A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » Australia
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Warning: H*lm*t content



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 21st 05, 10:06 AM
Euan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content

.... Dr Dorothy Robinson's concern, instead, is bicycle safety. She has
just published a study in the Health Promotion Journal of Australia that
is likely to send shock waves through Australian cycling communities
with its claim that mandatory bicycle helmet laws increase rather than
decrease the likelihood of injuries to cyclists.

http://melbourne.citysearch.com.au/profile?id=53571

Personally I'd still use a helmet in winter 'cause it's a handy place to
put lights :-) Summer I'd leave the lid behind and wear a sun hat.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
Ads
  #2  
Old August 21st 05, 10:51 AM
till!
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content


By the same genius stroke of logic, higher fuel prices will also resul
in safer cyclists BUT IN A TWOFOLD APPROACH. MORE +++ BETTER++

1) less car on the road because people cant afford the fuel

2) more cyclists, because people cant afford to drive

I think we should all petition out local member for $2/l for unleaded
and $3/1 for premium. Should we crosspost this one to aus.cars to retur
the recent favours^H^H^Htrolls

til

--
till!

  #3  
Old August 21st 05, 11:12 AM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content


"Euan" wrote in message
...
... Dr Dorothy Robinson's concern, instead, is bicycle safety. She has
just published a study in the Health Promotion Journal of Australia that
is likely to send shock waves through Australian cycling communities
with its claim that mandatory bicycle helmet laws increase rather than
decrease the likelihood of injuries to cyclists.

http://melbourne.citysearch.com.au/profile?id=53571

Personally I'd still use a helmet in winter 'cause it's a handy place to
put lights :-) Summer I'd leave the lid behind and wear a sun hat.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)


That article is a load of ****.

* start with some stats (uncited) and draw a reasonable correlation between
cyclist numbers and injuries "the more cyclists there are, the more
motorists are aware of them and the more carefully they drive"
* and then drive to a conclusion that helmet legislation is the cause
(shouldn't it be the motorists not being careful enough)

The only link is that mandatory wearing of helmets, at one point in time,
discouraged cyclists, reducing cyclist numbers. I think everyone is over
that by now - does it really discourage anyone anymore?

Wearing helmets, or not, has nothing to do directly with the actual
incidence of accidents, according to the research it is the number of
cyclists. But wearing helmets can impact outcomes. These however would not
be identifiable in statistics because the number of deaths, while being too
high already, is to low in Australia to draw real conclusions.

The follow up claim on helmet effectiveness is apparently not supported with
any particular research, it is only an opinion: "bike helmets are designed
for bicycle-ground and bicycle-bicycle collisions rather than motor vehicle
accidents, and are therefore ineffective in preventing serious brain
injuries in such cases". More effective than skin and bones alone.

Everyone do what they want, legally or otherwise, I will continue to wear a
helmet that may save my life.


  #4  
Old August 21st 05, 11:41 AM
Peter McCallum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content

Bob wrote:
That article is a load of ****.

* start with some stats (uncited) and draw a reasonable correlation between
cyclist numbers and injuries "the more cyclists there are, the more
motorists are aware of them and the more carefully they drive"
* and then drive to a conclusion that helmet legislation is the cause
(shouldn't it be the motorists not being careful enough)

The only link is that mandatory wearing of helmets, at one point in time,
discouraged cyclists, reducing cyclist numbers. I think everyone is over
that by now - does it really discourage anyone anymore?


I've been wearing a helmet since about 1979 but I did notice a
considerable drop in cycling numbers in Mackay after the mandatory use
was enforced. Prior to enforcement of the law, around one in ten
cyclists here wore a helmet (initially in Queensland it was a legal
requirement to wear a helmet but there was no fine if you didn't). To
me, that indicates reluctance from most cyclists.

I still haven't seen the number of cyclists return to pre-helmet
proportions. The law has been enforced very strongly in Mackay, in fact
there is no traffic law that is more heavily enforced here.

One issue that has come up recently here is that schools are banning
kids from wearing caps under their helmets. Aparently they don't want
kids bringing caps to school. So under the North Qld sun (which is
intense), wearing a helmet rather than a shady hat can be very
uncomfortable.

P

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA
  #5  
Old August 21st 05, 11:52 AM
Euan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content

"Bob" == Bob writes:

Bob That article is a load of ****.

It's a magazine article, not an academic study. Take it for what it is.

Bob * start with some stats (uncited) and draw a reasonable
Bob correlation between cyclist numbers and injuries "the more
Bob cyclists there are, the more motorists are aware of them and
Bob the more carefully they drive" * and then drive to a conclusion
Bob that helmet legislation is the cause (shouldn't it be the
Bob motorists not being careful enough)

A bit of a long bow. There's nothing new in this article and it can all
be traced to peer reviewed scientific papers if you're willing to expend
the effort.

Bob The only link is that mandatory wearing of helmets, at one
Bob point in time, discouraged cyclists, reducing cyclist
Bob numbers. I think everyone is over that by now - does it really
Bob discourage anyone anymore?

