Helmet debate, helmet debate [Archive]

Gemma_k

March 25th 06, 02:30 AM

"Jules" > wrote in message
...
> This report in the BMJ was _years_ ago wasn't it?

It's all originally based upon the 'safety in numbers' principle doen by P
L Jacobson - Safety in Numbers: More walkers and bicyclists, safer walking
and cycling. Summary here:

Objective: To examine the relationship between the numbers of people walking
or bicycling and the frequency of collisions between motorists and walkers
or bicyclists. The common wisdom holds that the number of collisions varies
directly with the amount of walking and bicycling. However, three published
analyses of collision rates at specific intersections found a non-linear
relationship, such that collisions rates declined with increases in the
numbers of people walking or bicycling.
Data: This paper uses five additional data sets (three population level and
two time series) to compare the amount of walking or bicycling and the
injuries incurring in collisions with motor vehicles.

Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be
struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or
bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communities of varying size,
from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time
periods.

Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the people
walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are larger, it
indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the likelihood of
collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears that motorists
adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling. There
is an urgent need for further exploration of the human factors controlling
motorist behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling.

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and
bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers
of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route to improving
the safety of people walking and bicycling.

This work was then looked at by D Robinson, you can view it here:

http://www.bfa.asn.au/bfanew/pdf/publications/safety_in_numbers.pdf

It shows that the safety in Numbers principle 'works' for Australia, and
draws the conclusion that discouraging cycling by whatever means (even if
'safety focussed') is more detrimental to public health than encouraging it.

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..... :-)

And.... look out soon for some South Australian research on the Safety in
Numbers principle..... to be published.

TimC

March 25th 06, 03:15 AM

On 2006-03-25, Gemma_k (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> And.... look out soon for some South Australian research on the Safety in
> Numbers principle..... to be published.

First the safety ad, and now this!

Thanks Gemma_k! You're my hero.

--
TimC
Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is
moving faster.

Resound

March 25th 06, 03:19 AM

"Gemma_k" > wrote in message
news:1143255900.438754@teuthos...
>
> "Jules" > wrote in message
> ...
>> This report in the BMJ was _years_ ago wasn't it?
>
> It's all originally based upon the 'safety in numbers' principle doen by
> P L Jacobson - Safety in Numbers: More walkers and bicyclists, safer
> walking and cycling. Summary here:
>
> Objective: To examine the relationship between the numbers of people
> walking or bicycling and the frequency of collisions between motorists and
> walkers or bicyclists. The common wisdom holds that the number of
> collisions varies directly with the amount of walking and bicycling.
> However, three published analyses of collision rates at specific
> intersections found a non-linear relationship, such that collisions rates
> declined with increases in the numbers of people walking or bicycling.
> Data: This paper uses five additional data sets (three population level
> and two time series) to compare the amount of walking or bicycling and the
> injuries incurring in collisions with motor vehicles.
>
> Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be
> struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or
> bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communities of varying size,
> from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time
> periods.
>
> Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the
> people walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are
> larger, it indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the
> likelihood of collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears
> that motorists adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking and
> bicycling. There is an urgent need for further exploration of the human
> factors controlling motorist behavior in the presence of people walking
> and bicycling.
>
> Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and
> bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the
> numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route to
> improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.
>
> This work was then looked at by D Robinson, you can view it here:
>
> http://www.bfa.asn.au/bfanew/pdf/publications/safety_in_numbers.pdf
>
> It shows that the safety in Numbers principle 'works' for Australia, and
> draws the conclusion that discouraging cycling by whatever means (even if
> 'safety focussed') is more detrimental to public health than encouraging
> it.
>
> 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..... :-)
>
> And.... look out soon for some South Australian research on the Safety in
> Numbers principle..... to be published.
>

I wonder if there's a volume of bicycle traffic, a critical mass if you
will, where motorist behaviour changes substantially. There's probably a
point where it stop being considered the behaviour of the radical nutbag and
starts being something that most or at least a lot of people do.

[email protected]

March 25th 06, 05:37 AM

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 08:18:05 +1100, 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."

The report is bull****.

Last I heard sales of cycles is at an all time high.

Gemma_k

March 25th 06, 06:07 AM

"TimC" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-03-25, Gemma_k (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> And.... look out soon for some South Australian research on the Safety in
>> Numbers principle..... to be published.
>
> First the safety ad, and now this!
>
>
> Thanks Gemma_k! You're my hero.
>

The State Cycling Strategy for SA funnily enough uses the Safety in Numbers
Principle too..... Released mid Feb.
http://www.transport.sa.gov.au/pdfs/personal_transport/bike_direct/cycling_strategy.pdf

;-)

Cheers
Gemma

HughMann

March 25th 06, 06:12 AM

endroll Wrote:
> 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!

Without anything being cited the article is pointless.
What research ?
First reaction to the article also in WE Australian was that how do
they capture data of accidents where person falls off bike, head hits
road, person gets up un- injured and rides off, buy new helmet. No
injury report - no data.

That guy who used to be on 3LO from the Melb Childrens Hospital had all
the numbers about deaths and lives saved.

Better go now I can hear the thundering of troll footfalls.

Hugh

--
HughMann

Gemma_k

March 25th 06, 06:15 AM

"Resound" > wrote in message
...
>> I wonder if there's a volume of bicycle traffic, a critical mass if you
> will, where motorist behaviour changes substantially. There's probably a
> point where it stop being considered the behaviour of the radical nutbag
> and starts being something that most or at least a lot of people do.
There's a few theories why this phenomenon works. I think you picked it, but
I don't think it's a 'critical mass' thing (smeed's law says it's not a
linear relationship either)
Theories:
One is that there's more people that actually ride, who also drive.
Therefore they understand and can 'read' cyclists' behavious better.
One is that it's like a herd of beasts - there's only a certin number of
lions (drivers) out to get you (make mistakes), the larger the number/herd
of beasts the less chance an individual one will get picked out and eaten
(run into)
And the one I think is more likely - that motorists always seeing cyclists
on a road or junction begin to expect them there, and reacting correctly and
safely becomes a subconscious driving task rather than a conscious one.
But it's more likely to be a combination of all three....
further work reqd :-)

Gemma_k

March 25th 06, 06:19 AM

"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

Donga

March 25th 06, 06:26 AM

Gru:
>The report is bull****. Last I heard sales of cycles is at an all time high.

You'll have to do better than that. Do they ride them? Do kids ride to
school any more?

Marx SS

March 25th 06, 06:28 AM

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?

--
Marx SS

Bleve

March 25th 06, 07:04 AM

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!!!

They make you wear a seatbelt too.

Bleve

March 25th 06, 07:11 AM

Donga wrote:
> Gru:
> >The report is bull****. Last I heard sales of cycles is at an all time high.
>
> You'll have to do better than that. Do they ride them? Do kids ride to
> school any more?

Three kids got bikes today at my LBS that they (claim) will be ridden
to school. We're seeing a lot of commuters too. A -lot-

The dip can possibly be explained by a generation that wasn't used to
helmets, and thus objecting to them (I know I did, I hated that damn
awful stackhat). Now, they've been compulsory for what, 15 years? The
current generation doesn't seem to worry so much about helmets. Modern
helmets are comfortable and lightweight and no-one I know seems to
object to them. People sooked about seatbelts in the 60's ... drink
driving laws in the 50's ... blah...

Why has this dead horse cropped up again? In a British publication?
They haven't made them (helmets) compulsory in the UK, but it's a hot
topic at the moment.

cfsmtb

March 25th 06, 07:38 AM

Resound Wrote:
> We don't need helmets. We just need to replace everything with exact
> replicas made out of nerf.

Why not use fimo? Nice polymer clay and great range of bright colors.

--
cfsmtb

Wilfred Kazoks

March 25th 06, 07:44 AM

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 am a fat man who rides for exercise. I think there are a lot of reasons
people don't ride as much anymore. Helmets might be one of them. The roads
being a lot busier is another one.

Wilfred

"SuzieB" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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."
>
>
> --
> SuzieB
>

Euan

March 25th 06, 08:14 AM

Jules wrote:
> This report in the BMJ was _years_ ago wasn't it?

Yep, don't count on The Age to come up with original content.

> Sounds good to me, though ;-) Bloody helmets... <flame suit on>

See I knew you were intelligent when I met you :-) (against compulsion,
not against helmets).
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Euan

March 25th 06, 08:22 AM

Gemma_k wrote:
> Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the people
> walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are larger, it
> indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the likelihood of
> collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears that motorists
> adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling. There
> is an urgent need for further exploration of the human factors controlling
> motorist behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling.

There's overlap with second generation traffic engineering here? As I
understand it the point of second generation traffic engineering is to
remove most of the `guaranteed' road space for motorists forcing them to
think about how they're interacting with other traffic.

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/05/20/traffic_design/index.html
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Euan

March 25th 06, 08:24 AM

Gemma_k wrote:
> "Resound" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>I wonder if there's a volume of bicycle traffic, a critical mass if you
>>
>>will, where motorist behaviour changes substantially. There's probably a
>>point where it stop being considered the behaviour of the radical nutbag
>>and starts being something that most or at least a lot of people do.
>
> There's a few theories why this phenomenon works. I think you picked it, but
> I don't think it's a 'critical mass' thing (smeed's law says it's not a
> linear relationship either)
> Theories:
> One is that there's more people that actually ride, who also drive.
> Therefore they understand and can 'read' cyclists' behavious better.
> One is that it's like a herd of beasts - there's only a certin number of
> lions (drivers) out to get you (make mistakes), the larger the number/herd
> of beasts the less chance an individual one will get picked out and eaten
> (run into)
> And the one I think is more likely - that motorists always seeing cyclists
> on a road or junction begin to expect them there, and reacting correctly and
> safely becomes a subconscious driving task rather than a conscious one.
> But it's more likely to be a combination of all three....
> further work reqd :-)

Another possibility, more cyclists means less drivers which leads to
less destructive potential on the roads.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

flyingdutch

March 25th 06, 08:29 AM

Bleve Wrote:
>
>
> They make you wear a seatbelt too.

seatbelts on bikes! Awesome!!

another bit of CF bling :rolleyes:

--
flyingdutch

Euan

March 25th 06, 08:29 AM

Bleve wrote:
> 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!!!
>
>
> They make you wear a seatbelt too.

Oh yes, the common seatbelt justification. Seatbelts are an undoubted
boon to motoring safety...or are they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Euan

March 25th 06, 08:36 AM

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 | ~ (*)/ (*)

Gemma_k

March 25th 06, 08:57 AM

"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.--

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

Peter McCallum

March 25th 06, 11:07 AM

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/Hagel_06_BMJ_HL_resp.pdf

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

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Peter McCallum

March 25th 06, 11:08 AM

TimC > wrote:

> On 2006-03-24, SuzieB (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > In da Age today... http://tinyurl.com/g2ml7
> ...
> > But some researchers have suggested Ms Robinson's conclusions
> > "crumble" under scrutiny.
>
> Darn, small article not going into enough depth. I would love to have
> read a bit more about these researchers, and the nature of the
> crumbling.
>

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/Hagel_06_BMJ_HL_resp.pdf

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

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Resound

March 25th 06, 11:09 AM

"cfsmtb" > wrote in message
...
>
> Resound Wrote:
>> We don't need helmets. We just need to replace everything with exact
>> replicas made out of nerf.
>
> Why not use fimo? Nice polymer clay and great range of bright colors.
>
>
> --
> cfsmtb
>

Hell, use both. Sprinkle beanbags around liberally for good measure...there
needs to be more readily available community beanbags.

Gemma_k

March 25th 06, 11:22 AM

"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/Hagel_06_BMJ_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

Peter McCallum

March 25th 06, 11:34 AM

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

Peter McCallum

March 25th 06, 11:34 AM

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

Peter McCallum

March 25th 06, 11:34 AM

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

rooman

March 25th 06, 12:06 PM

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

Friday

March 25th 06, 12:30 PM

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!

stu

March 25th 06, 12:43 PM

> 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?

Plodder

March 26th 06, 02:30 AM

--
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

Andrew Price

March 26th 06, 02:53 AM

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?

EuanB

March 26th 06, 03:09 AM

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

EuanB

March 26th 06, 03:11 AM

Friday Wrote:
>
> 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!

That is a ridiculous arguement. Cycling is inherently a low risk
activity, in some countires it's lower risk than being a pedestrian.

Helmet compulsion makes a low risk activity such as cycling appear
more dangerous than it is.

--
EuanB

John Stevenson

March 26th 06, 04:00 AM

Plodder wrote:

> Further probing almost always reveals "I put myself at risk because I didn't
> think through the situation sufficiently". I wonder if similar figures apply
> to road users?

