Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy
Study failure lol
1. Cyclists should reasonably assume that they will be more protected by a helmet than a motorcyclist because they cannot propel themselves to the same speeds as a motorbike rider. A moto is likely to hurt arms and collarbones etc more than the head because they are going faster. This is not a reasonable argument to build on cycle helmets on, because it fails to acknowledge the reasonableness of acquiring a head injury on a bike. Speed, collision details and intoxication were not controlled for. That's a HUGE amount of variation. We have to acknowledge that cyclists aren't going to break as many collarbones or necks because the lower speed will mean more head impacts as a percentage of overall trauma - because there are less leg/arm/torso injuries to balance that out.
2. We have no comparison data for pedestrians or car users. Perhaps cyclists were similarly expensive to peds? Anyone can run SPSS on a dataset. It's REALLY easy to find significant results if you are obtuse enough.
3. This is a very thin correlational study comparing moto helmet use to cyclist helmet use. It has no bearing on an MHL argument (the opening paragraph FOCUSSED ON THIS) because there is nothing conclusive to draw. I can equally demonstrate that fat people should be banned, because they are clearly more expensive than thin people in a hospital context. It's a pointless exercise. Accidents are inevitable across a population. How likely they are, how reasonable is it that they bear responsibility for those accidents, do most people feel that the accident is likely if they personally perform the activity, these are the key questions.
I would have gotten a serious knock to the head as a branch fell on me during the bunch ride on Saturday. Is this a reasonable injury to account for? The helmet law is about hysteria. Not reasonable expectations. If you worry about cyclists, clamp down on four wheeled death machines.
Nobody here is disputing the benefits of infrastructure simonn I don't know why you are rabbiting on about it.
How are you addressing this? Are you saying that reducing the number of cyclists doesn't make things less safe?
Again. Shifting the goal posts. This is quite hillarious! Lets go back to what I said.
So now you are agreeing with me?
Bike helmets: an emergency doctor’s perspective
http://theconversation.com/bike-helmets ... tive-13935
What do emergency doctors know about the likelihood of cycling accidents? You could write the same article about ladder accidents. Not many people here are arguing that helmets don't offer some degree of protection for people's heads.
If we want to encourage a higher percentage of high speed enthusiast cycling the MHLs are a great way to go about it. If we want to encourage everyone to cycle then MHLs are NOT the way to go.
I'm glad you quantified that with your second part. Indeed, what do emergency doctors know about the likelihood of any accident, in that case. They don't. They know about the results of said accident. Bike, ladder, sharp knife, alcohol, the list goes on.
Personal opinion: having to wear a helmet is an excuse for people to not ride, not a reason. You want to ride, you'll find a lid without too much trouble. You don't want to ride, find an excuse.
This made me smile.
That is not a personal opinion. The effect MHLs had of cycling at the time of introduction is well documented. The facts don't change -whatever your personal and distasteful view of people who don't cycle due to the laws.
You enjoy being selfish? Or are you making some suggesting that allowing choice is selfish?
Yes... "facts". All "well documented".
I ride, therefore I am.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
Aye? How has he shown a "distasteful" view here? Because he tells the truth? I don't know a single person who views the need to wear a helmet when cycling as a reason not to. What's more...I haven't seen any evidence at all.....none....that can prove an overall downturn in cycling due to the introduction in MHL's. None, and I've spent days trawling through this thread and it's links and so on. Sure...a lot of statistical "evidence" which can be manipulated to prove whatever you want it to (ask any statistician how fluid "statistics" can be).
Like it or not, when you ride a cycle in this country you have to wear a helmet. Like it or not the last 20 years have seen the vast majority of people accept them for what they are...a safety device. I cannot believe that so many people here can be so passionate about their lifestyle yet be so myopic about what they percieve as an imposition. Who here realy believes that the way to promote cycling is to show up at the local primary school and tell parents that their 7 year old is better off without a helmet? Fair dinkum...that'd go down well aye? Do you reckon those parents would think they are being addressed by a responsible, intelligent representative of the cycle industry? Or by a selfish so and so who's only agenda is personal?
Perception is where it's at.
