Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[human909]

Recently I have been travelling about 600km per week in my car and about 20 km a week on my bike. Should I therefore be wearing a helmet in my car?

no, what you should be doing is protecting your head against the risk of injury. this is why new vehicle standards have crash performance requirements. these are performance-based requirements, i.e. they specify an outcome (crash dummy instrument reading), not the method. in practice, they are achieved with seat belts, structural design, airbags, etc.

those are unavailable on bicycles, thus helmets.

So according to you I shouldn't be driving a 20 year old car with no airbags? There are better ways to protect yourself rather that putting foam on your head and surrounding yourself with airbags. Start by driving and riding sensibly and and reducing your risk.


Funnily enough some of the biggest proponents of MHLs are doing the LEAST to protect themselves in the other more important ways. Many of the proponents of MHLs around here engage in high speed pack riding giving themselves minimum clearance between vehicles and high consequences of accidents. Some even race which given the competitive nature of the sport further increases the risk.

So why is it what the lower risk activities are discouraged yet the higher risk activities are perfectly fine? Maybe I should try to push for a law banning bunch riding, or roadbikes? Or MAMILS?

But I won't. I believe i choice.

[Percrime]

The point is crashing and head injuries are exceedingly low in cycling,

no they're not. cycling fatalities are something in the order of 20 x the rate for motorists, per kilometre travelled. head injuries are the most common cause of serious injury/death.

no, we don't all suffer life threatening head injuries every week - i'll give you that, they are rare. this is not a great triumph though. it's still a serious issue - it only takes one!

But thats an insane measure. That makes space shuttle travel the safest way of travelling ever invented. (And I question its accuracy even so) Per hour exposure is the only measure that makes sense.

[Kenzo]

But thats an insane measure. That makes space shuttle travel the safest way of travelling ever invented. (And I question its accuracy even so) Per hour exposure is the only measure that makes sense.

LOL...
They wear helmets during launch and landing.... but they travel faster when just orbiting... sans helmet.

[KenGS]

head injuries are the most common cause of serious injury/death.

Not according to the study you quote. In that study in 55% of deaths head injury was a contributing factor and in 60% of those - that is 33% of the total - head injury was the sole cause of death. So in 45% of cases, death was due solely to injuries other than head injuries, 33% due to head injuries alone and the rest a mixture of both.

[jules21]

So according to you I shouldn't be driving a 20 year old car with no airbags?

i didn't say that. but the risk is certainly higher:

There are better ways to protect yourself rather that putting foam on your head and surrounding yourself with airbags. Start by driving and riding sensibly and and reducing your risk.

that's great human, but it's against human nature. we take risks and make mistakes. no amount of high-mindedness and motherhood statements will change that. here's two measures to reduce the road toll:
1. build safer roads
2. talking heads on the tv urging motorists to stop being idiots.

one of those has worked wonders, the other has little effect other than to appear caring. take a wild guess which is which

Funnily enough some of the biggest proponents of MHLs are doing the LEAST to protect themselves in the other more important ways. Many of the proponents of MHLs around here engage in high speed pack riding giving themselves minimum clearance between vehicles and high consequences of accidents. Some even race which given the competitive nature of the sport further increases the risk.
So why is it what the lower risk activities are discouraged yet the higher risk activities are perfectly fine? Maybe I should try to push for a law banning bunch riding, or roadbikes? Or MAMILS?

But I won't. I believe i choice.

you're missing the point a bit. MHLs are intended to be about choice - govts are reluctant to ban activities that are unsafe, as that restricts individual choice. but they do feel responsible for public safety (whether you like it or not - i'm not justifying it, but it's a fact) and so their preference is to allow such activities, but where necessary, impose measures which make them safer. MHLs don't stop anyone from riding, so they're judged as a win-win for individual choice and safety.

you're making a stricter interpretation of 'individual choice' by arguing that people should be able to choose whether to protect themselves (against head injury). i don't think your position is unreasonable, my point is that it will result in more harm - through more head injuries.

[jules21]

head injuries are the most common cause of serious injury/death.

Not according to the study you quote. In that study in 55% of deaths head injury was a contributing factor and in 60% of those - that is 33% of the total - head injury was the sole cause of death. So in 45% of cases, death was due solely to injuries other than head injuries, 33% due to head injuries alone and the rest a mixture of both.

so which other type of injury was more common than to the head? you may be confusing "most common" with "majority" cause. it's the former, if not the latter.

[jules21]

But thats an insane measure. That makes space shuttle travel the safest way of travelling ever invented. (And I question its accuracy even so) Per hour exposure is the only measure that makes sense.

a. space shuttle isn't a substitute transport means for cycling/motoring.
b. even if you measure exposure by time, at 20 odd x the risk by distance, cycling would still be much riskier. we aren't 20 x slower than cars.

