Lukas
Likes Dirt
Hmmm... it wasn't my intention to post this reply twice. just wondering why it is happened... whatever...
Helmet laws again - looks like there's now a legal precedent
- Thread starter T-Rex
- Start date
My argument isn't that wearing a helmet is a silly idea - I wear one and would contiune to do so if the laws were repealed. A helmet can and will turn a belt on the noggin that could leave you with months of recovery and permanent damage into a bad bump on the head.
I'm just saying critically evaluate what a helmet can and can't do before touting it as a life saving device - my argument is that if you are plowed down by a car and suffer a massive head injury, your helmet is unlikely to make the difference that saves your life and if it does, it'll convert a fatal head injury into one that gives you permanent brain damage - and in a lot of cases I'd probably prefer to be dead.
Ergo, I look at a helmet as an injury prevention mechanism rather than a life saving one.
Lukas
Likes Dirt
Just wondering if you know that car shape is not just 1.5 tone steel box with dimensions 2x2x2m? Most of the cars has bonnet in front. and that part of the car has height around 1m and lower. In most cases biker is flying or sliding over the bonnet. so primary impact is taken by biker's body between legs and arms.
I dont want to argue how helmet is giving you significant protection or not, BUT definitely it could help and sometimes can save your life.
facepalm. Read the post above yours.
For the nth time. It's highly probable than no, it won't. If you suffer a massive blow to the head, the helmet will absorb a very small fraction of the force. If indeed this tiny fraction is enough to make the difference between life and death, you will live with the consequences of suffering an impact to the head that was very nearly fatal and will almost certainly result in very significant, permanent brain injury.
Helmets are great for injury minimisation but viewing them as life saving implements in traffic accidents is not sensible. They are not designed, tested or intended as protection from the forces involved in being hit by a car. They might turn a permanent brain injury into a concussion if you get doored or blow a front tyre in a pile of glass and headplant at 30km/h, but again, if you're about to suffer a blow to your head that would kill you without the helmet, you're not walking away because of your helmet.
I went digging - 2 comprehensive studies that show helmet use does reduce the incidence of head injury, however does NOT reduce the incidence of severe head injury or death.
Cunrow, Accident Analysis and Prevention 37 (2005) 569–573
McDermott et al, J Trauma. 1994 Mar;36(3):463-4.
Last edited:
el~rio
Likes Dirt
This would make a good poll. I'd guess that most would, as most of us bike riders have been in a crash that involves hitting our head and realize how important they are. But what about the non bike riders/people getting into it?
John U
MTB Precision
Spot on observation.
Most of us have done a fair bit of riding. It is second nature to put a helmet on when going for a ride because that is what you always do. You probably started wearing one at some point because it was the law and later realised it made good sense to wear one.
If you were getting into the sport and it wasn't the law would you wear one. If you didn't then it may never become second nature.
When i'm out for a ride i don't think i ever see anyone kitted up like they've been riding a while not wearing a helmet. The only people not wearing helmets are kitted up like they are very new to cycling. These are the probably the people the law is targetting.
The law is a good idea.
Ridenparadise
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Sorry, but this is the biggest load of BS.
The lady who won the case is very eloquent and I will always support freedom over regulation, so I support her. Will I stop wearing a helmet? No way.
Speaking from various points of view; Dr, MTBr, skier: there is no valid reason to avoid wearing a helmet to reduce your personal risk, unless you don't have one (couldn't steal a bike with a helmet on the bars??).
Old fart after a stroke, child learning to ice skate, uncontrolled epileptic, downhill MTB racer at 4 minutes per run, all mountain rider at 3 hours per day..... whatever! Why not wear a helmet? This is like the NPWS thread - not about what is sensible, but what may be right? Stupid lawyers.
The lady who won the case is very eloquent and I will always support freedom over regulation, so I support her. Will I stop wearing a helmet? No way.
Speaking from various points of view; Dr, MTBr, skier: there is no valid reason to avoid wearing a helmet to reduce your personal risk, unless you don't have one (couldn't steal a bike with a helmet on the bars??).
Old fart after a stroke, child learning to ice skate, uncontrolled epileptic, downhill MTB racer at 4 minutes per run, all mountain rider at 3 hours per day..... whatever! Why not wear a helmet? This is like the NPWS thread - not about what is sensible, but what may be right? Stupid lawyers.
Nmag
Likes Dirt
I'd just like to say that you are very wrong and you have no idea.
Another confused greenie.
I'm not confused or a "greenie" (bet I've killed more endangered cute furry things than you have 
). I like decisions based on probabilities rather than sweeping assumptions.
As such I generally like to be aware of what a safety device is capable of before attributing it with lifesaving abilites. A helmet is tested in situations that resemble falling off a bike and hitting your head at the pace a cyclist tends to travel at - and absorbing impacts that would generally not be serious enough to kill a person - and not even reducing those to below injury thresholds.