If so, and I'd have no trouble believing it, then road engineers still
have a duty to design roads that stop people putting themselves in
harm's way. That doesn't necessarily mean segregating traffic types - I
like the ideas of traffic engineers who want to mix different traffic
types to encourage people to look out for each other.

The alternative is to stop treating driving as a right and make it a
hard-won privilege with a much higher test of competence than at
present. It should at least be escalated from 'are you breathing' to
'are you breathing through your nose'.

John Stevenson

March 26th 06, 04:05 AM

Plodder wrote:

> Kid's

For the love of God, won't somebody think of the children!

Obviously parents aren't scared enough about all the things that can
harm their kids. Heavy enforcement of helmet wearing among under-16s is
essential to scare parents into buying even bigger light trucks to ferry
their little darlings around the place. Way better to ensure they lead
completely sedentary lives, exit their teens 20kg overweight with the
beginnings of type 2 diabetes and cark it at 40 of heart attacks than
that they be exposed to the risk of landing on their heads from bicycles.

Zebee Johnstone

March 26th 06, 05:26 AM

In aus.bicycle on Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:55:27 +1000
stu > wrote:
> you arent dead"
> story 2. guy fall off (motor) bike, lands on back busrting his camelback
> bladder, taken to the doctors with back pain....words to the effect " if you
> hadnt been wearing the camel back you would be paralysed" (who would have
> thought a doctor would have so much experience with camelback V non camel
> back accidents lol)

Who'd have thought hospital docs were so clueless about trauma....

IF the camelback had been full and survived the fall, back injury
would be more likely not less - most motorcycle back injuries are
torsion, not impact.

If my experience is any guide, the poor buggers in the white coats
aren't experienced knowledgeable docs but interns. Not-quite-docs.
Who spout as much rubbish as any other learner does.

You don't get the real trauma surgeons with clue unless you are
seriously damaged. If you are just a bit hurt you get the trainees
doing 80+ hour weeks and trying like hell to remember their training
while looking for a new matchstick to prop their eyes open with.

Zebee
- who has the scars to prove that an intern at the end of a 80 hour
week can carve you up with those cast-removal things that aren't
supposed to cut flesh...

Peter Keller

March 26th 06, 06:16 AM

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:09:20 +1100, EuanB wrote:

>
> rooman Wrote:
<snip>
>
> 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.

I have heard many more stories of "My helmet saved my life" than ever were
people who died before helmet-wearing became common.

Peter

--
No Microsoft involved. Certified virus free --

Donga

March 26th 06, 06:24 AM

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

Are you sure of that?
;-)

Bleve

March 26th 06, 06:48 AM

Plodder (remove DAKS to reply) wrote:

>
> I have trouble with the idea that poor road design is as bad as it's made
> out to be. Yes, risk is increased at, say, poorly designed intersections *if
> people do not drive/ride/walk according to conditions*. It seems to me that
> an intersection with 5000 vehicle movements per day (failry typical on a
> reasonably busy urban road) has a crash once a month (that's a lot!) too
> often road design is to blame. If that's the case, what have the other 14999
> users done right?

Agreed. We have to drive/ride/walk/ski/swim etc according to the
conditions, blaming them is just an excuse. Eg: When I ride country
roads with no shoulder (bad!) I pull off the road when I see a car
coming and there's a car/truck coming behind as well. PITA? Yes, but a
-lot- safer. Riding to how things should be gets you killed, riding to
how they are keeps you alive and uninjured. Luck does not pay a
significant part in this, I believe.

There's riders that crash a lot (motorbike, pushbike etc) and those of
us that crash very very rarely despite a -lot- of time spent on the
roads.

> I think a focus on driving to the conditions is a far more productive method
> of sorting out the 'black spots'. Roads are used by people - people's road
> behaviour needs to change. I wonder if there are any stats that show the
> number of people who are serial crashers?

Hands up, Tim! He means you!

> I work in industrial safety.
> Around 80% or the injuries I see are sustained by around 20% of the people
> (Pareto at work!). That means around 80% of the people I work with (about
> 400) do not hurt themselves. At injury investigations the initial response
> of the injured person is almost always "X condition caused my injury".
> Further probing almost always reveals "I put myself at risk because I didn't
> think through the situation sufficiently". I wonder if similar figures apply
> to road users?

A quick straw survey of the riders here would probably corroborate your
argument.

Resound

March 26th 06, 08:02 AM

"Bleve" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Plodder (remove DAKS to reply) wrote:
>
>>
>> I have trouble with the idea that poor road design is as bad as it's made
>> out to be. Yes, risk is increased at, say, poorly designed intersections
>> *if
>> people do not drive/ride/walk according to conditions*. It seems to me
>> that
>> an intersection with 5000 vehicle movements per day (failry typical on a
>> reasonably busy urban road) has a crash once a month (that's a lot!) too
>> often road design is to blame. If that's the case, what have the other
>> 14999
>> users done right?
>
> Agreed. We have to drive/ride/walk/ski/swim etc according to the
> conditions, blaming them is just an excuse. Eg: When I ride country
> roads with no shoulder (bad!) I pull off the road when I see a car
> coming and there's a car/truck coming behind as well. PITA? Yes, but a
> -lot- safer. Riding to how things should be gets you killed, riding to
> how they are keeps you alive and uninjured. Luck does not pay a
> significant part in this, I believe.
>
> There's riders that crash a lot (motorbike, pushbike etc) and those of
> us that crash very very rarely despite a -lot- of time spent on the
> roads.
>

There's definitely something to be said for that theory. At the risk of
haring off on a tangent, It sounds very much like the frequency with which
cyclists cop verbal abuse from motorists. I very rarely get abused, despite
claiming the lane and riding fairly assertively. Of the few times that I
have scored abuse, a couple of them were deserved (I brain-faded) and most
of the rest were troglodytic Commodore drivers, and even those are few and
far between. I don't consider myself to be particularly gifted or skilled
but I've come across a few people who get abuse all the time and as a result
complain about motorists. It takes a fair amount of restraint not to point
out the one glaring common factor in all of the incidents they experience.

endroll

March 26th 06, 09:56 AM

If they are so concerned about the helmet messing up their carefully
arranged hair (of course the blowing wind whilst on the bike would do
the same) and not so concerned about their personal safety, the social
cost of health care if they crash, etc then why don't they just go for
a walk!? it's cheaper anyway. So we can't say that helmets are even
remotely responsible for heart disease. If they don't walk then why on
earth would they take up cycling - a more expensive, time and energy
consuming activity?

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

--
endroll

rooman

March 26th 06, 10:06 AM

stu Wrote:
>
> > 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?
well he did survive.... so what's the point? and on the little
child..IMHO you couldnt be more wrong...likely the poor kid died
because the didnt fit/and or helmet wasnt being worn properly, so...my
point exactly in the other bits you chose to cut out...too many kids
have them hanging off their heads and if they dont get strangled they
are lucky, unless they break their necks or belt their exposed temples
on something.

Sure the human body is an amazing thing and can survive much trauma,
however it has evolved ( or was created whatever you wish to think) to
help us hunt, gather and fight for our meals, and seek shelter and to
prevent us from becoming other creature's meals. Hence an internal soft
package of vital bits on a rugged and adaptable frame with specail
sections to further add protection for a mature adult human to
survive. Immature humans rely on the mature members of the group to
protect them...nothing there has changed except that rather than run
and hunt, we now use projectiles to propell our bodies through time and
space and thus place ourselves in risk of higher impact we werent
designed to absorb without greater consequences...all sounds very
elementary right...thus should it not follow that a little bit of
armour just might be the smart thing to do...we are meant to be the
clever species... how clever is it to ignore this... maybe skill and
fortuitous outcomes will help some, but the world is littered with the
corpses and twisted bodies of those unfortunate enough to not use the
grey matter and white matter enough to think about protecting it just a
little bit....and perhaps the gene pool is in some cases better off...

I am all about choice, and an adult's freedom to make an informed
choice, however, here I am not so sure non compulsory helmets is the
way to go. This is the case especially for kids whose skulls are still
developing and we have a responsibility to protect them until they too
can make their informed choice.

All the other arguments against helmet compulsion are, to me, a crock
of horse manure and as I dont have a great deal of faith in joe average
to make a proper and informed choice on this issue. Thus, our
governments can do it for us on the issue of helmets until a
substantial weight of evidence exists to show helmet wearing for
cyclists does substantially more harm than good and our governments
then change the law based on rational and factual argument.

In the meantime, if you don't have a brain ...you don't need a helmet!

I think nature got it right in the first place and we have to help her
out if we want to place our human frames and its contents at risk.

TiMHO...here endeth the lesson... beer time!

--
rooman

TimC

March 26th 06, 10:44 AM

On 2006-03-25, Euan (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Bleve wrote:
>> Gemma_k wrote:
>>>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!!!
>>
>> They make you wear a seatbelt too.
>
> Oh yes, the common seatbelt justification. Seatbelts are an undoubted
> boon to motoring safety...or are they?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seat_belt_legislation

The rest of this thread is going to be boring same old same old, but
that's intersting.

--
TimC
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.

TimC

March 26th 06, 10:50 AM

On 2006-03-26, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> In aus.bicycle on Sun, 26 Mar 2006 13:55:27 +1000
> stu > wrote:
>> you arent dead"
>> story 2. guy fall off (motor) bike, lands on back busrting his camelback
>> bladder, taken to the doctors with back pain....words to the effect " if you
>> hadnt been wearing the camel back you would be paralysed" (who would have
>> thought a doctor would have so much experience with camelback V non camel
>> back accidents lol)
>
> Who'd have thought hospital docs were so clueless about trauma....

You'd think someone smart enough to become a doctor (of medicine, not
a real doctor :), would be smart enough to know what biases they have
in their data. It seems not so, unfortunately.

--
TimC
cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.

Friday

March 26th 06, 10:55 AM

EuanB wrote:
>
> 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.
>
>

Better yet, prove that if you provide any exercise facilities at all, of
any kind, that people will use them. Communities are full of barely used
gyms, walk paths and recreation grounds. Saying if we do this that or
the other doesn't, in the end, make people get up off their butts and
exercise.
Australians will always believe that a cure is easier than prevention.

TimC

March 26th 06, 10:58 AM

On 2006-03-26, Plodder (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> I think a focus on driving to the conditions is a far more productive method
> of sorting out the 'black spots'. Roads are used by people - people's road
> behaviour needs to change. I wonder if there are any stats that show the
> number of people who are serial crashers? I work in industrial safety.
> Around 80% or the injuries I see are sustained by around 20% of the people
> (Pareto at work!). That means around 80% of the people I work with (about
> 400) do not hurt themselves. At injury investigations the initial response
> of the injured person is almost always "X condition caused my injury".
> Further probing almost always reveals "I put myself at risk because I didn't
> think through the situation sufficiently". I wonder if similar figures apply
> to road users?

Of course it does. A friend of mine was driving through the car park
in an orderly fashion. He got t-boned by an idiot who was cutting
through empty car spots. The driver then started abusing friend,
asking why she should be responsible for repairs; "it's not fair, this
is the third time this has happened in the last month!".

The only punishment she will get is her premiums might go up slightly.

--
TimC
I got told by a friend's ex-girlfriend that she could tell I was
a Linux geek from the way I *walked*. -- Skud

TimC

March 26th 06, 11:01 AM

On 2006-03-26, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Plodder (remove DAKS to reply) wrote:
>> I think a focus on driving to the conditions is a far more productive method
>> of sorting out the 'black spots'. Roads are used by people - people's road
>> behaviour needs to change. I wonder if there are any stats that show the
>> number of people who are serial crashers?
>
> Hands up, Tim! He means you!
>
>> I work in industrial safety.
>> Around 80% or the injuries I see are sustained by around 20% of the people
>> (Pareto at work!). That means around 80% of the people I work with (about
>> 400) do not hurt themselves. At injury investigations the initial response
>> of the injured person is almost always "X condition caused my injury".
>> Further probing almost always reveals "I put myself at risk because I didn't
>> think through the situation sufficiently". I wonder if similar figures apply
>> to road users?
>
> A quick straw survey of the riders here would probably corroborate your
> argument.

Can't I just blame the people breaking the law? :)

Yeah, I ride to how things should be, rather than they are. Maybe the
world will change one day, unlikely as it is. Feh.

--
TimC
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
-- Ferenc Mantfeld

OzCableguy

March 26th 06, 12:24 PM

More here along those lines - http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
(Just in case it hasn't already been posted and/or not already known/done to
death etc)

Peter Signorini

March 26th 06, 12:42 PM

"Euan" wrote:

> There isn't a single study to my knowledge that has proven helmets help
> reduce cyclist injury rates or fatality rates.--

No, that's just it Euan. I have seen some data following the introduction of
helmets in Victoria (on a website that I can't lay my hands on right now)
that showed that both cyclist deaths and cyclist non-head injury
hospitalisations decreased in pretty much the same proportions in the years
after compulsory helmet laws. Either helmets somehow prevented arm and leg
injuries, or the reason had more to do with an overall decline in bicycle
use (more logical).

