Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

fat and old
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby fat and old » Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:55 am

human909 wrote:
Give people the choice and they choose:
Image


Be reasonable H. The estimation here was around a hundred cyclists attended that.

Good turnout, about 100 people riding along safely


Call it 150 if you want.

According to the census 2011 around 1.5% of work commutes were by cycle. That's apparently 28,606 cyclists. The turnout was app. 0.05% of that figure. Less if you want to count all cyclists. Everyone of those cyclists have the choice to join in and "choose".

0.05% did.

Unless I stuffed the maths :lol:

References for those that care:

https://blogs.crikey.com.au/theurbanist ... -the-rise/
https://chartingtransport.com/2014/01/2 ... g-to-work/

There was another ride this morning organised by Freestyle Cyclists. How many fronted?

I noticed another funny thing. We've been told that relaxation of MHL's in the Terriritory has seen an upswing in cyclists in Darwin in particular. I look foward to some figures on that, as according to the above Darwin didn't even rate. Alice Springs had the greatest amount of commutes by cyle in the Territory. I assume the laws were changed post 2011?

User avatar
baabaa
Posts: 636
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:47 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby baabaa » Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:05 am

And yet when I look at a picture of my great uncle Jack who died in Northern France 99 years ago, I can see quite a lot of him, in my daughter who is almost 100 years to the day younger. Same sort of facial features and pretty sure not a lot of change in the two with scull bone and teeth density and brain structures. Even better the ears, eyes and nose are all in more or less the same spot.
Then, when I look at my 30 odd years old bell biker (cost a few 100$) and an el cheapo aldi helmet (cost a few 10$) side by side I see very little similarity of the two other than nylon webbing.

Things change and I think those few surgeons would have no issues in the call they made with the data and facts they had on hand. In hindsight that Aust has been so slow and tardy in putting down bike infrastructure supports this. I also won’t use the bell biker anymore but would feel ok in the aldi which I have enough confidence in that we have it for guests if they wish to borrow a bike and go for a ride.
Really best to take in the whole population of people who bike and not just the narrow minded pro and anti sides, and then the don’ts, wonts and never will bike. Just the same as plain paper cigarette packs and random drink driving checks, pretty sure the across the total population of Aust would think the same. Helmets have evolved so much that they are now a vastly different thing, the human brain and scull combo will take 1000s of years to change that much. I guess Aust will have a some decent bike infrastructure by then.
And again I note once more, a few pages on and this discussion is still all about how others are to blame and those who are doing the blaming are doing absolutely nothing anything about it.

User avatar
DavidS
Posts: 2226
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby DavidS » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:11 pm

bychosis wrote:
DavidS wrote:
human909 wrote:
So why not helmets for pedestrians? Why not drivers? Much greater number of people are dying in cars than on bikes....


Yep, and this is one of the main points, why are cyclists singled out?

I personally wear gloves all the time on the bike, they are the only thing which has saved me from injury. The helmet only saves me from fines. Despite the fact I think gloves are a great idea on a bike and always wear them, I have no desire to fine people who choose not to wear them.

DS

A significant difference with gloves is that in the event of a catastrophic hand injury you can largely still function as before, losing a hand will affect your quality of life, but would not require significant assistance from others, unlike a brain injury. 'The greater good' does not require that we prevent hand injuries in the same way we should prevent brain injuries. Look at what they are doing with concussions and electrocutions now in terms of medical assessment and intervention after an incident.


The greater good seems to single out cyclists despite the fact that more people die by drowning and more people suffer from head injuries as occupants of motor vehicles than cyclists. We don't mandate life jackets for swimming, we take the risk that some will drown because we value the freedom of being able to swim without mandating safety equipment. Despite the fact that more people suffer head injuries in motor vehicles we don't mandate helmets because it is seen as ridiculous.

I'll ask my question again: why are cyclists singled out, why is it only cyclists who must wear a helmet?

DS
Image

Cannondale Quick Speed 2, Allegro T1

human909
Posts: 8057
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby human909 » Sun Jun 18, 2017 8:19 pm

fat and old wrote:Be reasonable H.
<snip>

I was. The content of your post however is not. A spurious and irrelevant exercise in stats that results in a nonsensical conclusion.

