Bicycle Helmets Kill

[bellenuit]

More folk would buy bicycles and ride them if this stupid law were removed.

Bicycle helmets kill by impacting on the fitness of folk such as I, who are put off riding bicycles by these stupid helmets.

gg

+1 I feel exactly the same.

 

[Logique]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/s...ties-forget-about-helmets.html?pagewanted=all
To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL - Published: 29 September 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/s...ties-forget-about-helmets.html?pagewanted=all
...In their short lives, Europe’s bike-sharing systems have delivered myriad benefits, notably reducing traffic and its carbon emissions.....One common denominator of successful bike programs around the world ”” from Paris to Barcelona to Guangzhou ”” is that almost no one wears a helmet, and there is no pressure to do so...

....On the other hand, many researchers say, if you force or pressure people to wear helmets, you discourage them from riding bicycles. That means more obesity, heart disease and diabetes....... The safest biking cities are places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, where middle-aged commuters are mainstay riders and the fraction of adults in helmets is minuscule....

....Piet de Jong, a professor in the department of applied finance and actuarial studies at Macquarie University in Sydney. He studied the issue with mathematical modeling, and concludes that the benefits may outweigh the risks by 20 to 1.....

.....He adds: “Statistically, if we wear helmets for cycling, maybe we should wear helmets when we climb ladders or get into a bath, because there are lots more injuries during those activities.” The European Cyclists’ Federation says that bicyclists in its domain have the same risk of serious injury as pedestrians per mile traveled...

 

[aquilarealestate]

Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill

I think if you ride a bicycle on the roads these days, or even a motor bike for that matter, you have a death wish. Helmets will prevent serious head injury in a lot of cases, but if they're that worried about health why dont they ban cigarettes ?

I agree with Mr Burns yeah why they don't ban cigarettes or alcohol ? Ridding drunk can also be a cause of death

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/s...ties-forget-about-helmets.html?pagewanted=all
To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL - Published: 29 September 2012
View attachment 50615

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/su...pagewanted=all
...In their short lives, Europe’s bike-sharing systems have delivered myriad benefits, notably reducing traffic and its carbon emissions.....One common denominator of successful bike programs around the world ”” from Paris to Barcelona to Guangzhou ”” is that almost no one wears a helmet, and there is no pressure to do so...

....On the other hand, many researchers say, if you force or pressure people to wear helmets, you discourage them from riding bicycles. That means more obesity, heart disease and diabetes....... The safest biking cities are places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, where middle-aged commuters are mainstay riders and the fraction of adults in helmets is minuscule....

....Piet de Jong, a professor in the department of applied finance and actuarial studies at Macquarie University in Sydney. He studied the issue with mathematical modeling, and concludes that the benefits may outweigh the risks by 20 to 1.....

.....He adds: “Statistically, if we wear helmets for cycling, maybe we should wear helmets when we climb ladders or get into a bath, because there are lots more injuries during those activities.” The European Cyclists’ Federation says that bicyclists in its domain have the same risk of serious injury as pedestrians per mile traveled...

I agree with Mr Burns yeah why they don't ban cigarettes or alcohol ? Ridding drunk can also be a cause of death

Thanks everyone for supporting riding bikes without bicycle helmets.

gg

 

[shermerhorn]

Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill

I was riding to uni once with out my helmet (I was late to my class). Mr policeman pulled me over and proceeded to ask me questions, he asked what degree I was doing, I told him engineering, he asked me what would the force be if my head hit the gutter, I told him it would be a big one, to which he told me was correct.

He let me off with a warning and I had to walk my bike the rest of the way

So you see, we live in a cotton ball environment here in Australia, and I dont see that changing anytime soon.

Been their done that! Yeah, but you can't lament the law-makers coming up with wimp-laws to have people protect their heads. Blame the idiots who sue at the drop of a hat when things go wrong. Even if you're the only one who would could possibly suffer, you can't decided on your own risks and take them. But we can't blame the pollies for that one, that's strictly with the personal injury lawyers and the delicate petals who do something stupid, then want to blame someone else.

I'm sure you'd have been happy with (or at least accepting of) your fate if you flew off your bike and cracked your skull. Many might be in the same boat. But a good many more will be ready to blame someone else and too gutless to own their bad luck and admit fault. That's the problem right there.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

The interests of gentle bicycle riders such as I have been severely damaged by increasing reports of " Lycra Boys " abusing and pursuing motorists.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/motorist-claims-he-was-threatened-by-group-of-cyclists-during-road-rage-incident-in-west-end/story-e6freoof-1226577414306

Mr Hull said the group, which he called the "Lycra boys", stopped across the road from his workshop and started making threats against him and his business. Ignoring the group's calls to come across the road, Mr Hull remained in his repair shop.

A PEACEFUL commute to work took a turn for the worse in Brisbane's West End, with a motorist claiming he was threatened and abused by a group of cyclists after going head-to-head for control of the roads.

