Helmet debate, helmet debate

We don't need helmets. We just need to replace everything with exact replicas made out of nerf.

Resound said:

We don't need helmets. We just need to replace everything with exact replicas made out of nerf.

touche, Hiratio!

running away now........

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

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

SuzieB said:

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."

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

"SuzieB" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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.

On 2006-03-24, SuzieB (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

In da Age today... http://tinyurl.com/g2ml7

....

Quoted message said:

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.

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!

On 2006-03-25, Gemma_k (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

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.

SuzieB said:

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 [censored].

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

"TimC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 2006-03-25, Gemma_k (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:

Quoted message said:

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

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

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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 :-)

"endroll" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message 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!

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

Gru:

Quoted message said:

The report is [censored]. 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?

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?

Gemma_k said:

"endroll" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message 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!

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.

Donga said:

Gru:

Quoted message said:

The report is [censored]. 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.

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.

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 hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Jules said:

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

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

Quoted message said:

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 | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)