BJL
Posts: 414
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 6:45 pm

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby BJL » Sun Jun 18, 2017 9:02 pm

DavidS wrote:I'll ask my question again: why are cyclists singled out, why is it only cyclists who must wear a helmet?

DS


It's simple. In Australia we have a predominantly motoring culture. Driven by lazy politicians who would much rather spend the Australian winter overseas and capitulate to the majority to win votes rather than uphold decent morals and ethics. Driven by a severe lack of public transport and grossly overspending on road infrastructure designed to serve motorists and motorists only.

In general, cyclists are considered a pain in the ass on the roads. Safety measures like helmets aren't introduced for the safety of cyclists, they're introduced to deter cycling. I'll be very cynical here and claim that the 'legal' system where many police are prejudiced in their duty and judges even more so contribute to this and actively discourage cycling as being 'dangerous' by their lack of law enforcement and punishment. Do I need to mention certain media outlets and an unnamed federal senator who has publicly stated that cyclists should be 'exterminated'? Now say that about the Jewish and see what happens but it's okay to treat cyclists this way.

They don't want to improve safety for cyclists. Indeed, they'd prefer the opposite. Cycling to be seen as dangerous. Look at the ID proposal in NSW. Why not for pedestrians, any persons in motor vehicles or anyone in a public place for that matter? The reasons given are full of holes.

They want to make cycling inaccessible for the general public. There's your reason.

fat and old
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby fat and old » Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:09 am

human909 wrote:
fat and old wrote:Be reasonable H.
<snip>

I was. The content of your post however is not. A spurious and irrelevant exercise in stats that results in a nonsensical conclusion.


Spurious? Fake news? :lol: I think not. Fact is that in spite of what I think, and what the majority thinks (yes, I reckon that the majority in Australia would be pro-choice), only a very small minority cares enough to make a statement that involves more than typing an opinion on a computer. People just have better things to do. Irrelevant? This is the MHL thread isn't it? An observation on how many people an anti-MHL event attracts isn't irrelevant. It's extremely relevant.

If the law is to be changed then a good start would be to have greater numbers. A respected or effective mouthpiece. A seat at the table. Even then, you have to convince the motoring lobby that removing one of their insurances is a good idea. See, the doctors aren't the problem. You may/should get around that on a health tangent. How are you going to convince the motorists riding alongside them without a helmet is safe? By riding along paths and back streets?

User avatar
DaveQB
Posts: 491
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:23 pm
Location: Campbelltown, NSW
Contact:

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby DaveQB » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:55 am

g-boaf wrote:
DaveQB wrote:Since my recent, first, crash, I am have been researching for a new helmet


Have a look at the POC Octal, it's quite a good one. Great ventilation, comfortable fit - you hardly notice it. Saw one from a 50km/h accident (in a race, on a descent) and it seemed to do the job quite well. And please people, don't launch into an attack on the skills of the rider... I shouldn't have to say that, but I just know one of you will... :roll:

I've also had a S-Works Evade, don't really notice any benefit of the super-aero design of that helmet. And in summer time it gets super hot to wear that one, so that's not great.


Thanks mate. I fell for the Ride Radar testing article and went with the Bontrager Ballista. So far I am impressed. (1/ Venting so good I have less sweat and thus less often need to use a skull cap to soak up sweat 2/ Sweat I do have, falls down around my temples and not my eyes 4/ The venting is such that sun doesn't hit my head, so less likely to need skull caps to prevent run burns. 5/ So comfortable!)

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread....
Ht: 182cm | Wt: 84kg | Bikes: Felt AR1 2016, Felt B2 2013
Sucessful Trades --> files.dward.us/Cycling/BNA-Trades.txt
Veloviewer

User avatar
DaveQB
Posts: 491
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:23 pm
Location: Campbelltown, NSW
Contact:

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby DaveQB » Mon Jun 19, 2017 12:17 pm

human909 wrote:
DaveQB wrote:A few sports are helmet wearing with the majority of those being mandatory.

Don't know where you get that idea. We are talking about government mandated laws here. I can't think of many sporting pursuits at all that have legally mandated helmets but maybe there are some...