Ergo - a bicycle helmet is unlikely to "save" a cyclist's life in a crash. I'd still wear a helmet if the laws were repealed, but I think that investing in preventing us being hit by cars in the first place will save more lives than forcing everyone to wear a helmet. What I'm trying to indicate is that helmet shouldn't be considered a lifesaver in traffic - when that could lead to both cyclist behavior, driver behavior and traffic policies that assume a safety margin, when in reality, the chances of a helmet saving your life if you're going to get clocked hard enough to die without it are very very slim.
Are you really content with the government saying "Here. You have to wear this styrofoam helmet. Now it's safe for you to play in traffic."?
). I like decisions based on probabilities rather than sweeping assumptions.As such I generally like to be aware of what a safety device is capable of before attributing it with lifesaving abilites. A helmet is tested in situations that resemble falling off a bike and hitting your head at the pace a cyclist tends to travel at - and absorbing impacts that would generally not be serious enough to kill a person - and not even reducing those to below injury thresholds.
Ergo - a bicycle helmet is unlikely to "save" a cyclist's life in a crash. I'd still wear a helmet if the laws were repealed, but I think that investing in preventing us being hit by cars in the first place will save more lives than forcing everyone to wear a helmet. What I'm trying to indicate is that helmet shouldn't be considered a lifesaver in traffic - when that could lead to both cyclist behavior, driver behavior and traffic policies that assume a safety margin, when in reality, the chances of a helmet saving your life if you're going to get clocked hard enough to die without it are very very slim.
Are you really content with the government saying "Here. You have to wear this styrofoam helmet. Now it's safe for you to play in traffic."?
Last edited:
flamin'trek
Likes Bikes and Dirt
yup, the bike helmet is designed to minimise the impact of cycle related injuries, ie off your bike and onto your head, not the cyclist to car injuries.
I suspect that most cycle accidents are probably of this variety anyway ie, something causes you to fall off bike and less hitting car accident (now waiting for barrage of replies stating statistics loosely based on fact).
While ever we have this law there will be more kids wearing helmets, therfore more kids having injuries prevented. It makes sense to keep it for kids, so why not keep it for adults too? You're never to old to crash your bike. Sometimes the 'nanny state' is actually for the betterment of society.
I suspect that most cycle accidents are probably of this variety anyway ie, something causes you to fall off bike and less hitting car accident (now waiting for barrage of replies stating statistics loosely based on fact).
While ever we have this law there will be more kids wearing helmets, therfore more kids having injuries prevented. It makes sense to keep it for kids, so why not keep it for adults too? You're never to old to crash your bike. Sometimes the 'nanny state' is actually for the betterment of society.
This seems to be a big issue for many rotorburn members, which I think is disappointing. Having ridden to work most everyday of my adult life and enjoyed the gravity fed thrill of downhill mtb, I know what helmets have done to protect my head and face. As far as I am concerned I will always wear a helmet that fits my head, on or off the road.
Nmag
Likes Dirt
I still think you’re confused, and I find myself shaking my head that I'm even engaging with you in this. In assessing risk it's common to consider frequency and consequence. Most controls are aimed at reducing the Frequency. The hierarchy of controls (HoC) (legislated in OHS Act2000 in NSW and is called up in AS/NZS 4801:2001) provides guidance in this and in fact PPE (like a helmet) is regarded as the poorest control. However, by wearing PPE (like a helmet) you can reduce the consequence. It's hard to reduce consequence, but it's good if you can. Yeah, if I ran into you while you had a helmet on and my car pushed you over 500m cliff chances are, it won't make much difference. Introducing that concept as a means to explain why a helmet does not work is wrong.
It is best to do things at the higher end of the HoC however some controls just are not available in all circumstances. So long as we have cars and bikes interacting in shared space, the helmet can assist in continuing to reduce consequence.
AND.. there have been several cases just recently last couple years in media where somebody has punched somebody and the person falls, hits their head, and.. they are dead. One punch. This whole But it won't help in some massive massive incident@ is insignificant. You appear to be educated, be socially responsible, this forum has people who may not have had the opportunty to finish school and uni etcy yet and are still very impressionable. Whilst teens may think they know everything, the frontal lobe in the male does not fully mature till the eary 20's. That part of the brain is used for risk assessment. You can't let 17 year old make decisions like that. That is why we have rules, rules help keep people who are not competent to decide for themselves alive.
Last edited:
Irrelevant. Making helmets non-compulsory changes nothing about your statement. The point of this discussion is to do with the necessity (or not) of helmet laws not the necessity of wearing them - these are two different issues.
Been to a BMX/Skate park or similar lately??? They ARE making that decision. AND it is NOT to wear a helmet - Law or no Law. The law cannot make you wear a helmet if you are happy to deal with the consequences of breaking that law. 17 year olds generally learn by their mistakes OR being influenced through a good and relevant education program that makes some of them see sense. Strict traffic laws and various licence systems don't stop our youngest drivers from being the highest injury/death statistics. If they survive the crash, they might just change their behaviour..... Make something compulsory and most young will go out of their way to oppose it.
flamin'trek
Likes Bikes and Dirt
But if the law is there, more will wear a helmet. Not all 17 y.olds are arrogant enough to disobey laws. Without the law ther will be less people who wear helmets. I have been pleasantly surprised a few times lately with 'hoon' cars with P plates doing the legal 90km/h on a freeway, not all of them mind you, but some. Those that choose to break the law, be it helmet, speed, seatbelt or parking, choose to pay the penalty for not doing so. Those that follow the laws help make our society a better place.
