Jump to content
Oompa Loompa

Helmets - Should we have to wear them

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Turts said:

Sure. But commuting is not the same as tootling along the bike path at 10kph for a bottle of milk with a basket on the front - which is the scenario being tossed about as where helmets shouldnt need to be worn. Commuting is different. More kms, traffic maybe, faster speeds etc. 

OK, let's go with active transport, whether that is to work, school, uni, local sport, shops, movies wherever. They are no different really, why does commuting have to be fast? This is where Australia has it all wrong when it comes to cycling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if I ride to the shop at 30kph, with a helmet but get beer and chips, does that even out? :lol:

Edited by FatPom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AA7 said:

OK, let's go with active transport, whether that is to work, school, uni, local sport, shops, movies wherever. They are no different really, why does commuting have to be fast? This is where Australia has it all wrong when it comes to cycling.

There is a woman with two kids in Winchester that rides a full on cargo bike, everywhere. Shopping, school, kids, dogs and probably contraband. You name it, she's haulin' it!

Edited by FatPom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Image result for helmet use and population health

This is not the graph I was looking for, but a good one anyway. 

I'll keep looking for the one about active transport. I'm off to ride a Citycycle for part of my journey to work. I may or may not wear a helmet. Hopefully I survive the 3km trip along the bike path. I will wear a hat to protect against skin cancer though. It kills way more people every year than  cycling crashes.

 

 

Edited by AA7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, AA7 said:

I will wear a hat to protect against skin cancer though. It kills way more people every year that cycling crashes.

Still gives you hat/helmet hair tho!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue isn't so much about the efficacy of helmets in an individual incident but the mandatory wearing of them and the impacts such legislation has on overall health and safety. Helmets are compulsory in racing, and if you are a CA member at least, also in training. In such scenarios helmet use being mandatory does make sense. But riding the cruiser at the beach?

Immediately following introduction of MHL cycling participation rates more than halved, and since then fatality rates per km cycled have not improved. Indeed in the first decade on the 2000s they got worse.

For cycling safety, MHLs don't even make the top 10 list of things governments and communities can do. Indeed this legislation has probably resulted in a net increase in cycling deaths per km cycled.

What makes the biggest difference are strategies that increase cycling participation rates.

5a2f379261956_Helmetusagevfatalityrate2.jpg.27d22fbd131fd35ba30547799a154895.jpg5a2f349d6b027_Helmetlawimpacttotal.jpg.7ab460d30d922742287c3a30e4f6835c.jpg

5a2f3617d2638_Cyclingfatalitynumbertrendbycountry.jpg.bb8f383dd2ec0c63a62f74c216148029.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not a lot of correlation between the speed you are travelling on a bike and the risk of injuring your head.  If you believe that one punch can kill (it's usually about the head hitting the concrete) think about how you can damage your head if you fall off you bike while it is stationary.  If you land on your back there is usually a whiplash effect which bangs your head hard against the ground.  Obviously, as you speed up you have less control over how you hit the ground and the pace of contact.

Personally, I have been saved from serious injury by wearing a helmet and never leave the house on my bike without one.  However, I do not endorse the nanny state where they are compulsory.  People should be responsible for their own lives and make decisions accordingly.  Education, on the other hand, is a good start and showing teenagers how 'cool' it is to end up with brain damage from not wearing a helmet might be a good start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lived in Sweden for a couple of years riding daily into town and never once wore a helmet. Probably couldn't afford one, but still wasn't the done thing. I had nice hair too. More wear them these days there though.

Personal choice but wouldn't  touch my bike without one on here. Had a heavy fall once on a quick decline shattering the front right of the helmet. Just exploded. Prefer that not to have been my head. Each to their own.

Have even started wearing one on the skateboard. Stupid kids can't accept a different set of rules...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to believe we (people who ride bikes for exercise) would be safer on the roads if we could get more people riding, and not be an US vs THEM scenario. No way would I ride a bike without a helmet. Kid across the road trashed his helmet in a low speed accident where a dog ran out in front of him. But I do believe more people would ride if they didn't have to wear a helmet, so I'm starting to believe that this is the way to go. Kind of like "herd immunity", where if we can get someone within a bogan/tradie family riding a bike, maybe they won't try to injure every cyclist they come across.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether wearing helmets is right or wrong, necessary or unnecessary, one thing that should not be overlooked is insurance claims.