So most of the decline in head injury and deaths was simply due to lower
rates of bicycle use. Subjectively I saw this very graphically at the bike
sheds at the school I taught at, and objectively I believe BV or Vicroads
bicycle counts bore this out - more bikes sold, far fewer (about 30% less)
used for everday transport and recreation.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

Peter Signorini

March 26th 06, 12:54 PM

"Peter Signorini" wrote:

> No, that's just it Euan. I have seen some data following the introduction
> of helmets in Victoria (on a website that I can't lay my hands on right
> now) that showed that both cyclist deaths and cyclist non-head injury
> hospitalisations decreased in pretty much the same proportions in the
> years after compulsory helmet laws.

Here it is:
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2022.pdf

The graph fig. 1 is the data I referred to.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

stu

March 26th 06, 01:31 PM

"rooman" > wrote in message
...
>
> stu Wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
> well he did survive.... so what's the point?

The point is that just because he was wearing a helmet doesn't mean it saved
his life. He may have been just fine. You don't know, I don't know, he
doesn't know.

> and on the little
> child..IMHO you couldnt be more wrong...likely the poor kid died
> because the didnt fit/and or helmet wasnt being worn properly, so...my
> point exactly in the other bits you chose to cut out..

Its called trimming (lets see what the post looks like if i dont trim)

>.too many kids
> have them hanging off their heads and if they dont get strangled they
> are lucky, unless they break their necks or belt their exposed temples
> on something.

It doesnt matter why the child was killed by the helmet, the helmet is what
killed him/her. dead is dead. Without the helmet he/she would have most
likely be alive.
(it is of course possible that in the same accident without the helmet the
child would have died from different injuries)

> Sure the human body is an amazing thing and can survive much trauma,
> however it has evolved ( or was created whatever you wish to think) to
> help us hunt, gather and fight for our meals, and seek shelter and to
> prevent us from becoming other creature's meals. Hence an internal soft
> package of vital bits on a rugged and adaptable frame with specail
> sections to further add protection for a mature adult human to
> survive. Immature humans rely on the mature members of the group to
> protect them...nothing there has changed except that rather than run
> and hunt, we now use projectiles to propell our bodies through time and
> space and thus place ourselves in risk of higher impact we werent
> designed to absorb without greater consequences...all sounds very
> elementary right...thus should it not follow that a little bit of
> armour just might be the smart thing to do...we are meant to be the
> clever species... how clever is it to ignore this... maybe skill and
> fortuitous outcomes will help some, but the world is littered with the
> corpses and twisted bodies of those unfortunate enough to not use the
> grey matter and white matter enough to think about protecting it just a
> little bit....and perhaps the gene pool is in some cases better off...

If it is this simple then surely it will be easy for you to point out the
stats that show how much safer we are wearing helmets than before.
As someone else put it
I (luckly)know 0 people that have been killed riding a bike, this included 5
years riding to school with 100's of other students before the helmet laws
came in. I know of plenty of people that have "the helmet saved my life"
stories since the laws came in.
>
> I am all about choice, and an adult's freedom to make an informed
> choice, however, here I am not so sure non compulsory helmets is the
> way to go. This is the case especially for kids whose skulls are still
> developing and we have a responsibility to protect them until they too
> can make their informed choice.
>
> All the other arguments against helmet compulsion are, to me, a crock
> of horse manure and as I dont have a great deal of faith in joe average
> to make a proper and informed choice on this issue.

So because joe average doesnt agree with you, you want a law to make him
wear one?
What if joe average managed to get a law passed making illegal for you to
wear a helmet, would you be happy about that?

>Thus, our
> governments can do it for us on the issue of helmets until a
> substantial weight of evidence exists to show helmet wearing for
> cyclists does substantially more harm than good and our governments
> then change the law based on rational and factual argument.

Why a substantial weight of evidence? Where was the substantial weight of
evidence before they passed the law? there wasn't a rational and factual
argument(sure it made them feel good) and sure maybe it seemed like a good
idea at the time... as yet there is still alot of arguement as to weather
they have done any good.

> In the meantime, if you don't have a brain ...you don't need a helmet!
>
cool lets start the insults

maybe you should stay at home in front of the TV where it's safe

> I think nature got it right in the first place and we have to help her
> out if we want to place our human frames and its contents at risk.
>
> TiMHO...here endeth the lesson... beer time!
>
> --
> rooman
>
Stu (who most likely does sillier things off road on his MTB with his
helmet on than he would without it. On road I don't think it makes a
difference to how I ride but who knows for sure)

Peter McCallum

March 26th 06, 01:36 PM

rooman > wrote:
> 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've just been reading his book and he reckons he had a crash while
running a yellow light when he was a teenager. He was hit by a car
turning across his path and suffered head injuries but was able to enter
and win a race a few days later.

I have always suspected that racing cyclists have no need for helmets
anyway.

P

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Euan

March 26th 06, 01:50 PM

endroll wrote:
> If they are so concerned about the helmet messing up their carefully
> arranged hair (of course the blowing wind whilst on the bike would do
> the same) and not so concerned about their personal safety, the social
> cost of health care if they crash, etc then why don't they just go for
> a walk!?

Because walking without a helmet is more dangerous than cycling with or
without a helmet.

Euan

March 26th 06, 02:08 PM

rooman wrote:

> In the meantime, if you don't have a brain ...you don't need a helmet!

That'd be 90% of the world's cycling population then? How many helmets
did Dutchy see in the Netherlands in his three weeks? One I think.

There are not facts which back compulsion. It hasn't achieved its goal
and it's succeeded in making cycling look more dangerous than it is.

See you at Goat.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

rooman

March 26th 06, 11:37 PM

stu Wrote:
> "rooman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > stu Wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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?
> > well he did survive.... so what's the point?
>
> The point is that just because he was wearing a helmet doesn't mean it
> saved
> his life. He may have been just fine. You don't know, I don't know, he
> doesn't know.
>
> > and on the little
> > child..IMHO you couldnt be more wrong...likely the poor kid died
> > because the didnt fit/and or helmet wasnt being worn properly,
> so...my
> > point exactly in the other bits you chose to cut out..
>
> Its called trimming (lets see what the post looks like if i dont trim)
>
> >.too many kids
> > have them hanging off their heads and if they dont get strangled they
> > are lucky, unless they break their necks or belt their exposed
> temples
> > on something.
>
> It doesnt matter why the child was killed by the helmet, the helmet is
> what
> killed him/her. dead is dead. Without the helmet he/she would have most
> likely be alive.
> (it is of course possible that in the same accident without the helmet
> the
> child would have died from different injuries)
>
> > Sure the human body is an amazing thing and can survive much trauma,
> > however it has evolved ( or was created whatever you wish to think)
> to
> > help us hunt, gather and fight for our meals, and seek shelter and to
> > prevent us from becoming other creature's meals. Hence an internal
> soft
> > package of vital bits on a rugged and adaptable frame with specail
> > sections to further add protection for a mature adult human to
> > survive. Immature humans rely on the mature members of the group to
> > protect them...nothing there has changed except that rather than run
> > and hunt, we now use projectiles to propell our bodies through time
> and
> > space and thus place ourselves in risk of higher impact we werent
> > designed to absorb without greater consequences...all sounds very
> > elementary right...thus should it not follow that a little bit of
> > armour just might be the smart thing to do...we are meant to be the
> > clever species... how clever is it to ignore this... maybe skill and
> > fortuitous outcomes will help some, but the world is littered with
> the
> > corpses and twisted bodies of those unfortunate enough to not use the
> > grey matter and white matter enough to think about protecting it just
> a
> > little bit....and perhaps the gene pool is in some cases better
> off...
>
> If it is this simple then surely it will be easy for you to point out
> the
> stats that show how much safer we are wearing helmets than before.
> As someone else put it
> I (luckly)know 0 people that have been killed riding a bike, this
> included 5
> years riding to school with 100's of other students before the helmet
> laws
> came in. I know of plenty of people that have "the helmet saved my
> life"
> stories since the laws came in.
> >
> > I am all about choice, and an adult's freedom to make an informed
> > choice, however, here I am not so sure non compulsory helmets is the
> > way to go. This is the case especially for kids whose skulls are
> still
> > developing and we have a responsibility to protect them until they
> too
> > can make their informed choice.
> >
> > All the other arguments against helmet compulsion are, to me, a crock
> > of horse manure and as I dont have a great deal of faith in joe
> average
> > to make a proper and informed choice on this issue.
>
> So because joe average doesnt agree with you, you want a law to make
> him
> wear one?
> What if joe average managed to get a law passed making illegal for you
> to
> wear a helmet, would you be happy about that?
>
> >Thus, our
> > governments can do it for us on the issue of helmets until a
> > substantial weight of evidence exists to show helmet wearing for
> > cyclists does substantially more harm than good and our governments
> > then change the law based on rational and factual argument.
>
> Why a substantial weight of evidence? Where was the substantial weight
> of
> evidence before they passed the law? there wasn't a rational and
> factual
> argument(sure it made them feel good) and sure maybe it seemed like a
> good
> idea at the time... as yet there is still alot of arguement as to
> weather
> they have done any good.
>
> > In the meantime, if you don't have a brain ...you don't need a
> helmet!
> >
> cool lets start the insults
>
> maybe you should stay at home in front of the TV where it's safe
>
> > I think nature got it right in the first place and we have to help
> her
> > out if we want to place our human frames and its contents at risk.
> >
> > TiMHO...here endeth the lesson... beer time!
> >
> > --
> > rooman
> >
> Stu (who most likely does sillier things off road on his MTB with his
> helmet on than he would without it. On road I don't think it makes a
> difference to how I ride but who knows for sure)
You therefore do wear a helmet...worn properly no doubt as you are
still with us...as to where you wear, surely that it is irrelevant...
or arnt there trees, objects, cars, hard surfaces etc in the vicinity
of roads?...or are they just peculiarly found by MTBers & off road?...I
think not!

--
rooman

Terry Collins

March 26th 06, 11:48 PM

OzCableguy wrote:
> More here along those lines - http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
> (Just in case it hasn't already been posted and/or not already known/done to
> death etc)

It is okay, we know you are new here. {:-)
The Helmet debate rages reqularly.
You either understand that bicycle helmets are a political sopp of
extremeley limited or nil use or believe they alone can save all
bicyclists in all accidents from all injury and if they don't it was
because you were not wearing it properly {:-).

EuanB

March 27th 06, 12:33 AM

rooman Wrote:
> You therefore do wear a helmet...worn properly no doubt as you are still
> with us...as to where you wear, surely that it is irrelevant... or arnt
> there trees, objects, cars, hard surfaces etc in the vicinity of
> roads?...or are they just peculiarly found by MTBers & off road?...I
> think not!

The two hardly compare. MTBing and roadie type riding (bunch riding,
fast cornering etc) is competitive riding where there is a higher risk
of injury. If there was no helmet compulsion in this country I'd
choose to wear a helmet whist engaged in those activiities.

General commuter riding does not involve the same level of risk
taking, if it does you shouldn't be on the road!

--
EuanB

Resound

March 27th 06, 01:03 AM

TimC Wrote:
> On 2006-03-26, Peter Keller (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> > Reminds me of when I rode into one of those "Pedestrian safety"
> > obstructions when the sun was in my eyes. Banged my knee quite
> severely,
> > fell on my hands.
> > And the first thing the first guy who came to me said was,
> > "xxxx xx xxxx xxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxx hxxxxt!"
>
> How do you pronounce that?
>
> --
> TimC
> >Land of the free?
> Land of the fee, the US ...
> -- Carl Brewer on aus.bicycle

Fricatively.

--
Resound

Plodder

March 27th 06, 01:22 AM

--
Frank

Drop DACKS to reply
"Andrew Price" > wrote in message
...
>
> 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?

Probably. I started adult cycling as an MTBer and have become very used to
wearing a helmet. Don't feel quite dressed without :)

That said, six months ago I spent two months touring in Europe. I broke my
helmet (bike fell over on the ferry with helmet hanging off the pannier) in
the first few days. I rode the rest of the time without a helmet quite
cheerfully. Then again I quickly developed trust for motorists there that I
still don't have for motorists here. If a helmet affords me protection from
minor injury that's OK by me, even if it is in fact ineffective for major
prangs. For me it's about mitigation. It might just keep me under the
serious injury line for a given impact.

Since returning to Australia I've taken to wearing my helmet all the time
again. Partly from feeling dressed and mostly to set an example to my
partner's two boys. I don't lecture them, I just always make sure I'm wering
my helmet when I jump on the bike.

