Cycle Helmets, Yes or No?

Forums › Health and fitness › Cycle Helmets, Yes or No?

1 | ... | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983793 26-Mar-2018 20:31

frankv:

stevenz:

If you want to not wear a helmet, then you should be exempt from all forms of publicly funded health treatment regarding any incurred head injuries as a result.

Accidents are rarely the fault of the rider.

If accidents are rarely the fault of the rider, why should the rider have to pay for head injuries caused by someone else?

Because they expose the risk. How quick are cars and motorcycles and opening car doors? How much does the rider pay? 50 bucks for a helmet. How much do cars, trucks and buses pay? They pay ACC levies that cyclists do not pay. Cyclists do not wear out the roads. But cycles lanes are funded without cyclists contributing, thats very fair. But the risk is still there on roads.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1983922 27-Mar-2018 07:04

tdgeek:

Drinking alcohol is a really poor analogy.

Why?

Saying "rightly recognise that head injury is NOT a likely consequence of cycling without a helmet" is a little bizarre.

We've been through that already. The chances of being hospitalised by a cycling-related head injury is about one in 100,000km. That is extremely UNlikely.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1983930 27-Mar-2018 07:18

frankv:

tdgeek:

Drinking alcohol is a really poor analogy.

Why?

Saying "rightly recognise that head injury is NOT a likely consequence of cycling without a helmet" is a little bizarre.

We've been through that already. The chances of being hospitalised by a cycling-related head injury is about one in 100,000km. That is extremely UNlikely.

So is being involved in a car accident. So there is little need for insurance? Or seat belts? As has already been posted, cyclists have I think it was about 5X the risk per km travelled compared to cars. Cars already have a helmet, the body of the car

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1983932 27-Mar-2018 07:24

It only takes one blow.

I wish I had the choice of an inexpensive light weight device thatwould have prevented my disabilities.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1984057 27-Mar-2018 09:38

tdgeek:

frankv:

tdgeek:

Drinking alcohol is a really poor analogy.

Why?

Saying "rightly recognise that head injury is NOT a likely consequence of cycling without a helmet" is a little bizarre.

We've been through that already. The chances of being hospitalised by a cycling-related head injury is about one in 100,000km. That is extremely UNlikely.

So is being involved in a car accident. So there is little need for insurance? Or seat belts? As has already been posted, cyclists have I think it was about 5X the risk per km travelled compared to cars. Cars already have a helmet, the body of the car

I'm not sure where you got "5X the risk per km travelled compared to cars". I found that "A recent Australian cohort study of adult cyclists estimated 0.29 crashes per 1000 km cycled". If cars crashed at 1/5 that rate, that would be .06/1000km ~= 1/20,000km ~= 1/year for every car. So I think cycling is perhaps 25-50X the risk per km of driving. I guess it depends on your definition of crash.

I recommend reading pgs 29-35 of NZTA Cycling Safety Summit Briefing Notes which I just found. It says "The risk per km travelled on the road is about 10 times higher for cyclists than car drivers."

Also this: "The highest risk of injury is on the busiest urban roads. The lowest is on the quieter minor rural roads. Generally urban roads have an injury crash risk per distance cycled that is four to six times higher than rural roads. However, for deaths and serious injuries combined they are only twice as risky. For cyclist deaths, the rural roads are riskier than the urban roads."

Distance cycled averages less than 100km/person/per year (I don't know whether this includes what I assume is higher-risk cycling like racing or mountain-biking).

So, based on 1 head injury serious enough for medical treatment/100,000km, and an optimistic cycling life of 65 years (10yo to 75yo), a helmet is useful for 1 in 15 cyclists at any time in their lives. That's an order of magnitude different from car accident probability over time.