As we all know, insurance companies are quite happy to take our premiums but often make claiming difficult. Should you be unfortunate enough to hit the deck and end up in hospital, your claim could be denied if you weren't wearing a helmet ( ie. not complying to the road rules )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, softy said:

Whether wearing helmets is right or wrong, necessary or unnecessary, one thing that should not be overlooked is insurance claims.

As we all know, insurance companies are quite happy to take our premiums but often make claiming difficult. Should you be unfortunate enough to hit the deck and end up in hospital, your claim could be denied if you weren't wearing a helmet ( ie. not complying to the road rules )

And even if the rules were changed, I'm sure they would be pushing some of the blame back on the person as "contributing" due to not wearing a helmet.

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 8:54 AM, Turts said:

Still gives you hat/helmet hair tho!

I'd rather have hat/helmet hair than hat/blood hair.

 

FM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flanman said:

I'd rather have hat/helmet hair than hat/blood hair.

 

FM

Yeah sorry should have had a sarcasm thingy. Was reference to an earlier comment abou not wearing a helmet cos it  gives u helmet hair and a sweaty head

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Turts said:

Yeah sorry should have had a sarcasm thingy. Was reference to an earlier comment abou not wearing a helmet cos it  gives u helmet hair and a sweaty head

Nope never said that. I said I'd wear a hat which would protect against skin cancer. More chance of that killing me than a bike crash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AA7 said:

Nope never said that. I said I'd wear a hat which would protect against skin cancer. More chance of that killing me than a bike crash.

Was other general comments about reasons not to wear a helmet. And u mentioned you may or may not wear one. 

Nevermind. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just went full bogan.

chuked the boardies over the sluggos, thongs, Bintang singlet and a cap and rode the fat bike the 2 mins to the bay for a swim. 

I heart summer 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, roxii said:

just went full bogan.

chuked the boardies over the sluggos, thongs, Bintang singlet and a cap and rode the fat bike the 2 mins to the bay for a swim. 

I heart summer 

Full bogan would have meant hopping into the commodore, stopping at the shop on the way to get fags, then driving the 2 minutes to the bay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Full bogan would have meant hopping into the commodore, stopping at the shop on the way to get fags, then driving the 2 minutes to the bay.

:lol: I did pick up a slab of V.B cans on the way home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, roxii said:

:lol: I did pick up a slab of V.B cans on the way home.

Only acceptable if the first tin was 3/4 gone before you got home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It amazes me helmets are not mandatory in the 100mtrs, 200mtrs etc at the Olympics with the risk of falling and serious head injury at speed. 

 

You wonder how sports like rugby and rugby league get away with it when you think of the cycling laws. 

 

Not saying either is right or wrong, just hypocritically inconsistent when compared to riding a bike 400mtrs to the beach at 5kms an hour. 

Edited by Oompa Loompa
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Oompa Loompa said:

It amazes me helmets are not mandatory in the 100mtrs, 200mtrs etc at the Olympics with the risk of falling and serious head injury at speed. 

 

You wonder how sports like rugby and rugby league get away with it when you think of the cycling laws. 

 

Not saying either is right or wrong, just hypocritically inconsistent when compared to riding a bike 400mtrs to the beach at 5kms an hour. 

A lot to do with the unpredictability of what happens out on the road/path.

My Dad raced motorbikes, but got to the point he gave up riding them on the road as it was too dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year in Qld, 8 cyclists were killed, 36 pedestrians. Obviously we should be wearing helmets if we're walking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AA7 said:

Last year in Qld, 8 cyclists were killed, 36 pedestrians. Obviously we should be wearing helmets if we're walking.

How were the pedestrians killed?  How were the cyclists killed?  

Most likely involving a car.  Helmet or no helmet on a bike when a car hits you there is 50/50 chance either way, pretty sure a helmet may give you a better chance.  

Pedestrians generally dont fall on their head when get hit by a car, cyclists do, generally speaking first thing that does hit the ground unless you put your arms out. 

Edited by Fitness Buddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AA7 said:

Last year in Qld, 8 cyclists were killed, 36 pedestrians. Obviously we should be wearing helmets if we're walking.

I know you'll just say the number of cyclists dropped, but if you want to play the stats game, this one would be hard to beat.

image.png.c9077d6728ea2dafbe0b2f9c1bdba99c.png

Mandatory helmet laws were introduced in January 1993.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Fitness Buddy said:

How were the pedestrians killed?  How were the cyclists killed?  

Most likely involving a car.  Helmet or no helmet on a bike when a car hits you there is 50/50 chance either way, pretty sure a helmet may give you a better chance.  

