Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Thu Mar 07, 2013 11:08 am

simonn wrote:On a practical level, not having universal health care has not been shown to be more efficient than universal care.

Far from it, in fact.

http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011 ... alth-care/
Cubans live 2 months longer than Americans. Or, if you want to be picky, it’s a wash, and Cubans and Americans live about as long as each other.

Cuba’s rates of maternal mortality (a very important figure), infant mortality and child mortality rates are above that of the 3rd World and are at about the level of the 1st World. In that sense, Cuba is a 1st world country.

What is incredible is this:

Cuba spends 4 cents on health care to every one of our dollars. Yes, Cuba gets better outcomes for 96% less cost. Does that make any sense at all?


http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/4/817.full
Image


However, bringing this back OT - it is in the US where there is greater use of, and in some states, levels of mandatory requirements for cyclists using helmets. Meantime in Cuba no-one much wears helmets, the use of bicycles would be of value in their strategy of preventative medicine.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19678
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

by BNA » Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:25 pm

BNA
 

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby simonn » Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:25 pm

il padrone, read my (albeit rushed and poorly written) statement again :).
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3703
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:33 pm

Yeah, not an opposite view. I am agreeing with you there.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19678
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:22 pm

wizdofaus wrote:...there's plenty of other things that there's a much greater justification for mandating than the universal wearing of helmets on bicycles.

The rest of the debate must be put on hold until these other things can be reconciled. It is a LIE that cyclists are not discriminated against if we are expected to hat up while alcohol is not banned. :idea: I am not in favour of booze bans, but booze has an ENORMOUSLY higher social cost. If you want to defend the hat, defend the booze first. Defend the cirrhosis, the child abuse, the road deaths, the addiction and the wasted lives, and then I can agree that the MHL is in my best interests.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 6829
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Thu Mar 07, 2013 6:51 pm

Xplora wrote:
wizdofaus wrote:...there's plenty of other things that there's a much greater justification for mandating than the universal wearing of helmets on bicycles.

The rest of the debate must be put on hold until these other things can be reconciled. It is a LIE that cyclists are not discriminated against if we are expected to hat up while alcohol is not banned. :idea: I am not in favour of booze bans, but booze has an ENORMOUSLY higher social cost. If you want to defend the hat, defend the booze first. Defend the cirrhosis, the child abuse, the road deaths, the addiction and the wasted lives, and then I can agree that the MHL is in my best interests.

This is not an argument for MHL repeal. It wasn't the last time it was brought up. It won't be the next time. Sigh.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1344
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:40 pm

high_tea wrote:
Xplora wrote:
wizdofaus wrote:...there's plenty of other things that there's a much greater justification for mandating than the universal wearing of helmets on bicycles.

The rest of the debate must be put on hold until these other things can be reconciled. It is a LIE that cyclists are not discriminated against if we are expected to hat up while alcohol is not banned. :idea: I am not in favour of booze bans, but booze has an ENORMOUSLY higher social cost. If you want to defend the hat, defend the booze first. Defend the cirrhosis, the child abuse, the road deaths, the addiction and the wasted lives, and then I can agree that the MHL is in my best interests.

This is not an argument for MHL repeal. It wasn't the last time it was brought up. It won't be the next time. Sigh.

The problem is that there is no argument for ANY repeal of ANYTHING when parallels will not be considered. It is sheer hypocrisy to say that helmet use is for the helmet wearer's own good, while other things like smoking which are guaranteed to hurt - yourself and those around you - are simply left alone. Why should I be denied the freedom to wear a helmet or not, while I am NOT given the freedom to be free from cancer causing smoke? I can't actually avoid that. It is forced on me. I have bad drivers forced on me as well. The penalty for doorings and even running down a cyclist to their death is not commensurate with the offence they cause the community.

When the penalty for hospitalising a cyclist is just as bad as a cyclist deciding to not wear a helmet (will or without an accident), you have to step back and realise that this is clear discrimination in action.

Mulger Bill's Law must be invoked... someone think of the children! There are vulnerable people out there, and factors that oppress them aren't sufficiently controlled, while a benign activity like cycling sans helmet requires police enforcement???? :roll:
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 6829
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby simonn » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:31 pm

Xplora wrote:while other things like smoking which are guaranteed to hurt - yourself and those around you - are simply left alone.