Getting back to your comparison with seat belts and insurance... cars do perhaps 20,000km per year, and a car accident is likely once every 5-10 years, I guess. In the absence of seat belts it is likely to be injurious, and even if not injurious, it is likely to be expensive.

stuartmac

66 posts

Master Geek

#1984243 27-Mar-2018 12:41

frankv:

I recommend reading pgs 29-35 of NZTA Cycling Safety Summit Briefing Notes which I just found. It says "The risk per km travelled on the road is about 10 times higher for cyclists than car drivers."

Thanks for that link - very interesting. I note that the "risk" being referred to is total risk of any injury.

Cyclist injury severity – most injuries are minor
The severity pyramid has a very wide base and a narrow top – there are many minor injuries – and few fatalities. So few fatalities in fact that we have to amalgamate ten years data to get a national picture and add serious crashes to get a picture at regional /city scale.

The question is the risk of head injury if a cyclist chooses not to wear a helmet (I choose to wear a helmet when MTB or or commuting on arterial roads).

This is the sort of "outrageous" practices the law mandates against;

Cycling

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1984255 27-Mar-2018 13:24

Bit of a side topic, cycle rage, everyone hates cyclists. Not everyone, poetic licence

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/well-good/inspire-me/102454365/cycleway-fears-fanned-by-stress-of-change-expert

It seems car drivers are a bit delicate

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

stuartmac

66 posts

Master Geek

#1984266 27-Mar-2018 13:34

Another interesting quote from the NZTA Cycling Safety Summit Briefing Notes under the topic "Perceptions that cycling is unsafe";

The perception that cycling is unsafe appears to be led from Auckland.

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1984314 27-Mar-2018 14:58

tdgeek:

frankv:

stevenz:

If you want to not wear a helmet, then you should be exempt from all forms of publicly funded health treatment regarding any incurred head injuries as a result.

Accidents are rarely the fault of the rider.

If accidents are rarely the fault of the rider, why should the rider have to pay for head injuries caused by someone else?

Because they expose the risk. How quick are cars and motorcycles and opening car doors? How much does the rider pay? 50 bucks for a helmet. How much do cars, trucks and buses pay? They pay ACC levies that cyclists do not pay. Cyclists do not wear out the roads. But cycles lanes are funded without cyclists contributing, thats very fair. But the risk is still there on roads.

Ahhh..was surprised it took this long for the ole "cyclist don't pay" chestnut.

http://cyclingchristchurch.co.nz/2013/02/18/mythbusting-cyclists-dont-pay/

TLDR:

Roads are partly paid for by ratepayers (through Local Authority rates allocated to roading) and partly by taxpayers (through general and fuel taxes allocated to roading). All adult cyclists that own or rent property contribute to rates and all that have an income or make purchases with GST pay tax. Most adults who cycle are also car owners and so pay for their land transport use as a motorist.

It's important to recognise that a large proportion of road funding goes towards fixing the wear-and-tear that motor vehicles cause to roads. As a lightweight vehicle, the contribution of cycles to this damage is negligible.

Cyclists also contribute to the ACC scheme for any injuries they suffer while cycling, both via ACC levies as employees and through general taxation (e.g. GST) for non-earner levies.

Note: local authority and national budgets for cycling are typically <1% of the total roading and transport budget.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1984336 27-Mar-2018 15:11

stuartmac:

frankv:

I recommend reading pgs 29-35 of NZTA Cycling Safety Summit Briefing Notes which I just found. It says "The risk per km travelled on the road is about 10 times higher for cyclists than car drivers."

Thanks for that link - very interesting. I note that the "risk" being referred to is total risk of any injury.

Cyclist injury severity – most injuries are minor
The severity pyramid has a very wide base and a narrow top – there are many minor injuries – and few fatalities. So few fatalities in fact that we have to amalgamate ten years data to get a national picture and add serious crashes to get a picture at regional /city scale.

The question is the risk of head injury if a cyclist chooses not to wear a helmet (I choose to wear a helmet when MTB or or commuting on arterial roads).

This is the sort of "outrageous" practices the law mandates against;

Criminals!

