Euan wrote:
"Bob" == Bob writes:


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

There is no proof that helmets are beneficial.

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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