The precedent for this discussion is that helmet laws appeared to have not to have had any impact on the road toll. The response was a clamoring of "helmets save lives. /thread". Helmets are not designed to be capable of protecting someone from the kind of injuries that cause fatalities in vehicle collisions and it is unsurprising that the evidence suggests that they do not. Therefore the presumption that a) they save lives and b) they offer a safety margin in a serious vehicle - bike collision is false.
They prevent injury. The vast majority of bicycle accidents, as flamin'trek suggests involve injuries. Depending on which study you believe, wearing a bike helmets reduces the likelihood of you presenting to casualty with a minor to moderate head injury by 20-50%. If you're under 12 and as such have an incompletely ossified skull, it's a completely different ball game and a bike helmet might indeed save your life.
Given we let your hypothetical 17 year old drive a car - and less than a year later, drink, vote and enroll for active military service it's a fairly disproportionate action to advocate helmet laws to protect them from themselves? I'd go so far as to say the type of teenager who isn't going to wear one is unlikely to pay attention to those regulations in any case.
I encounter people using insufficient safety devices all the time as a diver. People will use a small 2-3 litre pony bottle as a "redundant" air source, which according tot he "regulations" lets them dive deeper than a single bottle. Due to increasing gas consumption proportionate to pressure, a 2 litre pony bottle that gets you to the surface fine from 15m generally lasts you less than a minute at 40m. Given the maximal safe ascent rate is 9m/minute a pony bottle just either lets you drown closer to the boat, or perform an uncontrolled ascent from a depth that would see the gas in your body rapidly expand to over 3 times its current volume - quite frankly I'd probably prefer drowning. As such I often argue that a redundant gas source insufficient to get you to the surface from your planned depth is more dangerous than not having one at all - in the added confidence it gives you to do things you might otherwise decide it was too dangerous to do without it.
I think that there is a similar risk in assuming a helmet is a lifesaving device as opposed to something that might prevent an injury - not necessarily due to a cyclists behavior but due to the behavior of other road users, the people who design roads and make road rules. Therefore I think it's important to make the distinction that the styrofoam buckets we wear on our heads aren't there for protection from the things we share the roads with and therefore don't make up for any increased chance of being hit by a motorised vehicle.
In addition - the mode of injury in a punch to the head is irrelevent in terms of bicycle helmets, in that it is generally caused by a quick axial rotation of the head causing the brain to impact the inner surfaces of the skull. I.e someone uppercuts or hooks you in the jaw/cheek, spins your head and rattles your brian. The reason boxing helmets are soft is so that they can shear and thus reduce axial rotation - something a bike helmet doesn't do. It also doesn't take into account the potentially catastrophic role of alcohol in excaerbating brain injuries/cranial bleeding that's usually of large significance in pub fight deaths.
Last edited:
Tomas
my mum says im cool
The only real issue I have with the 'they haven't had an effect' line being sprouted in the media is the incidence of unreported head injury. I've hit my head twice while riding on the road. Did i call the hospital and report that i've got a headache and mild concussion? No. Would that same head injury have required hospitalization if i wasn't wearing a helmet? No one knows.
You cant use statistics to reinforce legislation, or change to it, without understanding the relevant causation.
I believe helmets should be optional yet strongly recommended, but do it for the right reasons, not under some BS guise of 'they dont do jack shit'.
You cant use statistics to reinforce legislation, or change to it, without understanding the relevant causation.
I believe helmets should be optional yet strongly recommended, but do it for the right reasons, not under some BS guise of 'they dont do jack shit'.
top_oz_bloke
Likes Dirt
I'm warming to the idea of a tiered approach.
Make helmets mandatory up until a certain age. 18 sounds like a good idea, after all this is when you're officially recognised as an adult who can make their own decisions, can drink, smoke, vote, go to gaol etc.
Most intelligent people would continue to wear helmets afterwards as 18 yrs of conditioning is difficult to break. Natural selection is probably going to take care of the rest one way or another.
This might even satisfy the whiners who continue to harp on about our 'freedoms'.
Make helmets mandatory up until a certain age. 18 sounds like a good idea, after all this is when you're officially recognised as an adult who can make their own decisions, can drink, smoke, vote, go to gaol etc.
Most intelligent people would continue to wear helmets afterwards as 18 yrs of conditioning is difficult to break. Natural selection is probably going to take care of the rest one way or another.
This might even satisfy the whiners who continue to harp on about our 'freedoms'.
Why do you refer to people who believe in personal freedom/responsibility as whiners?
None of these so called whiners mentioned that helmets should not be used just that it should be up to the individual to make that choice. Unfortunately most parents haven't a clue on raising children so a law that forces children to wear helmets is a good idea.