[human909]

you're missing the point a bit. MHLs are intended to be about choice

MHLs don't stop anyone from riding

Available evidence indicate otherwise.

my point is that it will result in more harm - through more head injuries.

Good idea. Lets get cyclists off the road and into cars to reduce head injuries from cycling. This is what has occurred. Meanwhile cycling itself hasn't got any safer.

[jules21]

MHLs don't stop anyone from riding

Available evidence indicate otherwise.

opinions indicate that people may have been discouraged from riding by MHLs, not stopped.

Good idea. Lets get cyclists off the road and into cars to reduce head injuries from cycling. This is what has occurred. Meanwhile cycling itself hasn't got any safer.

evidence clearly does show that there are more important factors in en/discouraging cycling than MHLs. look at the evidence of Minister Guy blatantly using cyclists as political punching bags in Sydney. it boggles the mind why campaigners let this sort of thinly veiled attack on cyclists slide while focussing on something as inconsequential as MHLs.

[Percrime]

But thats an insane measure. That makes space shuttle travel the safest way of travelling ever invented. (And I question its accuracy even so) Per hour exposure is the only measure that makes sense.

a. space shuttle isn't a substitute transport means for cycling/motoring.
b. even if you measure exposure by time, at 20 odd x the risk by distance, cycling would still be much riskier. we aren't 20 x slower than cars.

"And I question its validity even so". THats in the motorcycle range. Where did those numbers come from?

But you exclude on this measure all the immensely safe freeway and motorway miles cars do.
Which hugely makes motoring look safer than it is (In spite of my SO bouncing my subie of a semi on the freeway) Get rid of that huge and very safe chunk of mileage or for that matter time .. and suddenly... we are twice as dangerous as a car.. the most often quoted figure

Btw your a) argument is just silly for exactly the above reason. Your measure of risk gets rid of all the safest km. No one has died in orbit.. just getting there and getting back. The bit on the freeway is the safe bit

[human909]

Furthermore it ignores the cause of alot of the damage. CARS!

Look at Holland. They've addressed the issue. We haven't.

[jules21]

and suddenly... we are twice as dangerous as a car..

even if true, still too high - warrants action being taken.

Furthermore it ignores the cause of alot of the damage. CARS!

Look at Holland. They've addressed the issue. We haven't.

i couldn't agree more. this is simple hierarchy of risks - first you try to eliminate risk, it not possible reduce it, etc. we all agree PPE is at the bottom of the hierarchy, which reflects our failure to implement more effective solutions. but you don't abandon PPE before implementing those better solutions.

[Kenzo]

head injuries are the most common cause of serious injury/death.

Not according to the study you quote. In that study in 55% of deaths head injury was a contributing factor and in 60% of those - that is 33% of the total - head injury was the sole cause of death. So in 45% of cases, death was due solely to injuries other than head injuries, 33% due to head injuries alone and the rest a mixture of both.

so which other type of injury was more common than to the head? you may be confusing "most common" with "majority" cause. it's the former, if not the latter.

Are you making an assumption or do you have the rest of the data?

[Comedian]

Not according to the study you quote. In that study in 55% of deaths head injury was a contributing factor and in 60% of those - that is 33% of the total - head injury was the sole cause of death. So in 45% of cases, death was due solely to injuries other than head injuries, 33% due to head injuries alone and the rest a mixture of both.

so which other type of injury was more common than to the head? you may be confusing "most common" with "majority" cause. it's the former, if not the latter.

Are you making an assumption or do you have the rest of the data?

I believe around 2/3 of those that die each year are run over by cars. While I'm sure head injuries were notable in that group I'd bet the wearing of a helmet wouldn't make a difference.

[jules21]

believe around 2/3 of those that die each year are run over by cars. While I'm sure head injuries were notable in that group I'd bet the wearing of a helmet wouldn't make a difference.

agreed. there's no point worrying about those.

but head injuries are still the key cause of preventable bike fatalities. you don't generally die of a broken collarbone or other orthopedic injury. it's different for car occupants - crushing injuries to internal organs are more common.

[Kenzo]

You guys need to learn how to edit the quoting..

...as for 'preventable'... it's all preventable... and a helmet does not a prevention make.

[KenGS]

believe around 2/3 of those that die each year are run over by cars. While I'm sure head injuries were notable in that group I'd bet the wearing of a helmet wouldn't make a difference.

agreed. there's no point worrying about those.

but head injuries are still the key cause of preventable bike fatalities. you don't generally die of a broken collarbone or other orthopedic injury. it's different for car occupants - crushing injuries to internal organs are more common.