Absolutely. It's a hot and smelly inconvenience which is off-putting to
the fashion conscious. It's a bit of baggage that you need to lug
around and there is no proof that helmets provide any benefit whereas
there is substantial proof that helmets are detrimental.

Bob Wearing helmets, or not, has nothing to do directly with the
Bob actual incidence of accidents, according to the research it is
Bob the number of cyclists.

And requiring helmets directly impacts on the number of cyclists out
there. Of do you think the 30% drop in cycling when helmet compulsion
came about is purely incidental?

Bob But wearing helmets can impact outcomes. These however would
Bob not be identifiable in statistics because the number of deaths,
Bob while being too high already, is to low in Australia to draw
Bob real conclusions.

There is no proof that helmets are beneficial. It is a fact that in
every country that has helmet compulsion cycling has decreased
significantly which has a far greater impact on cyclist safety.

Bob The follow up claim on helmet effectiveness is apparently not
Bob supported with any particular research, it is only an opinion:
Bob "bike helmets are designed for bicycle-ground and
Bob bicycle-bicycle collisions rather than motor vehicle accidents,
Bob and are therefore ineffective in preventing serious brain
Bob injuries in such cases". More effective than skin and bones
Bob alone.

No, that is the manufacturing standards that helmets have to comply
with. There are no helmet standards for vehicle / bicycle collisions.

Bob Everyone do what they want, legally or otherwise, I will
Bob continue to wear a helmet that may save my life.

That's a very big may. I prefer not to entrust my safety to what is
essentially a piece of polystyrene designed to absorb the kinetic energy
of a fall from head height. That's all it does.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
  #6  
Old August 21st 05, 12:00 PM
HellenWheels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:41:54 +1000, (Peter
McCallum) wrote:

Bob wrote:
That article is a load of ****.

* start with some stats (uncited) and draw a reasonable correlation between
cyclist numbers and injuries "the more cyclists there are, the more
motorists are aware of them and the more carefully they drive"
* and then drive to a conclusion that helmet legislation is the cause
(shouldn't it be the motorists not being careful enough)

The only link is that mandatory wearing of helmets, at one point in time,
discouraged cyclists, reducing cyclist numbers. I think everyone is over
that by now - does it really discourage anyone anymore?


I've been wearing a helmet since about 1979 but I did notice a
considerable drop in cycling numbers in Mackay after the mandatory use
was enforced. Prior to enforcement of the law, around one in ten
cyclists here wore a helmet (initially in Queensland it was a legal
requirement to wear a helmet but there was no fine if you didn't). To
me, that indicates reluctance from most cyclists.

I still haven't seen the number of cyclists return to pre-helmet
proportions. The law has been enforced very strongly in Mackay, in fact
there is no traffic law that is more heavily enforced here.

One issue that has come up recently here is that schools are banning
kids from wearing caps under their helmets. Aparently they don't want
kids bringing caps to school. So under the North Qld sun (which is
intense), wearing a helmet rather than a shady hat can be very
uncomfortable.

P


What? Banning kids from wearing cycling caps at school? What's the purpose
of that. You can't ban an idea. If you start doing picky things like that
on the off chance it might lead to wearing a cap in school, that would only
increase the tension among the youngsters and promote even more civil
disobedience, imo. What about wearing a lycra skull cap? Are they gonna ban
those too? You can stuff 'em in your pocket. Hell they probably think that
a skull cap is even worse than a little cycling cap, which is more 'dork'
than 'outlaw', for most people's taste...

-Wheels

  #7  
Old August 21st 05, 12:18 PM
Bleve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content


Euan wrote:
"Bob" == Bob writes:



Bob The only link is that mandatory wearing of helmets, at one
Bob point in time, discouraged cyclists, reducing cyclist
Bob numbers. I think everyone is over that by now - does it really
Bob discourage anyone anymore?

Absolutely. It's a hot and smelly inconvenience which is off-putting to
the fashion conscious.


Stackhats went out in, oh, 1980? Modern helmets are light, well
ventilated and comfortable.


It's a bit of baggage that you need to lug
around and there is no proof that helmets provide any benefit whereas
there is substantial proof that helmets are detrimental.


"any" benefit? If I wasn't wearing mine a few months ago when
I crashed into an oncoming bike on a bikepath, I'd probably be a
vegetable (more than I am now!). I'd certanily have done significan
injury. As it is, I had to buy a new helmet and was a bit dizzy for
a couple of days.

Bob Wearing helmets, or not, has nothing to do directly with the
Bob actual incidence of accidents, according to the research it is
Bob the number of cyclists.

And requiring helmets directly impacts on the number of cyclists out
there. Of do you think the 30% drop in cycling when helmet compulsion
came about is purely incidental?


20 years ago (or however long ago it was) it may have stopped some
adults riding - but all the kids at my school still rode. We hated
stackhats and those awful Bell puddingbowls, but we still rode our
bikes everywhere. As to how many people that grew up post-compulsory
rules that haven't ridden because they'd have to wear a helmet? How's
that going to be measured?