I also figure that since it makes no difference to my comfort and
convenience to wear a helmet I may as well take the chance that it does give
some protection, however slight. I buy decent, well-ventilated helmets, not
the cheapies, so I'm comfortable. When MTBing I've clobbered trees, landed
head-first on rocks, etc. The helmets may or may not have saved my life, but
it sure as hell saved me from abrasions if nothing else. On the road I
haven't had any head-strike crashes so I have no personal anecdotal
evidence.

Cheers,

Frank

Plodder

March 27th 06, 01:29 AM

--
Frank

Drop DACKS to reply
"John Stevenson" > wrote in message
u...
> Plodder wrote:
>
> > Kid's
>
> For the love of God, won't somebody think of the children!
>
> Obviously parents aren't scared enough about all the things that can
> harm their kids. Heavy enforcement of helmet wearing among under-16s is
> essential to scare parents into buying even bigger light trucks to ferry
> their little darlings around the place. Way better to ensure they lead
> completely sedentary lives, exit their teens 20kg overweight with the
> beginnings of type 2 diabetes and cark it at 40 of heart attacks than
> that they be exposed to the risk of landing on their heads from bicycles.

Seems to me many of them do that anyway. The curse of the games console. I
said to my partner's kids recently that I was thankful consoles weren't
around when I was a kid. I was lucky enough to have REAL experiences. I
talked to real people, I climbed real trees, I fell of real bikes, etc. We
have a 50% success rate. The 12 year-old likes getting out on his bike and
doing other stuff. Consoles are for when he's got nothing else to do. The 14
year-old is permanently plugged in. At wits end trying to prise him away. I
even tried unplugging stuff. He simply bolted to his mate's place. Arrgh.
Hope he'll grow out of it.

As far as fear is concerned, I agree with you. There's too much fear about
already. However I'm not a parent and can't fathom the depth or type of fear
danger to the brood engenders. My view is that kids should be free to take
risks and accumulate scars. Parents seem to think otherwise...

Cheers,

Frank

Wally

March 27th 06, 01:39 AM

Abortion, drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, helmets.
The bigger issues is why do we need governments to decide for us?

Why am I allowed to smoke cigarettes and not allowed to ride my bicycle
without a helmet?

cfsmtb

March 27th 06, 01:49 AM

Plodder Wrote:
> As far as fear is concerned, I agree with you. There's too much fear
> about already. However I'm not a parent and can't fathom the depth or
> type of fear danger to the brood engenders. My view is that kids should
> be free to take risks and accumulate scars. Parents seem to think
> otherwise...

Yeah you don't see kids covered in elastoplas or painted in betadine
anymore. Doesn't seem to be too many barked knees around either. As for
the helmet palavar, as mentioned on the BFA-oz list, this debate is
academic, and it's way overdue for all of us move on. Cyclings on the
increase again after that *dip* in the early 90's, so lets just get on
with it.

--
cfsmtb

Stuart Lamble

March 27th 06, 02:07 AM

On 2006-03-27, Wally > wrote:
> Why am I allowed to smoke cigarettes and not allowed to ride my bicycle
> without a helmet?

That's an easy one. Taxes. The government gets money every time you buy
a pack, so they're reluctant to ban it outright.

Same deal with alcohol. I'm surprised that they're not taxing the wazoo
out of caffeine ...

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

Peter McCallum

March 27th 06, 02:11 AM

cfsmtb > wrote:

> Plodder Wrote:
> > As far as fear is concerned, I agree with you. There's too much fear
> > about already. However I'm not a parent and can't fathom the depth or
> > type of fear danger to the brood engenders. My view is that kids should
> > be free to take risks and accumulate scars. Parents seem to think
> > otherwise...
>
> Yeah you don't see kids covered in elastoplas or painted in betadine
> anymore. Doesn't seem to be too many barked knees around either. As for
> the helmet palavar, as mentioned on the BFA-oz list, this debate is
> academic, and it's way overdue for all of us move on. Cyclings on the
> increase again after that *dip* in the early 90's, so lets just get on
> with it.

I agree. There is little interest from government in modifying these
laws. Back in 1989/90 when the national laws were proposed, our
Transport Minister initially said that Qld would not be making helmets
compulsory. The reaction in his local electorate via the media and
direct contact with his office was so swift and so loud that he changed
his mind within three days.

What we now need is some serious investment in infrastructure and a
commitment from councils, state and federal governments to provide
facilities that are attractive to latent cyclists. Up here in Mackay we
have the opposite. I see the council is ripping up 3km of shared path
along a very busy road to the industrial area. The path is being
replaced by a 1.5m concrete footpath. There are plans for a new bikeway
but who knows when that will arrive. Not any time soon. Thank God I have
a helmet to fend off those B-Doubles.

Peter

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Peter McCallum

March 27th 06, 02:14 AM

Stuart Lamble > wrote:

> I'm surprised that they're not taxing the wazoo out of caffeine ...

That would be the end of cycling as we know it. Maybe our road
authorities should be looking into this.

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Resound

March 27th 06, 02:18 AM

Stuart Lamble Wrote:
> On 2006-03-27, Wally > wrote:
> > Why am I allowed to smoke cigarettes and not allowed to ride my
> bicycle
> > without a helmet?
>
> That's an easy one. Taxes. The government gets money every time you
> buy
> a pack, so they're reluctant to ban it outright.
>
> Same deal with alcohol. I'm surprised that they're not taxing the
> wazoo
> out of caffeine ...
>
> --
> My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me,
> and
> the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

SSHHH! You'll give them ideas!

*cuddles coffee protectively*

--
Resound

jazmo

March 27th 06, 03:08 AM

Anyone who uses having to wear a helmet as an excuse not to ride would
find another excuse not to ride if helmets weren't mandatory.

--
jazmo

EuanB

March 27th 06, 03:12 AM

jazmo Wrote:
> Anyone who uses having to wear a helmet as an excuse not to ride would
> find another excuse not to ride if helmets weren't mandatory.

Of course, that's why cycling dropped by 30% when helmet compulsion
was introduced.

--
EuanB

Peter McCallum

March 27th 06, 03:29 AM

jazmo > wrote:
> Anyone who uses having to wear a helmet as an excuse not to ride would
> find another excuse not to ride if helmets weren't mandatory.

Evidence?

I know people who gave up cycling at the time and have only recently
recommenced cycling when they realised how unfit they had become since
1991. From the figures in Dorothy Robinson's report (and other sources)
it appears that many people stopped cycling in the early 1990s.

Generally they gave up cycling because they didn't like the idea of a
helmet and developed other habits. Now they have redeveloped the habit
of choosing to cycle again rather than use the car.

We really need to develop ways of encouraging those former cyclists to
return to the bike despite helmets. These days it is probably not so
hard, given that generally people see helmets as the norm rather than
something that "safety nuts" do.

P

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

stu

March 27th 06, 03:35 AM

"rooman" > wrote in message
...
>
> stu Wrote:
> > "rooman" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > stu Wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 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?
> > > well he did survive.... so what's the point?
> >
> > The point is that just because he was wearing a helmet doesn't mean it
> > saved
> > his life. He may have been just fine. You don't know, I don't know, he
> > doesn't know.
> >
> > > and on the little
> > > child..IMHO you couldnt be more wrong...likely the poor kid died
> > > because the didnt fit/and or helmet wasnt being worn properly,
> > so...my
> > > point exactly in the other bits you chose to cut out..
> >
> > Its called trimming (lets see what the post looks like if i dont trim)
> >
> > >.too many kids
> > > have them hanging off their heads and if they dont get strangled they
> > > are lucky, unless they break their necks or belt their exposed
> > temples
> > > on something.
> >
> > It doesnt matter why the child was killed by the helmet, the helmet is
> > what
> > killed him/her. dead is dead. Without the helmet he/she would have most
> > likely be alive.
> > (it is of course possible that in the same accident without the helmet
> > the
> > child would have died from different injuries)
> >
> > > Sure the human body is an amazing thing and can survive much trauma,
> > > however it has evolved ( or was created whatever you wish to think)
> > to
> > > help us hunt, gather and fight for our meals, and seek shelter and to
> > > prevent us from becoming other creature's meals. Hence an internal
> > soft
> > > package of vital bits on a rugged and adaptable frame with specail
> > > sections to further add protection for a mature adult human to
> > > survive. Immature humans rely on the mature members of the group to
> > > protect them...nothing there has changed except that rather than run
> > > and hunt, we now use projectiles to propell our bodies through time
> > and
> > > space and thus place ourselves in risk of higher impact we werent
> > > designed to absorb without greater consequences...all sounds very
> > > elementary right...thus should it not follow that a little bit of
> > > armour just might be the smart thing to do...we are meant to be the
> > > clever species... how clever is it to ignore this... maybe skill and
> > > fortuitous outcomes will help some, but the world is littered with
> > the
> > > corpses and twisted bodies of those unfortunate enough to not use the
> > > grey matter and white matter enough to think about protecting it just
> > a
> > > little bit....and perhaps the gene pool is in some cases better
> > off...
> >
> > If it is this simple then surely it will be easy for you to point out
> > the
> > stats that show how much safer we are wearing helmets than before.

waiting

> > As someone else put it
> > I (luckly)know 0 people that have been killed riding a bike, this
> > included 5
> > years riding to school with 100's of other students before the helmet
> > laws
> > came in. I know of plenty of people that have "the helmet saved my
> > life"
> > stories since the laws came in.
> > >
> > > I am all about choice, and an adult's freedom to make an informed
> > > choice, however, here I am not so sure non compulsory helmets is the
> > > way to go. This is the case especially for kids whose skulls are
> > still
> > > developing and we have a responsibility to protect them until they
> > too
> > > can make their informed choice.
> > >
> > > All the other arguments against helmet compulsion are, to me, a crock
> > > of horse manure and as I dont have a great deal of faith in joe
> > average
> > > to make a proper and informed choice on this issue.
> >
> > So because joe average doesnt agree with you, you want a law to make
> > him
> > wear one?
> > What if joe average managed to get a law passed making illegal for you
> > to
> > wear a helmet, would you be happy about that?

well would you?

> > > governments can do it for us on the issue of helmets until a
> > > substantial weight of evidence exists to show helmet wearing for
> > > cyclists does substantially more harm than good and our governments
> > > then change the law based on rational and factual argument.
> >
> > Why a substantial weight of evidence? Where was the substantial weight
> > of
> > evidence before they passed the law? there wasn't a rational and

waiting

of course we know that goverments would never do anything stupid (i'm not
saying it was stupid, i'm asking you to prove that it wasnt)

> > factual
> > argument(sure it made them feel good) and sure maybe it seemed like a
> > good
> > idea at the time... as yet there is still alot of arguement as to
> > weather
> > they have done any good.
> >
> > > In the meantime, if you don't have a brain ...you don't need a
> > helmet!
> > >
> > cool lets start the insults
> >
> > maybe you should stay at home in front of the TV where it's safe
> >
> > > I think nature got it right in the first place and we have to help
> > her
> > > out if we want to place our human frames and its contents at risk.
> > >
> > > TiMHO...here endeth the lesson... beer time!
> > >
> > > --
> > > rooman
> > >
> > Stu (who most likely does sillier things off road on his MTB with his
> > helmet on than he would without it. On road I don't think it makes a
> > difference to how I ride but who knows for sure)
> You therefore do wear a helmet...

Yes I do wear a helmet, its the law. It may even make me feel safer, the
question being asked is does it make me safer?

>worn properly no doubt as you are
> still with us...
What???? So everyone who doesnt wear a helmet or wears one not fitted
properly is dead?(see some of the other posts about just how unlikely you
are to have an accident, then read some of the arguments about weather the
helmet would do you any good).

As it turns out... so far i dont believe it would have made any difference
to me weather i had worn a helmet or not. but that of course is more
anecdotal evidence which is worth nothing

>as to where you wear, surely that it is irrelevant...
> or arnt there trees, objects, cars, hard surfaces etc in the vicinity
> of roads?...or are they just peculiarly found by MTBers & off road?...I
> think not!
ummmm not sure what you are getting at here, but i think you missunderstood
me.
what i meant was.
i wear my helmet everywhere.(well ok i dont wear it in the backyard when i
am practicing)
when riding off road i tend to do things that maybe i wouldnt if i didnt
have a helmet on. now if the helmet does little or no good in the event i
come off, then it more dangerous to wear it than to not wear it.
when riding on road i dont think taking my helmet off would change the way i
ride.
>
>
> --
> rooman

and to go back to this
>his is the case especially for kids whose skulls are still
>eveloping and we have a responsibility to protect them until they too
>an make their informed choice.

its to dangerous for them to ride on the footpath without a helmet(not that
i want to start a discussion about how dangerous that can be than riding on
the road). but we then go and build them a 20ft high half pipe so the little
dears have somewhere to play. would be interesting to see the figures for
how many people are hurt on half pipes per hour of use.

Theo Bekkers

March 27th 06, 03:42 AM

Friday wrote:

> 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!

