http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/ct-editorial/bike-helmet-study-puts-safety-risk-myth-to-bed-20160922-grlxvk.html

An international study of more than 64,000 injured cyclists has apparently laid to rest the assertion that bicycle helmets can cause head and neck injuries to their wearers.

The research by two Australian statisticians drew together data from more than 40 separate studies, and concluded the reverse was the case. Cyclists who wore helmets reduced their risk of fatal injury by about 65 per cent.

According to the study, conducted by the University of NSW, wearing a helmet reduced the risk of head injury by 51 per cent, serious head injuries by 69 per cent and facial injuries by 33 per cent.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/09/06/ije.dyw153.abstract
Bicycle injuries and helmet use: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Jake Olivier* and Prudence Creighton

is that stat from from a sample of only those that have sought medical help with a head injury

I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

It does me, I know that.

transition said:

is that stat from from a sample of only those that have sought medical help with a head injury

I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

It does me, I know that.

Yea, I stopped driving ‘coz of those irritating seatbelts. Damn nanny state.

poikilotherm said:

transition said:

is that stat from from a sample of only those that have sought medical help with a head injury

I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

It does me, I know that.

Yea, I stopped driving ‘coz of those irritating seatbelts. Damn nanny state.

there are practical exceptions, it’s not right-thinking to mention them, but they exist.

>I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

I’ll rephrase. Helmet wearing being monitored and policed has repressive attributes that disincline bike riding. And there are various inconveniences to do with helmets

transition said:

>I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

I’ll rephrase. Helmet wearing being monitored and policed has repressive attributes that disincline bike riding. And there are various inconveniences to do with helmets

Indeed there are. I’ve never met anyone in my life that ever had a head injury from riding a pushbike.

Forcing everyone to have one when only a few were stupid enough to get hurt isn’t kosher.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

>I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

I’ll rephrase. Helmet wearing being monitored and policed has repressive attributes that disincline bike riding. And there are various inconveniences to do with helmets

Indeed there are. I’ve never met anyone in my life that ever had a head injury from riding a pushbike.

Forcing everyone to have one when only a few were stupid enough to get hurt isn’t kosher.

don’t get me wrong, I think them a good thing.

transition said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

>I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

I’ll rephrase. Helmet wearing being monitored and policed has repressive attributes that disincline bike riding. And there are various inconveniences to do with helmets

Indeed there are. I’ve never met anyone in my life that ever had a head injury from riding a pushbike.

Forcing everyone to have one when only a few were stupid enough to get hurt isn’t kosher.

don’t get me wrong, I think them a good thing.

If you need them yes.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

>I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

I’ll rephrase. Helmet wearing being monitored and policed has repressive attributes that disincline bike riding. And there are various inconveniences to do with helmets

Indeed there are. I’ve never met anyone in my life that ever had a head injury from riding a pushbike.

Forcing everyone to have one when only a few were stupid enough to get hurt isn’t kosher.

sounds like the view of an anti-vaxxer…

roughbarked said:

transition said:

>I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

I’ll rephrase. Helmet wearing being monitored and policed has repressive attributes that disincline bike riding. And there are various inconveniences to do with helmets

Indeed there are. I’ve never met anyone in my life that ever had a head injury from riding a pushbike.

Forcing everyone to have one when only a few were stupid enough to get hurt isn’t kosher.

Satire right?

I mean only those people who know beforehand they are going to have an accident should have to wear them…

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

>I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

I’ll rephrase. Helmet wearing being monitored and policed has repressive attributes that disincline bike riding. And there are various inconveniences to do with helmets

Indeed there are. I’ve never met anyone in my life that ever had a head injury from riding a pushbike.

Forcing everyone to have one when only a few were stupid enough to get hurt isn’t kosher.

sounds like the view of an anti-vaxxer…

You are being way too harsh.

Nothing like an anti-vaccination type.

I’m far more likely to require a seat belt in a car than a helmet on a bike.

I do agree that young children who ride on roads should be wearing helmets but experienced riders may well never need to wear one.

roughbarked said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

Indeed there are. I’ve never met anyone in my life that ever had a head injury from riding a pushbike.

Forcing everyone to have one when only a few were stupid enough to get hurt isn’t kosher.

sounds like the view of an anti-vaxxer…

You are being way too harsh.

Nothing like an anti-vaccination type.

I’m far more likely to require a seat belt in a car than a helmet on a bike.

can’t get much more damaged eh?…

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

>I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

I’ll rephrase. Helmet wearing being monitored and policed has repressive attributes that disincline bike riding. And there are various inconveniences to do with helmets

Indeed there are. I’ve never met anyone in my life that ever had a head injury from riding a pushbike.

Forcing everyone to have one when only a few were stupid enough to get hurt isn’t kosher.

sounds like the view of an anti-vaxxer…

just think how different our personalities’d be without all those early years of bike riding without helmets, the terrain of phrenologists.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

>I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

I’ll rephrase. Helmet wearing being monitored and policed has repressive attributes that disincline bike riding. And there are various inconveniences to do with helmets

Indeed there are. I’ve never met anyone in my life that ever had a head injury from riding a pushbike.

Forcing everyone to have one when only a few were stupid enough to get hurt isn’t kosher.

Satire right?

I mean only those people who know beforehand they are going to have an accident should have to wear them…

If you’ve ridden a pushbike on all sorts of roads in all sorts of traffic and haven’t had an accident in forty or more years then it is unlikely thta you are going to start now. The helmet thing came in because stupid parents let their stupid kids ride in traffic with no effort to teach them self preservation.

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

stumpy_seahorse said:

sounds like the view of an anti-vaxxer…

You are being way too harsh.

Nothing like an anti-vaccination type.

I’m far more likely to require a seat belt in a car than a helmet on a bike.

can’t get much more damaged eh?…

Simply capable of riding a pushbike and not stupid enough to do things that require protection.

It’s well-established that when bike helmets became compulsory, cyclist numbers fell dramatically and the cycling demographic changed markedly.

It’s now seen as a dangerous activity for sporty-type men, rather than a safe and sensible mode of transport for people of all ages and sexes.

vaginal births are dangerous

Bubblecar said:

It’s well-established that when bike helmets became compulsory, cyclist numbers fell dramatically and the cycling demographic changed markedly.

It’s now seen as a dangerous activity for sporty-type men, rather than a safe and sensible mode of transport for people of all ages and sexes.

How long have horseriders ridden without bash hats? I bet more suffer head injuries than cyclists.

roughbarked said:

transition said:

>I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

I’ll rephrase. Helmet wearing being monitored and policed has repressive attributes that disincline bike riding. And there are various inconveniences to do with helmets

Indeed there are. I’ve never met anyone in my life that ever had a head injury from riding a pushbike.

Forcing everyone to have one when only a few were stupid enough to get hurt isn’t kosher.

why vaccinate everybody against polio?

only a few were stupid enough to contract it…

transition said:

vaginal births are dangerous

especially at our age…

British rider Harry Grant (No. 5) passes Georges Wambst (No. 2 – France) for a second time during the 1935 “Les Cent Miles” at theParc des Princes in Paris. This event had the riders racing behind motors for 160 kms, “cent miles”.

experienced riders wearing helmets has been around for a while. perhaps they knew things….oh hang on….The Ancients Knew.

When you drive at 70kph or 75 when conditions are good on the motorway there’s no need for a helmet or seat belts, the big danger is running over the kerb when a Kennelworth sound his claxton, they’re a menace.

stumpy_seahorse said:

transition said:

vaginal births are dangerous

especially at our age…

and gender.

it really boils down to, use PPE. To think otherwise is pretty naive.

ChrispenEvan said:

it really boils down to, use PPE. To think otherwise is pretty naive.

yes..

common sense… isn’t

poikilotherm said:

transition said:

is that stat from from a sample of only those that have sought medical help with a head injury

I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

It does me, I know that.

Yea, I stopped driving ‘coz of those irritating seatbelts. Damn nanny state.

one of the studies I have just read mentions that during the first few years of mandatory seatbelts, drivers were more assertive and drove more recklessly from the perceived safety. So while occupant injuries and fatalities fell, non occupant injuries and fatalities increased.

transition said:

is that stat from from a sample of only those that have sought medical help with a head injury

I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

It does me, I know that.

you would think that they used stats of reported injuries and the severity of them, as opposed to just the number of injuries.

roughbarked said:

I do agree that young children who ride on roads should be wearing helmets but experienced riders may well never need to wear one.

experienced riders generally ride faster, so definitely need them. road or no road

The fact remains that Oz has had compulsory bike helmets for decades but very few other countries have followed suit. In fact many such countries – including those with much higher bicycle usage than Oz – have reviewed the situation here and used the Australian experience as the basis for deciding NOT to introduce compulsory bike helmets.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

Indeed there are. I’ve never met anyone in my life that ever had a head injury from riding a pushbike.

Forcing everyone to have one when only a few were stupid enough to get hurt isn’t kosher.

Satire right?

I mean only those people who know beforehand they are going to have an accident should have to wear them…

If you’ve ridden a pushbike on all sorts of roads in all sorts of traffic and haven’t had an accident in forty or more years then it is unlikely thta you are going to start now. The helmet thing came in because stupid parents let their stupid kids ride in traffic with no effort to teach them self preservation.

no.

and yet the comprehensive study in the OP is promotional for preventing serious head injuries.

I’m a member of the sssf velocipede club. we’re all excellent riders.

Arts said:

poikilotherm said:

transition said:

is that stat from from a sample of only those that have sought medical help with a head injury

I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

It does me, I know that.

Yea, I stopped driving ‘coz of those irritating seatbelts. Damn nanny state.

one of the studies I have just read mentions that during the first few years of mandatory seatbelts, drivers were more assertive and drove more recklessly from the perceived safety. So while occupant injuries and fatalities fell, non occupant injuries and fatalities increased.

Seems very qualitative of them.

ChrispenEvan said:

I’m a member of the sssf velocipede club. we’re all excellent riders.

Arts said:

one of the studies I have just read mentions that during the first few years of mandatory seatbelts, drivers were more assertive and drove more recklessly from the perceived safety.

I have read something similar to explain in part why defensive driving courses aren’t manditory to new and renewing drivers. The concern is the overconfidence that comes with the new learning may cause more accidents.

On the bike helmets, they clearly are important and anything to assist the brain bucket within reason is a good thing. But as a tangent, the need for people to use a helmet to legally ride a bicycle does cause some to stop riding altogether. Is anyone aware of a study that deals with medical costs savings on head injuries versus other health issues associated with lack of fitness with a section of the community no longer using bikes because of the need for helmets?

poikilotherm said:

Arts said:

poikilotherm said:

Yea, I stopped driving ‘coz of those irritating seatbelts. Damn nanny state.

one of the studies I have just read mentions that during the first few years of mandatory seatbelts, drivers were more assertive and drove more recklessly from the perceived safety. So while occupant injuries and fatalities fell, non occupant injuries and fatalities increased.

Seems very qualitative of them.

indeed.. but someone has to think of the children

roughbarked said:

If you’ve ridden a pushbike on all sorts of roads in all sorts of traffic and haven’t had an accident in forty or more years then it is unlikely thta you are going to start now. The helmet thing came in because stupid parents let their stupid kids ride in traffic with no effort to teach them self preservation.

The probability of death or serious injury from bike riding is fairly small, but it is way higher than probability of death or serious injury from being in a car.

You may not know anyone who has died from a cycling accident, but I knew two people who have, and they are the only people I have known who died in road accidents.

