Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Xplora wrote:Also a note about data collection - it is focused on a particular data set and as such completely ignores the likelihood of noninjury. Do you protect your toenails from lightning strike? Of course not.

I like that, maybe those who want to foist helmet wearing should also be protecting themselves against lightning strikes to their feet.

I didn't look at the link but someone above mentioned it showed a graph of injuries after cyclists are hit by cars. That lump of foam we are forced to wear ain't nothing against a car weighing over a tonne.

I've asked this before, but where are the MHL advocates asking for proper helmets? In fact I think this might be a good campaign. If we legislate to force all cyclists to wear hard case helmets then the law will get treated with the contempt it deserves.

DS

DavidS wrote:

Xplora wrote:Also a note about data collection - it is focused on a particular data set and as such completely ignores the likelihood of noninjury. Do you protect your toenails from lightning strike? Of course not.

I like that, maybe those who want to foist helmet wearing should also be protecting themselves against lightning strikes to their feet.

I didn't look at the link but someone above mentioned it showed a graph of injuries after cyclists are hit by cars. That lump of foam we are forced to wear ain't nothing against a car weighing over a tonne.

I've asked this before, but where are the MHL advocates asking for proper helmets? In fact I think this might be a good campaign. If we legislate to force all cyclists to wear hard case helmets then the law will get treated with the contempt it deserves.

DS

Curiously, the article states that

The authors say the research shows the benefit from wearing a helmet increases with the severity of the injury.

Also, I find the snide remarks about the data collection completely unwarranted. What ethical alternative is there to looking at actual injury data if you want to ascertain helmet efficacy? (which is a distinct concern from helmet law efficacy, at the risk of stating the obvious

In fact, here's another quote:

There’s also some comfort in the finding that more than 90% of cyclists who were in a collision with a car didn’t sustain a head injury.

So there's no wide-eyed optimism about the protective value of helmets, not that I can see.

DentedHead wrote:EDIT: It was more about the way we can manipulate "facts" for pretty much any desired argument... like so:

Forget about the problems of water, be very worried about Dihydrogen Monoxide






Just goes to show if you want to create public outrage or horror and spurious action, 'facts' can be so handy

Xplora wrote:

DentedHead wrote:

Ross wrote:http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/ ... your-head/

Sorry to quote and oldish post, but that graph indicates wearing a helmet reduces the change of head injury, while increasing the chance of extremity injury.

Also, according the that graph, helmets also reduce the risk of thorax, abdominal and spinal injuries. Clearly (to me at least) there is a large number of unaccounted variables...
Dent.

Also a note about data collection - it is focused on a particular data set and as such completely ignores the likelihood of noninjury. Do you protect your toenails from lightning strike? Of course not.

Yes it does. It focuses on "6745 cyclist collisions with motor vehicles where helmet use was known". It says it right there in the abstract.

I find it unlikely that not wearing a helmet increases the chance of a non-injury when in a collision with a motor vehicle. Particularly in light of the findings of the above study.

I don't think we'd need to be that silly Simon LOL

The issue that I see is not with the study, per se - the study exists in an information ecosystem, and is clearly being misrepresented in the press and used to justify more than what it actually said. The implication is that helmets improve your injury risk profile, and therefore the helmet law is justified. The result of the study isn't particularly surprising. Why even report it?

The MHL needs support, and telling people that they are better off with a helmet in a crash than without one reinforces the lies about cycling population risk. I've seen one person hit their head in 12 months of weekend bunch rides, and heard of one other, doing probably THE most risky form of riding in Sydney. The risk of hitting your head in the most risky riding possible is incredibly small - I would challenge anyone to volunteer to wear a helmet in the car based on similar odds. The results of head injury are serious, but we don't apply the same risk assessment to car occupants or pedestrians. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

Very early on in my cycling I had a collision with a motor vehicle that resulted in a head injury. Pretty crazy stuff, I was soon off to hospital and had surgery for the injuries. I was lucky to get out of it fairly lightly but I do still have the lingering scars. The hard-shell MSR helped a little but it didn't prevent my head injury

But there you go - I was recorded in hospital stats as a "head injury - bicycle collision, with helmet use"




I was dumb enough to ride into the back of a parked car at 15-20kmh - broken nose But it is a head injury!

Xplora wrote:The result of the study isn't particularly surprising. Why even report it?

Science. What if the result was surprising?

There are plenty of people who claim a helmet does not make much of a difference.