I agree. With the almost universal fitment of RCDs, stringent laws on
appliance safety is way OTT. I've had a few tastes of 240V over the years
and, whilst not a recommended experience, the vast majority of electric
'incidents' don't result in any permanent harm to the touchee. :-)

Theo

jazmo

March 27th 06, 03:45 AM

EuanB Wrote:
> Of course, that's why cycling dropped by 30% when helmet compulsion was
> introduced.

When did they drop by 30%, was that recent? Surely it's considered
normal these days to wear helmet as a precaution? I just can't see why
someone would be put off riding nowadays because they have to wear a
helmet. You buy a bike, you buy a helmet.

I could understand there being an initial drop in cycling when the laws
were first introduced as people who were occasional recreational riders
would procrastinate about getting a new helmet, but I wouldn't think
it's a factor these days.

BTW, I'm not against freedom of choice.

--
jazmo

Theo Bekkers

March 27th 06, 03:54 AM

Andrew Price wrote:
> 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?

I wear a Bell V1-Pro helmet and bought it before compulsion. Because I
bought it before compulsion it has Snell certification, not AS. I see no
reason to replace it yet.

Theo

Shane Stanley

March 27th 06, 03:57 AM

In article >,
cfsmtb > wrote:

> Yeah you don't see kids covered in elastoplas or painted in betadine
> anymore.

Must be a generation thing -- in my day it was mercurichrome. Bright red
smudges everywhere...

--
Shane Stanley

Theo Bekkers

March 27th 06, 03:58 AM

John Stevenson wrote:
> Plodder wrote:
>
>> Kid's
>
> For the love of God, won't somebody think of the children!
>
> Obviously parents aren't scared enough about all the things that can
> harm their kids. Heavy enforcement of helmet wearing among under-16s
> is essential to scare parents into buying even bigger light trucks to
> ferry their little darlings around the place.

Childrens heads are softer than adult heads and are therefore "less" likely
to break on impact than adult heads. Apart from that children heads have
less distance to fall and are at a far lower risk. If you have to choose
whether children or adults should have helmets, pick adults.

Theo

Tamyka Bell

March 27th 06, 04:36 AM

Gemma_k wrote:
>
> "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.--
>
> 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

We should get kevlar beaded scalps. That'd fix it.

Tam

Bleve

March 27th 06, 04:45 AM

EuanB wrote:
> jazmo Wrote:
> > When did they drop by 30%, was that recent?
> When compulsion came started to be enforced.

Which was about 15 years ago now. ~1990 in Victoria?

> > I just can't see why someone would be put off riding nowadays because
> > they have to wear a helmet. You buy a bike, you buy a helmet.
>
> You buy a helmet because there's a real chance you're going to need
> it. We don't have to wear helmets to walk, but we do to ride a bike.
> This sets off a sub-conscious train of thought that cycling is a risky
> activity where you're likely to need a helmet.

As does putting on a seatbelt and multi-million dollar road safety
shock campaigns, but you don't like that point :) And .. cycling *IS*
a risky activity. It's not *very* risky, but it *IS* risky. It's
maybe as risky as sitting in a car, depending on whos stats you read
and accept. You crap on and on in thread after thread about how
cycling is not risky, but there *are* risks in riding (ask Dutchy, or
Tim, for example) that it is grossly dishonest to attempt to conceal
while trying to get more people riding. Encourage people to ride GOOD,
bull**** them to do it, BAD.

> > I could understand there being an initial drop in cycling when the laws
> > were first introduced as people who were occasional recreational riders
> > would procrastinate about getting a new helmet, but I wouldn't think
> > it's a factor these days.
>
> Maybe as helmet wearing `normalises' it'll be less of a factor. That
> doesn't change the fact that it was the wrong thing to do and has set
> back cycling by about fifteen years.

Euan, it normalised about 10 years ago. Stop whinging. We (my
generation, the ones that were kids when this all happened, and it was
seriously *UNCOOL* to wear a helmet, kids at my school got into fights
about it) hated stackhats and bells, but modern helmets are way way
more comfortable than they were. It's done, you lost. Stop being baited
by this topic, you won't change the law.

Stuart Lamble

March 27th 06, 05:28 AM

On 2006-03-27, EuanB > wrote:
> If it's normalised why are people still not riding citing helmets as
> a reason?

It's not a reason. It's an excuse. If helmets were made optional, you'd
find the vast majority of those crying about helmets now would find some
other "reason" why they couldn't cycle.

--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".

sinus

March 27th 06, 05:41 AM

EuanB Wrote:
>
> [color=blue][color=green]
> If it's normalised why are people still not riding citing helmets as a
> reason?
My own personal experience is that they don't. I can't recall anyone
saying they don't ride because of helmets. Most cite traffic, lack of a
working bike, potential for a sore bum and others.

--
sinus

Peter McCallum

March 27th 06, 06:01 AM

Theo Bekkers > wrote:
> Childrens heads are softer than adult heads and are therefore "less" likely
> to break on impact than adult heads.

LOL

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Bleve

March 27th 06, 06:46 AM

EuanB wrote:

> If it's normalised why are people still not riding citing helmets as
> a reason?

In my experience, they are not using that excuse. Remember, I'm working
in a LBS p/t, I see a -lot- of people who are interested in bikes. My
sample is reasonably large.

You keep making the claim that compulsory helmets stop people riding -
I think that's bull****. It did when it was first done, sure, but I
don't think it does now. Back then, it was unusual for a family to
have more than one car, or to have schools a long way from home, and
shops were open a lot less, so travel had to be a lot more organised.
Nowdays, most families have 2 or 3 cars, they drive everywhere. Kids
get cars for their birthdays when they turn 18! They drive to the
stupormarket to buy a carton of milk! Teenagers aren't driving because
they think riding's dangerous (teenagers avoiding high risk activity?!)
they're driving because it's cheap and prestigious. The world changed,
and helmet compulsion is (I think, I can't prove it, but neither can
you prove otherwise) a small factor in the reduction of people riding
pushbikes. The biggie is just how affordable cars are at the moment.
Hold your breath, this will change soon enough as we run out of oil.

For what its worth, I think compulsory helmets are philosophically bad,
but I don't believe that they're *the* reason less people ride than did
in the 80's.

Euan

March 27th 06, 07:15 AM

Bleve wrote:
> It's not *very* risky, but it *IS* risky. It's
> maybe as risky as sitting in a car, depending on whos stats you read
> and accept. You crap on and on in thread after thread about how
> cycling is not risky, but there *are* risks in riding (ask Dutchy, or
> Tim, for example) that it is grossly dishonest to attempt to conceal
> while trying to get more people riding.

I've tried to let this go, really I have but you've just called me
dishonest. You've brought in to question my honour and integrity,
something I take very seriously.

To be dishonest I'd be knowingly misrepresenting the facts. I am not
doing that, I am having a difference of opinion with you about the level
of risk involved in cycling I think it's a relatively risk free
activity about on a par with walking or driving. You appear to disagree
with that. How dare you call me dishonest over a difference of opinion?

I respect your opinions Carl, even when I don't agree with them. All I
ask is that you extend me the same courtesy.

> Encourage people to ride GOOD,
> bull**** them to do it, BAD.

Couldn't agree more. Here's a recent post of mine on the BV forums:

PostPosted: Thu 23 Mar 2006, 9:31 am Post subject: Reply with quote
Edit/Delete this post
I ride 60 kms a day, I wouldn't like to do that on a flat bar bike or
with a backpack, I carry about ten kilos of gear (I eat a LOT of food!)

The important thing is that you'r riding Smile however you got there.
You never know, you might actually enjoy it.

If you haven't been on a bike for a while I strongly suggest getting
some coaching. Anyone can pedal a bike but learning to *cycle* rather
than pedal makes a world of difference; technique can win out over
fitness Smile

Kathy Watt in Black Rock runs training aimed at new riders, a couple of
sessions with Caren at Startline Cycles will get you going or there's
Carl Brewer of Aboc. All offer good services and will give you the
knowledge you need to negotiate the roads safely.

Also, arm yourself with knowledge of the road rules for cyclists which
can be found on the VicRoads site; it may seem tedious but it's worth
knowing what you can and cannot do. A real good read, albeit Ameican
based, is Bicycling Street Smarts

I know this sounds like a lot of hassle just to ride a bike but consider
this: if you have an accident on a bicycle you will very likely be hurt.
I'd suggest it's worth a little bit of cash and three or four hours of
your time to mitigate that risk.

One other thing, lights! You absolutely must have adequate lights. I'd
go for two on the rear just in case one fails, you they're not that
expensive and can literally save your life.

You're running in a metro area so the front light probably needs to be
adequate to be seen, not illuminate the path, so that'll be relatively
cheap too. A couple of led lights strapped to the helmet's a good idea too.

Good luck and enjoy Smile
_________________
--
Euan

http://www.bv.com.au/forums/viewtopic.php?p=7253#7253

Does that sound like I'm bull****ting him in to riding? I suggest it
doesn't.

In case you haven't got it yet you've deeply offended me and I'm royally
****ed at you. My respect for you has dropped considerably.

Which is probably as good a reason to avoid helmet debates as any, about
as fruitful as vi vs Emacs.

Theo Bekkers

March 27th 06, 07:25 AM

Peter McCallum wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> I wear a Bell V1-Pro helmet and bought it before compulsion. Because
>> I bought it before compulsion it has Snell certification, not AS. I
>> see no reason to replace it yet.

> How about because it's illegal?

It's bull****. The AS is words on paper.

> I had a cop check out my helmet for the AS tag one day while cruising
> back home with the groceries. It had been mutilated and he told me
> that if I continued to ride with that helmet he'd arrest me. He told
> me to walk home.

Good lord, what a ****** he is. So, did you walk?

Theo

Bleve

March 27th 06, 07:29 AM

Euan wrote:
> Bleve wrote:
> > It's not *very* risky, but it *IS* risky. It's
> > maybe as risky as sitting in a car, depending on whos stats you read
> > and accept. You crap on and on in thread after thread about how
> > cycling is not risky, but there *are* risks in riding (ask Dutchy, or
> > Tim, for example) that it is grossly dishonest to attempt to conceal
> > while trying to get more people riding.
>
>
> I've tried to let this go, really I have but you've just called me
> dishonest. You've brought in to question my honour and integrity,
> something I take very seriously.

If that's how you interpret what I wrote, then I apologise. And on my
re-reading, your offence is quite understandable. I was wrong to write
what I did.

This may stem from a general vibe in a.b that tends to deny the risks
of riding, which while understandable, I find at the very mildest,
regretable. I think I have jumped on the wrong man, and I apologise.

We all want more riders (although not everyone would be happy with
roads clogged with gumby cyclists! At least it would be better than
roads clogged with gumby car drivers as it is at the moment)

[chomp]

> Which is probably as good a reason to avoid helmet debates as any, about
> as fruitful as vi vs Emacs.

Oh come on, emacs is just plain WRONG! I blame Stallman!

Zebee Johnstone

March 27th 06, 07:34 AM

In aus.bicycle on Mon, 27 Mar 2006 15:41:15 +1100
sinus > wrote:
> My own personal experience is that they don't. I can't recall anyone
> saying they don't ride because of helmets. Most cite traffic, lack of a
> working bike, potential for a sore bum and others.

traffic and not having time are the big ones.

But how to know what reason is the real one?

For example, is "traffic" shorthand for "cycling is horribly
dangerous, you have to wear a helmet!"

I don't know, and no idea how to design a study to find out.

Zebee

TimC

March 27th 06, 08:36 AM

On 2006-03-27, Bleve (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>
> EuanB wrote:
>
>> If it's normalised why are people still not riding citing helmets as
>> a reason?
>
> In my experience, they are not using that excuse. Remember, I'm working
> in a LBS p/t, I see a -lot- of people who are interested in bikes. My
> sample is reasonably large.

So in other words, you see a sample biased against people who have
come up with some excuse not to ride, hence they are not buying a
bike? Could that excuse be helmet related?

Devils advocate is *fun* :)

--
TimC
NOP NOP NOP NOP <bang> NOP NOP <bang> <ouch>
-- TimC spinning in the corner.

Theo Bekkers

March 27th 06, 08:41 AM

TimC wrote:

> I've never had head injuries because I was walking along and some 4WD
> pulled out of its parking spot, driver not looking.

I have walked into a car. a stationary empty one, my inattention may have
contributed to my subsequent headache.

I've also walked into a truck, but that doesn't count as I was the nominated
driver.

Theo

Theo Bekkers

March 27th 06, 08:45 AM

TimC wrote:
> Bleve wrote

>> In my experience, they are not using that excuse. Remember, I'm
>> working in a LBS p/t, I see a -lot- of people who are interested in
>> bikes. My sample is reasonably large.