Both were experienced riders by the way. One would probably have been saved if he had been wearing a helmet; the other maybe not.

bike helmets and seatbelts are an example of harm minimisation, so you can still wear a helmet and embrace liberalism

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

If you’ve ridden a pushbike on all sorts of roads in all sorts of traffic and haven’t had an accident in forty or more years then it is unlikely thta you are going to start now. The helmet thing came in because stupid parents let their stupid kids ride in traffic with no effort to teach them self preservation.

The probability of death or serious injury from bike riding is fairly small, but it is way higher than probability of death or serious injury from being in a car.

You may not know anyone who has died from a cycling accident, but I knew two people who have, and they are the only people I have known who died in road accidents.

Both were experienced riders by the way. One would probably have been saved if he had been wearing a helmet; the other maybe not.

also past performance isn’t an indicator of future performance… you could probably ask that experienced 68yr old cyclist from Baldivis, except they were hit by a car and died

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

If you’ve ridden a pushbike on all sorts of roads in all sorts of traffic and haven’t had an accident in forty or more years then it is unlikely thta you are going to start now. The helmet thing came in because stupid parents let their stupid kids ride in traffic with no effort to teach them self preservation.

The probability of death or serious injury from bike riding is fairly small, but it is way higher than probability of death or serious injury from being in a car.

who would have thought that the rational application of risk management would be a good way to keep people safe…

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

If you’ve ridden a pushbike on all sorts of roads in all sorts of traffic and haven’t had an accident in forty or more years then it is unlikely thta you are going to start now. The helmet thing came in because stupid parents let their stupid kids ride in traffic with no effort to teach them self preservation.

The probability of death or serious injury from bike riding is fairly small, but it is way higher than probability of death or serious injury from being in a car.

who would have thought that the rational application of risk management would be a good way to keep people safe…

It may keep people safe, but not in the way intended. Most Australians now think of bike-riding as a highly dangerous activity and simply don’t do it.

Whereas in countries that have a much higher proportion of cyclists, cycling is regarded as very safe and the idea of wearing a helmet for ordinary commuting is regarded as ridiculous.

Bubblecar said:

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The probability of death or serious injury from bike riding is fairly small, but it is way higher than probability of death or serious injury from being in a car.

who would have thought that the rational application of risk management would be a good way to keep people safe…

It may keep people safe, but not in the way intended. Most Australians now think of bike-riding as a highly dangerous activity and simply don’t do it.

Whereas in countries that have a much higher proportion of cyclists, cycling is regarded as very safe and the idea of wearing a helmet for ordinary commuting is regarded as ridiculous.

I call shenanigans on your use of “most Australians”

The reason cycling is very popular in European and Asian cities is largely because there low car ownership.

we need more bike tracks and bike lanes

some underground bike lanes would be cool in the city area

roughbarked said:

transition said:

>I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

I’ll rephrase. Helmet wearing being monitored and policed has repressive attributes that disincline bike riding. And there are various inconveniences to do with helmets

Indeed there are. I’ve never met anyone in my life that ever had a head injury from riding a pushbike.

Forcing everyone to have one when only a few were stupid enough to get hurt isn’t kosher.

What a preposterous thing to say. You could use this logic to oppose any basic public safety measure.

> Cyclists who wore helmets reduced their risk of fatal injury by about 65 per cent.

Only by that much?

not to be made too much of, but there are worse things than death

ChrispenEvan said:

it really boils down to, use PPE. To think otherwise is pretty naive.

I’f I’m using a chainsaw I use earmuffs and goggles.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

If you’ve ridden a pushbike on all sorts of roads in all sorts of traffic and haven’t had an accident in forty or more years then it is unlikely thta you are going to start now. The helmet thing came in because stupid parents let their stupid kids ride in traffic with no effort to teach them self preservation.

The probability of death or serious injury from bike riding is fairly small, but it is way higher than probability of death or serious injury from being in a car.

You may not know anyone who has died from a cycling accident, but I knew two people who have, and they are the only people I have known who died in road accidents.

Both were experienced riders by the way. One would probably have been saved if he had been wearing a helmet; the other maybe not.

It is the opposite in my experience. I went to at least a funeral a week for young friends who died in car accidents and motorbike accidents up until I was about 25. Have never attended the funeral of a cyclist.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

transition said:

>I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

I’ll rephrase. Helmet wearing being monitored and policed has repressive attributes that disincline bike riding. And there are various inconveniences to do with helmets

Indeed there are. I’ve never met anyone in my life that ever had a head injury from riding a pushbike.

Forcing everyone to have one when only a few were stupid enough to get hurt isn’t kosher.

What a preposterous thing to say. You could use this logic to oppose any basic public safety measure.

No. I never have opposed other basic safety measures. I’ll still maintain that I won’t be wearing a helmet oon a bicycle, ever.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

If you’ve ridden a pushbike on all sorts of roads in all sorts of traffic and haven’t had an accident in forty or more years then it is unlikely thta you are going to start now. The helmet thing came in because stupid parents let their stupid kids ride in traffic with no effort to teach them self preservation.

The probability of death or serious injury from bike riding is fairly small, but it is way higher than probability of death or serious injury from being in a car.

You may not know anyone who has died from a cycling accident, but I knew two people who have, and they are the only people I have known who died in road accidents.

Both were experienced riders by the way. One would probably have been saved if he had been wearing a helmet; the other maybe not.

It is the opposite in my experience. I went to at least a funeral a week for young friends who died in car accidents and motorbike accidents up until I was about 25. Have never attended the funeral of a cyclist.

a bit egocentric believing that because it happened to you, it is the ‘norm’ isn’t it?..

roughbarked said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

Indeed there are. I’ve never met anyone in my life that ever had a head injury from riding a pushbike.

Forcing everyone to have one when only a few were stupid enough to get hurt isn’t kosher.

What a preposterous thing to say. You could use this logic to oppose any basic public safety measure.

No. I never have opposed other basic safety measures. I’ll still maintain that I won’t be wearing a helmet oon a bicycle, ever.

I thoroughly endorse your right to prove darwin’s theory…

roughbarked said:

It is the opposite in my experience. I went to at least a funeral a week for young friends who died in car accidents and motorbike accidents up until I was about 25. Have never attended the funeral of a cyclist.

You went to 350+ funerals between the ages of 18 and 25?

roughbarked said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

Indeed there are. I’ve never met anyone in my life that ever had a head injury from riding a pushbike.

Forcing everyone to have one when only a few were stupid enough to get hurt isn’t kosher.

What a preposterous thing to say. You could use this logic to oppose any basic public safety measure.

No. I never have opposed other basic safety measures. I’ll still maintain that I won’t be wearing a helmet oon a bicycle, ever.

Fair enough. If you’ve got nothing to protect, you don’t need a helmet.

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

It is the opposite in my experience. I went to at least a funeral a week for young friends who died in car accidents and motorbike accidents up until I was about 25. Have never attended the funeral of a cyclist.

You went to 350+ funerals between the ages of 18 and 25?

more deaths than Midsommer…

transition said:

not to be made too much of, but there are worse things than death

I suppose so.

But wearing a helmet when you ride a bike certainly isn’t one of them.

stumpy_seahorse said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The probability of death or serious injury from bike riding is fairly small, but it is way higher than probability of death or serious injury from being in a car.

You may not know anyone who has died from a cycling accident, but I knew two people who have, and they are the only people I have known who died in road accidents.

Both were experienced riders by the way. One would probably have been saved if he had been wearing a helmet; the other maybe not.

It is the opposite in my experience. I went to at least a funeral a week for young friends who died in car accidents and motorbike accidents up until I was about 25. Have never attended the funeral of a cyclist.

a bit egocentric believing that because it happened to you, it is the ‘norm’ isn’t it?..

It is if I’m looking after my own skin.

btm said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

What a preposterous thing to say. You could use this logic to oppose any basic public safety measure.

No. I never have opposed other basic safety measures. I’ll still maintain that I won’t be wearing a helmet oon a bicycle, ever.

Fair enough. If you’ve got nothing to protect, you don’t need a helmet.

Haven’t needed one thus far. Don’t forsee that I ever will.

ChrispenEvan said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

It is the opposite in my experience. I went to at least a funeral a week for young friends who died in car accidents and motorbike accidents up until I was about 25. Have never attended the funeral of a cyclist.

You went to 350+ funerals between the ages of 18 and 25?

more deaths than Midsommer…

They are pikers in upper worthy.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

not to be made too much of, but there are worse things than death

I suppose so.

But wearing a helmet when you ride a bike certainly isn’t one of them.

My point is, if I have to buy a helmet I may as well get a motorbike.

transition said:

is that stat from from a sample of only those that have sought medical help with a head injury

No.

Arts said:

transition said:

is that stat from from a sample of only those that have sought medical help with a head injury

I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

It does me, I know that.

you would think that they used stats of reported injuries and the severity of them, as opposed to just the number of injuries.

(sigh) They did.

Bubblecar said:

diddly-squat said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The probability of death or serious injury from bike riding is fairly small, but it is way higher than probability of death or serious injury from being in a car.

who would have thought that the rational application of risk management would be a good way to keep people safe…

It may keep people safe, but not in the way intended. Most Australians now think of bike-riding as a highly dangerous activity and simply don’t do it.

Whereas in countries that have a much higher proportion of cyclists, cycling is regarded as very safe and the idea of wearing a helmet for ordinary commuting is regarded as ridiculous.

Regardless of how they regard it, cycling in Finland, Denmark or the UK is an order of magnitude more dangerous per kilometre than driving a car. They can divide their risk of dying by 3 by wearing a helmet.

dv said:

Arts said:

transition said:

is that stat from from a sample of only those that have sought medical help with a head injury

I ask because I gather helmets probably to some extent disincline bike riding (on roads and public areas).

It does me, I know that.

you would think that they used stats of reported injuries and the severity of them, as opposed to just the number of injuries.

(sigh) They did.

yes I thought it cromulent to point out

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

diddly-squat said:

who would have thought that the rational application of risk management would be a good way to keep people safe…

It may keep people safe, but not in the way intended. Most Australians now think of bike-riding as a highly dangerous activity and simply don’t do it.

Whereas in countries that have a much higher proportion of cyclists, cycling is regarded as very safe and the idea of wearing a helmet for ordinary commuting is regarded as ridiculous.

Regardless of how they regard it, cycling in Finland, Denmark or the UK is an order of magnitude more dangerous per kilometre than driving a car. They can divide their risk of dying by 3 by wearing a helmet.

You see there’s a big difference between those countries and out back of the sticks in Australia.

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

diddly-squat said:

who would have thought that the rational application of risk management would be a good way to keep people safe…

It may keep people safe, but not in the way intended. Most Australians now think of bike-riding as a highly dangerous activity and simply don’t do it.

Whereas in countries that have a much higher proportion of cyclists, cycling is regarded as very safe and the idea of wearing a helmet for ordinary commuting is regarded as ridiculous.

Regardless of how they regard it, cycling in Finland, Denmark or the UK is an order of magnitude more dangerous per kilometre than driving a car. They can divide their risk of dying by 3 by wearing a helmet.

Pfft, all those countries are in the northern hemisphere; they cycle to other way around up there. How they are relevant to Australian conditions is beyond my ken.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

It may keep people safe, but not in the way intended. Most Australians now think of bike-riding as a highly dangerous activity and simply don’t do it.

Whereas in countries that have a much higher proportion of cyclists, cycling is regarded as very safe and the idea of wearing a helmet for ordinary commuting is regarded as ridiculous.