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1984341 27-Mar-2018 15:15

scuwp:

tdgeek:

frankv:

stevenz:

If you want to not wear a helmet, then you should be exempt from all forms of publicly funded health treatment regarding any incurred head injuries as a result.

Accidents are rarely the fault of the rider.

If accidents are rarely the fault of the rider, why should the rider have to pay for head injuries caused by someone else?

Because they expose the risk. How quick are cars and motorcycles and opening car doors? How much does the rider pay? 50 bucks for a helmet. How much do cars, trucks and buses pay? They pay ACC levies that cyclists do not pay. Cyclists do not wear out the roads. But cycles lanes are funded without cyclists contributing, thats very fair. But the risk is still there on roads.

Ahhh..was surprised it took this long for the ole "cyclist don't pay" chestnut.

http://cyclingchristchurch.co.nz/2013/02/18/mythbusting-cyclists-dont-pay/

TLDR:

Roads are partly paid for by ratepayers (through Local Authority rates allocated to roading) and partly by taxpayers (through general and fuel taxes allocated to roading). All adult cyclists that own or rent property contribute to rates and all that have an income or make purchases with GST pay tax. Most adults who cycle are also car owners and so pay for their land transport use as a motorist.

It's important to recognise that a large proportion of road funding goes towards fixing the wear-and-tear that motor vehicles cause to roads. As a lightweight vehicle, the contribution of cycles to this damage is negligible.

Cyclists also contribute to the ACC scheme for any injuries they suffer while cycling, both via ACC levies as employees and through general taxation (e.g. GST) for non-earner levies.

Note: local authority and national budgets for cycling are typically <1% of the total roading and transport budget.

Quite right. My own post wasn't very clear. What I meant was cyclists don't pay directly as they don't pay rego or fuel taxes. But they dont wear out the roads, and they do reduce congestion so in some ways they help the road wear. But as per my previous link there is a hate by motorists to cyclists as far as more cycle ways appearing has raised.

dylanp

840 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

#1984343 27-Mar-2018 15:17

This article from NZ Herald last year is a good example of risk of different activities.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11816885

"The study showed a half-hour cycling trip each week was 1.2 to 2.2 times safer than DIY, 1.3 to 5.3 times safer than horse riding (1.5 hours twice a week), 60 to 140 times safer than skiing (half a day, 4-5 times per year) and 460 to 530 times safer than rugby (one game every three weeks)."

So from a safety perspective it's really best to avoid playing rugby or going skiing. Definitely avoid both at once.

tdgeek

29740 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1984348 27-Mar-2018 15:23

dylanp:

This article from NZ Herald last year is a good example of risk of different activities.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11816885

"The study showed a half-hour cycling trip each week was 1.2 to 2.2 times safer than DIY, 1.3 to 5.3 times safer than horse riding (1.5 hours twice a week), 60 to 140 times safer than skiing (half a day, 4-5 times per year) and 460 to 530 times safer than rugby (one game every three weeks)."

So from a safety perspective it's really best to avoid playing rugby or going skiing. Definitely avoid both at once.

:-)

I've got a cotton wool onesie, I sit in the middle of my yard all day, I am injury free, so it works!

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1985271 29-Mar-2018 09:56

stuartmac:

This is the sort of "outrageous" practices the law mandates against;

Incidentally one of the worst cycling crashes I have had was on a shared cycleway and caused by an uncontrolled dog. Broke my helmet, lost plenty of skin and I was also very lucky there was no swear jar in use.

Mike

MikeAqua

7773 posts

Uber Geek

#1985273 29-Mar-2018 09:58

tdgeek:

Quite right. My own post wasn't very clear. What I meant was cyclists don't pay directly as they don't pay rego or fuel taxes. But they dont wear out the roads, and they do reduce congestion so in some ways they help the road wear. But as per my previous link there is a hate by motorists to cyclists as far as more cycle ways appearing has raised.

On well designed road system cyclists ease congestion. In badly designed systems (e.g Island Bay) they can cause congestion including holding up buses.

Mike

1 | ... | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22