But those injuries n the study other than head injuries all resulted in death 45% of the time. So that rather limits the choices. Probably also crushing injuries to internal organs. So 45% death by crushing of internal organs (my assumption), 33% head injury, 22% a combination of both
Where is your data about car occupants. I understood that head injuries were also the most common cause of fatality there.
And you can hardly cause helmets a preventative measure. Mitigation perhaps.

[Percrime]

One of the measures of the efficiency of motorcycle helmets is supposed to be that motorcyclists who die of (probably) a head injury have an average of two other life threatening injuries. Again this is a study I dont have to hand.. I really should organise this stuff .. but I 'think' it was by the snell people and based on a couple of thousand fatals. Its not that relevant to this.. no such certitude exists with bicycle helmets..but it does point out that one can and probably usually does die of a head injury and be going to die anyway. Catastrophic accidents can kill you in several ways at the same time Its only where a head injury is the only cause of death that a helmet could possibly have done anything. And its only when you can point to a lowering in that number in some provable statistical sense that you can say helmets save lives. Thats been done and fairly easily done with motorcycle helmets

[jules21]

And you can hardly cause helmets a preventative measure. Mitigation perhaps.

i don't think that's in dispute. but while fatalities are the easiest to measure, serious injuries are far more common. there is a key difference here between head injuries and other types of non-fatal injuries - you can recover from a ruptured spleen or punctured lung. but head injuries are more likely to be permanent. this is why the receive special treatment. if you're trying to argue that other injuries are the 'big game' and head injuries are a distraction, i'd oppose that very strongly.

[jules21]

Catastrophic accidents can kill you in several ways at the same time Its only where a head injury is the only cause of death that a helmet could possibly have done anything. And its only when you can point to a lowering in that number in some provable statistical sense that you can say helmets save lives.

as previously posted:

In 71 of the 129 cases (55%), the cyclist sustained a head injury which caused or contributed to their death. In 43 of those 71 (60%), a head injury alone (with no other significant injuries) caused the death. Those whose cause of death included a head injury were three times less likely to be wearing a helmet as those who died of other types of injuries.

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/ontario ... where.html

[human909]

as previously posted:

In 71 of the 129 cases (55%), the cyclist sustained a head injury which caused or contributed to their death. In 43 of those 71 (60%), a head injury alone (with no other significant injuries) caused the death. Those whose cause of death included a head injury were three times less likely to be wearing a helmet as those who died of other types of injuries.

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/ontario ... where.html

And as pointed out HUNDREDS OF TIMES, that is a useless statistic jules. Throw helmets on ANY person about to die from traumatic impact injury and you are likely to get similar results!

But the irony of that beloved statistic that you have posted multiple times it that it is compared groups of DEATHS people to other groups of DEATHS. Surely its better to be concerned about keeping people alive.

[KenGS]

as previously posted:

In 71 of the 129 cases (55%), the cyclist sustained a head injury which caused or contributed to their death. In 43 of those 71 (60%), a head injury alone (with no other significant injuries) caused the death. Those whose cause of death included a head injury were three times less likely to be wearing a helmet as those who died of other types of injuries.

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/ontario ... where.html

As an aside can anyone actually explain what that statement means in a way that makes grammatical, numerical and logical sense?
i.e. does "included a head injury" mean the 22% or the 22% plus the 33%. And does "other types of injuries" means the 45% or something else. And how can anything be three times LESS??? And does it translate to, say, one third as likely or one quarter as likely?

[Percrime]

Sigh.. Obviously.. Head smashed in.. heart and chest crushed. A leg ripped off. Helmet makes no difference... cept to give you the tiniest bit prettier a corpse Its ONLY when the head is the only injury that was likely to kill you that a helmet can possibly matter. AS POINTED OUT HUNDREDS OF TIMES thanks.

Jeeze

[human909]

As an aside can anyone actually explain what that statement means in a way that makes grammatical, numerical and logical sense?
i.e. does "included a head injury" mean the 22% or the 22% plus the 33%. And does "other types of injuries" means the 45% or something else. And how can anything be three times LESS??? And does it translate to, say, one third as likely or one quarter as likely?

Well I have already pointed out that a corollary of that this statistic means that if you are wearing a helmet you are three times more likely to die from a non head injury than die from a head injury.

Well I suppose thats a good thing because Jules says it is.

[Percrime]

anything be three times LESS??

I steal your coffee 9 times today. I steal it 3 times tomorrow. This is? You found the plot of the new Bourne movie difficult to follow didn't you?