Regardless of how they regard it, cycling in Finland, Denmark or the UK is an order of magnitude more dangerous per kilometre than driving a car. They can divide their risk of dying by 3 by wearing a helmet.

You see there’s a big difference between those countries and out back of the sticks in Australia.

Well there are plenty of differences.

One of the things that is not different in those countries is that wearing a helmet reduces their chance of a fatal injury by 65%.

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Regardless of how they regard it, cycling in Finland, Denmark or the UK is an order of magnitude more dangerous per kilometre than driving a car. They can divide their risk of dying by 3 by wearing a helmet.

You see there’s a big difference between those countries and out back of the sticks in Australia.

Well there are plenty of differences.

One of the things that is not different in those countries is that wearing a helmet reduces their chance of a fatal injury by 65%.

Due to different road use cultures and the use of cycle ways etc the amount of accidents may well be less but there heads are just the same.

I don’t understand the problem with wearing a helmet. I also wear gloves (gardening leather ones, as it happens) because I value the skin on my fingers should I come off. I’ve only come off once, in a very slow, graceful fall when I tried to do a u turn across thick mown couch grass. I’m glad no-one saw my awkwardness.

dv said:

Regardless of how they regard it, cycling in Finland, Denmark or the UK is an order of magnitude more dangerous per kilometre than driving a car. They can divide their risk of dying by 3 by wearing a helmet.

Those figures are probably debatable, but more to the point, most of them don’t want to wear helmets. And their governments respect this because they think it’s a good thing that lots of people ride bicycles and they don’t want to change that situation. As would undoubtedly happen if helmets became compulsory.

buffy said:

..I’m glad no-one saw my awkwardness.

there was this youtube clip…

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Regardless of how they regard it, cycling in Finland, Denmark or the UK is an order of magnitude more dangerous per kilometre than driving a car. They can divide their risk of dying by 3 by wearing a helmet.

You see there’s a big difference between those countries and out back of the sticks in Australia.

Well there are plenty of differences.

One of the things that is not different in those countries is that wearing a helmet reduces their chance of a fatal injury by 65%.

I wasn’t arguing that it didn’t save lives. Only that I’d never needed one and hadn’t observed any people needing one during at least four decades of intensive bike riding. Having ridden long distances of more than 600 km both day and night on some of Australia’s most dangerous roads. The main point abpout operating any machinery at all is knowing how to use it, what are its dangers and limitations and keeping oneself aware of all of that, actually saves more lives than the helmet does.

I’d wear a helmet in a forest though. Simply because I cannot see a small branch falling from 30 metres to strike me with its end.

buffy said:

I don’t understand the problem with wearing a helmet. I also wear gloves (gardening leather ones, as it happens) because I value the skin on my fingers should I come off. I’ve only come off once, in a very slow, graceful fall when I tried to do a u turn across thick mown couch grass. I’m glad no-one saw my awkwardness.

It musses your hair and Roughbarked doesn’t believe in accidents cos he doesn’t know any one who has had one.

dv said:

Well there are plenty of differences.

One of the things that is not different in those countries is that wearing a helmet reduces their chance of a fatal injury by 65%.

One of the things that is different is that there are far more bicycles on the road in many European countries, which results in an accident rate significantly lower than in Australia.

buffy said:

I don’t understand the problem with wearing a helmet. I also wear gloves (gardening leather ones, as it happens) because I value the skin on my fingers should I come off. I’ve only come off once, in a very slow, graceful fall when I tried to do a u turn across thick mown couch grass. I’m glad no-one saw my awkwardness.

If wearing gloves, it is smarrter to wear the correct ones for the job. You’ll fall off less often.

buffy said:

I don’t understand the problem with wearing a helmet. I also wear gloves (gardening leather ones, as it happens) because I value the skin on my fingers should I come off. I’ve only come off once, in a very slow, graceful fall when I tried to do a u turn across thick mown couch grass. I’m glad no-one saw my awkwardness.

The problem isn’t helmets, the problem is compulsory helmets and the effect this has on the number and type of people who are happy to ride bicycles.

AwesomeO said:

buffy said:

I don’t understand the problem with wearing a helmet. I also wear gloves (gardening leather ones, as it happens) because I value the skin on my fingers should I come off. I’ve only come off once, in a very slow, graceful fall when I tried to do a u turn across thick mown couch grass. I’m glad no-one saw my awkwardness.

It musses your hair and Roughbarked doesn’t believe in accidents cos he doesn’t know any one who has had one.

And with all that bike riding and going to funerals I wonder how he has time for the rest of his life.

Bubblecar said:

buffy said:

I don’t understand the problem with wearing a helmet. I also wear gloves (gardening leather ones, as it happens) because I value the skin on my fingers should I come off. I’ve only come off once, in a very slow, graceful fall when I tried to do a u turn across thick mown couch grass. I’m glad no-one saw my awkwardness.

The problem isn’t helmets, the problem is compulsory helmets and the effect this has on the number and type of people who are happy to ride bicycles.

I reckon the rude bike riders (as opposed to the good ones) are a much bigger problem than compulsory helmets. I’m a lot afraider of speedsters on shared paths than I am of wearing a helmet on a bike.

AwesomeO said:

buffy said:

I don’t understand the problem with wearing a helmet. I also wear gloves (gardening leather ones, as it happens) because I value the skin on my fingers should I come off. I’ve only come off once, in a very slow, graceful fall when I tried to do a u turn across thick mown couch grass. I’m glad no-one saw my awkwardness.

It musses your hair and Roughbarked doesn’t believe in accidents cos he doesn’t know any one who has had one.

I know I ask for it but some of the statements made in response are just silly.
I’m totally different from almost everyone in regard to how I have had to have trained myself in traffic. A helmet is most likey going to cause me to have an accident.

Bubblecar said:

buffy said:

I don’t understand the problem with wearing a helmet. I also wear gloves (gardening leather ones, as it happens) because I value the skin on my fingers should I come off. I’ve only come off once, in a very slow, graceful fall when I tried to do a u turn across thick mown couch grass. I’m glad no-one saw my awkwardness.

The problem isn’t helmets, the problem is compulsory helmets and the effect this has on the number and type of people who are happy to ride bicycles.

I don’t know whether helmets should be compulsory: it is probably a cultural matter and the answer is not likely to be the same everywhere.

But on a personal level, if you are riding a bike, it makes sense to wear a helmet.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

You see there’s a big difference between those countries and out back of the sticks in Australia.

Well there are plenty of differences.

One of the things that is not different in those countries is that wearing a helmet reduces their chance of a fatal injury by 65%.

The main point abpout operating any machinery at all is knowing how to use it, what are its dangers and limitations and keeping oneself aware of all of that, actually saves more lives than the helmet does.

the problem with bike riding is not the operator of the bike, but those in the motorised vehicles (and sometimes, pedestrians) whom you have no control over their actions

roughbarked said:

I’m totally different from almost everyone in regard to how I have had to have trained myself in traffic. A helmet is most likey going to cause me to have an accident.

Bullshit upon bullshit.

buffy said:

I reckon the rude bike riders (as opposed to the good ones) are a much bigger problem than compulsory helmets. I’m a lot afraider of speedsters on shared paths than I am of wearing a helmet on a bike.

…and it’s the speedy, sporty, risk-taking type of cyclist that now makes up a higher proportion of cyclists, thanks to compulsory helmet laws.

Bubblecar said:

buffy said:

I reckon the rude bike riders (as opposed to the good ones) are a much bigger problem than compulsory helmets. I’m a lot afraider of speedsters on shared paths than I am of wearing a helmet on a bike.

…and it’s the speedy, sporty, risk-taking type of cyclist that now makes up a higher proportion of cyclists, thanks to compulsory helmet laws.

who normally ride on the roads and will benefit from helmet wear. I see weekend riders constantly along the paths of the south Perth foreshore, all wearing helmets and happily riding for recreational purposes … your staunch liberalism is forgetting the harm principle, and your one eyed anti helmet campaign has not walked through a head injury unit lately. There’s nothing wrong with enforcing basic safety laws that aren’t too much trouble or money to do.

Cyclists could nominate more than one reason for cycling; the most common reason was for recreational and social purposes (64.0%). Exercise and training (42.6%) was the next common reason followed by travelling to and from shops (11.9%) and travelling to and from work (10.7%).
ref

Bicycle Fatalities

table reference here

stats on recreational cycling by state

Arts said:

Bubblecar said:

buffy said:

I reckon the rude bike riders (as opposed to the good ones) are a much bigger problem than compulsory helmets. I’m a lot afraider of speedsters on shared paths than I am of wearing a helmet on a bike.

…and it’s the speedy, sporty, risk-taking type of cyclist that now makes up a higher proportion of cyclists, thanks to compulsory helmet laws.

who normally ride on the roads and will benefit from helmet wear. I see weekend riders constantly along the paths of the south Perth foreshore, all wearing helmets and happily riding for recreational purposes … your staunch liberalism is forgetting the harm principle, and your one eyed anti helmet campaign has not walked through a head injury unit lately. There’s nothing wrong with enforcing basic safety laws that aren’t too much trouble or money to do.

Huh? The lycra crowd LOVE their helmets. The sporty riders would never be seen without their helmets (and often ride dangerously so certainly benefit from them), they aren’t the problem. The problem is the rest of the population who have decided that riding a bike is too dangerous/ugly/inconvenient, since the introduction of compulsory helmet laws.

I’m not running an anti-helmet campaign at all. I just think that compulsory helmet laws are a bad idea, as do the governments of nearly all countries on the planet – especially those that have urban transport infrastructures that favour bicycles and a large proportion of people who take advantage of that by riding bikes.

ugly? UGLY?

c’mon Bubblecar, everyone loves the sperm helmet

>the most common reason was for recreational and social purposes (64.0%).

You see that’s how Australia differs from countries that don’t have compulsory helmet laws (and how the Oz demographic differs now from the situation before the introduction of compulsory helmet laws, when most cyclists used their bikes for basic commuting).

When you have a situation where most cyclists are just riding for “recreational and social purposes” this means bikes are being under-used and the number of riders on the road is dangerously low (the fewer cyclists, the higher the accident rate).

buffy said:

I don’t understand the problem with wearing a helmet.

I don’t either. I think they look fine.

Bubblecar said:

The problem is the rest of the population who have decided that riding a bike is too dangerous/ugly/inconvenient, since the introduction of compulsory helmet laws.

Is this decision justified though? People will always complain about change but might grin and bear it regardless.

Arts said:

ugly? UGLY?

c’mon Bubblecar, everyone loves the sperm helmet

I wouldn’t be seen dead in something like that, and again, using bicycle sports as an example is very unfortunate. Bike racing is a very dangerous sport and when people come to associate riding a bike with such antics, they tend to think of cycling in general as too dangerous to get involved in.

Bubblecar said:

>the most common reason was for recreational and social purposes (64.0%).

You see that’s how Australia differs from countries that don’t have compulsory helmet laws (and how the Oz demographic differs now from the situation before the introduction of compulsory helmet laws, when most cyclists used their bikes for basic commuting).

When you have a situation where most cyclists are just riding for “recreational and social purposes” this means bikes are being under-used and the number of riders on the road is dangerously low (the fewer cyclists, the higher the accident rate).

Aussies love their cars…

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

The problem is the rest of the population who have decided that riding a bike is too dangerous/ugly/inconvenient, since the introduction of compulsory helmet laws.

Is this decision justified though? People will always complain about change but might grin and bear it regardless.