Is that "left alone" as in highly regulated (as is alcohol)?
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3703
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:45 pm

Xplora wrote:
high_tea wrote:This is not an argument for MHL repeal. It wasn't the last time it was brought up. It won't be the next time. Sigh.

The problem is that there is no argument for ANY repeal of ANYTHING when parallels will not be considered. It is sheer hypocrisy to say that helmet use is for the helmet wearer's own good, while other things like smoking which are guaranteed to hurt - yourself and those around you - are simply left alone. Why should I be denied the freedom to wear a helmet or not, while I am NOT given the freedom to be free from cancer causing smoke? I can't actually avoid that. It is forced on me. I have bad drivers forced on me as well. The penalty for doorings and even running down a cyclist to their death is not commensurate with the offence they cause the community.

When the penalty for hospitalising a cyclist is just as bad as a cyclist deciding to not wear a helmet (will or without an accident), you have to step back and realise that this is clear discrimination in action.

Mulger Bill's Law must be invoked... someone think of the children! There are vulnerable people out there, and factors that oppress them aren't sufficiently controlled, while a benign activity like cycling sans helmet requires police enforcement???? :roll:


Insofar as this kind of inconsistency is a compelling objection (that's a pretty big "insofar", BTW), the obvious solution is to enact whatever other laws you have in mind. The trend, rugged-individualist-anarcho-libertarian-Randian ramblings notwithstanding, is towards more regulation, not less. Rant about the nanny state all you want, but this argument is not only specious, it leads to an outcome that is not, I gather, consonant with your views on regulation. It's no more valid than the outcome you're trying to argue for, but it's no less valid either. Hence my view that this is not a compelling argument for, well, anything.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1344
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Kenzo » Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:51 pm

simonn wrote:
Xplora wrote:while other things like smoking which are guaranteed to hurt - yourself and those around you - are simply left alone.


Is that "left alone" as in highly regulated (as is alcohol)?

As is the AUST Standard for Helmets and the testing...
User avatar
Kenzo
 
Posts: 1680
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:13 am
Location: Daisy Hill / Brisbane, Southside FTW

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Ross » Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:34 am

Xplora wrote:I truly can accept the argument that the helmet is acceptably mandatory if we are ready to ban booze, smoking, sunbaking, unhealthy foods, sex outside of wedlock and dancing (because sex has been known to lead to dancing).

The MHL is completely at odds with a laisse faire culture. "for your own good" needs to apply to a lot of other things before it applies to cycling. Ban cars if you want to stop people hurting themselves - they are responsible for a lot more societal costs than riding ever has.


Sex is a moral isssue, not a health one, so isn't relevant. I'm sure you were just being facetious about dancing.
Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 4101
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:37 am

Ross wrote:
Xplora wrote:I truly can accept the argument that the helmet is acceptably mandatory if we are ready to ban booze, smoking, sunbaking, unhealthy foods, sex outside of wedlock and dancing (because sex has been known to lead to dancing).

The MHL is completely at odds with a laisse faire culture. "for your own good" needs to apply to a lot of other things before it applies to cycling. Ban cars if you want to stop people hurting themselves - they are responsible for a lot more societal costs than riding ever has.


Sex is a moral isssue, not a health one, so isn't relevant. I'm sure you were just being facetious about dancing.

DANCING MUST BE BANNED! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sex outside wedlock is actually a social issue - and I hope this is the key to understanding my approach. Our approach to these issues (of differing importance) must be practical, and it must be equitable from a social aspect. Morality is part of the fabric, I agree. All those things lead to Mulger Bill's Law. Someone think of the children - because apparently the social cost of increasing cyclist injury rates and reducing cycling participation by the MHL is acceptable to those who do not favour the abolition of MHL.

I definitely accept that jules for example doesn't want it abolished, despite not being positive about it, and many like ross or hightea aren't falling over themselves to have it repealed. That's the line in the sand from my perspective. That said...

Booze problems = social problems. Sex outside of wedlock leads to single parents and the inevitable collapse of future opportunities for those single parents. As a group, they are one of the true "losers" in society. Very little is out there to help them out, and it is getting harder. Sex outside wedlock is part of that fabric. The point being - ban booze, ban sex out of wedlock,and you create a net improvement in society IN THE HUMBLE OPINION OF XPLORA. Damn the rights of people to drink and sex up the people they want to, right? It's for their own good, right? They are only hurting themselves in the long run, despite using condoms and being sensible in their drinking, right? Society sees no practical worth in preventing sex outside wedlock or prohibition of alcohol because it can't control everyone and everything - because regulation is quite lax in these areas.