> So in other words, you see a sample biased against people who have
> come up with some excuse not to ride, hence they are not buying a
> bike? Could that excuse be helmet related?

I think most people are in a bike shop because they are interested in
riding. So not a random sample of people who do not want to ride.

Theo

TimC

March 27th 06, 08:59 AM

On 2006-03-27, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>
>> I've never had head injuries because I was walking along and some 4WD
>> pulled out of its parking spot, driver not looking.
>
> I have walked into a car. a stationary empty one, my inattention may have
> contributed to my subsequent headache.
>
> I've also walked into a truck, but that doesn't count as I was the nominated
> driver.

Did you sue the driver?

--
TimC
Smash head on keyboard to continue.

Euan

March 27th 06, 09:00 AM

flyingdutch wrote:
> EuanB Wrote:
>
>>Of course, that's why cycling dropped by 30% when helmet compulsion was
>>introduced.
>
>
> dont get too sucked in by that figure.
> it was based on a very small sample and at a time when records were
> vague at best. look at the years just prior. the trend was little
> different...
>
> As usual, there are lies, lies and statistics :rolleyes:

Thought the hard yards that the bike industry in Australia went through
at that time was a pretty good indicator.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Terry Collins

March 27th 06, 09:09 AM

jazmo wrote:
> Anyone who uses having to wear a helmet as an excuse not to ride would
> find another excuse not to ride if helmets weren't mandatory.

Bull****.

1) You have to find WTF it has been moved too and that delays you

2) when you do get out riding, if it is stinking hot, it just makes it
hotter and you end up sweating. I much prefer a cottom hat for riding in
heat.

3) You need a different one for cold winter nights to stop your head
freezing, otherwise, you end up having to change under beanies all night
(in city beanie, leaving cityy beaie, out in the country freeexxxin g
cold beanie, etc)

4) If you have any personal pride, you waste so much time shopping for a
new helmet. You know, one that doesn't scream "up yours", or I'm a ponce
who wants a helmet just like lance/fred/mary/whomever. Probably why I've
never replaced my original bell {:-).

5) Helemt laws just act as a magnet to pigs; you know, police who don't
know the law anyway, but quickly learn that if they can catch you riding
without a helmet, then they can give you a ticket because they don't
like bicycle riders. (nope, never been caught).

6) Helmet are not useful as camp seats when you are touring. Every other
item you carry can perform 2, 3, 4 + uses, but helmets only ever serve
the purpose of avoiding harrassment from dumb cops.

Terry Collins

March 27th 06, 09:15 AM

Bleve wrote:

> As does putting on a seatbelt and multi-million dollar road safety
> shock campaigns, but you don't like that point :) And .. cycling *IS*
> a risky activity. It's not *very* risky, but it *IS* risky.

do you want to tell me how many people died on bowling greens last year?
do you want to tell me how many people were killed by bicyccles last year?

Actually, it isn't bicycling that is dangerous, it is being forced to
ride on roads with drivers that are encouraged to run you over that is
dangerous.

And helmets are a major disincentive. You can buy a bicycle for $89,
then you have to spend ~$50 to buy a helmet, that give you more trouble
than the bike.

> Stop being baited
> by this topic, you won't change the law.

No, but I can spend the rest of my life giving quacks a very hard time
because they supported it when there was no scientific basis.
>

Terry Collins

March 27th 06, 09:17 AM

Bleve wrote:

> You keep making the claim that compulsory helmets stop people riding -
> I think that's bull****.

Why? Most of those people are still alive and if they didn't like
helmets then, the pro-helmet lies certainly hasn't changed their mind since.

Terry Collins

March 27th 06, 09:23 AM

Peter McCallum wrote:
> Stuart Lamble > wrote:
>
>
>>I'm surprised that they're not taxing the wazoo out of caffeine ...
>
>
> That would be the end of cycling as we know it. Maybe our road
> authorities should be looking into this.

Naaahm, I gave up coffee,,, err, I've hardly ever touched that drug.
I'll just stick to my leafy green stuff {:-).

Bleve

March 27th 06, 09:33 AM

Euan wrote:

> Thanks, that means a lot.

I owe you a beer :)

cfsmtb

March 27th 06, 11:20 AM

Resound Wrote:
> The whole concept that helmet
> laws are mainly a vehicle for "the pigs" to stick it to the little guy
> who
> just wants to ride his bike in peace is laughable. How exactly do you
> think
> laws are drafted?

Right on bro!

--
cfsmtb

Resound

March 27th 06, 11:29 AM

"Terry Collins" > wrote in message
...
> jazmo wrote:
>> Anyone who uses having to wear a helmet as an excuse not to ride would
>> find another excuse not to ride if helmets weren't mandatory.
>
> Bull****.
>
> 1) You have to find WTF it has been moved too and that delays you

Wherever you left it. Other people don't move my helmet and I've never lost
it yet...it gets hung from the handlebars when (and only when) I've finished
riding. If you have a habit of putting frequently used items in random
places then you must lose your keys a lot. Amongst other things.

> 2) when you do get out riding, if it is stinking hot, it just makes it
> hotter and you end up sweating. I much prefer a cottom hat for riding in
> heat.

********...I've gone riding on hot days and honestly thought for a moments
that I'd forgotten to put it on...I hadn't. Don't even think about
responding to this with "bull****" because it's most definitely not.

> 3) You need a different one for cold winter nights to stop your head
> freezing, otherwise, you end up having to change under beanies all night
> (in city beanie, leaving cityy beaie, out in the country freeexxxin g
> cold beanie, etc)

Wheras a bare head is appropriate for all weather, obviously.

> 4) If you have any personal pride, you waste so much time shopping for a
> new helmet. You know, one that doesn't scream "up yours", or I'm a ponce
> who wants a helmet just like lance/fred/mary/whomever. Probably why I've
> never replaced my original bell {:-).

See point number 2. Ask youself why current helmets don't look like the Bell
anymore. Buy a black one and stick Critical Mass stickers all over it or
something if you're that worried about being thought not hardcore enough.

> 5) Helemt laws just act as a magnet to pigs; you know, police who don't
> know the law anyway, but quickly learn that if they can catch you riding
> without a helmet, then they can give you a ticket because they don't
> like bicycle riders. (nope, never been caught).

Given the number of people I see riding with the helmet slung over the
handlebars, the police aren't particularly pushing helmet legislation.
Although if you're given to calling police pigs, I wonder if your
experiences with them have been entirely representitive.

> 6) Helmet are not useful as camp seats when you are touring. Every other
> item you carry can perform 2, 3, 4 + uses, but helmets only ever serve
> the purpose of avoiding harrassment from dumb cops.

They also perform poorly as frame pumps (which in turn function notably more
poorly than helmets as camp stools). Ditto spare tubes. And bike locks. And
so on. I rather suspect that there are many things that you'd take touring
that only do one thing. As far as "dumb cops" go, see point 5 ref. "pigs".

If you disagree with helmet regs, fair enough. I can see Euan's point of
view even if I'm not sure that I agree with him. This is drawing longer bows
than a first year literature class though. The whole concept that helmet
laws are mainly a vehicle for "the pigs" to stick it to the little guy who
just wants to ride his bike in peace is laughable. How exactly do you think
laws are drafted?

Resound

March 27th 06, 11:31 AM

"Terry Collins" > wrote in message
...
> Peter McCallum wrote:
>> Stuart Lamble > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm surprised that they're not taxing the wazoo out of caffeine ...
>>
>>
>> That would be the end of cycling as we know it. Maybe our road
>> authorities should be looking into this.
>
> Naaahm, I gave up coffee,,, err, I've hardly ever touched that drug.
> I'll just stick to my leafy green stuff {:-).
>
>

You do realise that spinach is just a gateway drug to fetta? And possibly
corn-cob pipes?

Bleve

March 27th 06, 12:31 PM

Terry Collins wrote:
> Bleve wrote:
>
> > As does putting on a seatbelt and multi-million dollar road safety
> > shock campaigns, but you don't like that point :) And .. cycling *IS*
> > a risky activity. It's not *very* risky, but it *IS* risky.
>
> do you want to tell me how many people died on bowling greens last year?
> do you want to tell me how many people were killed by bicyccles last year?
>
> Actually, it isn't bicycling that is dangerous, it is being forced to
> ride on roads with drivers that are encouraged to run you over that is
> dangerous.

Both the crashes I've had while riding were far separated from cars.
One was on a bike path! Riding bikes is not a risk-free activity.

>
> And helmets are a major disincentive. You can buy a bicycle for $89,
> then you have to spend ~$50 to buy a helmet, that give you more trouble
> than the bike.

The $89 bike will give you no trouble if you never ride it or try and
put it together.

petulance

March 27th 06, 12:47 PM

Bleve wrote:
> Euan wrote:
>
>
>>Which is probably as good a reason to avoid helmet debates as any, about
>>as fruitful as vi vs Emacs.
>
>
> Oh come on, emacs is just plain WRONG! I blame Stallman!
>

You know what they say about vi and emacs ... one is like intercourse,
great when it happens but not always available and the other alternative
is always handy ...

OK, I think I'll shut up now ...

Peter McCallum

March 27th 06, 01:41 PM

"Resound" > wrote:

> "Terry Collins" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Peter McCallum wrote:
> >> Stuart Lamble > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I'm surprised that they're not taxing the wazoo out of caffeine ...
> >>
> >>
> >> That would be the end of cycling as we know it. Maybe our road
> >> authorities should be looking into this.
> >
> > Naaahm, I gave up coffee,,, err, I've hardly ever touched that drug.
> > I'll just stick to my leafy green stuff {:-).
> >
> >
>
> You do realise that spinach is just a gateway drug to fetta? And possibly
> corn-cob pipes?

Hmmm... and I was just thinking the other day that I wanted an Abe
Lincoln helmet.

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Peter McCallum

March 27th 06, 02:00 PM

Theo Bekkers > wrote:

> Peter McCallum wrote:
> > Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> >> I wear a Bell V1-Pro helmet and bought it before compulsion. Because
> >> I bought it before compulsion it has Snell certification, not AS. I
> >> see no reason to replace it yet.
>
> > How about because it's illegal?
>
> It's bull****. The AS is words on paper.
>
> > I had a cop check out my helmet for the AS tag one day while cruising
> > back home with the groceries. It had been mutilated and he told me
> > that if I continued to ride with that helmet he'd arrest me. He told
> > me to walk home.
>
> Good lord, what a ****** he is. So, did you walk?
>
> Theo

Well first I wondered whether he'd give me a lift on the motorbike,
along with my trailer full of groceries. Then I phoned my "solicitor"
and started saying things like "Yes, he's threatened to arrest me." He
hopped back on his bike and did a U-turn and headed away down the
street.

That's the trouble with barefoot cycling, you end up attracting unwanted
attention. Or was it the broad brimmed hat glued to the helmet?

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay (where the barefoot cycling happens all year rouund -- World
Melanoma Capital) Qld AUSTRALIA

TimC

March 27th 06, 02:14 PM

On 2006-03-27, Peter McCallum (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Theo Bekkers > wrote:
>
>> Peter McCallum wrote:
>> > I had a cop check out my helmet for the AS tag one day while cruising
>> > back home with the groceries. It had been mutilated and he told me
>> > that if I continued to ride with that helmet he'd arrest me. He told
>> > me to walk home.
>>
>> Good lord, what a ****** he is. So, did you walk?
>
> Well first I wondered whether he'd give me a lift on the motorbike,
> along with my trailer full of groceries. Then I phoned my "solicitor"
> and started saying things like "Yes, he's threatened to arrest me." He
> hopped back on his bike and did a U-turn and headed away down the
> street.

You sir, should be declared an honourary *******. But again, wrong
froup.

--
TimC
Information wants to be beer, or something like that. --unknown

EuanB

March 28th 06, 12:21 AM

Bleve Wrote:
> Euan wrote:
>
> > Thanks, that means a lot.
>
> I owe you a beer :)

Well we haven't seen you down Goat yet, pop down and we'll share a
couple (just don't tell Vlad, I'm supposed to be in training...)

--
EuanB

Theo Bekkers

March 28th 06, 01:27 AM

Peter McCallum wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> Good lord, what a ****** he is. So, did you walk?

> Well first I wondered whether he'd give me a lift on the motorbike,
> along with my trailer full of groceries. Then I phoned my "solicitor"
> and started saying things like "Yes, he's threatened to arrest me." He
> hopped back on his bike and did a U-turn and headed away down the
> street.
>
> That's the trouble with barefoot cycling, you end up attracting
> unwanted attention. Or was it the broad brimmed hat glued to the
> helmet?

Hehehe. How do you attach the cleats to your foot Peter? I do hope you've
got soft-surfaced pedals.

Theo
Haven't ridden barefoot since my teenage years.

Theo Bekkers

March 28th 06, 01:30 AM

TimC wrote:

> You sir, should be declared an honourary *******.