West End business owner Mervyn Hull claims a group of irate cyclists turned up at his Montague Rd business making threats and yelling obscenities after a traffic dispute on a suburban road minutes earlier.

The only way to manage roid addled Lycra cyclists is to remove the quasi-fascist law on bicycle helmets and encourage the masses to ride bicycles, as is done in most European countries.

gg

 

[dutchie]

MOTORISTS watched in amazement as a woman held a baby while dinking on a bicycle in peak-hour traffic.



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...ts-shocking-ride/story-e6frf7kx-1226578248716







Thank god the baby was safe - he/she was not wearing a helmet!!!

Obviously caring parents protecting their child!

 

[Julia]

gg, maybe a further impost on cyclists to upset you: poll in Qld suggests 53% think cyclists should have to be licensed.

 

[Boggo]

gg, maybe a further impost on cyclists to upset you: poll in Qld suggests 53% think cyclists should have to be licensed.

Great idea I think. As a cyclist and driver of a 4WD I will be able to drive or ride my bike in any lane at any speed for an annual cost of about $10 based on the formula for calculating rego fees.

I suppose that I may need to get a boat licence for my wave board too while we are going down that path.

 

[MrBurns]

Great idea I think. As a cyclist and driver of a 4WD I will be able to drive or ride my bike in any lane at any speed for an annual cost of about $10 based on the formula for calculating rego fees.

.

Yes it even includes a funeral plan which will come in handy

 

[Maxamud]

I think the law is silly.

Maybe kids should have to wear helmets, but Adults should be able to make their own choice whether to wear a helmet or not.

 

[Boggo]

Yes it even includes a funeral plan which will come in handy

Probably a good inclusion actually.

"Me an Shazza wus drivin in the ute an havin a coupla tinnys of beam an coke while I was yakkin to Bazza on the phone then nekminnit ****in goose on a bike wus in our way an bang!"

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Buy this book.

An excellent critique of paternalism and the nanny state.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/mar/07/its-your-own-good/?pagination=false

A quote from John Stuart Mill's " On Liberty "

the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or mental, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.

gg

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I have again been targetted by the law, for not wearing a bicycle helmet whilst sachaying along Bundock St. in Townsville to an important soiree.

It may come before the courts.

I note that even the Guardian UK, a left wing union and public service rag is now coming out against the usefulness of bicycle helmets.

Helmets kill.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/15/cycling-helmet-law-bmj-study-hospitals?CMP=twt_gu

Researchers said that while helmets reduce head injuries and should be encouraged, the decrease in hospital admissions in Canada, where the law is in place in some regions, seems to have been "minimal".

The authors examined data concerning all 66,000 cycling-related injuries in Canada between 1994 and 2008 – 30% of which were head injuries.

Writing in the British Medical Journal, the authors noted a substantial fall in the rate of hospital admissions among young people, particularly in regions where helmet legislation was in place. But they said that the fall was not found to be statistically significant.

The researchers said admission rates were falling before the implementation of helmet legislation thanks to safety campaigns, improvements to cycling infrastructure and existing use of helmets.

"When baseline trends in cycling-related injury rates were considered, the overall rates of head injuries were not appreciably altered by helmet legislation," they said.

They concluded: "While helmets reduce the risk of head injuries and we encourage their use, in the Canadian context of existing safety campaigns, improvements to the cycling infrastructure, and the passive uptake of helmets, the incremental contribution of provincial helmet legislation to reduce hospital admissions for head injuries seems to have been minimal."

The road safety minister, Stephen Hammond, said: "We encourage cyclists – especially children – to wear helmets to protect them if they have a crash. However, we believe this should remain a matter of individual choice rather than imposing additional regulations which would be difficult to enforce.

"To improve cycle safety we want to see more innovative measures being put in place to help prevent collisions. For example, we have made it easier for local authorities to introduce 20mph zones in built-up areas and authorised a trial of trixi mirrors in London which, if successful, could be used elsewhere in the country to make cyclists more visible to drivers."

gg

 

[FlyingFox]

Whether it is law or not, you would be pretty stupid not to wear a helmet. A close friend and colleague of mine has suffered through traumatic brain injury due to a hockey incident and it is not something you want to go through.

I think the law is in place to try and reduce the incidences of head injuries and the associated cost. Cost of helmet $25-$250, cost of traumatic brain injury to medicare 20-250K (just my back of envelope figures), cost to nation would be much higher.

So if the law is repelled, I would suggest that any one who is injured not wearing a helmet should then have to look after themselves.

Open question to any of the posters. Anyone ride road/racer cycles with toe clips/ clipless pedals?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Whether it is law or not, you would be pretty stupid not to wear a helmet. A close friend and colleague of mine has suffered through traumatic brain injury due to a hockey incident and it is not something you want to go through.

