Helmet debate.

[Rman]

"Marty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]... [snip]

> 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.
>

Likewise in Victoria, cycling is on the rise. You can look up some stats on the Bicycle Victoria web
page. (Hey, but be warned, agenda driven use of stats are always open to scrutiny............_

And it seems to me compliance with the MHL is very very high. Those that don't comply stick out like
a saw thumb.

 

[Anthony Morton]

RMan <[email protected]> wrote:

>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 !!

And politicians would lose their seats.

You've just about got the point. Cyclists are an easy target for poorly- thought-out legislation
because they're a minority. At the prevailing level of understanding in 1989, enough of that
minority were persuaded of the safety benefits that the major lobby groups didn't raise a fuss. The
rest either grudgingly accepted the new rule or (in about 30% of cases) gave up cycling. Since then,
the evidence for the benefits of mandatory bike helmets has been equivocal at best, so that few
other jurisdictions have seen fit to make helmets compulsory.

But even if it were conclusively demonstrated that car helmets are beneficial to car occupants and
would safe lives if made compulsory, road safety advocates could never get a helmet rule implemented
for car occupants. Motorists simply wouldn't stand for it.

The cycling community should not, by virtue of being a minority, be targeted by laws that would be
politically unacceptable if forced on the majority.

Cheers, Tony M.

 

[Dorre]

RMan <[email protected]> wrote:

: "Marty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
:> 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.

Call me naive, but I can't see why the fact that cycling is currently increasing in WA can tell
us anything about whether there'd be even more cyclists on the roads today (and perhaps an even
greater increase) if the WA government hadn't forced cyclists to wear helmets on 1 Jan 1992 -
neary 10.5 years ago.

Helmet laws aren't the only issue that affect people's cycling. There are other factors such as
cost, convenience, safety, need for healthy exercise, increases in population, all of which would
be expected to affect the amount of cycling. Just because these factors also affect the amount of
cycling doesn't mean that helmet laws are irrelevant.

One Government survey actually asked people whether they would cycle more if not required to
wear helmets. A figure equivalent to 64% of adult cyclists actually cycling said they would.
People actually said the helmet laws put them off cycling. Moreover, substantially fewer
cyclists were counted at the same sites and observation periods, at the same time of year and in
similar weather, one year after the law, in NSW, Vic as well as WA, compared to a year earlier
when there was no law. Together those facts provide strong evidence that helmet laws discourage
people from cycling.

Not long ago, some friends observed me riding to a venue. They told me how they used to ride here
there and everywhere and how enjoyable it was! I suggested they should do it again, but was told
nowadays you have to wear a 'hat'.

Helmet laws don't put people off cycling - pull
the other one!!! Given the same facilities, traffic
conditions, need for exercise etc (all of which also
affect the amount of cycling), there'd undoubtedly
more people ridingg if we didn't have helmet laws.

Dorre



: Likewise in Victoria, cycling is on the rise. You can look up some stats on the Bicycle Victoria
: web page. (Hey, but be warned, agenda driven use of stats are always open to scrutiny............_

: And it seems to me compliance with the MHL is very very high. Those that don't comply stick out
: like a saw thumb.

 

[Dorre]

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 ?

Your talk about 40 km/hr crashes reminds me of what happened to the teenage son of a friend. He
was wearing a helmet and was hit by a car at about 40 km/hr. He was carted off to hospital and
died of head injury a few hours later. Of course, speed isn't the only factor here - cars
travelling at 40 km/hr have a fair bit more momentum than a cyclist at the same speed. As this
tragedy shows only too well helmets can't prevent death from head injury in cases like this.

: 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.

These empirical results have convinced you that, for your type
of cycling - racing and and spanking along at 40 km/hr, you'd be
better off wearing a helmet. I couldn't agree more! You are far
and away the best person to make that decision. You know how and
where you ride and have direct experience of the risks you face.

That doesn't mean stats, which essentially represent the 'average' cyclist have no meaning. You
have chosen how you ride, and understand how this affects your risk of head injury.

However, studies show that 'average' adult cyclists riding for transport are most likely to suffer
a head injury, especially a serious head injury, if they are hit by a motor vehicle. Most of us
don't ride into cars. For responsible adult cyclists riding in traffic, it's usually the motorist
who is at fault.

So the average responsible cyclist riding in traffic has little or no choice about the risk of
head injury. Data from Victoria shows that the increased helmet wearing because of the law had no
effect on this type of head injury - if anything the risk was actually higher after the law. At
the time, it was postulated that motorists became less aware of cyclists because fewer people
cycled, so perhaps they started to brake a fraction of a second later, and so were more likely to
hit the cyclist, or hit at a slighly higher speed.

One researcher in the US has now assembled 9 different datasets to confirm this theory. That
paper, called 'Safety in numbers: More walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling' will
soon be published in an international safety journal.

That research explains the stats on head injury rates per cyclist, which actually increased with
the helmet laws in Australia. Most serious head injuries to cyclists riding for transport happen
because of collisions with motor vehicles and so, if the risk of being hit by a motor vehicle
increases, so will the risk of serious head injury per cyclist, despite increased helmet wearing
because of the law.

Few people would argue with RMan about his decision to wear a helmet, based on his own personal
experience. He's the best person to judge. But the same applies to other cyclists, who have
different experiences and also different risks. They, too, are the best people to judge.

What we should all do, is argue we should be allowed to make this choice, because taking away the
right to choose discourages cycling, and that (as this soon to be published research shows only
too clearly) increases the risk for everyone who cycles on the roads.

Dorre