I cannot put the argument more succinctly than this. The helmet law stands out as an aberration in a set of laws. If regulation of the roads was so effective, why the hundreds of road deaths each year? Why do cyclists still die? Why has there been no direct correlation with helmet laws and reduced cyclist deaths compared to other transport modes? We aren't leading the way on MHL because it is the next women's suffrage, but rather a foolish assumption that forcing protection on an unwilling populace doesn't work... condoms are a lot cheaper than child rearing, and yet... :shock: :shock: :shock: Why force a helmet on an unwilling group of potential riders, who would functionally reduce injury rates by riding more often? Educate and implore, but don't force regulation that creates no appreciable benefit. The helmet is NOT as effective as a seatbelt over a population of road users. Apples must be compared to apples :idea: I've compared apples to other varieties of apples simply to show that our values must be consistent otherwise they are discriminatory. Can you imagine a helmet law specific to Asian drivers? Of course not. Yet riders face this same discrimination, which is both impractical and unreasonable and ineffective at achieving the goal of safer riders. :shock:
Last edited by Xplora on Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 6829
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Kenzo » Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:42 am

IMO ... the sex out of wedlock was better... lol
User avatar
Kenzo
 
Posts: 1680
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:13 am
Location: Daisy Hill / Brisbane, Southside FTW

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby TailWind » Fri Mar 08, 2013 1:11 pm

^^^ What is this "sex" thing you speak of? Does it involve bikes, or possibly helmets? :mrgreen: :wink:
Soma Double Cross 2012 - Commuter || Giant CitySpeed (Alfine 8 IGH) - Commuter || Bakfiets Long 2011 - Cargo Bike
User avatar
TailWind
 
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:02 pm
Location: Munich, Germany

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:03 pm

TailWind wrote:^^^ What is this "sex" thing you speak of? Does it involve bikes, or possibly helmets? :mrgreen: :wink:

If your coitus risk assessment requires a helmet, you need to strongly reconsider what you are getting yourself into :idea:
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 6829
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby yugyug » Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:23 pm

I was stopped again today by a policeman for not wearing a helmet, the second time in several months. Both times a motorcycle cop. Both came on strong, demanding I dismount and walk the bike, until I informed them that I did not believe in the efficacy of helmets nor respect MHL and was willing to fight a fine in court. We argued some more until I just said I was unwilling to wear a helmet and left, walking my bike for a few metres then mounting and riding off. He went round the block, saw me again, beeped his siren and I shrugged and kept riding.

I'm assuming that my cavalier attitude, possibly due to interpretation as disrespect, will eventual get me a fine even if most police seem to be unwilling to fine. Based on what is written by CRAG http://crag.asn.au/?p=616 (I'm in NSW) and from various precedents (Sue Abbot and others) I could have a reasonable defence in court based on efficacy and civil liberties, but I really more interested in the social impact (barrier to entry) that MHLs produce. So my question is this: if I fought a fine and won, would my win help at all to turn the tide against MHL or would it be just another drop in the ocean with no discernable effect other than taking up my time and avoiding payment?

That CRAG page I mentioned and its links slightly suggests there is a net benefit, at least in terms of changing the mindset of judges or magistrates, but surely this is a political issue - how then would judical changes effect political will?

I'm new here so I apologise if this has already been covered, but I really can't read all 200+ pages off this thread! Happy to read whatever you can point me to though :) and thanks to anyone who can advise.
User avatar
yugyug
 
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:27 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Fri Mar 08, 2013 9:48 pm

Individual, and mass group, protest actions as a direct refusal to comply with a law were what contributed a great deal to the pressure to end the Bjelke Peterson ban on street marches.

On the same day in 1978, Bundaberg dentist Henry Akers subjected the government policy to utter ridicule when he applied for a police permit to march down a No Through Road at 2.45am with his dog, Jaffa. He informed the police that he would be carrying a protest placard and that the march would be peaceful. The placard read:

“The majority is not omnipotent. The majority can be wrong and is capable of tyranny.”

The applications were refused. Undeterred, Henry Akers and his dog undertook an illegal march down a quiet street in the early hours of April Fools’ Day, watched by a carload of detectives. However, the detectives did not arrest him (or his dog).