Pedestrians generally dont fall on their head when get hit by a car, cyclists do, generally speaking first thing that does hit the ground unless you put your arms out. 

Plus, maybe ONLY 8 cyclists died because of helmets. Maybe 50 were saved because of their helmet .

AA7s numbers are a bit meaningless  as is

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Fitness Buddy said:

How were the pedestrians killed?  How were the cyclists killed?  

Most likely involving a car.  Helmet or no helmet on a bike when a car hits you there is 50/50 chance either way, pretty sure a helmet may give you a better chance.  

Pedestrians generally dont fall on their head when get hit by a car, cyclists do, generally speaking first thing that does hit the ground unless you put your arms out. 

Should I also mention the nearly 300 that were killed in cars, maybe we should wear helmets in our cars too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Turts said:

Plus, maybe ONLY 8 cyclists died because of helmets. Maybe 50 were saved because of their helmet .

AA7s numbers are a bit meaningless  as is

 

Maybe more pedestrians could've been saved if they were wearing helmets.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, AA7 said:

Maybe more pedestrians could've been saved if they were wearing helmets.

No more pedestrians would have been saved if 

a) the car driver wasnt breaking the road rule

B)

b The pedestrians wasnt breaking the road rules

c people were focusing on what they were doing rather then looking at a phone. 

 

Data should show cause of accident or fatalty not the outcome.  Be interesting to see how many were due to equipment (mechanical) failure compared to those that the human failure (not paying attention) 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Turts said:

Plus, maybe ONLY 8 cyclists died because of helmets. Maybe 50 were saved because of their helmet .

AA7s numbers are a bit meaningless  as is

 

That's right we rarely here of the instances a helmet saved a life on a bike. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AA7 said:

Should I also mention the nearly 300 that were killed in cars, maybe we should wear helmets in our cars too.

Cars have a helmet called the panel work, chassis and the support structures around it.  Plus an Airbag.  You are most likely not going to die from head impact in a car unless speed is present however on a bike you can die if you fall off from track standing and smack your head down.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AA7 said:

Maybe more pedestrians could've been saved if they were wearing helmets.

Did they die of head injuries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Turts said:

Did they die of head injuries?

Did the cyclists?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fitness Buddy said:

Cars have a helmet called the panel work, chassis and the support structures around it.  Plus an Airbag.  You are most likely not going to die from head impact in a car unless speed is present however on a bike you can die if you fall off from track standing and smack your head down.  

 

So they should be totally safe then with all that protective stuff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AA7 said:

Did the cyclists?

I have no idea. But i didnt post the numbers in a helmets thread, or suggest maybe the pedestrians lives would have been saved by helmets.  

Like i said above, context. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, AA7 said:

So they should be totally safe then with all that protective stuff?

The car is designed to be used as transport and has protection mechanisms to assist with safety unfortunstely the person driving it has the biggest control of the outcome.  Cars dont cause accidents people do.  Just like a gun doesnt kill someone it is the person pulling the trigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering fatality rates only is rather incomplete and to be harsh, rather low cost to the taxpayer.  I'm more interested in preventing people being looked after for 50 years in a vegetative state than I am in saving a couple of lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fitness Buddy said:

The car is designed to be used as transport and has protection mechanisms to assist with safety unfortunstely the person driving it has the biggest control of the outcome.  Cars dont cause accidents people do.  Just like a gun doesnt kill someone it is the person pulling the trigger

Bicycles were also designed to be used as transport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

I know you'll just say the number of cyclists dropped, but if you want to play the stats game, this one would be hard to beat.

image.png.c9077d6728ea2dafbe0b2f9c1bdba99c.png

Mandatory helmet laws were introduced in January 1993.

 

would be interesting to see that stat with brain damaged as well.  Assume their would be less of that as well.

I would suspect with such low numbers, and no disrespect to the dead, it would be statistically invalid anyway but youd have to say looking at that, its almost halved the fatals.  Wonder where they occurred, roads, ovals etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AA7 said:

Bicycles were also designed to be used as transport.

And a helmet is our best form of protection IMO.  

Just cycling is a risk but why risk the chance of a possible head injury by wearing a helmet. 

Where would tim don be without a helmet?  Matt Russell (the glass could of went into his brain.  And his accident was on controlled roads).  

Do seat belts save lives? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fitness Buddy said:

And a helmet is our best form of protection IMO.  

Just cycling is a risk but why risk the chance of a possible head injury by wearing a helmet. 