No not government mandated but laws within the sport. ie you can't step on the field/area without a helmet and/or other protective equipment.

human909 wrote:
DaveQB wrote:You have to admit most cyclist wear gloves.

No. Far from it. I certainly don't.


I guess different circles. I see your point about commuters. I haven't cycled with commuters so don't know about that crowd. It's about 90% of people I cycle with use gloves. I was the odd one out not using them occasionally, but that's since changed. Plus all the cyclist I see on TV too :)

human909 wrote:
DaveQB wrote:I guess death/injury rates would be the driver for this law.

So why not helmets for pedestrians? Why not drivers? Much greater number of people are dying in cars than on bikes....


Yes why not. I think the way the world is headed, I wouldn't be surprised if these laws came in. I mean we are getting more safety requirements for cars now right? Not helmet specific but safety requirements. A law to have a helmet to cross the road in the city...wouldn't surprise me.
Ht: 182cm | Wt: 84kg | Bikes: Felt AR1 2016, Felt B2 2013
Sucessful Trades --> files.dward.us/Cycling/BNA-Trades.txt
Veloviewer

human909
Posts: 8057
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby human909 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 3:36 pm

First off thanks DaveQB for polite interaction. Sometimes people (including myself) might be a little belligerent in this forum. Your polite and reasonable discussion despite different opinions and experiences is notable. Thanks! :mrgreen:

human909 wrote:I guess different circles. I see your point about commuters. I haven't cycled with commuters so don't know about that crowd. It's about 90% of people I cycle with use gloves. I was the odd one out not using them occasionally, but that's since changed. Plus all the cyclist I see on TV too :)

Absolutely correct. My circles are different. And the majority of the people on this forum are probably cyclists with more similar experiences to your own. But we are all enthusiasts, not the average cyclists.

That said there are a whole lot of people who aren't cycling 'enthusiasts' who ride alot. My sister for example primary form of transportation is her bicycle, complete with baby seat and all. In countries and cities where cycling is commonplace these regular people cyclists are the overwhelming majority. You seen far less in Australia because of various policies that discourage cycling.

DaveQB wrote:No not government mandated but laws within the sport. ie you can't step on the field/area without a helmet and/or other protective equipment.

Yep. I would suggest that there is a significant difference between government mandate and participating in organised sports.

The sports I engage in rock climbing, skiing, canyoning, caving, kayaking and plenty more also have widespread helmet usage. There isn't however fines being handed out for people who choose not to wear a helmet.

(I regularly choose to wear a helmet.)

User avatar
DaveQB
Posts: 491
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:23 pm
Location: Campbelltown, NSW
Contact:

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby DaveQB » Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:28 pm

Thoglette wrote:
DaveQB wrote:
  1. There's two topics here. One is the mandatory helmet laws and the other, the topic I was trying to raise, the effectiveness of helmets.

Welcome to the MHL thread.


Thanks mate.

Thoglette wrote:Meanwhile, back to helmet effectiveness
DaveQB wrote: From my recent accident, I am 100% certain my helmet helped me. Now, whether it only prevented bruising and cuts or prevented a cracked skull, I can not say, but I am confident it helped, so my conclusion is it is well worth wearing.

Are you referring to me or the OP?


You.


Oh ok. OP usually refers to the original poster, the person who authored the original post in the thread we are in. At least in the forums I frequent. Maybe it's different here.

Thoglette wrote:Your original statement was
DaveQB wrote:I do believe 100% my helmet saved me from major head injury.
(emphasis mine)

I like your revised statement better as I suspect it reflects reality better. Unfortunately, we don't and probably can't know for sure.


Thanks. Reading this thread (not from the start, that would be a full time job) is interesting and good points are made in the mix of it all. I still think my helmet saved me from a whole lot of head hurt. Can't prove that but I think we can all agree that it stopped something negative happening to my head.

Thoglette wrote:As someone who has "used" a helmet (42kph group event crash) I do wonder exactly what effect it had. I presume some, as it ended up in many pieces. But the ED assumption that I needed to be observed for concussion (some 4 hours later I might add) had no basis in evidence - I've seen eskies look like that when blown off the back of a ute by the seabreeze.


