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 | ~ (*)/ (*)

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!

"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.

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

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

HellenWheels wrote:
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

At my daughter's school there's a policy that students must wear the
correct coloured shoelaces, and it's strictly enforced. Obviously
shoelace colour has some bearing on educational outcomes.

P
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Peter McCallum wrote:

At my daughter's school there's a policy that students must wear the
correct coloured shoelaces, and it's strictly enforced. Obviously
shoelace colour has some bearing on educational outcomes.

Yes, Peter it does. {:-)

By enforcing conformity and brain numbing, your daughter is given the
best chance of being a counter bunny, or burger flipper at Maccas when
she finishes school. This increase the percentage of students that get
jobs after school, which increases the educational standing of her
educational institution (from reading the latest rating system results).

Peter McCallum Wrote:

At my daughter's school there's a policy that students must wear the
correct coloured shoelaces, and it's strictly enforced. Obviously
shoelace colour has some bearing on educational outcomes.

P
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

bwahahahah. opened up The Age today to discover my eldests' propose
highschool is introducing tie and Blazer.
Daughter's response...
"Can i burn it?

--
flyingdutch

HellenWheels wrote:
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.

Probably trying to enforce/force attitudes and keep out all those evil
influence from caps/video games/pin ball machines/snooker tables/bicycle
clubs/buggies/....

You can't ban an idea.

Yes, but educational authorites keep trying despite the centuries of
evidence to the contrary.

"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 | ~ (*)/ (*)