If riding a bike is supposedly so dangerous that if you don’t wear a helmet, you get in trouble with the police, many, many people are going to decide that cycling is too inherently dangerous for them or their children to get into.

In my childhood, you would see lots of women and elderly people, teenagers and children riding bikes as a basic means of transport. Now it’s much more likely to be lycra-clad men.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

The problem is the rest of the population who have decided that riding a bike is too dangerous/ugly/inconvenient, since the introduction of compulsory helmet laws.

Is this decision justified though? People will always complain about change but might grin and bear it regardless.

Sorry. I misread that as your prediction for any changes in Europe and not the historical outcome for Australia.

Bubblecar said:

If riding a bike is supposedly so dangerous that if you don’t wear a helmet, you get in trouble with the police, many, many people are going to decide that cycling is too inherently dangerous for them or their children to get into.

I’d love to know the stats for children riding before and after the introduction of mandatory helmets. I don’t know of anyone who stops their children riding because it is perceived as dangerous.

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Bubblecar said:

The problem is the rest of the population who have decided that riding a bike is too dangerous/ugly/inconvenient, since the introduction of compulsory helmet laws.

Is this decision justified though? People will always complain about change but might grin and bear it regardless.

If riding a bike is supposedly so dangerous that if you don’t wear a helmet, you get in trouble with the police, many, many people are going to decide that cycling is too inherently dangerous for them or their children to get into.

Look I really think that’s a reach. You get into trouble with the police for not wearing a seatbelt while driving but people don’t conclude that driving a car is too dangerous to be bothered with. I don’t think people are that stupid, in the main.

FWIW I don’t believe my young son has any friends who don’t ride bikes, so it doesn’t seem to me that parents are thinking it is too dangerous. I mean who in Australia is unfamiliar with bike riding or has no sense of what it is about? Everyone’s done it. I think people prefer driving cars in Australia for other reasons.

Anyway, I’ll bow out of this debate – we’ve gone through it too many times before :)

I tend to respect the judgments of the high-bike use countries like Holland who’ve done detailed studies and decided that compulsory helmet laws are self-defeating.

Australians are more inclined to respect the judgment of their more authoritarian politicians in matters like this, however much mock disdain they otherwise show for them :)

looks like I’ve missed all the fun again.

buffy said:

Bubblecar said:

buffy said:

I don’t understand the problem with wearing a helmet. I also wear gloves (gardening leather ones, as it happens) because I value the skin on my fingers should I come off. I’ve only come off once, in a very slow, graceful fall when I tried to do a u turn across thick mown couch grass. I’m glad no-one saw my awkwardness.

The problem isn’t helmets, the problem is compulsory helmets and the effect this has on the number and type of people who are happy to ride bicycles.

I reckon the rude bike riders (as opposed to the good ones) are a much bigger problem than compulsory helmets. I’m a lot afraider of speedsters on shared paths than I am of wearing a helmet on a bike.

Rude people don’t have to be riding bikes.

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

Well there are plenty of differences.

One of the things that is not different in those countries is that wearing a helmet reduces their chance of a fatal injury by 65%.

The main point abpout operating any machinery at all is knowing how to use it, what are its dangers and limitations and keeping oneself aware of all of that, actually saves more lives than the helmet does.

the problem with bike riding is not the operator of the bike, but those in the motorised vehicles (and sometimes, pedestrians) whom you have no control over their actions

You have control of the bike. I’ve been told that once you learn how to, you never forget.

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

I’m totally different from almost everyone in regard to how I have had to have trained myself in traffic. A helmet is most likey going to cause me to have an accident.

Bullshit upon bullshit.

Whatever.

Bubblecar said:

buffy said:

I reckon the rude bike riders (as opposed to the good ones) are a much bigger problem than compulsory helmets. I’m a lot afraider of speedsters on shared paths than I am of wearing a helmet on a bike.

…and it’s the speedy, sporty, risk-taking type of cyclist that now makes up a higher proportion of cyclists, thanks to compulsory helmet laws.

The lycra clad helmeted fetish freaks?

Arts said:

Bubblecar said:

buffy said:

I reckon the rude bike riders (as opposed to the good ones) are a much bigger problem than compulsory helmets. I’m a lot afraider of speedsters on shared paths than I am of wearing a helmet on a bike.

…and it’s the speedy, sporty, risk-taking type of cyclist that now makes up a higher proportion of cyclists, thanks to compulsory helmet laws.

who normally ride on the roads and will benefit from helmet wear. I see weekend riders constantly along the paths of the south Perth foreshore, all wearing helmets and happily riding for recreational purposes … your staunch liberalism is forgetting the harm principle, and your one eyed anti helmet campaign has not walked through a head injury unit lately. There’s nothing wrong with enforcing basic safety laws that aren’t too much trouble or money to do.

To tell you the truth, the world would be a better place if they didn’t wear helmets. There would be 65% less dickheads.

Bubblecar said:

Arts said:

Bubblecar said:

…and it’s the speedy, sporty, risk-taking type of cyclist that now makes up a higher proportion of cyclists, thanks to compulsory helmet laws.

who normally ride on the roads and will benefit from helmet wear. I see weekend riders constantly along the paths of the south Perth foreshore, all wearing helmets and happily riding for recreational purposes … your staunch liberalism is forgetting the harm principle, and your one eyed anti helmet campaign has not walked through a head injury unit lately. There’s nothing wrong with enforcing basic safety laws that aren’t too much trouble or money to do.

Huh? The lycra crowd LOVE their helmets. The sporty riders would never be seen without their helmets (and often ride dangerously so certainly benefit from them), they aren’t the problem. The problem is the rest of the population who have decided that riding a bike is too dangerous/ugly/inconvenient, since the introduction of compulsory helmet laws.

I’m not running an anti-helmet campaign at all. I just think that compulsory helmet laws are a bad idea, as do the governments of nearly all countries on the planet – especially those that have urban transport infrastructures that favour bicycles and a large proportion of people who take advantage of that by riding bikes.

Yeah. one shouldn’t be fined for riding a bike. It is a far healthier activity than so many others which don’t require crash helmets.

Sometimes bike related head injuries make people forget they already posted, so they just submit a stream of posts without waiting for a response.

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

roughbarked said:

The main point abpout operating any machinery at all is knowing how to use it, what are its dangers and limitations and keeping oneself aware of all of that, actually saves more lives than the helmet does.

the problem with bike riding is not the operator of the bike, but those in the motorised vehicles (and sometimes, pedestrians) whom you have no control over their actions

You have control of the bike. I’ve been told that once you learn how to, you never forget.

Control of the bike is limited by human reaction times and the laws of physics. If a car pulls out in front of you inside the envelope of your reaction time and stopping distance… there will be a collision.

party_pants said:

roughbarked said:

Arts said:

the problem with bike riding is not the operator of the bike, but those in the motorised vehicles (and sometimes, pedestrians) whom you have no control over their actions

You have control of the bike. I’ve been told that once you learn how to, you never forget.

Control of the bike is limited by human reaction times and the laws of physics. If a car pulls out in front of you inside the envelope of your reaction time and stopping distance… there will be a collision.

I’ve seen it happen and usually avoid it.

dv said:

Sometimes bike related head injuries make people forget they already posted, so they just submit a stream of posts without waiting for a response.

Each one was a reply to a post.

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/11/fewer_road_deaths_but_no_chang

u.nl looked at the 45,000 road traffic accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists between 2007 and 2012. The total number of fatal road accidents has fallen from 850 a year to 600 over the period, the research shows. But there has been no decrease in the number of cyclist and pedestrian deaths, which remains at around 260, according to the figures from the national statistics office CBS. The research shows 60% of fatal cycling accidents take place at junctions and in two out of five of those accidents, cyclists were not given priority.

https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Road_fatalities.pdf
This fact sheet outlines the development of the number of road deaths in the Netherlands since 1950. After a rise in the 1950s and 1960s, the number of road deaths in the Netherlands has shown a gradual decline since 1973. After a number of 570 road deaths in 2013 and 2014, the Netherlands counted 621 road deaths in 2015. More than a third of the fatalities are car occupants (224), a near third are cyclists (185). Measured by the population size, relatively many fatalities occur among young people and young adults (16-24 years) and among the elderly (65 +), whereas relatively few children (0-15 years) are killed in traffic

http://www.nltimes.nl/2016/04/12/netherlands-cyclists-likely-eu-hurt-traffic/
NETHERLANDS CYCLISTS MOST LIKELY IN EU TO BE HURT IN TRAFFIC

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Is this decision justified though? People will always complain about change but might grin and bear it regardless.

If riding a bike is supposedly so dangerous that if you don’t wear a helmet, you get in trouble with the police, many, many people are going to decide that cycling is too inherently dangerous for them or their children to get into.

Look I really think that’s a reach. You get into trouble with the police for not wearing a seatbelt while driving but people don’t conclude that driving a car is too dangerous to be bothered with. I don’t think people are that stupid, in the main.

FWIW I don’t believe my young son has any friends who don’t ride bikes, so it doesn’t seem to me that parents are thinking it is too dangerous. I mean who in Australia is unfamiliar with bike riding or has no sense of what it is about? Everyone’s done it. I think people prefer driving cars in Australia for other reasons.

>…/cut/….people don’t conclude that driving a car is too dangerous to be bothered with”

this seems untrue, as many people do spend as little as possible time on the road (driving cars) because it is dangerous.

and “too dangerous to be bothered with” looks like clever language to me.

I think car’s and RB’s thoughts, to some extent, are related to the loss of social ease in swinging a leg over something as modest as a bike for transport. It’s the loss of these and it being overly subject to the constructions of law, insurers etc.

dv said:

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/11/fewer_road_deaths_but_no_chang

u.nl looked at the 45,000 road traffic accidents involving pedestrians and cyclists between 2007 and 2012. The total number of fatal road accidents has fallen from 850 a year to 600 over the period, the research shows. But there has been no decrease in the number of cyclist and pedestrian deaths, which remains at around 260, according to the figures from the national statistics office CBS. The research shows 60% of fatal cycling accidents take place at junctions and in two out of five of those accidents, cyclists were not given priority.

https://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Road_fatalities.pdf
This fact sheet outlines the development of the number of road deaths in the Netherlands since 1950. After a rise in the 1950s and 1960s, the number of road deaths in the Netherlands has shown a gradual decline since 1973. After a number of 570 road deaths in 2013 and 2014, the Netherlands counted 621 road deaths in 2015. More than a third of the fatalities are car occupants (224), a near third are cyclists (185). Measured by the population size, relatively many fatalities occur among young people and young adults (16-24 years) and among the elderly (65 +), whereas relatively few children (0-15 years) are killed in traffic

http://www.nltimes.nl/2016/04/12/netherlands-cyclists-likely-eu-hurt-traffic/
NETHERLANDS CYCLISTS MOST LIKELY IN EU TO BE HURT IN TRAFFIC

Australia had twice the number of road deaths in 2015, despite the population being only about a third bigger than the Netherlands. I haven’t been able to find the year’s total of bike deaths in Oz in 2015, but 45 were killed in the previous 12 months:

http://aushiker.com/fatalities-bicycle-riders-australia-january-2015/

But the cycling participation rate is very much higher in the Netherlands (27% of all daily journeys made by bike, compared with 1% in Oz).

http://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/63616/cycling-down-under.pdf

transition said:

dv said:

Bubblecar said:

If riding a bike is supposedly so dangerous that if you don’t wear a helmet, you get in trouble with the police, many, many people are going to decide that cycling is too inherently dangerous for them or their children to get into.

