Helmet ******s

"W K" wrote in message
...

Interesting assertion, but a subtle effect (not sure how you define
"significant"), can be far from negligible on a whole population.

True, but remember that these are not the victims of accidents to which
helmet laws are directed.

I thought the whole "risk compensation" business was about such subtle
changes to behaviour. e.g. people with seatbelts and ABS do not drive
like
loonies, just very slightly less safely.

But bicyclists with helmets will descend hills at 60 mph (96 kph) when they
would NEVER do that without a helmet. My experience is that the difference
in chance taking is rather large on bicycles.

"John Doe" wrote in message
...

BTW: When they introduced compulsory helmet wearing for motor cyclists did
the participation rate drop? Although the reason that people are much
more
aggressive on the road could explain the decrease in popularity.

Here is a piece of anecdotal but strong evidence:

When I first returned to bicycling, I used to get home from work and do a 10
mile (16 km) ride around the neighborhood. I got off early and so I would
usually ride past two local schools before they got out. One was a Jr. High
and the other a High School (grades 7-9 and 10-12 or ages 12-15 and 16-18).

Out in front of these schools the walkways were completely lined with bike
racks and there were hundreds of bicycles there. The racks were overflowing
and there were bikes leaned against the buildings and laying on the lawns
carelessly unlocked.

California passed a helmet law for children 18 and under that was to come
into effect on the first day of the new year.

Up until that time the bicycles were there. The VERY FIRST DAY of the helmet
law there were perhaps a dozen bicycles out in front of the high school and
none at the Jr. High. Within a month there were no longer any bicycles out
in front. Not too long after that they removed the racks from the front of
the schools and put them around back. They were unused there as well and so
were cut up and scrapped.

It was my assumption that the school DEMANDED that any child that rode a
bicycle to school wear a helmet in accordance with the new law. In
California there's no place in school to put a helmet. It made riding a
bicycle to school an unacceptable burden and ALL the kids saw that
immediately.

After 15 years still no bicycles and now there are SUV's forming long
traffic jams out in front of these schools every school day now.

The California helmet law was the most destructive to children's health of
anything that they possibly could have done.

"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure that is the whole picture. Cycling data for Perth shows that
throughout the 90's cycling was significantly below the 1991 level but in
2001/2 it jumped suddenly to above th 1991/2 level.

DUHHH, the Aussie victories in the Tour de France, Olympics and other racing
has had a salutory impact. The real significance is that helmets STILL don't
have any effects worth noting. For people as sporting as the Aussies you
can't forget the effects of racing on participation.

Strangely enough, the biggest effect on cycling in the USA hasn't
necessarily been racing but the fact that the population is aging and
cycling is a good exercise.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
"Alan Hutchison" wrote in message
...


Nick, you have concisely articulated the issue. My comment is that the
introduction of mandatory helmet use in Australia certainly reduced the
number of normal cyclists significantly as you say, when it was
introduced. What has happened since, though, is that cycling in all its
forms is now increasing strongly after the famously reported decrease.


But still not up to pre-law levels, despite increased population. Cycling
is also increasing in the UK.


Post helmet legislation, we are moving on. It can be reasonably argued
that we would be afforded more safety by wearing our sun bonnets than
helmets, but what party politician would risk the flak of trying to roll
back legislation like this once it is in place. Some of us wear our
helmets by choice and some wear them because we will be booked and fined
if we don't, but we have moved on and cycling is on the increase.


Question 1: how many more people would be cycling if there was no helmet
law?

Couldn't say.

Question 2: do you suppose that cyclists in Victoria are unique among road
users worldwide in not riding less safely when protected by a "safety"
device?

No.

Question 3: your legislators were told that helmets prevent 88% of cyclist
head injuries. Given that the observed reduction post compulsion is, within
the bounds of statistical accuracy, zero, when will they repeal the law?

Never. We are talking about politicians. You know, the ones
parodied on "Yes Minister" and sung about in Gilbert & Sullivan
operettas.

In the UK we have no lid law. Someone is trying to push one through. from
your experience of cycling in Victoria, how desirable would you say a lid
law is?

As I said in a previous post, in this country the wearing of sun
bonnets would be more beneficial and sensible, legislated or not.
But the most beneficial situation would be to allow individual
cyclists freedom of choice because most set out to ride and survive.

Alan.

Tom Kunich wrote:
"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure that is the whole picture. Cycling data for Perth shows that
throughout the 90's cycling was significantly below the 1991 level but in
2001/2 it jumped suddenly to above th 1991/2 level.

DUHHH, the Aussie victories in the Tour de France, Olympics and other racing
has had a salutory impact. The real significance is that helmets STILL don't
have any effects worth noting. For people as sporting as the Aussies you
can't forget the effects of racing on participation.


Thanks, I'd forgotten about the Olympics which likely had a big effect on
people being more active including cycling.

Tony

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 17:46:35 +1100, Alan Hutchison
wrote in message
:

As I said in a previous post, in this country the wearing of sun
bonnets would be more beneficial and sensible, legislated or not.
But the most beneficial situation would be to allow individual
cyclists freedom of choice because most set out to ride and survive.

Amen to that.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

If Princess Di was wearing Michael Hutchinsons belt they both would still be
alive.
"M. Atta" wrote in message
.. .
if david hooks was wearing a helmet he would be alive today
hehehehe
as Vogels jun is


"John Doe" wrote in message
...

"CSB" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 01:45:04 GMT, "Tom Kunich"
wrote:

snip

You can take the cowboy out of the country but you can't take the hat
off
of
the cowboy.


as it happens a young cattle drover was recently killed by a fall. It
is
a
tradition for these guys to wear Akubra hats while on a muster. Not
anymore
say WorkCover (Govt Dept). The station owner was negligent for not
making
these guys wear helmets.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...570335910.html

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 22:24:41 GMT,
John Doe wrote:
Where will it stop. Will in 10 years people want to drive 4-5T trucks to
keep that one step ahead for overkill on a passenger vehicle


Nah. This is the engine I NEED in my SUV.

http://www.k4viz.com/12-Cylinder.html
(I believe there is a 14 cylinder version available as well - not mentioned
on this page though)

It's also very efficient - thermal efficiency exceeds 50% at maximum economy
so obviously A VERY GOOD THING.

Slightly difficult manoeuvering around central London though :-(

Tim.



--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

Tim Woodall wrote in
:

Slightly difficult manoeuvering around central London though :-(


At that size, sod manoeuvering, let other vehicles/buildings/geological
features move out of the way!

Graeme

Chris Malcolm wrote:

1) The populations of car drivers and motorcyclists are very
different. Motorcyclists are much more likely to be young men with
very much less road experience -- a category which is known to have a
much higher accident risk.


It used to be that the prime source of donor eyes for corneal transplants was
teenage motorcycle riders. I gather it has now changed to 40 something
motorbike riders reflecting the trend for them to go out and buy the powerful
bike they could not afford in their youth.

Tony