Image

:lol: :P :mrgreen:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19678
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:05 pm

yugyug wrote:I was stopped again today by a policeman for not wearing a helmet, the second time in several months. Both times a motorcycle cop. Both came on strong, demanding I dismount and walk the bike, until I informed them that I did not believe in the efficacy of helmets nor respect MHL and was willing to fight a fine in court. We argued some more until I just said I was unwilling to wear a helmet and left, walking my bike for a few metres then mounting and riding off. He went round the block, saw me again, beeped his siren and I shrugged and kept riding.

I'm assuming that my cavalier attitude, possibly due to interpretation as disrespect, will eventual get me a fine even if most police seem to be unwilling to fine. Based on what is written by CRAG [url]<a class="vglnk" title="Link added by VigLink" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://crag.asn.au/?p=616[/url"><span>http</span><span>://</span><span>crag</span><span>.</span><span>asn</span><span>.</span><span>au</span><span>/?</span><span>p</span><span>=</span><span>616</span><span>[/</span><span>url</span></a>] (I'm in NSW) and from various precedents (Sue Abbot and others) I could have a reasonable defence in court based on efficacy and civil liberties, but I really more interested in the social impact (barrier to entry) that MHLs produce. So my question is this: if I fought a fine and won, would my win help at all to turn the tide against MHL or would it be just another drop in the ocean with no discernable effect other than taking up my time and avoiding payment?

That CRAG page I mentioned and its links slightly suggests there is a net benefit, at least in terms of changing the mindset of judges or magistrates, but surely this is a political issue - how then would judical changes effect political will?

I'm new here so I apologise if this has already been covered, but I really can't read all 200+ pages off this thread! Happy to read whatever you can point me to though :) and thanks to anyone who can advise.


OK. For starters, not a lawyer, not proffering legal advice and you're best off assuming I'm a fool and a liar. Now we've got that out of the way:

As I understand the Sue Abbott situation, she didn't get a defence of necessity up. Her appeal to the District Court was actually dismissed. She did, however, succeed in getting absolutely discharged, which is to say that the offence was proved and the appropriate penalty in the circumstances was no penalty at all. I don't believe, happy to be corrected, that her cases form any kind of binding precedent. One was decided at the Magistrates' Court level, which has zero value as a precedent and one went on appeal to the District Court (excuse me if I have the terminology wrong, I'm from Queensland) where she got absolutely discharged. I do not imagine you'd have much luck arguing this decision is somehow binding - seems to me it would turn on its particular facts.

In terms of whether it's worth the trouble, I don't know. Judging from Ms Abbott's issues, doing it to avoid the fine sounds hopelessly misguided. You could end up with a conviction recorded and you could end up on the hook for considerably more money. So it's not without risk. Another thing to bear in mind is that Sue Abbott has a law degree and is, I believe, admitted as a solicitor. As I understand it, she represented herself. So she's quite legally knowledgable and has the luxury of being able to conduct her case with (I would imagine) a fair bit of legal acumen, without having to spend any money.

The other point I'd make is that this isn't a case of an organised anti-MHL movement putting a test case on (like GetUp! or Plessy v Fergusson or something). This is just a private citizen deciding to fight what they believe is an unjust law. It got a bit of publicity, but for Sue Abbott's view that MHLs are a bad thing rather than for the anti-MHL movement as such.

I make no comment on whether you should do it or not. It's your money, your good name and your criminal record that's at stake. It's not right that I should proffer any kind of opinion on what you should do. All the best with your decision.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1344
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:10 pm

high_tea wrote:your criminal record that's at stake.

:lol:

I think you'll find that there is a difference between a minor traffic offence and a criminal record.
human909
 
Posts: 5451
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Fri Mar 08, 2013 11:44 pm

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:your criminal record that's at stake.

:lol:

I think you'll find that there is a difference between a minor traffic offence and a criminal record.


Yup. One's a minor traffic offence and one's a criminal record, which may or may not include convictions for, among other things, minor traffic offences if someone is rash enough to court-elect and then lose. What's your point?

If you are claiming that one cannot be convicted for such an offence, kindly cite statute or case law. I suppose it could be the case in NSW (although that's not the way I'd bet). I am certain this is not the case in Queensland. To the OP: if you are seriously considering this course of action, you should be clear on the legal implications. On no account should you take my word for it. Nor, I suggest, should you take the word of any other Internet random who may weigh in.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1344
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby yugyug » Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:20 am

thanks for the comments. Totally understand your points about not being a lawyer, obviously neither am I, but lets not let that get in the way of some free-wheeling speculation :roll:

My first thought: if only direct action against MHL could be as satirical as direct action against Bjelke's anti-protest law! But its a lot trickier isn't it? Or is it? How could one protest MHL in a way that is fun and media friendly? Sue Abbot and her wild hair and dutch style bike comes close, but also prompts incorrect assumptions about her reasons for not wearing a helmet...

