. It was my helemt that got smashed and my head it saved. I just commented
on another example.

[irrelevent stuff snipped]

> The point is that personal anecdotes can't be used as a basis for public policy. You have to look
> at the risk to the general population, and take measures proportionate to the risk.

I'm not talking public policy, I'm talking personal policy

>
> BTW, about a third of all serious injuries to car occupants are head
injuries.
> Bicycle-style helmets in cars would prevent a great deal of head trauma in crashes and may even
> save several lives each year. Yet the same surgeons who urged helmets on cyclists in Australia
> haven't agitated to nearly the same extent to get motorists to wear helmets for their own safety.
>

How many "serious injuries to car occupants are head injuries" are at bicycle speeds ? How many
at 100 kmh ?

And so on we go, more stats, blah blah blah. I'll refrase my point. How much energy was used to
smash my helmet when I hit the ground head first (around about just below the top) at about 40 kmh,
and walked away with a pretty crook neck and back.

What would of the effect have been if that energy was transferred into my head ?

Go look some stats up on that, but I don't need them.

> Regards, Tony M.
 
RMan <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm not talking public policy, I'm talking personal policy

Fair enough....some people in this thread are talking about mandatory helmet laws. By all means wear
a helmet if you think it helps, but many cyclists resent being singled out and forced to wear them
while motorists and pedestrians go bare-headed.

>How many "serious injuries to car occupants are head injuries" are at bicycle speeds ? How many at
>100 kmh ?

I've no idea, but I don't see how this is relevant.

TM
 
"Anthony Morton" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> RMan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >I'm not talking public policy, I'm talking personal policy
>
> Fair enough....some people in this thread are talking about mandatory helmet laws. By all means
> wear a helmet if you think it helps, but many cyclists resent being singled out and forced to wear
> them while motorists and pedestrians go bare-headed.
>

Well their is merit to a discussion on those lines.

> >How many "serious injuries to car occupants are head injuries" are at bicycle speeds ? How many
> >at 100 kmh ?
>
> I've no idea, but I don't see how this is relevant.
>
>

Well, my gut feel is a bike helmet won't do much to protect your noggin if it is being bashed about
at really high speeds in say a 100 kmh head on collision. Could be wrong, dunno. I had a friend
whose family insisted that when you got into their car, you had to wear a motorcycle helmet. You
looked foolish, but you had to concede the logic behind it. I often wonder is there scope for soem
form of car helmet, more than a bike, less than a motorbike. Ligth and comfortable. Would I wear one
? Probably not. If had to by law ? Probably would.

Now try and enforce that law, and you'd see kicking and screaming way beyond the noise made by we
cyclists !!
 
"Peter Signorini" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> "Bob Incognito" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Whilst rampantly masturbating, on Tue, 10 Jun 2003
> > 20:23:39 +1000, "Peter Signorini" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >So which brand of helmet do you wear while you walk down the street, just
> in
> > >case you bump your head?
> > >
> > What a ridiculous argument.
>
> S you haven't read the web page quoted. Shame
>
> > Are you 12 years old? It's rather simple.
>
> Yes, I thought so to. But you can hold the insults.
>
> Quoting from the paper on Cycling and Health by the British National Cycling Strategy: Death rates
> per billion kms (2000) car 3 cycling 30 walking 48
[snip]

"Marty" has a lot to answer for... I think we need a "Mandatory No Helmet Thread Law". There is
no greater misuse of statistics, studies and personal anecdotes than this debate. There is no
greater likelihood of causing the thread to become a flame war, (unless the post is from Super
Mario, ha ha).

On a serious note, I'm still waiting for the debate about cognitive error...

Ritch
 
> "Marty" has a lot to answer for... I think we need a "Mandatory No Helmet Thread Law". There is
> no greater misuse of statistics, studies and personal anecdotes than this debate. There is no
> greater likelihood of causing the thread to become a flame war, (unless the post is from Super
> Mario, ha ha).
>
> On a serious note, I'm still waiting for the debate about cognitive error...
>
> Ritch

When I posted my initial posting I clearly labeled it "HELMET DEBATE". Anyone with half a brain
would avoid the thread if they had an aversion to flames and statistics.

My initial posting was to highlight the fact that a reasonably comprehensive study had showed
that cycling in Perth appears to be increasing. This is in contrast to the "University" study
of the number of cyclists crossing a particular bridge, that indicated that cycling in Perth
was in decline. Anti helmet persons blamed the decline on the introduction of compulsory
helmet legislation. The fact that bicycle use is actually increasing highlights the wrongness
of their argument.

Best regards

Marty
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
Replies
18
Views
961
UK and Europe
Simon Brooke
S
D
Replies
200
Views
7K
UK and Europe
Simon Brooke
S