Edit.....i gotta bow out of this discussion here. While I strongly believe in personal choice (yes you should be able to choose to wear a helmet) I also believe in personal accountability, and standing on your own two feet. That means making your arguments based on you and your situation. Not trying to use statistics and other people's situations to bolster your argument. Who cares about the rest of the country and whether they'd ride or not? What's it to you? Why use me as a number to support your agenda? etc etc etc. Believe it or not...if a person is going to continue riding after they reach 18 and get a license they will. Helmet laws or not Until then they're just another number in somebody else's statistics, being used and abused without their knowledge or consent.
Oh yeah...I had no issue with making my sons wear helmets when riding as young fellas. Same goes with skateboards, roller blades and motorcycles. Call me stupid, but I felt better for it
Last edited by The zob on Tue May 07, 2013 5:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!!!!! LOL
Ah, but it is a purely a personal opinion, being formed on no basis of scientific or empirical evidence or fact. I don't believe my words mark people who don't ride for helmet reasons as distasteful.
Nope, I smile because of the way MHL's are touted as some sort of bicycling anathema almost across the board. The 17% (article linked earlier, will need to trawl and cross reference) of people say "I'd ride if I didn't have to wear a helmet". When push comes to shove, that may be the 17% of people who say "I'd ride if I had a bike path to work", or "I'd ride if I didn't have to pedal".
I don't, however, believe MHL's are being forced by people who enjoy their helmets so much they can't go without them. They appear to be put forth more by people who are usually involved in the repair and care of persons injured without them. Would you agree with this statement of personal observation (again, based on no empirical evidence)?
If/when the law is repealed: thousands will throw their helmets in the air with joy, allowing them to clatter and explode on the ground. I will still wear my helmet even if not mandatory. Personal choice.
Play the ball.
Great. And I agree with you. But that wasn't what was being said.
I did too The zob. I found the anti MHL here to be fanatical to the point of irrational. And try to have your own opinion or choice contrary to their own and you're selfish or stupid. Flame suit on.
That wasn't in relation to what was being said. Just a statement.
All that trawling and link hammering and THIS is what you believe the pro choice people are saying in this thread?
Wow, just wow.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
It's definitely best not to get involved in the discussion here. However there is some entertainment to be had in posting the results of the latest research and watching the logical contortions that result. I've read about cognitive dissonance, and so it is interesting to see it in action. I'm sure I do it myself too, but it is so much harder to recognise it in your own thinking.
After getting back into cycling, I spent some time rethinking helmet laws after reading the arguments here and elsewhere. What I found was that the anti-MHL case is seriously weakened by the tendency for the issue to attract total nutballs as advocates.
To be clear, I don't mean anyone here, or anyone who reconsiders the wisdom of MHLs.
I'm talking about the CRAG guy - it's just one guy - who is likes to cite "the latest scientific research" only to link to a pdf that he wrote himself. Yes, really. His entire site is full of anti-scientific muddle-headed thinking, with an intense skepticism of the mildest prospective benefits of helmets only matched by a boundless credulity for the most far-fetched helmet dangers.
Would you be surprised to learn that the reason we have helmet laws is that it's a hugely profitable conspiracy perpetrated by the helmet lobby?
On the respectable academic side there was research published by UNSW academic -and anti-MHL campaigner - Dr Chris Rissel that showed that helmet laws caused cyclist injuries. Until the paper was formally retracted for egregious data errors - cherry picking the stats to make them say what he wanted. Formal retraction of a research paper is no minor issue for an academic. It's a career-sinker.
I'm not sure what it is about the topic that makes the crackpots and nutballs flock to it like seagulls to a picnic. Sure, there are responsible, respectable anti-MHL advocates as well - but man, they have a heavy burden to carry with these guys on their side.
I do - and for completely selfish reasons. What I really want to see is a reduction in motor car usage and one important way is through substitution or car journeys with bicycles. This would enhance my safety as a cyclist and as a pedestrian and that of my family. It would also improve my quality of life and that of my family e.g. through less pollution, better use of state resources. It also improves that chances for my children to have the same quality of life I've enjoyed so far.