Look I really think that’s a reach. You get into trouble with the police for not wearing a seatbelt while driving but people don’t conclude that driving a car is too dangerous to be bothered with. I don’t think people are that stupid, in the main.

FWIW I don’t believe my young son has any friends who don’t ride bikes, so it doesn’t seem to me that parents are thinking it is too dangerous. I mean who in Australia is unfamiliar with bike riding or has no sense of what it is about? Everyone’s done it. I think people prefer driving cars in Australia for other reasons.

>…/cut/….people don’t conclude that driving a car is too dangerous to be bothered with”

this seems untrue, as many people do spend as little as possible time on the road (driving cars) because it is dangerous.

and “too dangerous to be bothered with” looks like clever language to me.

I think car’s and RB’s thoughts, to some extent, are related to the loss of social ease in swinging a leg over something as modest as a bike for transport. It’s the loss of these and it being overly subject to the constructions of law, insurers etc.

No doubt it is a rich tapestry.

In (what ought be a) strange way the modest, of transport and other things, is not greatly fashionable in Australia. Ideological devices can have anxieties about the modest sublimated and shifted into more acceptable social constructions (more into the field of reality as social construction – elevated), which can render consideration of repressive aspects of whatever more difficult. A right-thinking lot, oddly conservative. Not modestly conservative.

Perhaps an individual can be more free on a bike (more so previously) than a motorcar. It can be any old bike, doesn’t require a bank loan, doesn’t need fuel (from a service station) no need to be making any statement of status (cars are strongly associated with status). You can weave through traffic, ride off the curb, all sorts.

Bikes are like kids first wheels too, so they aren’t sort of like you have to wait until you are of age and have your licence to (then) enter the grownups world. Bikes might be somewhat detached of ideology in ways. Who knows, Gramsci may have rode a bike.

For mine, I think I am glad to use a mix of private motor vehicle, bicycle, public transport and pedestrianism. Variety is the spice of life and all that.

Anyway. compulsory helmets stopped me from using a bike. Essentially this has saved everyone choosing not to, from the death dealing excercise and caused them to die of other slow and painful things whilst leaving the car drivers free to curse all the spermheads instead.
You are therefore saved from the ignomy of being overtaken by a pushbike with a crazed loon atop the careening device.

roughbarked said:

Anyway. compulsory helmets stopped me from using a bike. Essentially this has saved everyone choosing not to, from the death dealing excercise and caused them to die of other slow and painful things whilst leaving the car drivers free to curse all the spermheads instead.
You are therefore saved from the ignomy of being overtaken by a pushbike with a crazed loon atop the careening device.

didn’t realise people were so vain..
(they probably think this post is about them…)

I’m in agreement somewhat with RB and car, much as anyone dare express a contrary opinion these days, you know it appears maladapted, normal’s so done its job.

I was trying to think of something that’s vaguely comparable, to make a point, and it was surfers wearing shark proof helmets.

I don’t agree with roughbarked. On a personal level, his life expectancy and healthy life expectancy both increase if he choses to wear a helmet while riding.

Bubblecar might be right. Might not. The issue of appropriate legislation is a complex matter, depending on cultural factors etc, so I don’t have a firm opinion on whether helmets should be compulsory.
Certainly I think the government should encourage people to wear helmets.

The new rail line was designed to encourage people to ride bikes to the stations instead of driving. There are relatively few car park spaces and a shared path along the line in order to encourage people to ride.

Judging by the heavy traffic and no cyclists past my house on their way to the new station/s, I’m guessing not many people are using the riding option on their commute.

Generally speaking, there are many recreational cyclists around the peninsula. It’s mostly flat with lots of bike paths. I do have local stats from an assignment I did a few years ago, if anyone actually wants them.

dv said:

I don’t agree with roughbarked. On a personal level, his life expectancy and healthy life expectancy both increase if he choses to wear a helmet while riding.

Bubblecar might be right. Might not. The issue of appropriate legislation is a complex matter, depending on cultural factors etc, so I don’t have a firm opinion on whether helmets should be compulsory.
Certainly I think the government should encourage people to wear helmets.

Of roughbarked the individual, that can’t be said, because you don’t know thoroughly enough what he does do instead of riding his bike. There are other things too, like individuals riding bikes contribute less to global warming (if they do more of it and less driving cars etc). Exercise promotes health too, the effort involved doesn’t require education to make what fitness means obvious.
Too bike riders tend not to have their entire families or other members of their families or friends onboard (in this country), so of accident likelihood adjustments must be made to risk that account for this. But then again if the entire family is out on bikes (on roads) the risk might be greater.

I don’t ride my bike across town or to the deli anymore, the inconvenience of the helmet thing does contribute to disinclining it. I walk and take larry. I’ve done quite a lot of bike riding in the city (a small city, but qualifies), my impression is bikes are somewhat uncool (I think they’re cool – modest), but I think there’s something bigger and nastier. That being out in public spaces is uncool. Unless it’s work-related, you’re shopping, or in a car. In fact i’d say peoples conception of public space has been somewhat dissolved.

If I see a bunch of noisy exploring kids getting around (some on bikes), I think that’s nice.

…In fact i’d say peoples conception of public space has been somewhat dissolved.

corrupted would be a better word.

I don’t agree that a helmet is inconvenient. It take no time to put on and they aren’t that expensive.
Melbourne has a large bike riding population. Even public bikes to encourage riders of whom I saw a lot of, both recreational and committing. And there’re no crazier more dangerous drivers than in that city.

transition said:

…In fact i’d say peoples conception of public space has been somewhat dissolved.

corrupted would be a better word.

Well, it has certainly changed.

>Melbourne has a large bike riding population.

that’s the city-centric view

transition said:

>Melbourne has a large bike riding population.

that’s the city-centric view

Melbourne is a city

Arts said:

transition said:

>Melbourne has a large bike riding population.

that’s the city-centric view

Melbourne is a city

yes, most of australia is not city, though more and more a city-centric view dominates.

transition said:

I don’t ride my bike across town or to the deli anymore, the inconvenience of the helmet thing does contribute to disinclining it.

What exactly is inconvenient about wearing a helmet? Is it the 10 sec you lose putting it on before you get on the bike, or is it the fact that you have to take it off and hang it over the handle bars when you get off?

transition said:

Arts said:

transition said:

>Melbourne has a large bike riding population.

that’s the city-centric view

Melbourne is a city

yes, most of australia is not city, though more and more a city-centric view dominates.

population majority.

Riding on country roads and in country towns is probably less safe. Fewer dedicated paths and faster on average traffic speeds.

Arts said:

transition said:

Arts said:

Melbourne is a city

yes, most of australia is not city, though more and more a city-centric view dominates.

population majority.

Riding on country roads and in country towns is probably less safe. Fewer dedicated paths and faster on average traffic speeds.

and further from health care… logic would dictate it’s a better idea to wear a helmet in a rural area than a metropolitan area…

the main reason is that these people think it doesn’t suit the persona they wish to give off.

transition said:

Arts said:

transition said:

>Melbourne has a large bike riding population.

that’s the city-centric view

Melbourne is a city

yes, most of australia is not city, though more and more a city-centric view dominates.

Australia is not a city, but it is among the most urbanised countries in the world with 89% of the population living in cities. This percentage is increasing, so it is obvious that a city-centric view becomes even more useful over time in Australia.

ChrispenEvan said:

the main reason is that these people think it doesn’t suit the persona they wish to give off.

The “I don’t care if I suffer a debilitating brain injury” persona.

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the main reason is that these people think it doesn’t suit the persona they wish to give off.

The “I don’t care if I suffer a debilitating brain injury” persona.

as long as you look cool while getting it…

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

I don’t ride my bike across town or to the deli anymore, the inconvenience of the helmet thing does contribute to disinclining it.

What exactly is inconvenient about wearing a helmet? Is it the 10 sec you lose putting it on before you get on the bike, or is it the fact that you have to take it off and hang it over the handle bars when you get off?

no, it’s more like finding the keys for a vehicle you increasingly rarely use (that otherwise would live in the ignition), then have to check the tyres maybe fix one or pump it up, then have to traverse whatever territory while being on the lookout for helmet stasi that’d ruin your day for the greater good.

not to mention juggling a couple of chiko rolls and a coke and a helmet can be difficult. Or I might pick up a power tool.

dv said:

transition said:

Arts said:

Melbourne is a city

yes, most of australia is not city, though more and more a city-centric view dominates.

Australia is not a city, but it is among the most urbanised countries in the world with 89% of the population living in cities. This percentage is increasing, so it is obvious that a city-centric view becomes even more useful over time in Australia.

Yes, then there’s is the outdoors space. The country.

transition said:

not to mention juggling a couple of chiko rolls and a coke and a helmet can be difficult. Or I might pick up a power tool.

That’s why bike baskets were invented.

Divine Angel said:

transition said:

not to mention juggling a couple of chiko rolls and a coke and a helmet can be difficult. Or I might pick up a power tool.

That’s why bike baskets were invented.

descended of saddle bags

mojo ….

transition said:

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

I don’t ride my bike across town or to the deli anymore, the inconvenience of the helmet thing does contribute to disinclining it.

What exactly is inconvenient about wearing a helmet? Is it the 10 sec you lose putting it on before you get on the bike, or is it the fact that you have to take it off and hang it over the handle bars when you get off?

no, it’s more like finding the keys for a vehicle you increasingly rarely use (that otherwise would live in the ignition), then have to check the tyres maybe fix one or pump it up, then have to traverse whatever territory while being on the lookout for helmet stasi that’d ruin your day for the greater good.

not to mention juggling a couple of chiko rolls and a coke and a helmet can be difficult. Or I might pick up a power tool.

so it’s as equally inconvenient as driving a car…

transition said:

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

I don’t ride my bike across town or to the deli anymore, the inconvenience of the helmet thing does contribute to disinclining it.

What exactly is inconvenient about wearing a helmet? Is it the 10 sec you lose putting it on before you get on the bike, or is it the fact that you have to take it off and hang it over the handle bars when you get off?

no, it’s more like finding the keys for a vehicle you increasingly rarely use (that otherwise would live in the ignition), then have to check the tyres maybe fix one or pump it up, then have to traverse whatever territory while being on the lookout for helmet stasi that’d ruin your day for the greater good.

not to mention juggling a couple of chiko rolls and a coke and a helmet can be difficult. Or I might pick up a power tool.

So, basically, you’re too lazy to ride a bicycle, and are just using the helmet as a justification.

dv said:

I don’t agree with roughbarked. On a personal level, his life expectancy and healthy life expectancy both increase if he choses to wear a helmet while riding.

Bubblecar might be right. Might not. The issue of appropriate legislation is a complex matter, depending on cultural factors etc, so I don’t have a firm opinion on whether helmets should be compulsory.
Certainly I think the government should encourage people to wear helmets.

If you are going to be statistical. Then that’s rubbish. Because I rode bikes for 45 years without a helmet and for quite some time without brakes or any safety features. It is highly unlikely I’ll ever ride a pushbike again unless it is in a country that isn’t full of such nonsensical garbage. Therefore no helmet is gong to improve my life expectancy alfoil or otherwise.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

I don’t agree with roughbarked. On a personal level, his life expectancy and healthy life expectancy both increase if he choses to wear a helmet while riding.

Bubblecar might be right. Might not. The issue of appropriate legislation is a complex matter, depending on cultural factors etc, so I don’t have a firm opinion on whether helmets should be compulsory.
Certainly I think the government should encourage people to wear helmets.