I too had the thought of what exactly did my helmet do when at lunch with my mate, smashed helmet in hand like a battle scar to be proud of. I brought up the fact the foam wasn't squashed anywhere. Did it bounce right back or either broke away or stayed intact. I dropped physics in high school, so I didn't know. But I still think it did something positive. And yes a helmet will never stop a concussion. Recently studies are saying a strong and mobile neck help with reducing concussions. Which makes sense in my mind when explained. (see Industrial Strength podcast episode with Mike Jolly, the inventor of the Iron Neck https://www.defrancostraining.com/mike-jolly-107/).
Ht: 182cm | Wt: 84kg | Bikes: Felt AR1 2016, Felt B2 2013
Sucessful Trades --> files.dward.us/Cycling/BNA-Trades.txt
Veloviewer

User avatar
DaveQB
Posts: 491
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:23 pm
Location: Campbelltown, NSW
Contact:

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby DaveQB » Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:47 pm

I thought I replied to this much earlier. Pardon my tardiness uart

uart wrote:
DaveQB wrote: As I have worn a helmet to play football for over 20 years, I never thought twice about wearing a helmet to take up cycling. It's just so natural to wear a helmet to play sport that I never considered anything else.


Hi Dave. But how would you feel if it were made illegal to so much as even handle a foot ball without wearing a helmet. Because bicycle helmet laws make no distinction between someone who wants to amble along on a cycleway or back road at 15 km/hr and someone who want to ride as an extreme sport.


True. But handling a football vs playing football would be like riding a bike vs fixing it. A hard analogue to draw, but I get your point.

uart wrote:Say that you and a few or your mates were down the local park or field, and started kicking a ball around or playing a game of touch. How would you feel if the cops could show up at any moment and issue you with fines like:

1. Using football without a helmet $325.
2. Recklessly using a football. $433.


Obviously not good, the response you were trying to get from me. I guess it comes down to the seriousness of the person participating, which I am learning is a key underpinning to some of the positions taken by people here. So for this above hypothetical situation, it wouldn't bother me or others who are more serious about their football as 1/ you have a helmet already 2/ and train with it most of the time so it's no drama. Heck even "light" training sessions are "helmets only" sessions where you don't use shoulder pads or lowers (hip, tail, thigh and knee pads). So for me, it wouldn't too big of an issue but for the casual fan, it would be a barrier to entry, as they say in economics.

So this applied to cycling, it is the casual cyclist, as people are saying, that are effected by MHL.

I think that makes sense.
Ht: 182cm | Wt: 84kg | Bikes: Felt AR1 2016, Felt B2 2013
Sucessful Trades --> files.dward.us/Cycling/BNA-Trades.txt
Veloviewer

User avatar
DaveQB
Posts: 491
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:23 pm
Location: Campbelltown, NSW
Contact:

Re: Helmets cause more harm than good?

Postby DaveQB » Mon Jun 19, 2017 5:59 pm

I'll fix your quotes. Some reason you are quoting me with you saying what I am saying when quoting me replying to a quote from you....yeah figure that one out :)

human909 wrote:First off thanks DaveQB for polite interaction. Sometimes people (including myself) might be a little belligerent in this forum. Your polite and reasonable discussion despite different opinions and experiences is notable. Thanks! :mrgreen:


No worries mate. I figured we should be capable of a civil conversation. It's like this discussion is life or death (or is it.......)

human909 wrote:
DaveQB wrote:I guess different circles. I see your point about commuters. I haven't cycled with commuters so don't know about that crowd. It's about 90% of people I cycle with use gloves. I was the odd one out not using them occasionally, but that's since changed. Plus all the cyclist I see on TV too :)

Absolutely correct. My circles are different. And the majority of the people on this forum are probably cyclists with more similar experiences to your own. But we are all enthusiasts, not the average cyclists.


True. Like all of us, we see the world through our own tinted glasses including me and I was commenting on the tint I am looking through.

human909 wrote:That said there are a whole lot of people who aren't cycling 'enthusiasts' who ride alot. My sister for example primary form of transportation is her bicycle, complete with baby seat and all. In countries and cities where cycling is commonplace these regular people cyclists are the overwhelming majority. You seen far less in Australia because of various policies that discourage cycling.