Xplora wrote:The risk of hitting your head in the most risky riding possible is incredibly small

If we are playing anecdotes, I personally knew two cyclists who died from head injuries in slightly under 10 years. One helmeted no MV involved who rode a similar amount to what I do. One unhelmeted, MV involved who rode less than me. In all three of the stacks I have had that I attended hospital, my helmet was damaged. In the one my wife had, helmet was damaged too.

Oh, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs ... ke_a_right" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We need to get back to the basic premise of the human - people in general, in normal life get about wearing clothing, clothing that they choose.

In only a very narrow sphere of situations are people mandated to wear certain garb - women wearing the hijab in islamic societies may be legally mandated ( I don't think much of this either), certain people in hazardous occupations have legally required clothing (miners, workers at heights, workers using hazardous materials, nurses and doctors in surgery). However these sorts of mandated requirements are generally based on a very clear and present risk, often with detailed research about this. For the normal person just going about their business the requirement to wear certain types of clothing simply is not there.

Motorcyclists have it, but the data on road collisions and head injury risk versus the benefit of wearing one is much more clearly researched for them - the benefits to life are not disputed, the injury and death reductions are very significant. Not so sure about the comparable benefits for cycling, due to the declined use of bikes associated with the MHL.

Those who are passionate about this subject might enjoy this -

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/ ... m-cycling/


I'm now off to make some popcorn.

Cool. Now someone just needs to take it to the High Court and get the law overturned. Repugnancy or implied rights, I wouldn't presume to dictate. It can't fail! Have a rip at scool uniforms and facial tattooing laws while you're at it!/sarcasm

At least it's not that daft lifejacket meme. Small mercies.

The question should not be DO it should be by how much. Any argument otherwise defies even basic logic let alone reality.

I had a brief conversation with with a middle aged Dutch lady and her mother at the cafe halfway through my morning ride this morning. Guess what they quickly mentioned unprompted?

Helmets and special cycling clothes. Here we have two people from the busiest cycling nation on the planet and the first thing they mention are the two big barriers to cycling everyday cycling. They made comment on how it was a barrier to cycling and pointed out that the cycling here is different because of it. (On this occasion much to some people's surprise I myself was dressed up in Lycra and was not at all worried about wearing a helmet. )

Helmets are a barrier and an impediment to cycling. It amazes me how ANYBODY particularly an advocacy body like BV could possibly support helmets.

high_tea wrote:Cool. Now someone just needs to take it to the High Court and get the law overturned. Repugnancy or implied rights, I wouldn't presume to dictate. It can't fail! Have a rip at scool uniforms and facial tattooing laws while you're at it!/sarcasm

At least it's not that daft lifejacket meme. Small mercies.

I'm not sure what your point is here. We are discussing helmets.

Surely you as a cyclist would like to promote cycling rather than discourage it. Yet by supporting MHL you are supporting one of the biggest barriers to cycling.

human909 wrote:Helmets are a barrier and an impediment to cycling. It amazes me how ANYBODY particularly an advocacy body like BV could possibly support helmets.

Yeah, daft old BV (BNV now, they're a "health charity" ) They lost my membership nearly 10 years ago now, and I was a member form the Bicycle Institute days.

Sofcock supplicants to Vicroads now

How much has scooter/skateboard riding reduced the numbers of child cyclists?
How much has "kids don't roam free" affected the number of child cyclists?
How much has the increased awareness of concussion increased the number of head injury related emergency dept attendance?
If you ask the right question the statistics will support you.

Merge this with the MHL thread perhaps ??

The Mods are going to do it anyway.

bychosis wrote:How much has scooter/skateboard riding reduced the numbers of child cyclists?

None. I see no connection, skateboards were there pre-1990. If anything skateboarding kicked on in the 90s probably due to the freedom from restriction compared to riding a bike.

bychosis wrote:How much has "kids don't roam free" affected the number of child cyclists?

The question should be "How much has helmet laws and parental paranoia prevented kids from roaming free?"

bychosis wrote:How much has the increased awareness of concussion increased the number of head injury related emergency dept attendance?

I see little evidence of this link. And your point ??

il padrone wrote:Merge this with the MHL thread perhaps ??

The Mods are going to do it anyway.

Happy to see it merged or whatever else the mods feel is appropriate.

What's a "Hetmet"?

Agree with IP. Thread move and merge in 5...4...3...

Shaun

G'Day all.

Just a heads up that I've merged the quoted post and the ensuing replies into this thread to keep all things helmet together. You may notice some break in continuity.