There's no honour in honorary Tim, just hard work with no pay.

Theo

Peter McCallum

March 28th 06, 06:40 AM

Theo Bekkers > wrote:

> Peter McCallum wrote:
> > Theo Bekkers wrote:
>
> >> Good lord, what a ****** he is. So, did you walk?
>
> > Well first I wondered whether he'd give me a lift on the motorbike,
> > along with my trailer full of groceries. Then I phoned my "solicitor"
> > and started saying things like "Yes, he's threatened to arrest me." He
> > hopped back on his bike and did a U-turn and headed away down the
> > street.
> >
> > That's the trouble with barefoot cycling, you end up attracting
> > unwanted attention. Or was it the broad brimmed hat glued to the
> > helmet?
>
> Hehehe. How do you attach the cleats to your foot Peter?

Just screw them in to the callouses.

P
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Friday

March 28th 06, 06:57 AM

EuanB wrote:
> rooman Wrote:
>
>>You therefore do wear a helmet...worn properly no doubt as you are still
>>with us...as to where you wear, surely that it is irrelevant... or arnt
>>there trees, objects, cars, hard surfaces etc in the vicinity of
>>roads?...or are they just peculiarly found by MTBers & off road?...I
>>think not!
>
>
> The two hardly compare. MTBing and roadie type riding (bunch riding,
> fast cornering etc) is competitive riding where there is a higher risk
> of injury. If there was no helmet compulsion in this country I'd
> choose to wear a helmet whist engaged in those activiities.
>
> General commuter riding does not involve the same level of risk
> taking, if it does you shouldn't be on the road!
>
>

Euan you always say that general commuting isn't high risk and yet all I
see on this newsgroup are stories of people getting hit by cars, run off
the road, abused and have things thrown at them. And with every story is
a long list of "me too"s that follow it. The ideal commuting locations
you talk about don't exist in the real world. It's not that helmets make
cycling look dangerous, it's because it IS dangerous. You're competing
against metal that weighs a ton and moves very much faster than
cyclists. Have a look outside your front window.

TimC

March 28th 06, 07:35 AM

On 2006-03-28, Friday (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> EuanB wrote:
>> General commuter riding does not involve the same level of risk
>> taking, if it does you shouldn't be on the road!

Funny, that's what the cement truck driver said to me on Warrigul.
GET OFF THE ROAD YOU ****ER!

I'll go where it damn well is convenient for me. I will take the
direct route to my destination instead of taking some circuitous route
somewhere, and getting lost because I didn't consult the Melway's
every 500m at each intersection.

> Euan you always say that general commuting isn't high risk and yet all I
> see on this newsgroup are stories of people getting hit by cars, run off
> the road, abused and have things thrown at them. And with every story is
> a long list of "me too"s that follow it. The ideal commuting locations
> you talk about don't exist in the real world. It's not that helmets make
> cycling look dangerous, it's because it IS dangerous. You're competing
> against metal that weighs a ton and moves very much faster than
> cyclists. Have a look outside your front window.

I may be mistaken, but I think Euan's lack of understanding of the
risks comes from his commute being along Nepean/St Kilda Rd (and no
doubt heaps of stuff before then[1]). Cycling is normalised along
these routes. As he says, he ends up in bunches of 15 strong, by way
of traffic lights.

I spend the vast majority of time where such a route does not exist.
On the roads I travel, I typically see one cyclist a week, or less.
On the bike path that I could have the option of travelling if I so
desired (I don't -- the bollards all over the place make it
impractical and dangerous), I see on average of about one a day on the
bits where it travels adjacent to the road I travel.

I have no choice but to go down Camberwell road, with the associated
risks. The roads around that area are not arranged on a grid, and it
is very easy to end up on a road that bends back on itself, taking you
2km off your course before you get a chance to turn off. I know -- I
tried for months to get the best route. I have no choice but to go
down Burwood rd, with the demonstrated risks, since the university is
there.

And, chadstone/jordanville? Bogan capital of at least my area? GET
OFF THE ****EN ROAD! (complete with bad spelling because none of them
have attained an educational level above 7th grade).

I'd say the risks very much vary depending on your suburb, your work
suburb, and the suburbs your route passes between. Living in a bogan
low socio-economic area, full of ex-housing commision houses is going
to put me more at risk than living in Dingley Village.

I take consolidation in that if I get killed by some ****er in a 4WD,
they will feel guilty for the rest of their lives -- hopefully I will
ruin it for them. Unfortunately, I know that in reality, they won't
even notice. Sigh.

[1] Nope. I just looked at Melway. I now understand how Euan has
gone 15 years without having an encounter with a car.

--
TimC
Television: A medium. So called because it is neither rare nor well done.
--Ernie Kovacs

Theo Bekkers

March 28th 06, 07:36 AM

Friday wrote:
> EuanB wrote:

>> General commuter riding does not involve the same level of risk
>> taking, if it does you shouldn't be on the road!

> Euan you always say that general commuting isn't high risk and yet
> all I see on this newsgroup are stories of people getting hit by
> cars, run off the road, abused and have things thrown at them. And
> with every story is a long list of "me too"s that follow it. The
> ideal commuting locations you talk about don't exist in the real
> world. It's not that helmets make cycling look dangerous, it's
> because it IS dangerous. You're competing against metal that weighs a
> ton and moves very much faster than cyclists. Have a look outside
> your front window.

Crap. Cycling is safe, you don't compete with cars, you share the road with
cars, trucks, buses, even pedestrians. It was never dangerous, little
children used to do it. Then we were told to wear helmets because cycling is
dangerous. It was never dangerous before that but lots and lots of people
stopped cycling, and worse, stopped their kids cycling, so that we now get
4WD traffic jams around schools that, in my day, never ever had any parents
cars anywhere near them (unless the headmaster asked to see your parents,
and that was dangerous).

Theo

Zebee Johnstone

March 28th 06, 08:39 AM

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 28 Mar 2006 14:36:08 +0800
Theo Bekkers > wrote:
>> your front window.
>
> Crap. Cycling is safe, you don't compete with cars, you share the road with
> cars, trucks, buses, even pedestrians. It was never dangerous, little
> children used to do it. Then we were told to wear helmets because cycling is

I rode to school from grade 1 onwards. The first week or so Dad
walked with me, but after that I said I was big enough to ride by
myself :) By grade 2 I had a bike with real pump up tyres!

All back suburban roads, not much traffic. By the time I was in grade
3, bicycles were freedom machines and kids didn't get home till 6pm or
later because they were haring all over the place on their bikes. I
used to ride to the Subiaco library from my place near the Uni because
they had better books than the Neddies library; most of that was done
on the Stirling Hwy, I think I was about 10 when I started doing that.

Much less traffic though, and it was pretty well used to kids on pushbikes
because they were everywhere. I was born after the official end of the
baby boom, people had been dealing with hordes of kids on pushbikes for
the previous 15 years, so were quite used to it.

I see a few kids on bikes in Campsie, but after school, not riding
to school. A friend's son lives up Glenbrook way, he rides to school
and a fair few at his school do, so it's not all doom :)

Zebee

Euan

March 28th 06, 08:40 AM

Friday wrote:

> Euan you always say that general commuting isn't high risk and yet all I
> see on this newsgroup are stories of people getting hit by cars, run off
> the road, abused and have things thrown at them.

How many posters on this list? Not many compared to the thousands of
cyclists out there.

Do you think people should post for every incident free ride they have?

> And with every story is
> a long list of "me too"s that follow it.

Yeah, the same people repeating the same anecdotes time after time
again. Of course it looks bad but if you do a bit of critical analysis
you'll find that it's nowhere near as bad as it appears.

> The ideal commuting locations
> you talk about don't exist in the real world. It's not that helmets make
> cycling look dangerous, it's because it IS dangerous. You're competing
> against metal that weighs a ton and moves very much faster than
> cyclists.

Here's a tip: don't compete with cars. You'll lose every time.
Co-operate with cars, communicate with them and you'll have a much
easier time.

> Have a look outside your front window.

Don't need to, I commute 60kms a day week in week out (90 today, had a
couple of detours to make). I've been riding, on the roads, for over
twenty years and I've had two accidents involving cars. Neither
resulted in serious injury.

BV report that there were 800 reported accidents last year. That's a
very low number given the number of trips made by bicycle.

Cycling is not as dangerous as this newsgroup makes it appear.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Euan

March 28th 06, 08:43 AM

TimC wrote:

> I may be mistaken, but I think Euan's lack of understanding of the
> risks comes from his commute being along Nepean/St Kilda Rd (and no
> doubt heaps of stuff before then[1]). Cycling is normalised along
> these routes. As he says, he ends up in bunches of 15 strong, by way
> of traffic lights.

You're mistaken. I may commute to the city but I also commute to East
Bruwood. That means Blackburn Road.

I also have occasion to use Warrigal Road. No problems there either.

I also have 20 years experience riding roads in several countries.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

TimC

March 28th 06, 09:02 AM

On 2006-03-28, Euan (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> Friday wrote:
>
>> Euan you always say that general commuting isn't high risk and yet all I
>> see on this newsgroup are stories of people getting hit by cars, run off
>> the road, abused and have things thrown at them.
>
> How many posters on this list? Not many compared to the thousands of
> cyclists out there.

It'll probably make more statistical sense to take us as an
approximate representitative sample, and say that x regulars on this
froup have trouble, and there are x regulars here. Rather than there
are x people on this froup who have trouble, yet there are 45,000
cyclists in Victoria, so it must only be a tiny problem.

I am still convinced that what I call a close encounter, you would
just give a shrug, and what I call a dangerous idiot behind a wheel
you wouldn't even notice.

> Do you think people should post for every incident free ride they have?
>
>> And with every story is
>> a long list of "me too"s that follow it.
>
> Yeah, the same people repeating the same anecdotes time after time
> again.

I know one person here who claims one incident per commute. She just
doesn't mention them anymore. Fortunately, most of them are people
being completely incompetant ignorant arseholes, but not actually
getting close enough to do damage, through skill of the rider.

>> The ideal commuting locations
>> you talk about don't exist in the real world. It's not that helmets make
>> cycling look dangerous, it's because it IS dangerous. You're competing
>> against metal that weighs a ton and moves very much faster than
>> cyclists.
>
> Here's a tip: don't compete with cars. You'll lose every time.
> Co-operate with cars, communicate with them and you'll have a much
> easier time.

A very one way cooperation. **** 'em is my attitude, now.

> BV report that there were 800 reported accidents last year. That's a
> very low number given the number of trips made by bicycle.

Um, I've only reported one of my incidents to BV. They don't figure
into the equation, particularly since I found out how useful their
insurance is. *cough*.

If they are taking police figures, how often have people here managed
to get the police to actually enter the details into "it's all
computerised now" database, without writing it on a scrap of A4 only
to be discarded when you leave?

--
TimC
It typically takes 25-30 gallons of petrol/diesel to fully-consume an
average-sized body under ideal conditions. That I am conversant with
this level of detail should serve as an indication of why the wise man
does not ask me questions about MS-Windows. --Tanuki on ASR

Zebee Johnstone

March 28th 06, 09:15 AM

In aus.bicycle on Tue, 28 Mar 2006 08:02:05 GMT
TimC > wrote:
>
> It'll probably make more statistical sense to take us as an
> approximate representitative sample, and say that x regulars on this
> froup have trouble, and there are x regulars here. Rather than there
> are x people on this froup who have trouble, yet there are 45,000
> cyclists in Victoria, so it must only be a tiny problem.

I don't even know you can go that far. Regular posters are probably
not representative of cyclists generally, I get the feeling they do
more miles and more hours for example.

>
> I am still convinced that what I call a close encounter, you would
> just give a shrug, and what I call a dangerous idiot behind a wheel
> you wouldn't even notice.

I have wondered about that with stories of motorcycle encounters.
There are people who seem to be dicing with death every day, but I
commute on the same roads and don't see the problem.

I don't know if it's a different threshold or a different riding
style.

> I know one person here who claims one incident per commute. She just
> doesn't mention them anymore. Fortunately, most of them are people
> being completely incompetant ignorant arseholes, but not actually
> getting close enough to do damage, through skill of the rider.

Hrm. I could claim that I had prevented a lot of incidents through my
superior traffic smarts and I suppose I do when I say I don't have
problems because of the way I ride.

Only way to know is to have everyone rigged for video....

>> Co-operate with cars, communicate with them and you'll have a much
>> easier time.
>
> A very one way cooperation. **** 'em is my attitude, now.

I wonder if I'll end up with that attitude? I tend to think "I'm a
road user, I'll do my best to be polite, but I'm not going to grovel".
Be interesting to see if I get traffic problems or not. I expect it
depends so much where you ride as you've said elsewhere.

> If they are taking police figures, how often have people here managed
> to get the police to actually enter the details into "it's all
> computerised now" database, without writing it on a scrap of A4 only
> to be discarded when you leave?