Where would tim don be without a helmet?  Matt Russell (the glass could of went into his brain.  And his accident was on controlled roads).  

Do seat belts save lives? 

cant compare seat belts to helmets.   

 

interesting that helmets are not compulsory in cricket.  i would think batting against anyone half decent with a cherry is more dangerous then riding 400 mtrs to the beach at 5km an hour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Oompa Loompa said:

interesting that helmets are not compulsory in cricket.  i would think batting against anyone half decent with a cherry is more dangerous then riding 400 mtrs to the beach at 5km an hour

When we are down the South Coast for our Beach Holiday...we are always on a cruiser or MTB to quickly check the surf..(300 Metres etc), In fact no one wears helmets....mostly straw hats or peak cap. However if I go for a proper ride a helmet is a given.

Now in regards to cricket...........there aren't many kids or even adults who can slam down a bouncer. But in the ski industry........I would say 99.9% of skiers/boarders wear helmets.........This is a guess and I reckon its bloody accurate. Most people don't complain because its warmer on a cold day...and you can have headphones built in. Also, kids cannot do lessons unless they have a helmet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, IronmanFoz said:

...I would say 99.9% of skiers/boarders wear helmets.........This is a guess and I reckon its bloody accurate. 

Eh, I haven't skied in about 5 years, but when I was in Perisher & Thredbo last <1% were wearing them. Excluding kids and park riders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, IronmanFoz said:

When we are down the South Coast for our Beach Holiday...we are always on a cruiser or MTB to quickly check the surf..(300 Metres etc), In fact no one wears helmets....mostly straw hats or peak cap. However if I go for a proper ride a helmet is a given.

Now in regards to cricket...........there aren't many kids or even adults who can slam down a bouncer. But in the ski industry........I would say 99.9% of skiers/boarders wear helmets.........This is a guess and I reckon its bloody accurate. Most people don't complain because its warmer on a cold day...and you can have headphones built in. Also, kids cannot do lessons unless they have a helmet.

 

think in cricket the kids have to bat with a helmet....its just the shit grade I play in where people like me can no longer play any good but can unleash hell for an over with no control and people get hit.  Its ok though according to our Govt whereas riding a bike doing 5km an hour and nothing else requires protection.

 

Not saying whats right, just what is inconsistent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Fitness Buddy said:

And a helmet is our best form of protection IMO.  

Just cycling is a risk but why risk the chance of a possible head injury by wearing a helmet. 

Where would tim don be without a helmet?  Matt Russell (the glass could of went into his brain.  And his accident was on controlled roads).  

Do seat belts save lives? 

Seat belt clearly do not save enough lives if all these people are still being killed in car crashes, we should wear helmets in cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

I know you'll just say the number of cyclists dropped, but if you want to play the stats game, this one would be hard to beat.

image.png.c9077d6728ea2dafbe0b2f9c1bdba99c.png

Mandatory helmet laws were introduced in January 1993.

 

Yes, that's exactly what should be said when considering the numbers.

All that tells us is if you get rid of cyclists altogether the rates will drop to zero.

Cycling participation rates more than halved after the introduction of MHL, so we should have seen a corresponding reduction in death and head injury rates. But we didn't, if anything, per km ridden, the death and injury rates got worse.

Why? Because cycling and cyclists became even more marginalised with fewer of them about.

It's safety in numbers, not helmets.

Mandatory helmets laws are not even in the top 10 things that can be done to vastly improve cycling safety, if anything it has made things worse, and the associated downsides (increased marginalisation, far less spend on cycling infrastructure, increasing obesity rates, pollution, congestion, traffic, worsening cardiac health, diabetes etc).

25-30 years ago school bike racks were full as most kids rode or walked to school. Now days the road past the school is full of 4WDs lined up for the drop off/pick up and the bike racks don't even exist.

We have an entire generation of kids whose parents have never ridden a bicycle. Think about that.

There is no understanding or awareness of how to behave around cyclists, and more importantly people nowadays don't even think for a moment that on the road just around that next bend could very well be a cyclist.

Anything that increases cycling participation rates will have a more beneficial impact on cycling safety than MHL ever did or will.

The same thing happened in NZ when they introduced MHL.

We are a case study for other countries of what NOT to do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, AA7 said:

Seat belt clearly do not save enough lives if all these people are still being killed in car crashes, we should wear helmets in cars.

How do we know.  How can it measured.  As already said being a dick on the road that causes an accident not the car

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...