Shaun

Hamster wrote:Those who are passionate about this subject might enjoy this -

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/ ... m-cycling/


I'm now off to make some popcorn.

Local skatepark in Alex headlands must have 50-100 kids on a busy weekend.
Not many wearing a lid and doing backflips, all manner of tricks on a concrete half pipe.
Would not want to get it wrong, however, haven't seen any carnage and I'll sit and watch sometimes from the pub.
MHL, pfft. Waste of manpower and sums up the nanny state perfectly.

human909 wrote:

high_tea wrote:Cool. Now someone just needs to take it to the High Court and get the law overturned. Repugnancy or implied rights, I wouldn't presume to dictate. It can't fail! Have a rip at scool uniforms and facial tattooing laws while you're at it!/sarcasm

At least it's not that daft lifejacket meme. Small mercies.

I'm not sure what your point is here. We are discussing helmets.

Surely you as a cyclist would like to promote cycling rather than discourage it. Yet by supporting MHL you are supporting one of the biggest barriers to cycling.

Oh, I was discussing specious arguments about helmet laws. I suggesting, sarcastically, that a legal challenge to MHLs based on freedom of clothing was sure to succeed. For one of the usual reasons that this sort of thing succeeds.

Oh, and nice attempt to put words into my mouth. I remain on the fence re:MHLs because, in part, the arguments pro and con are so unconvincing. I'd bag out more lousy pro: arguments here in the echo chamber, but what's the use? Someone's generally beaten me to it.

high_tea wrote:Oh, I was discussing specious arguments about helmet laws. I suggesting, sarcastically, that a legal challenge to MHLs based on freedom of clothing was sure to succeed. For one of the usual reasons that this sort of thing succeeds.

I share your scepticism on anything that has its roots in freedom succeeding in Australian courts. Basic freedom is not enshrined in our law and sadly it is now no longer enshrined in our society conciousness.

high_tea wrote:I remain on the fence re:MHLs because, in part, the arguments pro and con are so unconvincing. I'd bag out more lousy pro: arguments here in the echo chamber, but what's the use? Someone's generally beaten me to it.

Sorry that I've lost track of all the people who are sitting on the fence but seem to be arguing for the status quo. These 'lousy' arguments as you call them may not have convinced you but they continue to convince the rest of the world NOT to introduce MHL. The arguments for MHL have quite convincing "save the children" concepts....

human909 wrote:

high_tea wrote:I remain on the fence re:MHLs because, in part, the arguments pro and con are so unconvincing. I'd bag out more lousy pro: arguments here in the echo chamber, but what's the use? Someone's generally beaten me to it.

Sorry that I've lost track of all the people who are sitting on the fence but seem to be arguing for the status quo. These 'lousy' arguments as you call them may not have convinced you but they continue to convince the rest of the world NOT to introduce MHL. The arguments for MHL have quite convincing "save the children" concepts....

The pro-MHL arguments are, by and large, complete rubbish. The anti-MHL arguments are, by and large, no better. I'm not convinced either way. The only logical response is to do nothing. That isn't arguing for the status quo, that's pointing out the lack of a well-argued alternative. Hey, guess what, that means not introducing MHLs in the rest of the world. It's a different story in Australia. So it goes.

The pro-MHL lobby have to do better than "helmet efficacy is well-settled" and, sorry, the anti-MHL lobby have to do better than "MHL efficacy is not well-settled". I don't mind "MHLs haven't done cycling participation any favours" but that requires a government to have this as a policy objective to do any good. That'd be just great, but things a lot more interesting than MHL repeal would flow from that. Not that I'm holding my breath.

Fence sitters just get splinters in their bums

il padrone wrote:

bychosis wrote:How much has scooter/skateboard riding reduced the numbers of child cyclists?

None. I see no connection, skateboards were there pre-1990. If anything skateboarding kicked on in the 90s probably due to the freedom from restriction compared to riding a bike.

bychosis wrote:How much has "kids don't roam free" affected the number of child cyclists?

The question should be "How much has helmet laws and parental paranoia prevented kids from roaming free?"

bychosis wrote:How much has the increased awareness of concussion increased the number of head injury related emergency dept attendance?

I see little evidence of this link. And your point ??

When it was in the other thread my point was that depending on how you ask the question will afffect your statistics and the outcome of a study. These are all related questions when looking at the reduction in child cyclist injuries or participation.

I do believe that mandatory child helmets are a good thing, so are seatbelts.