If you are going to be statistical. Then that’s rubbish. Because I rode bikes for 45 years without a helmet and for quite some time without brakes or any safety features. It is highly unlikely I’ll ever ride a pushbike again unless it is in a country that isn’t full of such nonsensical garbage. Therefore no helmet is gong to improve my life expectancy alfoil or otherwise.

woop! woop! anecdote alert!

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the main reason is that these people think it doesn’t suit the persona they wish to give off.

The “I don’t care if I suffer a debilitating brain injury” persona.

It is a really weird thing to say, dv.

Of all the things that people do in Australia, without helmets and you are stuck on this one.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the main reason is that these people think it doesn’t suit the persona they wish to give off.

The “I don’t care if I suffer a debilitating brain injury” persona.

as long as you look cool while getting it…

has got nothing to do with looks.

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

I don’t agree with roughbarked. On a personal level, his life expectancy and healthy life expectancy both increase if he choses to wear a helmet while riding.

Bubblecar might be right. Might not. The issue of appropriate legislation is a complex matter, depending on cultural factors etc, so I don’t have a firm opinion on whether helmets should be compulsory.
Certainly I think the government should encourage people to wear helmets.

If you are going to be statistical. Then that’s rubbish. Because I rode bikes for 45 years without a helmet and for quite some time without brakes or any safety features. It is highly unlikely I’ll ever ride a pushbike again unless it is in a country that isn’t full of such nonsensical garbage. Therefore no helmet is gong to improve my life expectancy alfoil or otherwise.

woop! woop! anecdote alert!

so what was dv’s attack then?

roughbarked said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

the main reason is that these people think it doesn’t suit the persona they wish to give off.

The “I don’t care if I suffer a debilitating brain injury” persona.

It is a really weird thing to say, dv.

Of all the things that people do in Australia, without helmets and you are stuck on this one.

seeing as bike helmets is the topic then it seems reasonable that we are talking about this to the exclusion of other areas where helmet wearing may be beneficial.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

I don’t agree with roughbarked. On a personal level, his life expectancy and healthy life expectancy both increase if he choses to wear a helmet while riding.

Bubblecar might be right. Might not. The issue of appropriate legislation is a complex matter, depending on cultural factors etc, so I don’t have a firm opinion on whether helmets should be compulsory.
Certainly I think the government should encourage people to wear helmets.

If you are going to be statistical. Then that’s rubbish. Because I rode bikes for 45 years without a helmet and for quite some time without brakes or any safety features. It is highly unlikely I’ll ever ride a pushbike again unless it is in a country that isn’t full of such nonsensical garbage. Therefore no helmet is gong to improve my life expectancy alfoil or otherwise.

I’ve been run over — whilst wearing a helmet — by a driver who was playing with his GPS and not paying attention to where he was going or what was on the road ahead of him (I was in a roundabout; he entered from a side road and ran me down.) It follows — using roughbarked’s logic — that wearing a helmet makes cycling safer.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

If you are going to be statistical. Then that’s rubbish. Because I rode bikes for 45 years without a helmet and for quite some time without brakes or any safety features. It is highly unlikely I’ll ever ride a pushbike again unless it is in a country that isn’t full of such nonsensical garbage. Therefore no helmet is gong to improve my life expectancy alfoil or otherwise.

woop! woop! anecdote alert!

so what was dv’s attack then?

opinion based on statistics.

btm said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

I don’t agree with roughbarked. On a personal level, his life expectancy and healthy life expectancy both increase if he choses to wear a helmet while riding.

Bubblecar might be right. Might not. The issue of appropriate legislation is a complex matter, depending on cultural factors etc, so I don’t have a firm opinion on whether helmets should be compulsory.
Certainly I think the government should encourage people to wear helmets.

If you are going to be statistical. Then that’s rubbish. Because I rode bikes for 45 years without a helmet and for quite some time without brakes or any safety features. It is highly unlikely I’ll ever ride a pushbike again unless it is in a country that isn’t full of such nonsensical garbage. Therefore no helmet is gong to improve my life expectancy alfoil or otherwise.

I’ve been run over — whilst wearing a helmet — by a driver who was playing with his GPS and not paying attention to where he was going or what was on the road ahead of him (I was in a roundabout; he entered from a side road and ran me down.) It follows — using roughbarked’s logic — that wearing a helmet makes cycling safer.

So you watched him do all of this without taking evasive action, because you trusted a helmet made of plastic and foam?

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

woop! woop! anecdote alert!

so what was dv’s attack then?

opinion based on statistics.

The statistics are awry. City centric nanny state.

roughbarked said:

ChrispenEvan said:

roughbarked said:

so what was dv’s attack then?

opinion based on statistics.

The statistics are awry. City centric nanny state.

please show workings.

roughbarked said:

btm said:

roughbarked said:

If you are going to be statistical. Then that’s rubbish. Because I rode bikes for 45 years without a helmet and for quite some time without brakes or any safety features. It is highly unlikely I’ll ever ride a pushbike again unless it is in a country that isn’t full of such nonsensical garbage. Therefore no helmet is gong to improve my life expectancy alfoil or otherwise.

I’ve been run over — whilst wearing a helmet — by a driver who was playing with his GPS and not paying attention to where he was going or what was on the road ahead of him (I was in a roundabout; he entered from a side road and ran me down.) It follows — using roughbarked’s logic — that wearing a helmet makes cycling safer.

So you watched him do all of this without taking evasive action, because you trusted a helmet made of plastic and foam?

No, I didn’t watch him. His windscreen made seeing what he was doing inside his van impossible; I was busy watching where I was going.

Also, you disagreeing with statistics doesn’t make them “awry”.

For a dangerous “sporty” rider like poik, a helmet is certainly very advisable.

For those of us who ride at safe, moderate speeds and avoid heavy traffic and tricky terrain, helmet wear should be a matter of personal discretion.

Unfortunately as dv pointed out, Aussies love their cars, which is why in these threads we always get comparisons with seatbelts. Most Australians never walk anywhere, so whenever they’re travelling they wear a seatbelt, which makes it a natural comparison.

For a pedestrian like me, I’m more likely to compare riding my bike with walking. Wearing a helmet while walking, while undoubtedly affording more protection, seems extravagent. When I’m riding a bike more variables are introduced which make a helmet more advisable – but the difference between “advisable” and “compulsory” is a huge and consequential one, which helps account for the fact that only 1% of daily journeys in this country are made by bicycle.

one must admired those in the “no” campaign and their utter faith in their fellow man/woman doing the right thing.

-d

Bubblecar said:

For a dangerous “sporty” rider like poik, a helmet is certainly very advisable.

For those of us who ride at safe, moderate speeds and avoid heavy traffic and tricky terrain, helmet wear should be a matter of personal discretion.

Unfortunately as dv pointed out, Aussies love their cars, which is why in these threads we always get comparisons with seatbelts. Most Australians never walk anywhere, so whenever they’re travelling they wear a seatbelt, which makes it a natural comparison.

For a pedestrian like me, I’m more likely to compare riding my bike with walking. Wearing a helmet while walking, while undoubtedly affording more protection, seems extravagent. When I’m riding a bike more variables are introduced which make a helmet more advisable – but the difference between “advisable” and “compulsory” is a huge and consequential one, which helps account for the fact that only 1% of daily journeys in this country are made by bicycle.

um, yeah.

ChrispenEvan said:

one must admired those in the “no” campaign and their utter faith in their fellow man/woman doing the right thing.

I’m not against bike helmets, I’m against compulsory bike helmet laws.

ChrispenEvan said:

one must admired those in the “no” campaign and their utter faith in their fellow man/woman doing the right thing.

Once or twice in my life I’ve jumped off the bike and pulled it out of the way of idiot drivers.

Bubblecar said:

ChrispenEvan said:

one must admired those in the “no” campaign and their utter faith in their fellow man/woman doing the right thing.

I’m not against bike helmets, I’m against compulsory bike helmet laws.

Same here. Because helmets were available when my son started riding a bike (not on a public road) I still told him to wear one.

Bubblecar said:

For a dangerous “sporty” rider like poik, a helmet is certainly very advisable.

For those of us who ride at safe, moderate speeds and avoid heavy traffic and tricky terrain, helmet wear should be a matter of personal discretion.

Unfortunately as dv pointed out, Aussies love their cars, which is why in these threads we always get comparisons with seatbelts. Most Australians never walk anywhere, so whenever they’re travelling they wear a seatbelt, which makes it a natural comparison.

For a pedestrian like me, I’m more likely to compare riding my bike with walking. Wearing a helmet while walking, while undoubtedly affording more protection, seems extravagent. When I’m riding a bike more variables are introduced which make a helmet more advisable – but the difference between “advisable” and “compulsory” is a huge and consequential one, which helps account for the fact that only 1% of daily journeys in this country are made by bicycle.

but non of that changes the fact that wearing a helmet reduces your risk of serious brain injury by a significant proportion…

why on earth would you choose to put your self at greater risk when the solution is to simply put on a helmet?

Bubblecar said:

Most Australians never walk anywhere…

I walked a lot when in Oz :/

diddly-squat said:

Bubblecar said:

For a dangerous “sporty” rider like poik, a helmet is certainly very advisable.

For those of us who ride at safe, moderate speeds and avoid heavy traffic and tricky terrain, helmet wear should be a matter of personal discretion.

Unfortunately as dv pointed out, Aussies love their cars, which is why in these threads we always get comparisons with seatbelts. Most Australians never walk anywhere, so whenever they’re travelling they wear a seatbelt, which makes it a natural comparison.

For a pedestrian like me, I’m more likely to compare riding my bike with walking. Wearing a helmet while walking, while undoubtedly affording more protection, seems extravagent. When I’m riding a bike more variables are introduced which make a helmet more advisable – but the difference between “advisable” and “compulsory” is a huge and consequential one, which helps account for the fact that only 1% of daily journeys in this country are made by bicycle.

but non of that changes the fact that wearing a helmet reduces your risk of serious brain injury by a significant proportion…

why on earth would you choose to put your self at greater risk when the solution is to simply put on a helmet?

I will admit that I wuld have been dead or brain injured at 17 if I had not taken the new advice at the time which was you should wear a helmet whilst travelling on a motorbike, particularly as a pinion.

One needs to fall off and hit the head to test whether wearing the helmet will help.

roughbarked said:

diddly-squat said:

Bubblecar said:

For a dangerous “sporty” rider like poik, a helmet is certainly very advisable.

For those of us who ride at safe, moderate speeds and avoid heavy traffic and tricky terrain, helmet wear should be a matter of personal discretion.

Unfortunately as dv pointed out, Aussies love their cars, which is why in these threads we always get comparisons with seatbelts. Most Australians never walk anywhere, so whenever they’re travelling they wear a seatbelt, which makes it a natural comparison.

For a pedestrian like me, I’m more likely to compare riding my bike with walking. Wearing a helmet while walking, while undoubtedly affording more protection, seems extravagent. When I’m riding a bike more variables are introduced which make a helmet more advisable – but the difference between “advisable” and “compulsory” is a huge and consequential one, which helps account for the fact that only 1% of daily journeys in this country are made by bicycle.

but non of that changes the fact that wearing a helmet reduces your risk of serious brain injury by a significant proportion…

why on earth would you choose to put your self at greater risk when the solution is to simply put on a helmet?

I will admit that I wuld have been dead or brain injured at 17 if I had not taken the new advice at the time which was you should wear a helmet whilst travelling on a motorbike, particularly as a pinion.