Getting any decent info is hard. I think the only way you can do it
is to count injury crashes, which are ones where the injured one ends
up going to hospital. Those are recorded and tabulated.

Minor spills which don't damage someone enough to need a doctor on the
day are not really countable. "Incidents" certainly aren't.

Zebee

Euan

March 28th 06, 09:20 AM

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> By the time I was in grade
> 3, bicycles were freedom machines and kids didn't get home till 6pm or
> later because they were haring all over the place on their bikes.

It took me 20 minutes to ride to school and an hour and a half to ride
back. Hmmmm.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

Bleve

March 28th 06, 10:51 AM

TimC wrote:

> > Here's a tip: don't compete with cars. You'll lose every time.
> > Co-operate with cars, communicate with them and you'll have a much
> > easier time.
>
> A very one way cooperation. **** 'em is my attitude, now.

Like Euan, I ride just about everywhere including very busy roads (yes,
I've ridden Warrigal rd, springvale, burwood hwy, canterbury rd,
footscray rd, beach rd, burwood rd etc etc etc all in peak hour and at
night), and am yet to be hit by a car. I am not a lucky rider, neither
is Euan. We ride to the conditions and the traffic. It's how you stay
alive and avoid collisions. Your attitude above is one that if you
really mean it, may significantly increase your risk. Cars & trucks
win crashes with cyclists almost every time. Some drivers are ...
unstable ... provoke them, and you run a greater risk of significant
injury, I believe.

Peter Keller

March 28th 06, 12:28 PM

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 07:37:45 +0800, Plodder wrote:

> <SNIP Emacs/vi part that makes no sense to me whatsoever! >

Vee vi vo vum,
I smell the blood of an Emacsman.
Be he alive or be he dead,
I'll grind his C-x's to make my C-z

Peter

--
No Microsoft involved. Certified virus free --

EuanB

March 28th 06, 11:27 PM

Zebee Johnstone wrote:
> >> Co-operate with cars, communicate with them and you'll have a much
> >> easier time.
> >
> > A very one way cooperation. **** 'em is my attitude, now.
>
> I wonder if I'll end up with that attitude? I tend to think "I'm a
> road user, I'll do my best to be polite, but I'm not going to grovel".
> Be interesting to see if I get traffic problems or not. I expect it
> depends so much where you ride as you've said elsewhere.

It's my experience that the overwhelming majority of people actually
want to help. You communicate your intentions clearly, they respond,
you do what you need to and wave thanks. Everyone comes away feeling
good.

Of course theree's the 0.01%ers out there who are anti-social but
that's where the value of communicating with other road users comes in,
you know that they're not going to co-operate so you can keep yourself
out of danger. That doesn't happen very often though.

When it all comes down to it, I can't control other people, I can
control me though. If someone does something which is designed to ****
me off and I get ****ed off I've empowered them. By shrugging it off
and spending an extra five seconds completing whatever manouver I'm
carrying out in a calm and unruffled manner I end up having a stress
free ride.
--
Cheers
Euan

Peter McCallum

March 29th 06, 12:51 AM

EuanB > wrote:
> When it all comes down to it, I can't control other people, I can
> control me though. If someone does something which is designed to ****
> me off and I get ****ed off I've empowered them.

I used to get pretty uptight about people blasting their car horns and
yelling and all that. These days I just wave at them when they do it.
The friendlier the wave the better, it seems to get right under their
skin.

P
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

warrwych

March 29th 06, 01:09 AM

Peter McCallum Wrote:
> E
> I used to get pretty uptight about people blasting their car horns and
> yelling and all that. These days I just wave at them when they do it.
> The friendlier the wave the better, it seems to get right under their
> skin.
>
> P
> --
> Peter McCallum
> Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

blowing kisses works as well ;) and can be combined with the super
friendly "Howya goin'" wave for added effect :D

--
warrwych

SteveA

March 29th 06, 02:35 AM

ABC Radio 720 in Perth is about to address the question "Would you ride
a bike if you didn't have to wear a helmet?"

I'll listen in to hear if there are any new points or just the same old
stuff.

SteveA

--
SteveA

Theo Bekkers

March 29th 06, 04:10 AM

Zebee Johnstone wrote:

> I rode to school from grade 1 onwards. The first week or so Dad
> walked with me, but after that I said I was big enough to ride by
> myself :) By grade 2 I had a bike with real pump up tyres!

I was riding to kindy when I was four on pump-up tyres. It was even a
Montessori kindy, in 1947. A bicycle was my only independent form of
transport till I was 21, when I got myself a BSA.

Theo

Resound

March 29th 06, 05:23 PM

"TimC" > wrote in message
...
> On 2006-03-28, Friday (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> EuanB wrote:
>>> General commuter riding does not involve the same level of risk
>>> taking, if it does you shouldn't be on the road!
>
> Funny, that's what the cement truck driver said to me on Warrigul.
> GET OFF THE ROAD YOU ****ER!
>
> I'll go where it damn well is convenient for me. I will take the
> direct route to my destination instead of taking some circuitous route
> somewhere, and getting lost because I didn't consult the Melway's
> every 500m at each intersection.
>
>> Euan you always say that general commuting isn't high risk and yet all I
>> see on this newsgroup are stories of people getting hit by cars, run off
>> the road, abused and have things thrown at them. And with every story is
>> a long list of "me too"s that follow it. The ideal commuting locations
>> you talk about don't exist in the real world. It's not that helmets make
>> cycling look dangerous, it's because it IS dangerous. You're competing
>> against metal that weighs a ton and moves very much faster than
>> cyclists. Have a look outside your front window.
>
> I may be mistaken, but I think Euan's lack of understanding of the
> risks comes from his commute being along Nepean/St Kilda Rd (and no
> doubt heaps of stuff before then[1]). Cycling is normalised along
> these routes. As he says, he ends up in bunches of 15 strong, by way
> of traffic lights.
>
> I spend the vast majority of time where such a route does not exist.
> On the roads I travel, I typically see one cyclist a week, or less.
> On the bike path that I could have the option of travelling if I so
> desired (I don't -- the bollards all over the place make it
> impractical and dangerous), I see on average of about one a day on the
> bits where it travels adjacent to the road I travel.
>
>
> I have no choice but to go down Camberwell road, with the associated
> risks. The roads around that area are not arranged on a grid, and it
> is very easy to end up on a road that bends back on itself, taking you
> 2km off your course before you get a chance to turn off. I know -- I
> tried for months to get the best route. I have no choice but to go
> down Burwood rd, with the demonstrated risks, since the university is
> there.
>
> And, chadstone/jordanville? Bogan capital of at least my area? GET
> OFF THE ****EN ROAD! (complete with bad spelling because none of them
> have attained an educational level above 7th grade).
>
> I'd say the risks very much vary depending on your suburb, your work
> suburb, and the suburbs your route passes between. Living in a bogan
> low socio-economic area, full of ex-housing commision houses is going
> to put me more at risk than living in Dingley Village.
>
>
> I take consolidation in that if I get killed by some ****er in a 4WD,
> they will feel guilty for the rest of their lives -- hopefully I will
> ruin it for them. Unfortunately, I know that in reality, they won't
> even notice. Sigh.
>
>
> [1] Nope. I just looked at Melway. I now understand how Euan has
> gone 15 years without having an encounter with a car.
>
> --
> TimC
> Television: A medium. So called because it is neither rare nor well done.
> --Ernie Kovacs

I spent a couple of months commuting from Oakleigh to Knox City by bike with
no real issues. I spent rather more than that going from Oakleigh to
Burwood, mostly along Warrigal Rd and around the Chadstone area generally. I
won't say I've never been hassled or had someone pass too closely, because I
have, but it's a damn rare occurance and resulted in nothing more than a
nasty fright. I've had one contact with a car and I swore royally at the
time but again it was a scare and nothing more. The more I ride, the fewer
and further apart these sort of incidents become. I certainly wouldn't claim
that cycling is risk free...it definitely isn't, but it's not a high risk
activity either. I'm not taking my life in my hands when I go out there,
regardless of where I ride.

Peter Signorini

March 30th 06, 07:20 AM

"Bleve" wrote:

> You keep making the claim that compulsory helmets stop people riding -
> I think that's bull****. It did when it was first done, sure,

Yep, sure did. Anecdotal I know, but at the school where I was teaching,
bike use dropped from 200-300 riders to as little as 20 in the year
compulsory helmets came in.

> but I don't think it does now.

Have a look at most schools, There will be a bike shed (if you're lucky) but
it will be pretty empty. At my current school, out of 1200 students about 6
ride. There's a good deterent at work. These days laziness, fearful parents
who drive kids everywhere and time pressures are part of the reason, but
much of this is associated with perceptions about dangers of cycling, and
having to wear a helmet is a marker that many parents will be worried about,
consciously or subconsciously. For teenage girls especially (none of them
ride to my school) a helmet messes up your hair, end of story.

> Back then, it was unusual for a family to
> have more than one car, or to have schools a long way from home, and
> shops were open a lot less, so travel had to be a lot more organised.
> Nowdays, most families have 2 or 3 cars, they drive everywhere. Kids
> get cars for their birthdays when they turn 18! They drive to the
> stupormarket to buy a carton of milk! Teenagers aren't driving because
> they think riding's dangerous (teenagers avoiding high risk activity?!)
> they're driving because it's cheap and prestigious. The world changed,

I was a teenager in the '70s and none of the above is really any different
to the perceptions and experiences I had then. Not as many two-car families
I guess, but everything else you describe was typical of a teenager's view
on life. But we still rode bikes about for fun, and with no helmets.

> and helmet compulsion is (I think, I can't prove it, but neither can
> you prove otherwise) a small factor in the reduction of people riding
> pushbikes. The biggie is just how affordable cars are at the moment.

Cars were pretty damn cheap in the 1970s. Falcon wagon for $5-6000 when
average incomes were about $12-15000. Are todays Falcon/Commodores less than
40% of average incomes? I think not. But we still rode bikes as kids, and
even after we'd turned 18, for transport. Attitudes played a bigger factor,
and having to wear a helmet changes attitudes regarding the dangers of
cycling.

> Hold your breath, this will change soon enough as we run out of oil.
>
> For what its worth, I think compulsory helmets are philosophically bad,
> but I don't believe that they're *the* reason less people ride than did
> in the 80's.

We'll have to agree to disagree then.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)

sinus

March 30th 06, 07:43 AM

Peter Signorini Wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Cars were pretty damn cheap in the 1970s. Falcon wagon for $5-6000 when
> average incomes were about $12-15000. Are todays Falcon/Commodores less
> than
> 40% of average incomes? I think not. But we still rode bikes as kids,
> and
> even after we'd turned 18, for transport. Attitudes played a bigger
> factor,
> and having to wear a helmet changes attitudes regarding the dangers of
> cycling.
>
>
average wages first broke through the $5,000 in 1974. By 1980 they had
topped $10,000. They are currently at $42,000
(according to ABS)

so cars were more expensive then.

But the tax brackets are hardly different - WTF.

--
sinus

Peter Signorini

March 30th 06, 07:56 AM

"Bleve" wrote:

> Terry Collins wrote:

>> Actually, it isn't bicycling that is dangerous, it is being forced to
>> ride on roads with drivers that are encouraged to run you over that is
>> dangerous.
>
> Both the crashes I've had while riding were far separated from cars.
> One was on a bike path! Riding bikes is not a risk-free activity.

Yes, but if you look at the deaths it is a different picture. Very few are
not involved with a car.

From: http://www.pcug.org.au/~psvansch/crag/surveys2.htm
"As a motor vehicle was involved in 92 per cent of fatal accidents to
cyclists in Australia in 1988 (Attewell and Dowse, 1992), the behaviour of
motorists is a critical factor in death and serious injury of cyclists.
Following intensified random checks of speed and blood alcohol, and
improvements in roads, total road fatalities declined by 30 per cent from
1989 to 1992, from 2804 to 1974. The decline has continued, to 1903 in the
twelve months ended October 1993 (FORS, 1993).

The general decline of 30 per cent is reflected in deaths of pedestrians. It
would therefore explain half or more of the 58 per cent decline in deaths of
cyclists."

Seems to sugest that road death improvement is a multi-faceted approach. A
lot of work to change drivers' attitudes and behaviour made cycling safer,
and it still will today. I'd love to see more data on the benefits to
cyclist deaths of the 50kmh residential speed limits and 40 kmh school
zones.

In my youth all the traffic drove down residential streets with a 60 kmh
limit, but usually at 65-70 kmh. But there were more kids riding bikes,
kicking footies, and generally running about, so drivers were also more
aware (I believe) that they had to be ready to slow down. That is often not
the case today as $WDs swerve aroound the streets, lunging through stop
signs and crowding me out as I approach chicanes.

--
Cheers
Peter

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*)