Helmet debate, helmet debate

"Peter McCallum" wrote in message
news:1hcrx8q.1tgslc01kt4idgN%p5m8.REMOVETHIS@yahoo .com.au...
Gemma_k wrote:

The helmet stuff comes in to the mix because there was an approx 30%
instant
drop in the numbers of cyclists at the time of mandatory helmet wearing.
And now she's published another article, which I can't access until I get
to
work on Monday..... :-)

From BFA Mail List:

On 25/03/2006, at 5:45 PM, Dorothy Robinson wrote:

Temporary links can be found at:
http://web.aanet.com.au/d-e/BMJ/Robinson_06_BMJ.pdf
http://web.aanet.com.au/d-e/BMJ/Hage...MJ_HL_resp.pdf

My draft comments on Hagel's arguments
http://web.aanet.com.au/d-e/BMJ/BMJ_PS.doc


Thanks, that will save me a phone call to my work's library :-)
Cheers
Gemma

Euan wrote:

Marx SS wrote:
Wot?
I only got back into cycling as an adult because of the headgear.
Without a helmet cycling looks alittle amaturish.

Can i still shave my legs?

If you expect to a) have a bad case of road rash in the near future or
b) have daily reguvinative leg massages,

c) or if you just like the feel of smooth skin on satin sheets

go for it :-)
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

SuzieB wrote:

In da Age today... http://tinyurl.com/g2ml7

Helmets fail fitness 'test'

FORCING cyclists to wear helmets damages public health because they
discourage many people from riding, an academic says.

Dorothy Robinson, a former senior statistician at the University of
New England, found that while laws that make wearing helmets mandatory
reduced the seriousness of some head injuries, the cost to public
health and fitness outweighed their benefit.

But some researchers have suggested Ms Robinson's conclusions
"crumble" under scrutiny.

Writing in The British Medical Journal, Ms Robinson, a keen cyclist,
said: "The overall effect on public health is bad, with less people
getting fit by cycling since the laws came in, and more driving."

When the compulsory helmet laws were enacted Bicycle (Institute of)
Queensland opposed them, but only until some preconditions were met.
These included proper funding for bicycle facilities on roads.

Our main problem was that we felt that government would be able to say,
"we've made helmets compulsory" the bicycle safety problem is solved. It
also enabled authorities to attribute blame for accidents (regardless of
the kind of injury) to cyclists who didn't wear helmets.

Unfortunately, the Black Spot program that was funded as part of the 10
point road safety package that introduced compulsory helmets is really
badly skewed towards funding motor vehicle accident sites. I can only
recall one case of a project being funded specifically for cyclists.
That was in Cairns and had the backing of the then chair of the
committee, a Queensland sentator.

I think the main problem is that the road authorities and even many
cyclists believe that making helmets compulsory solves the problem of
cyclist accidents. But we all see examples of poor road design every day
that force cyclists into situations that endanger their lives.

If we had legislation that made good road design compulsory, that made
it a punishable offence to neglect the needs of cyclists, then maybe the
balance would be redressed.

Peter
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Gemma_k wrote:

There's actually some other research going on about the design of hemlets
and how they can increase some types of rotational injury.
Big fat helmet to prevent impact or penetration injuries are of course just
bigger levers to slosh your brains around faster in a rotational injury.
You win some, you lose some. helmet or not!

Gemma

Skid Tests on a Select Group of Bicycle Helmets to Determine Their
Head-Neck Protective Characteristics


Voigt R. Hodgson, Ph.D.
Director Gurdjian-Lissner Biomechanics Laboratory
Department of Neurosurgery
Wayne State University
Detroit, Michigan

March 8, 1991

This research basically shows that a helmet with a plastic cover over
the styrofoam, either hard or flexible, allows the helmet to slide
across and asphalt surface. Conversely, a helmet with no cover, ie
styrofoam only, grips the surface on impact causing the head to rapidly
rotate. That can damage the fine veins that bridge the brain to the
blood system. Haemorrhaging can result.

I'm sure that most cyclists who subscribe to this group wouldn't be seen
dead in a helmet that has lost it's outer cover, but if you travel
around the streets of any city or town in Australia, you'll see plenty
of cyclits using them, and as a result in greater danger of rotational
injury than with no helmet at all.

Peter

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Wearing a Helmet Law is not going away... end of discussion on that...


Wearing a Helmet Properly, is more of what this discussion should be
focussed on...

It starts at school,

most teens riding the burbs on their MTBs dangle the helmet across the
handgrip...very usefull

many little kids see this and thinks.."its cool not wearing it, just
have it "hanging around"...

too many kids of school age ( even in Bike Ed classes with a teacher in
tow) dont wear their helmets properly, usually it is hanging off the
back of their skull, loose chin strap, exposed temple area...many
in-experienced adults as well...

a loose fitting badly adjusted helmet is more hindrance than help, it
adds to the force of momentum tearing at the skull, spine and neck
ligaments in an impact and exacerbates injury.

Lance Armstrong would be dead without a helmet, he did a clear cranial
impact into a wall at high speed and survived, because of a decent well
fitting helmet, then grew up ( some might say he will never) and won 7
LeTours...

I choose to wear a Helmet, I make sure it is properly sized, fitted and
adjusted. My Helmets have saved me a few nasty injuries on the road and
the track and I am much happier spending 250-300 notes on a new brain
bucket than having no functioning brain to put that bucket over...