Bob But wearing helmets can impact outcomes. These however would
Bob not be identifiable in statistics because the number of deaths,
Bob while being too high already, is to low in Australia to draw
Bob real conclusions.

There is no proof that helmets are beneficial.


Heh, I refute this thus; I can still read.



It is a fact that in
every country that has helmet compulsion cycling has decreased
significantly which has a far greater impact on cyclist safety.


It may have temporarily reduced numbers, but is there any evidence to
suggest that the change lasted a generation?

Bob The follow up claim on helmet effectiveness is apparently not
Bob supported with any particular research, it is only an opinion:
Bob "bike helmets are designed for bicycle-ground and
Bob bicycle-bicycle collisions rather than motor vehicle accidents,
Bob and are therefore ineffective in preventing serious brain
Bob injuries in such cases". More effective than skin and bones
Bob alone.

No, that is the manufacturing standards that helmets have to comply
with. There are no helmet standards for vehicle / bicycle collisions.

Bob Everyone do what they want, legally or otherwise, I will
Bob continue to wear a helmet that may save my life.

That's a very big may. I prefer not to entrust my safety to what is
essentially a piece of polystyrene designed to absorb the kinetic energy
of a fall from head height. That's all it does.


"all" it does? "I refuse to breath because all it does is oxygenate my

blood". Mine without doubt saved me from significant head injury. I'm
mighty glad that polystyrene saved my bonce from a fall from
head-height. I landed head-first (back of head). Helmets work.

  #8  
Old August 21st 05, 12:39 PM
Kathy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content



Bleve wrote:
I prefer not to entrust my safety to what is
essentially a piece of polystyrene designed to absorb the kinetic energy
of a fall from head height. That's all it does.



"all" it does? "I refuse to breath because all it does is oxygenate my

blood". Mine without doubt saved me from significant head injury. I'm
mighty glad that polystyrene saved my bonce from a fall from
head-height. I landed head-first (back of head). Helmets work.

I second that - although Dave swears that my head only hit the concrete
path AFTER I'd stopped falling, I KNOW that I hit my head - and I for
one am VERY happy with the fact that the helmet absorbed the impact, not
my head - and so I had no bruise or scrape or anything - not even a
headache :-)

  #9  
Old August 21st 05, 12:40 PM
Gemma_k
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content


"Bleve" wrote in message
ups.com...

Euan wrote:
"Bob" == Bob writes:



Bob The only link is that mandatory wearing of helmets, at one
Bob point in time, discouraged cyclists, reducing cyclist
Bob numbers. I think everyone is over that by now - does it really
Bob discourage anyone anymore?

Absolutely. It's a hot and smelly inconvenience which is off-putting to
the fashion conscious.


Stackhats went out in, oh, 1980? Modern helmets are light, well
ventilated and comfortable.

You miss the point. It doesn't matter how good a helmet is to wear, or how
safe you feel in one, or how many vents there are or what kind of hairstyle
you have. It's all about the choice of whther you WANT to wear a helmet,
rather than mandating that you do....
Gemma


  #10  
Old August 21st 05, 12:45 PM
Bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content

Bob Everyone do what they want, legally or otherwise, I will
Bob continue to wear a helmet that may save my life.

That's a very big may.


It's no loner a "may save", its a "won't " if you're not wearing one. And I
know it is a big may.

I prefer not to entrust my safety to what is
essentially a piece of polystyrene designed to absorb the kinetic energy
of a fall from head height. That's all it does.


I don't entrust my safety to anyone or anything but myself. I am no more or
less paranoid about cars and trucks around me on the roads with or without a
helmet. I just hope it may make a difference if - even for just a minor off
on the bike path. Just like I value air bags in a car but don't expect them
to save me if I drive face-long into a Mack track hood ornament, hopefully a
helmet can make a bit of a difference. Don't underestimate the effect of
kinetic energy on your brain - every bit absorbed helps.

I think the statement "the more cyclists there are, the more motorists are
aware of them and the more carefully they drive" is the conclusion that
needs addressing in a more positive way.

I do not want to see my kids riding on the footpath or roads without
helmets. That would be difficult to encourage if there were no helmet laws
("look at that bad man without a helmet, I wonder if the police will catch
him" :-o). And kids tend to have many more falls (and softer skulls) where
the helmet can make a big difference.

cheers
"paternal softening in progress"


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RR: On The Road (Warning: GRS Content) Ride-A-Lot Mountain Biking 0 June 6th 05 02:29 AM
severe weather warning joemarshall Unicycling 15 January 14th 05 06:41 AM
Weather warning ... elyob UK 11 January 5th 05 12:54 AM
Warning! OT Political Content!!! Steven Bornfeld Racing 15 November 1st 04 12:06 AM
Today (warning: on topic content) Just zis Guy, you know? UK 3 April 25th 04 12:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.