Yes I am seeing that now. I can make sense about the comment that having people cycling makes it safer for cyclist.

human909 wrote:
DaveQB wrote:No not government mandated but laws within the sport. ie you can't step on the field/area without a helmet and/or other protective equipment.

Yep. I would suggest that there is a significant difference between government mandate and participating in organised sports.

The sports I engage in rock climbing, skiing, canyoning, caving, kayaking and plenty more also have widespread helmet usage. There isn't however fines being handed out for people who choose not to wear a helmet.

(I regularly choose to wear a helmet.)


Well for all intents and purposes, there's no difference, from my experience, between mandated law and laws within the sports, besides perhaps the fines and court time. My helmet sport experiences are Koshiki Karate, Ice Hockey and (American) football and with them you CAN NOT go on the rink or field without a helmet. The game will simply not start if you don't have your helmet on. So although not a government law, it is virtually a law in reality.
Ht: 182cm | Wt: 84kg | Bikes: Felt AR1 2016, Felt B2 2013
Sucessful Trades --> files.dward.us/Cycling/BNA-Trades.txt
Veloviewer

User avatar
DaveQB
Posts: 491
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:23 pm
Location: Campbelltown, NSW
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby DaveQB » Mon Jun 19, 2017 6:15 pm

I just want to add that I have no position on MHL. People may think otherwise, but I am sitting on the fence advocating for the devil :twisted:
On the topic of the effectiveness of helmets for cyclist, I thought it was obvious. But I am curious about this counter argument. So far, I haven't read anything that has remotely made me think I shouldn't be wearing a helmet while cycling. Plus they look cool 8)
Ht: 182cm | Wt: 84kg | Bikes: Felt AR1 2016, Felt B2 2013
Sucessful Trades --> files.dward.us/Cycling/BNA-Trades.txt
Veloviewer

human909
Posts: 8057
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:40 pm

DaveQB wrote:I just want to add that I have no position on MHL. People may think otherwise, but I am sitting on the fence advocating for the devil :twisted:

:D I do the same on many topics. In fact I was originally the fence on this topic when I first joined these forums. I honestly hadn't thought much about it.

DaveQB wrote:On the topic of the effectiveness of helmets for cyclist, I thought it was obvious. But I am curious about this counter argument. So far, I haven't read anything that has remotely made me think I shouldn't be wearing a helmet while cycling. Plus they look cool 8)

There is no counter argument I have at all to encourage OTHERS not to wear a helmet if they feel the need to. That isn't my business. But nor should it be the government's place to dictate that to people.

Many people don't want to wear a helmet due to their own reasons. Some of them might be even considered frivolous by you or me. But simple observations of people do reveal that most people find helmets at least somewhat of a hassle. Most participants of the many activities both you and I have mentioned are very quick to take they're helmet off at breaks and at the end of the activity.

Go to The Netherlands and over 99% of cyclists do not wear helmets. Yet the place is so much safer than Australia for cyclists. Are the Dutch simply naive to the dangers of cycling? Or are the Australians the odd ones out? (HINT: Countries with MHLs can be counted on one hand.)



(Pretty much everybody agrees that if you are involved incident that has a head impact then a helmet will mostly likely give you better outcomes than no helmet. However the health impacts of discouraging cycling are significant and helmet laws and even helmet promotion has been shown to significantly discourage cycling.)

User avatar
yugyug
Posts: 1814
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:27 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby yugyug » Mon Jun 19, 2017 11:45 pm

DaveQB wrote:. So far, I haven't read anything that has remotely made me think I shouldn't be wearing a helmet while cycling. Plus they look cool 8)


I think you've misunderstood the problem. No one can stop you from wearing a helmet. The problem is MHL stops people from NOT wearing a helmet. Inportant difference.

For the record, I think helmets look really really stupid. They haven't even reduced head injuries in UCI sanctioned races so it hard to say they even look cool on pro racers. From an aesthetics point of view it was better in the 90 for road racers, and it's only worse for urban cyclists in Australia who could be showing off beautiful flowing locks, or any number of aspirational hair styles, with better safety outcomes at the population level.