ANY measure that can get more people riding is a good thing in my mind. YMMV
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
Well, I'm pretty stupid
What I believe is that the pro choicers don't want to wear helmets. Simple.
That statement I made is a reference to what I see as the hopelessness of portraying that choice/need/desire as anything other than that. A simple, single dimensional desire to do what they (pro-choicers) want. No skin of my nose (geddit? Huh? ) either way. Like I said....I'm pro choice You want to take the chance that the helmet's not gonna help, go nuts I'd really rather that my household total of 4 cylists weren't used as a statistic to support either side is all.
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!!!!! LOL
Kinda funny how anti-MHL'ers are subjected to classic outgroup behaviour within the cycling community.
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
Your belief is contrary to most of the evidence presented. I am a pro choicer and I am a strong advocate of the benefits that helmets bring. I CHOOSE to wear my helmet in many sports where there are no mandatory helmets.
What amazes me is how simply naive so many Australian cyclists are regarding cycling in the rest of the world. In the places where cycling is most common place, helmets are rarely seen.
Last edited by human909 on Tue May 07, 2013 9:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What's that mean? Outgroup behaviour?
Like I said...I'm pretty stupid
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!!!!! LOL
What sports? I thought we were talking about cycling? Sorry.....I'm confused now. Do you or do you not want to wear a helmet on a bike?
OK....Ken's reply about his family and local area I can see. But who cares about the rest of the world? How is it that I'm not up to scratch if I don't know about "the rest of the world". Are you ashamed of the rest of us or what?
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!!!!! LOL
Ostracized. Treated like second class citizens. Not given the same rights and respect. Hmmmm, the existence of the "One & ONLY Helmet Thread" says it all.
Yeah? See my last post
Nah...I'm just jokin about. You boys take this way to seriously in my opinion. That's one of the reasons I have to stay out of threads like this Come down to Elizabeth St when we start, say G'day. I'm a freindly sorta dude. I'll even let ya ride down my incomplete Bicycle Segregation Lane That's Copenhagen treatment for heathens like me
I AM NOT AN ANIMAL!!!!!!! LOL
Sorry to confuse you but I can't talk about having the choice in cycling. Something about mandatory laws and all that.
It isn't a question with a binary answer. If given the choice I would sometimes choose not to wear a helmet. But the fight isn't about getting ME cycling it is getting OTHER people cycling.
Because for best cycling practices one should not look for Australia as guidance. We are abysmal in cycling participation and safety.
Zob, perception is where it's at and that's the problem. Because we have laws which claim that cycling is so dangerous that we have to enact legislation to force us to wear a helmet, going to a bunch of kids and their parents and saying their kids should ride bikes with or without a helmet goes down very badly. The helmet laws create the impression that cycling is a very dangerous activity. This is an inaccurate impression. Cycling is quite safe, certainly no more dangerous than many other activities which do not require a helmet. If this was really about comparing the relative safety of various activities, given over 50% of head injuries are suffered by occupants of cars, then car helmets would also be compulsory. It's not just the inconvenience of helmets which has an impact on cycling, it is the image of cycling as an activity which is so dangerous that you need head protection which impacts upon cycling numbers. Would you want your kids undertaking an activity which is so dangerous they are legally required to wear a helmet?
You are at least partially right about some anti-MHL advocates who want the law removed because we don't want to wear a lump of foam on our heads. I'd count myself amongst those who don't want to wear a helmet. I consider cycling to be a safe activity (yes, I do cycle on main roads, I commute) and I do not consider a helmet to be necessary in most situations. I certainly consider that I should be able to make this choice for myself as I am able to do in just about any other activity. Why am I denied the choice not to wear a helmet? Cycling just isn't dangerous enough to justify this law, but this law certainly fuels the myth that cycling is very very dangerous, and all those who support this law are supporting the view that cycling is a particularly dangerous activity.
Furthermore, if it is so dangerous and we need to mandate head protection, why aren't those supporting this law calling for it to be strengthened and making soft shell helmets illegal, surely hard shell helmets offer better protection. Or is it just that you lot don't want to wear a bulkier hard shell helmet?
Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: dekay23