One needs to fall off and hit the head to test whether wearing the helmet will help.

No one doesn’t, how fkn thick are you?

it’s in the best interest of a government to legislate in favor of compulsory wearing of helmets while riding a bike…

it’s like smoking, the cost of health care, social security and lost productivity due to brain injury far exceeds any enforcement and/or education costs…

So not only is it safer, but it’s a lower cost option as well…

Cyclists riding through a typical Amsterdam rush hour. OMFG how reckless!! They need to learn from the much more bike-savvy Aussies, who hardly ever ride bikes but if they do, it’s with a helmet on ‘cos police.

kii said:

Bubblecar said:

Most Australians never walk anywhere…

I walked a lot when in Oz :/

I only got a driver’s license because I needed to drive my wife to a hospital to bear her first child. I was 23. Prior to that and after that I still either walked or rode a pushbike unless I was travelling further than twenty miles to go anywhere. It was only when I was told that I couldn’t ride without a helmet that I hung the bike on the wall.

Bubblecar said:

Cyclists riding through a typical Amsterdam rush hour. OMFG how reckless!! They need to learn from the much more bike-savvy Aussies, who hardly ever ride bikes but if they do, it’s with a helmet on ‘cos police.

i see they have got rid of the stick with a nail on the end to stop motorists getting too close. was a common sight back in the early 80s when i was there.

ChrispenEvan said:

Bubblecar said:

Cyclists riding through a typical Amsterdam rush hour. OMFG how reckless!! They need to learn from the much more bike-savvy Aussies, who hardly ever ride bikes but if they do, it’s with a helmet on ‘cos police.

i see they have got rid of the stick with a nail on the end to stop motorists getting too close. was a common sight back in the early 80s when i was there.

As if that would help.

Bubblecar said:

Cyclists riding through a typical Amsterdam rush hour. OMFG how reckless!! They need to learn from the much more bike-savvy Aussies, who hardly ever ride bikes but if they do, it’s with a helmet on ‘cos police.

you seem to not want to talk about the issue at hand… the issue is not one of “recklessness”, it’s one of “risk management”.

those people would be at a lower risk of incurring serious brain injury if they wore a helmet… it really is that simple.

diddly-squat said:

those people would be at a lower risk of incurring serious brain injury if they wore a helmet… it really is that simple.

And there’s nothing wrong with advising that. But the Dutch government value their high rate of cycling and ever-improving cycling infrastructure far too much to make helmets compulsory.

Cycling at ordinary commuting speeds in bike-friendly traffic systems is very safe, and a pleasant and attractive way to travel. Introducing compulsory helmets automatically makes it seem more dangerous, inconvenient and ugly.

Bubblecar said:

Cyclists riding through a typical Amsterdam rush hour. OMFG how reckless!! They need to learn from the much more bike-savvy Aussies, who hardly ever ride bikes but if they do, it’s with a helmet on ‘cos police.

In 2016, 185 people in the Netherlands were killed while riding a bike.

http://www.swov.nl/rapport/Factsheets/UK/FS_Bicycle_helmets.pdf

How many cyclists sustain head/brain injury?
Annually, 190 people die in the Netherlands and more than 9,200 sustain serious injury in a bicycle
crash. A third of these seriously injured bicycle casualties are diagnosed with head or brain injuries
(32%) (LMR 2005-2009; see also Table 1). Head injury is the general category and generally implies
brain injury, but sometimes there is head injury without brain injury. Table 1 contains data about
head/brain injury among cyclists during the period 2005-2009;

• Of the cyclists with serious injury who are admitted to hospital following a crash with motorized
traffic, almost half (47%) are diagnosed with head/brain injury. After crashes not involving
motorized traffic this is the diagnosis for just under one third (29%) of the cyclists.

• Proportionally, head/brain injury occurs most frequently among children and youths. In crashes with
motorized traffic more than 60% of the young seriously injured cyclists (0-17 years old) have
sustained head/brain injury, compared with an average of 47%; in the case of crashes not involving
motorized traffic, the percentages range from 33 to 56% for these age groups (compared with a
29% average).

• Approximately three-quarters of all head/brain injury sustained by cyclists are the consequence of
crashes not involving motorized traffic (n=2,229). For young children (0-5 years old) as many as
nine out of ten head/brain injuries are the consequence of bicycle crashes not involving motor
vehicles. These are mostly cyclist-only crashes, i.e. crashes without another road user being
involved, or crashes into an object.

Bubblecar said:

Cyclists riding through a typical Amsterdam rush hour. OMFG how reckless!! They need to learn from the much more bike-savvy Aussies, who hardly ever ride bikes but if they do, it’s with a helmet on ‘cos police.

For those Australian cities where there is an extensive network of cycleways, with cycles and cars separated, and where heavy cycle traffic ensures a low maximum speed, you could perhaps make a case that helmets were of little benefit.

I think I’ll go and a make a list of those cities.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Cyclists riding through a typical Amsterdam rush hour. OMFG how reckless!! They need to learn from the much more bike-savvy Aussies, who hardly ever ride bikes but if they do, it’s with a helmet on ‘cos police.

!https://bicycledutch.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/amsterdam.jpg

For those Australian cities where there is an extensive network of cycleways, with cycles and cars separated, and where heavy cycle traffic ensures a low maximum speed, you could perhaps make a case that helmets were of little benefit.

ha, you should ask Arts about that first I reckon..

diddly-squat said:

Bubblecar said:

Cyclists riding through a typical Amsterdam rush hour. OMFG how reckless!! They need to learn from the much more bike-savvy Aussies, who hardly ever ride bikes but if they do, it’s with a helmet on ‘cos police.

In 2016, 185 people in the Netherlands were killed while riding a bike.

Average of 50 cycling deaths a year in Oz. But as I pointed out to dv, 27% of daily journeys in the Netherlands are made by bike, compared with 1% in Oz.

Bubblecar said:

diddly-squat said:

Bubblecar said:

Cyclists riding through a typical Amsterdam rush hour. OMFG how reckless!! They need to learn from the much more bike-savvy Aussies, who hardly ever ride bikes but if they do, it’s with a helmet on ‘cos police.

In 2016, 185 people in the Netherlands were killed while riding a bike.

Average of 50 cycling deaths a year in Oz. But as I pointed out to dv, 27% of daily journeys in the Netherlands are made by bike, compared with 1% in Oz.

my point was that at a conservative estimate, one could assume that upwards of 1/3 of those people would still be alive if wearing a helmet were compulsory.

how is saving 60 lives, and stopping many more serious brain injuries per year a bad public policy measure?

diddly-squat said:

Bubblecar said:

diddly-squat said:

In 2016, 185 people in the Netherlands were killed while riding a bike.

Average of 50 cycling deaths a year in Oz. But as I pointed out to dv, 27% of daily journeys in the Netherlands are made by bike, compared with 1% in Oz.

my point was that at a conservative estimate, one could assume that upwards of 1/3 of those people would still be alive if wearing a helmet were compulsory.

how is saving 60 lives, and stopping many more serious brain injuries per year a bad public policy measure?

coz it messes up my hair mate.

I say introduce magpies to Europe… that’ll learn em…

https://sites.google.com/site/bicyclehelmetmythsandfacts/#TOC-Myth-8:Studies-show-that-when-helmets-are-mandated-bicycling-rates-fall-by-30.

diddly-squat said:

my point was that at a conservative estimate, one could assume that upwards of 1/3 of those people would still be alive if wearing a helmet were compulsory.

how is saving 60 lives, and stopping many more serious brain injuries per year a bad public policy measure?

Because if bike helmets were compulsory in the Netherlands, far fewer people would be riding bikes. It’s well known that most Dutch (and Europeans generally) hate bike helmets and regard them as unnecessary unless engaged in dangerous cycling sports.

When compulsory helmets were introduced in Oz, the number of people cycling plummeted. Numbers gradually rose, but with a changed demographic – far fewer women and elderly people, teenagers etc, more sporty lycra-clad men.

>So, basically, you’re too lazy to ride a bicycle, and are just using the helmet as a justification.

speculate wildly, make it up, if it helps bury the detail in a just merely, or whatever attributions float that ego.

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

diddly-squat said:

What exactly is inconvenient about wearing a helmet? Is it the 10 sec you lose putting it on before you get on the bike, or is it the fact that you have to take it off and hang it over the handle bars when you get off?

no, it’s more like finding the keys for a vehicle you increasingly rarely use (that otherwise would live in the ignition), then have to check the tyres maybe fix one or pump it up, then have to traverse whatever territory while being on the lookout for helmet stasi that’d ruin your day for the greater good.

not to mention juggling a couple of chiko rolls and a coke and a helmet can be difficult. Or I might pick up a power tool.

so it’s as equally inconvenient as driving a car…

you probably missed the gist of it.

Bubblecar said:

diddly-squat said:

my point was that at a conservative estimate, one could assume that upwards of 1/3 of those people would still be alive if wearing a helmet were compulsory.

how is saving 60 lives, and stopping many more serious brain injuries per year a bad public policy measure?

Because if bike helmets were compulsory in the Netherlands, far fewer people would be riding bikes. It’s well known that most Dutch (and Europeans generally) hate bike helmets and regard them as unnecessary unless engaged in dangerous cycling sports.

When compulsory helmets were introduced in Oz, the number of people cycling plummeted. Numbers gradually rose, but with a changed demographic – far fewer women and elderly people, teenagers etc, more sporty lycra-clad men.

OK… so let’s say that the introduction of mandatory rules for helmets were to drop the number of cyclists by 1/3…

that still saves 40 lives and many more serious brain injuries per year… again I ask, how is that a bad thing?

your argument makes no sense at all other than to follow libertarian ideals

transition said:

diddly-squat said:

transition said:

no, it’s more like finding the keys for a vehicle you increasingly rarely use (that otherwise would live in the ignition), then have to check the tyres maybe fix one or pump it up, then have to traverse whatever territory while being on the lookout for helmet stasi that’d ruin your day for the greater good.

not to mention juggling a couple of chiko rolls and a coke and a helmet can be difficult. Or I might pick up a power tool.

so it’s as equally inconvenient as driving a car…

you probably missed the gist of it.

Said the blind man…

Bubblecar said:

When compulsory helmets were introduced in Oz, the number of people cycling plummeted. Numbers gradually rose, but with a changed demographic – far fewer women and elderly people, teenagers etc, more sporty lycra-clad men.

Have you a reference for this?

diddly-squat said:

Bubblecar said:

diddly-squat said:

my point was that at a conservative estimate, one could assume that upwards of 1/3 of those people would still be alive if wearing a helmet were compulsory.

how is saving 60 lives, and stopping many more serious brain injuries per year a bad public policy measure?

Because if bike helmets were compulsory in the Netherlands, far fewer people would be riding bikes. It’s well known that most Dutch (and Europeans generally) hate bike helmets and regard them as unnecessary unless engaged in dangerous cycling sports.

When compulsory helmets were introduced in Oz, the number of people cycling plummeted. Numbers gradually rose, but with a changed demographic – far fewer women and elderly people, teenagers etc, more sporty lycra-clad men.

OK… so let’s say that the introduction of mandatory rules for helmets were to drop the number of cyclists by 1/3…

that still saves 40 lives and many more serious brain injuries per year… again I ask, how is that a bad thing?

your argument makes no sense at all other than to follow libertarian ideals

Myth 8: Studies show that when helmets are mandated bicycling rates fall by 30%.