--
rooman

Gemma_k wrote:
"endroll" wrote in message
...

from recent personal experience....take cyclist, make him fall head
first into ground at 37km/hr, have another rider on bike run over head
- take away helmet - what next?

yuh sure helmets are useless....yup yup....get rid of them!


It's not that they're useless, it's the fact you're forced to wear one that
is the point here.
For every cyclist who hits head on the ground and gets run over, there's
probably 1000 people sitting on a sofa getting ready to have a heart attack
from obesity, after having diabetes their whole adult lives.

One could further argue, that 'making' people wear helmets automatically
makes the practice of cycling look inherantly dangerous... because it must
be, the government makes you wear a helmet!!!

Gemm



That's the same problem with electricity, people think it's dangerous
because we have laws that require wires to be insulated. It's only
dangerous if you touch the wires.
More people would use electricty if the government didn't make it appear
to be so dangerous. Insulation on electrical appliances should be
optional, the government shouldn't be telling us what to do!

Lance Armstrong would be dead without a helmet, he did a clear cranial
impact into a wall at high speed and survived, because of a decent well
fitting helmet, then grew up ( some might say he will never) and won 7
LeTours...
you cant be "sure" of that. he may have survived(or maybe he wouldnt have
been going so fast without a helmet... who knows....)

but at least one child has died by being strangled by their bike helmet

so we can score that as 1 all?

--
Frank

Drop DACKS to reply
"Euan" wrote in message
...
Wilfred Kazoks wrote:
Well a few weeks ago I saw some cyclist ,who's name i've forgotten, on
the
6 o'clock news, in a race run onto the soft shoulder and lose it. He hit
the
road hard and fast. I decided to slo-mo it and watch the moment of
impact as
his head hit the road. Purely out of scientific interest.

I'm glad it wasn't my skull. I'm sure he's glad he had a helmet.

I've had four significant head accidents when not wearing a helmet and
pulled through just fine. That proves nothing.

If wearing a helmet makes you feel safer go for it but why force
everyone else to for no demonstrateable benefit?

There isn't a single study to my knowledge that has proven helmets help
reduce cyclist injury rates or fatality rates.--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Like Euan, I'm in favour of helmet use but against compulsion - for adults.

Kid's heads are developing until around age 16 (from memory) so head impacts
can have more of an effect on a kid than on a adult, whose skulls are
developed, fully fused and quite hard. It would be interesting to see a
study of direct impact vs rotational injuries related to age.

It also seems to make sense that kids are more likely to crash - more so
than risk-aware new adult riders. Again, a development thing. Small children
learning to ride are wobbly and focussed on keeping upright more than
watching their surroundings. Older children tend to be having fun and taking
risks they'll stop taking once they've had a few scares; young driver stats
support this. I doubt risk-taking outlook is much different on a bike than
in a car.

Given the above I'm in favour of compulsory helmet use to, say, age 16. Then
choice should be available. In hand with that I'd also like to see fairly
heavy police enforcement of helmet laws (for kids under 16). When helmetless
riders are ignored the message given is that the law doesn't matter much -
not a good attitude to be taking into motor vehicle use.

In line with physical development comes intellectual development. Part of
that development should include road and vehicle use. Schools should provide
that education. Transport is the single most dangerous activity each of us
does on a daily basis. Why is it so often ignored in schools? That education
should include personal engagement with other users for road space -
humanise the roads more and breed respect for other users. Then, when
someone stuffs up (none of use are perfect!) more leeway is given.

So - What I'd like to see:
(1) Compulsory helmet use to age 16.
(2) Vehicle use education - include bicycles, scooters and cars - compulsory
in schools.
(3) Strict enforcement of helmet laws (and other road laws) for kids.
Perhaps a scheme where a fine can be paid by buying a helmet?
(4) Strict enforcement of road laws for cyclists. To be given the blind eye
(and it does happen so much) says that a cyclist isn't as important as a
motor vehicle driver - the cyclist is just playing, a hobbyist.

Enough testiculating - time for coffeeeee!

Frank

Plodder wrote -

Like Euan, I'm in favour of helmet use but against compulsion - for
adults.

Would you still wear one most of the time (and replace it every x years) if
they dropped the compulsion?

rooman Wrote:
Wearing a Helmet Law is not going away... end of discussion on that...


That being the case we'll never get cycling up to the same levels
enjoyed by some countries in Europe. End of discussion on that...


Wearing a Helmet Properly, is more of what this discussion should be
focussed on...


Regardless of helmet compulsion, I agree. A poorly fitted helmet can
be more dangerous than not wearing a helmt at all.


Lance Armstrong would be dead without a helmet, he did a clear cranial
impact into a wall at high speed and survived, because of a decent well
fitting helmet, then grew up ( some might say he will never) and won 7
LeTours...

Lance has also had several accidents involving significant head injury
without a helmet and pulled through OK.

The overwhelming majoriy of pro-compulsion arguements are based on
single incident anecdotal evidence, in other words no real evidence at
all. The overwhelming majority of anti-compulsion arguements are based
on proveable statistics.

Whilst personal anecdotal evidence may tug at the heart strings it's
the wrong arguement. Prove to me that helmet compulsion has saved more
lives in preventing head injury than have been lost to obesity related
diseases caused by declining physical activity of the Australian
population.


--
EuanB