High Tea I think your reading of the Abbot case and the other one in the magistrates court is correct in that I couldn't use them as precedents and would have to argue a case from scratch. I guess I'm interested - how many times does this have to happen before something changes?

It is extremely troubling to me if its true that a minor traffic offence can be recorded as a criminal conviction if it is fought in court?? Surely, if true, this presents a disproportionate punishment and an unethical barrier against a citizens right to challenge minor police charges?

I might actually trouble myself to get some proper legal advice on this. Not that I want to pay for it, at least, until I really am fined and only then if I decide to fight it. But then I guess this relates to your point about advocacy. There does seem to be an organized anti-MHL movement judging by the CRAG site and also http://helmetfreedom.org/ so I am curious about how involved those organisations or others are in getting involved helping someone actually challenge a fine.
User avatar
yugyug
 
Posts: 1118
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:27 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby London Boy » Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:01 pm

yugyug wrote:thanks for the comments. Totally understand your points about not being a lawyer, obviously neither am I, but lets not let that get in the way of some free-wheeling speculation :roll:


This is not legal advice etc. Don't trust my word, I'm just some internet random.

yugyug wrote:High Tea I think your reading of the Abbot case and the other one in the magistrates court is correct in that I couldn't use them as precedents and would have to argue a case from scratch.


Even a judgement in a magistrates' court could be argued in another court, it just wouldn't be binding. It comes down to how persuasive the argument is. You could still invite the court to consider it.

A district court judgement is binding on a magistrate on the same facts in the same jurisdiction, but Ms Abbott's case appears to be one which is easily distinguished.

yugyug wrote:It is extremely troubling to me if its true that a minor traffic offence can be recorded as a criminal conviction if it is fought in court?? Surely, if true, this presents a disproportionate punishment and an unethical barrier against a citizens right to challenge minor police charges?


The court has discretion to record a conviction or not, taking relevant factors into account, e.g seriousness of the offence, any existing record, etc. In some cases, (e.g. in Qld if making an Intensive Correction Order) a court must record a conviction.

yugyug wrote:I might actually trouble myself to get some proper legal advice on this.


Probably wise.
User avatar
London Boy
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:43 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby DentedHead » Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:48 pm

Ross wrote:http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/02/27/will-a-bicycle-helmet-help-save-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.
DentedHead
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:23 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:22 pm

DentedHead wrote:
Ross wrote:http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/02/27/will-a-bicycle-helmet-help-save-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.
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 6829
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:24 pm

DentedHead wrote:
Ross wrote:<a class="vglnk" title="Link added by VigLink" target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist/2013/02/27/will-a-bicycle-helmet-help-save-your-head/[/quote"><span>http</span><span>://</span><span>blogs</span><span>.</span><span>crikey</span><span>.</span><span>com</span><span>.</span><span>au</span><span>/</span><span>theurbanist</span><span>/</span><span>2013</span><span>/</span><span>02</span><span>/</span><span>27</span><span>/</span><span>will</span><span>-</span><span>a</span><span>-</span><span>bicycle</span><span>-</span><span>helmet</span><span>-</span><span>help</span><span>-</span><span>save</span><span>-</span><span>your</span><span>-</span><span>head</span><span>/[/</span><span>quote</span></a>]

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.

Which graph are you referring to? The one at the top of the Crikey article is captioned as follows:

Proportions of hospitalised cyclists (n = 1859) that sustained at least one injury to particular body regions following a collision with a motor vehicle, NSW 2001–2009; a) all injuries and b) serious injuries (SRR ≤ 0.965). From Bambach et al.

(emphasis added)

I don't understand it to be any kind of helmeted/unhelmeted comparison.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1344
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby DentedHead » Sun Mar 10, 2013 8:44 pm

I assumed the leftmost graph was helmeted riders, while the right was un-helmeted. My point was that the graphs were used in support of helmets, but actually provided no useful information.

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


Dent.
DentedHead
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 9:23 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter
“Bicycles BNA on Strava

> FREE BNA Stickers