Fact 8: One group in Australia counted the number of cyclists on the one day of the year before and after a helmet law went into effect and claimed that they counted 30% fewer cyclists. While any statistician would laugh this study off because of its methodology, this “study” has taken on a life of its own among those opposed to helmets. In fact, the group conducting the study intentionally left out large numbers of cyclists going by, claiming that they were part of a “bike rally” and hence should not be counted. Also never mentioned is that future counts showed that the number of cyclists quickly went back up to the pre-law level (or course the level never went down 30% to begin with, if it went down at all). It’s junk science and junk statistics at its worst.

Anytime you see the 30% number used on a web site opposing the use of helmets, you can be pretty certain that the rest of the material on the web site is equally flawed.

In fact, every study shows that cycling rates have increased after helmet laws. But there is no proof that the helmet law was the cause for the increase. One could create several reasons why an mandatory helmet law could possibly be the cause of the increase, but that would be pure speculation. There could be multiple causes for increases and decreases in the number of cyclists on the same month and day one year apart. Weather, a large change in the price of fuel, mass transit issues, etc. A statistically sound survey would do daily counts over much a longer period of time.

When someone incorrectly claims that there was a decrease in cycling following the adoption of a helmet law, and claims that the helmet law was responsible, they’re beginning with a false premise, then speculating as to how something that didn’t happen was caused by the new law.

diddly-squat said:

OK… so let’s say that the introduction of mandatory rules for helmets were to drop the number of cyclists by 1/3…

that still saves 40 lives and many more serious brain injuries per year… again I ask, how is that a bad thing?

your argument makes no sense at all other than to follow libertarian ideals

You’re following the traditional Oz nanny-state reasoning: “if it can save ONE LIFE, it’s gotta be worthwhile…”

…regardless of how many other problems it introduces, and how many other lives are compromised or prematurely ended.

Cycling has many health benefits, especially in a country like Australia where most people are far too sedentary.

And a lower number of cyclists on the road makes cycling more dangerous for everyone. In countries that have heavy bike use, motorists are much more accustomed to driving appropriately amongst cyclists.

Compulsory helmets make cycling seem more dangerous and so you tend to end up with the cyclists who are more inclined to take risks, i.e., the sporty types on racing bikes.

poikilotherm said:

transition said:

diddly-squat said:

so it’s as equally inconvenient as driving a car…

you probably missed the gist of it.

Said the blind man…

I don’t mind trying arguments that are beneath some people.

In a sense the helmet has become a proxy licence, for want of a better way of putting it.

Anyway I’ll leave you to your “Aussies know best” fantasies :)

Bubblecar said:

Anyway I’ll leave you to your “Aussies know best” fantasies :)

Don’t let facts get in the way now.

Bubblecar said:

diddly-squat said:

OK… so let’s say that the introduction of mandatory rules for helmets were to drop the number of cyclists by 1/3…

that still saves 40 lives and many more serious brain injuries per year… again I ask, how is that a bad thing?

your argument makes no sense at all other than to follow libertarian ideals

You’re following the traditional Oz nanny-state reasoning: “if it can save ONE LIFE, it’s gotta be worthwhile…”

…regardless of how many other problems it introduces, and how many other lives are compromised or prematurely ended.

Cycling has many health benefits, especially in a country like Australia where most people are far too sedentary.

And a lower number of cyclists on the road makes cycling more dangerous for everyone. In countries that have heavy bike use, motorists are much more accustomed to driving appropriately amongst cyclists.

Compulsory helmets make cycling seem more dangerous and so you tend to end up with the cyclists who are more inclined to take risks, i.e., the sporty types on racing bikes.

it’s not just about saving lives, it’s also about increasing productivity in the workforce, as well as decreasing the pressure on the social security system and the health system.

what problem could wearing a helmet possibly introduce that isn’t worth the above reward?

….compulsory voting scored you Abbott, Turnbull, Bernardi, Christensen, Abetz etc, and compulsory bike helmets have scored you a 1% bike riding rate.

Way to go!

;)

“Cr Matic said there were 170,000 cycle trips made this year, compared to 82,691 recorded to August 2011, before the helmets were introduced.”

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/70-per-cent-of-citycycle-helmets-go-missing-20120905-25ejq.html

“The most recent yearly figures show single trips grew by nearly 15 per cent.

“The number of people using CityCycle continues to grow with more than 223,000 trips taken during its most recent year compared to about 82,000 in its first year,” Cr Matic said.”

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbanes-citycycle-hire-scheme-loses-1-million-a-year-20131206-2ywhw.html

Sure, the scheme is losing helmets and money, but people are using the cycles (and apparently stealing or reusing the helmets)

Having a look at bike helmets on ebay

http://www.ebay.com.au/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2047675.m570.l1311.R10.TR11.TRC1.A0.H0.Xbike+.TRS0&_nkw=bike+helmet&_sacat=0

this one looks ok

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/New-Bicycle-Bike-helmet-Cycling-Helmets-Road-MTB-Bicycle-Helmets-M-Size-56-59cm-/222249955816?var=&hash=item33bf2131e8:m:m8n0FoZVsF7hdxhWh4l8l_g

breathable, hearing is not impaired

CrazyNeutrino said:

Having a look at bike helmets on ebay

http://www.ebay.com.au/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2047675.m570.l1311.R10.TR11.TRC1.A0.H0.Xbike+.TRS0&_nkw=bike+helmet&_sacat=0

this one looks ok

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/New-Bicycle-Bike-helmet-Cycling-Helmets-Road-MTB-Bicycle-Helmets-M-Size-56-59cm-/222249955816?var=&hash=item33bf2131e8:m:m8n0FoZVsF7hdxhWh4l8l_g

breathable, hearing is not impaired

I would go with the black one

most modern liberalists will accept soft paternalism based on harm minimisation.

not about individuals personal choices (which social science studies have shown are often less rational than we assume)

“Human beings are simply without the sort of decision-making autonomy that advocates of paternalism are accused of violating”

the helmet laws simply protect the greatest number (ie people living in high traffic urban areas) based on these idea of poor choice making by the majority… and the knock on affects as DS pointed out to follow

I would relax the rules a bit

Helmets must be worn on busy roads

ok not to wear them on country roads

Hardly anyone wears helmets around here…bicycle or motorcycle.

The bikers wear do rags….excellent protection.

It’s the wild west mentality. No laws. Don’t tell me what to do. Etcetera.

Arts said:

most modern liberalists will accept soft paternalism based on harm minimisation.

not about individuals personal choices (which social science studies have shown are often less rational than we assume)

“Human beings are simply without the sort of decision-making autonomy that advocates of paternalism are accused of violating”

the helmet laws simply protect the greatest number (ie people living in high traffic urban areas) based on these idea of poor choice making by the majority… and the knock on affects as DS pointed out to follow

the use of stastistics (as can that rational and efficient too) in the service of the common good can be brutish. When in the service of the common good, by some slight, the indifference (contempt even, of departures) it also generates is made invisible.

kii said:

Hardly anyone wears helmets around here…bicycle or motorcycle.

The bikers wear do rags….excellent protection.

It’s the wild west mentality. No laws. Don’t tell me what to do. Etcetera.

I wear don’t rags.

diddly-squat said:

I say introduce magpies to Europe… that’ll learn em…

There are magpies in Europe.

Pica pica!

CrazyNeutrino said:

I would relax the rules a bit

Helmets must be worn on busy roads

ok not to wear them on country roads

Well, I guess if the B-double log truck speeding in town is going to get me a helmet isn’t going to be much help at all. On the country roads you may need to go bush to avoid a car driver. A helmet might be useful. You need them on country roads too.

Mind you, our roads around here with the floods and stuff are falling apart even faster than they were before. The potholes are eating cars, let alone pushbikes.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I would relax the rules a bit

Helmets must be worn on busy roads

ok not to wear them on country roads

The main injured persons and saved persons come from within the group known as children. As such all children and the parents who ride with them should compulsoril wear helmets. I do feel that experienced riders may or may not choose to wear helmets depending upon their own risk assessment.

I reckon them goalposts are on the move again.

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

I say introduce magpies to Europe… that’ll learn em…

There are magpies in Europe.

Pica pica!

Not the same thing at all.

buffy said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I would relax the rules a bit

Helmets must be worn on busy roads

ok not to wear them on country roads

Well, I guess if the B-double log truck speeding in town is going to get me a helmet isn’t going to be much help at all. On the country roads you may need to go bush to avoid a car driver. A helmet might be useful. You need them on country roads too.

Mind you, our roads around here with the floods and stuff are falling apart even faster than they were before. The potholes are eating cars, let alone pushbikes.

The stuff I’ve been reading actually indicates that riders on country roads are more vulnerable.

buffy said:

I reckon them goalposts are on the move again.

Easier than kicking crosswind.

Argo?

Fair. Don’t like Ben Affleck. And they left out the Canadian heroes.

Ian said:

Argo?

Fair. Don’t like Ben Affleck. And they left out the Canadian heroes.

Other thread >>>>

I’m too fucked to forum. Byeeee

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

I say introduce magpies to Europe… that’ll learn em…

There are magpies in Europe.

Pica pica!

i’ll give you 12 points for that.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

diddly-squat said:

I say introduce magpies to Europe… that’ll learn em…

There are magpies in Europe.

Pica pica!

i’ll give you 12 points for that.

zing

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

There are magpies in Europe.

Pica pica!

i’ll give you 12 points for that.

zing

They aren’t the magpies we know though.

roughbarked said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

i’ll give you 12 points for that.

zing

They aren’t the magpies we know though.

But they are magpies…

dv said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

zing

They aren’t the magpies we know though.

But they are magpies…

Technically, we only called ours magpies for want of a real name.

This is an interesting read. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1241.html

roughbarked said:

dv said:

roughbarked said:

They aren’t the magpies we know though.

But they are magpies…

Technically, we only called ours magpies for want of a real name.

Had we known them better we may have chosen differently.

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

dv said:

But they are magpies…

Technically, we only called ours magpies for want of a real name.

Had we known them better we may have chosen differently.

and called them B&W Bastardbirds

dv said:

roughbarked said:

roughbarked said:

Technically, we only called ours magpies for want of a real name.

Had we known them better we may have chosen differently.

and called them B&W Bastardbirds

Only if they are. Mine ae not aggressive at all. I don’t feed them but they lnow it is all my work that makes food and they are happy with that. I walk under their nest every day, they walk past me every day. We have a chat about the weather and stuff.

I’m declaring this thread to be closed.
==================================================================
==================================================================

yeah mostly it’s learned behaviors with magpies.. but they do ‘protect their young’ if you get too close. This is something I already knew.. but was confirmed when a three yr old miss j chased some youngish magpies at the park and mumma pie intervened by swooping her.. so mumma me went in and gave her a stern telling off (the magpie) we had tea and sorted it all out

Ah hello, kii already closed this thread.

Anyway I don’t need one of those helmets with the rubber spikes all over it.

dv said:

Ah hello, kii already closed this thread.

meh…no one pays attention to me

kii said:

dv said:

Ah hello, kii already closed this thread.

meh…no one pays attention to me

I did. You are the wimby neath my wings.

kii said:

dv said:

Ah hello, kii already closed this thread.

meh…no one pays attention to me

what
pardon?

dv said:

kii said:

dv said:

Ah hello, kii already closed this thread.

meh…no one pays attention to me

I did. You are the wimby neath my wings.

I beg your pardon?

Let’s end this wonderful thread with a Soviet Estonian motorcycle/bicycle helmet from the 1970s.

https://www.etsy.com/listing/469317417/soviet-estonian-motorcycle-helmet?ref=market