I think the law is in place to try and reduce the incidences of head injuries and the associated cost. Cost of helmet $25-$250, cost of traumatic brain injury to medicare 20-250K (just my back of envelope figures), cost to nation would be much higher.

So if the law is repelled, I would suggest that any one who is injured not wearing a helmet should then have to look after themselves.

Open question to any of the posters. Anyone ride road/racer cycles with toe clips/ clipless pedals?

There is no evidence, and I repeat no evidence that wearing a bicycle helmet improves the health of a population, rather it dimishes the health by discouraging cycling.

I know less about hockey than I do about ludo, so cannot comment.

To get back to your point.

You are extrapolating an individual experience to the general.

A mate of yours was injured and tragically suffered a brain injury playing hockey. This does not necessarily mean that wearing helmets improves the prevalence of brain injury playing hockey.

gg

 

[FlyingFox]

There is no evidence, and I repeat no evidence that wearing a bicycle helmet improves the health of a population, rather it dimishes the health by discouraging cycling.

I know less about hockey than I do about ludo, so cannot comment.

To get back to your point.

You are extrapolating an individual experience to the general.

A mate of yours was injured and tragically suffered a brain injury playing hockey. This does not necessarily mean that wearing helmets improves the prevalence of brain injury playing hockey.

gg

I was providing an example of someone I knew who has suffered a TBI which was similar to what a cyclist might suffer if they hit the pavement head first. I was not extrapolating from that.

The articles you point to are biased in that there is no absolute baseline. You can't assume everyone wasn't wearing a helmet before and everyone wore a helmet after the law came into force. Also they were looking at incidence of head injury and not severity.

There is ample evidence showing that a helmet that is fit for purpose reduces your chances of severe brain injury. Most of these are mechanical analysis of impact etc and therefore will be challenged.

I therefore provide a link to an article ( and in it to a scientific article in the medical journal of Australia) looking at the severity of head injuries in cyclists and motor cyclists presenting to the emergency department at a hospital in Sydney. They found a 5 times increased likelihood of severe brain injuries in cyclists without helmets with each new case of TBI costing Australia $4.5 million.

http://theconversation.com/bike-helmets-an-emergency-doctors-perspective-13935

 

[bellenuit]

There is no evidence, and I repeat no evidence that wearing a bicycle helmet improves the health of a population, rather it dimishes the health by discouraging cycling.

This seems to me to be a situation where both of you are right. At a population level there is no improvement in overall health as it discourages some if not many being more active. At an individual level it reduces the risk of serious injury to that person.

But then as an individual who likes cycling, wouldn't you be better off wearing a helmet, if wearing a helmet is not in your case going to discourage you from cycling. You get the increased activity and reduce your risk of injury at the same time.

BTW, I am against helmets being compulsory, but I rarely cycle.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I was providing an example of someone I knew who has suffered a TBI which was similar to what a cyclist might suffer if they hit the pavement head first. I was not extrapolating from that.

The articles you point to are biased in that there is no absolute baseline. You can't assume everyone wasn't wearing a helmet before and everyone wore a helmet after the law came into force. Also they were looking at incidence of head injury and not severity.

There is ample evidence showing that a helmet that is fit for purpose reduces your chances of severe brain injury. Most of these are mechanical analysis of impact etc and therefore will be challenged.

I therefore provide a link to an article ( and in it to a scientific article in the medical journal of Australia) looking at the severity of head injuries in cyclists and motor cyclists presenting to the emergency department at a hospital in Sydney. They found a 5 times increased likelihood of severe brain injuries in cyclists without helmets with each new case of TBI costing Australia $4.5 million.

http://theconversation.com/bike-helmets-an-emergency-doctors-perspective-13935

Recent evidence based article make yours redundant.

That study is so full of holes, it is recognised as being redundant.

I could as well argue that if everyone from birth to old age on waking wore a helmet that the incidence of head injuries would decrease.

And for the fecund, that the wearing of a helmet on retiring for a naughtie would obviate that rare bedhead knock leading to an ABI. ( Acquired brain injury )

The study you quote is a point in time and lacks validity and any likelihood ratios.

I prefer the wind in my hair on a bicycle and the scent of a Marlboro.

gg

 

[FlyingFox]

This seems to me to be a situation where both of you are right. At a population level there is no improvement in overall health as it discourages some if not many being more active. At an individual level it reduces the risk of serious injury to that person.

But then as an individual who likes cycling, wouldn't you be better off wearing a helmet, if wearing a helmet is not in your case going to discourage you from cycling. You get the increased activity and reduce your risk of injury at the same time.

BTW, I am against helmets being compulsory, but I rarely cycle.

Personally, helmets discouraging cycling is a mute point. There should be no reason to be discouraged from cycling just because you have to wear a helmet. As pointed out in the article, general safety, lack of bike paths are more of a disincentive.

I stopped riding for a long time due to the later reasons.