User avatar
DaveQB
Posts: 491
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:23 pm
Location: Campbelltown, NSW
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby DaveQB » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:50 am

yugyug wrote:
DaveQB wrote:. So far, I haven't read anything that has remotely made me think I shouldn't be wearing a helmet while cycling. Plus they look cool 8)


I think you've misunderstood the problem. No one can stop you from wearing a helmet. The problem is MHL stops people from NOT wearing a helmet. Inportant difference.


That wasn't said about MHL. That was part of the paragraph headed up by:

DaveQB wrote:On the topic of the effectiveness of helmets for cyclist,
Ht: 182cm | Wt: 84kg | Bikes: Felt AR1 2016, Felt B2 2013
Sucessful Trades --> files.dward.us/Cycling/BNA-Trades.txt
Veloviewer

User avatar
bychosis
Posts: 4845
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby bychosis » Tue Jun 20, 2017 7:14 am

DaveQB wrote:. So far, I haven't read anything that has remotely made me think I shouldn't be wearing a helmet while cycling. Plus they look cool 8).


Good point, but there are others that don't want to wear one. We should be ENCOURAGING people to wear them not FORCING them. No MHLs and I'm still going to wear a helmet in higher risk situations, typically riding fast. As it is, many people would do the same, not bother for a cruise along the pathways but wear it for sport/training riding.
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.

User avatar
baabaa
Posts: 636
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:47 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby baabaa » Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:09 am

They haven't even reduced head injuries in UCI sanctioned races so it hard to say they even look cool on pro racers.

So, not even one instance? Is this a fact or your opinion. That sort of data would be freely available to the companies that design and manufacture them so they could just not bother making them anymore.

human909
Posts: 8057
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby human909 » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:52 am

bychosis wrote:We should be ENCOURAGING people to wear them not FORCING them.

Interestingly, even encouraging has had measurable negative effects on cycling rates. This was observed amongst children in Copenhagen. When government advertisement encouraged helmets the message parents received was more cycling=dangerous. (I wish I could link you to the research regarding this but I can't find it.)

All that said, I have no objections to encouraging helmet use. I have mentored numerous people in rock climbing. I've always encourage helmets. Mountain biking and high speed cycling. Damn right I'd personally ENCOURAGE helmet use!

baabaa wrote:
They haven't even reduced head injuries in UCI sanctioned races so it hard to say they even look cool on pro racers.

So, not even one instance? Is this a fact or your opinion. That sort of data would be freely available to the companies that design and manufacture them so they could just not bother making them anymore.

I would presume we are talking about head injury rates not specific incidences. I would be curious to see the stats but it is entirely believable, it wouldn't be the first sport where head injuries are not reduced by widespread helmet use. Look at American Football for example. Helmets actively encourage head clashes.

User avatar
DaveQB
Posts: 491
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:23 pm
Location: Campbelltown, NSW
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby DaveQB » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:16 pm

human909 wrote:(Pretty much everybody agrees that if you are involved incident that has a head impact then a helmet will mostly likely give you better outcomes than no helmet. However the health impacts of discouraging cycling are significant and helmet laws and even helmet promotion has been shown to significantly discourage cycling.)


This is the topic that brought me into this thread. There are a surprising number of people that are saying science says a helmet doesn't help at all and can even cause more damage.

You might not be aware that children have been strangled by their helmet straps, but there is no proven case of a helmet saving a life, so on the basis of the known facts, wearing a helmet is more dangerous than not wearing one.
- Reader "burttthebike" http://www.cyclingweekly.com/group-test ... ide-146500
Ht: 182cm | Wt: 84kg | Bikes: Felt AR1 2016, Felt B2 2013
Sucessful Trades --> files.dward.us/Cycling/BNA-Trades.txt
Veloviewer

User avatar
DaveQB
Posts: 491
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:23 pm
Location: Campbelltown, NSW
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby DaveQB » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:20 pm

bychosis wrote:
DaveQB wrote:. So far, I haven't read anything that has remotely made me think I shouldn't be wearing a helmet while cycling. Plus they look cool 8).


Good point, but there are others that don't want to wear one. We should be ENCOURAGING people to wear them not FORCING them. No MHLs and I'm still going to wear a helmet in higher risk situations, typically riding fast. As it is, many people would do the same, not bother for a cruise along the pathways but wear it for sport/training riding.


Again, the sentence you are quoting is in the context of the topic of "the effectiveness of helmets for cyclist", not MHL.
I am with you and will wear a helmet law or no law. My views on MHL....I haven't really thought about it.

We have 2 topics in this thread.
Ht: 182cm | Wt: 84kg | Bikes: Felt AR1 2016, Felt B2 2013
Sucessful Trades --> files.dward.us/Cycling/BNA-Trades.txt
Veloviewer

fat and old
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2014 12:06 pm
Location: Mill Park

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby fat and old » Tue Jun 20, 2017 3:11 pm

DaveQB wrote:This is the topic that brought me into this thread. There are a surprising number of people that are saying science says a helmet doesn't help at all and can even cause more damage.

You might not be aware that children have been strangled by their helmet straps, but there is no proven case of a helmet saving a life, so on the basis of the known facts, wearing a helmet is more dangerous than not wearing one.
- Reader "burttthebike" http://www.cyclingweekly.com/group-test ... ide-146500


What they don't point out is that there are none recorded occurring whilst cycling. Even cyclehelmets.org, no fan of helmets, shows no deaths or strangulation's attributable to actually cycling.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1227.html

Of course, as they say "This information is presented here solely as a record of fact." It's up to you, the reader, to ascertain how much credence to apply here.

User avatar
yugyug
Posts: 1814
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:27 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby yugyug » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:06 am

baabaa wrote:
They haven't even reduced head injuries in UCI sanctioned races so it hard to say they even look cool on pro racers.

So, not even one instance? Is this a fact or your opinion. That sort of data would be freely available to the companies that design and manufacture them so they could just not bother making them anymore.


It came up on this very thread several months back. To the best of my memory, the fact was that the number or rate of head injuries has not changed, or it's increased, since UCI mandated helmets for all races in the late 90s or early 2000s. Sure,would be good to verify.

I'm not sure what you mean "in one instance" as knowing their relative effectiveness before and after compulsion concerns change in rates or total numbers.

I'm also not sure why you would suggest helmet makers would voluntarily cease their business just because some figures indicate helmets aren't nearly as effective as most people think. Helmet makers rely on people thinking that, which is why they hardly actually talk about efficacy at all.

User avatar
DaveQB
Posts: 491
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2014 12:23 pm
Location: Campbelltown, NSW
Contact:

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby DaveQB » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:33 pm

yugyug wrote:It came up on this very thread several months back. To the best of my memory, the fact was that the number or rate of head injuries has not changed, or it's increased, since UCI mandated helmets for all races in the late 90s or early 2000s. Sure,would be good to verify.


Could it be argued this is due to the ever increasing speed of the cyclists? Or has the speed gone down since the drug period?
Ht: 182cm | Wt: 84kg | Bikes: Felt AR1 2016, Felt B2 2013
Sucessful Trades --> files.dward.us/Cycling/BNA-Trades.txt
Veloviewer

User avatar
baabaa
Posts: 636
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:47 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

Postby baabaa » Fri Jun 23, 2017 7:40 pm

So it was an opinion backed from someone else’s opinion that you agree with and now someone else will take it as actuality.
And instance or instances? Hey it was your word reduced so just present the facts and the numbers will be clear. Most people can sniff BS a mile away so please don’t state something and then back off in a round the way manner by saying, well, the gauge of that work pre and post introduction had just not been done.
Maybe news, but companies that sell stuff tobacco, rock fishing cleats, toothbrushes, whatever, do so when they have demand for a product. People around the world want to use helmets, so the companies put $$ into make the best they can. Do you think they even think that the Aust and NZ is a volume market,really it would be a pest to them MHL or not.
The UCI introduced helmets after a few racers died during events and the riders and team administrators supported that rule. How many pros do you know or are aware of that now train during the off season without helmets? So, efficacy, well it comes down to your opinion vs. the UCI or the helmet companies, few of the bike riding public care so they do the risk management and this opinion leads to a new sale or not.

Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users