Cycle Helmets, Yes or No?

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

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 22

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1974057 13-Mar-2018 15:42

jfanning:

What about speeding and stopping at red lights? Lots of people don't obey them, should we get rid of those laws as well?

Cycling without a helmet only puts yourself at risk, and is good for your health. Unlike your ill thought examples.

I certainly wouldn't argue for law changes that legalise a persons rights to injure and kill other people.

Can you really not see the difference?

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#1974060 13-Mar-2018 15:44

MikeAqua:

Daily cycling was bad for my health. Caused me no end of ankle problems, as well as minor injuries from a few spills

I now walk. I suspect it's better for the environment than cycling as it require fewer resources and cyclists on occasion cause congestion on poorly designed roads.

On that basis, we should just ban cyclists altogether, since it is not actually good for your health.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1974069 13-Mar-2018 15:56

frankv:

mattwnz:

I mean hasn't it been proven to save lives and injury? Or are these more stats that they haven't kept?

I don't believe it's been proven at all. I suspect that the stats haven't been collected, or, [conspiracy theorist mode] they have been collected and they show that helmets are pointless... they would be suppressed to save embarrassment for the Govt and NZTA and all the helmet-zealots.

If it *was* proven to be a good idea, my newly-coined Law of Positive Publicity (*) says that the stats would be broadcast to all and sundry to show what a good idea it was, and to save cyclists' lives.

I know someone who was killed when cycling, when a car door opened on them.

Right. But what was the actual cause of death? Were they wearing a helmet? If so, why didn't it save their life? If not, could a helmet have saved them?

It just made sense to wear a helmet.

Did it? Really? Or was it a pointless expense and item to be carried around?

So, here's a challenge to the pro-helmet brigade... find the stats that show that a helmet does significantly improve a cyclist's life expectancy.

(*) Frank's Law of Positive Publicity: The probability of information being disseminated is proportional to the perceived benefit of the dissemination to the owners of the information.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/well-good/teach-me/84548973/bike-helmet-review-throws-cold-water-on-sceptics-theyll-likely-save-your-life

64000 cyclists, a global meta study. Stats included.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1974134 13-Mar-2018 17:08

tdgeek:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/well-good/teach-me/84548973/bike-helmet-review-throws-cold-water-on-sceptics-theyll-likely-save-your-life

64000 cyclists, a global meta study. Stats included.

Yes, the stats included show that the chances of head injuries is about halved. I doubt that anybody disputes this... it's a helmet that you wear on your head, for gods' sake. But what proportion of cycle accidents involve head injuries?

The text in the link is interesting; "theyll-likely-save-your-life". In all likelihood, a helmet *won't* save my life. I rarely cycle nowadays. If I do, it's unlikely that I'll be involved in an accident ("A recent Australian cohort study of adult cyclists estimated 0.29 crashes per 1000 km cycled"... no definition of "crash" though). If I am involved in a crash, it's unlikely to be serious ("cyclists seeking medical treatment in 8% of these crashes"). And it's maybe 50/50 to cause a fatal head injury without also causing some other kind of fatal injury. ("in Canada, 55% of [cycling fatalities] were caused by head injuries"). It's not obvious what proportion of "crashes" involve head injuries of any kind.

So.... (assuming Aussie stats are relevant here)... on average, I'd expect to seek medical attention for a cycling injury 8% * 0.29/1000 = 2.32/100,000km which is probably more than the km I'd do in my entire life. So, *any* kind of cycle accident needing medical attention is a once-in-a-lifetime event, let alone life-threatening head injuries.

Ultimately, the chances of a cycle helmet saving my life is an *unlikely* event of the order of winning Lotto.

gehenna

8667 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3883

Moderator

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1974137 13-Mar-2018 17:15

Wow, reading through this thread is like watching American's debate the efficacy of gun control.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1974143 13-Mar-2018 17:26

frankv:

mattwnz:

I mean hasn't it been proven to save lives and injury? Or are these more stats that they haven't kept?

I don't believe it's been proven at all. I suspect that the stats haven't been collected, or, [conspiracy theorist mode] they have been collected and they show that helmets are pointless... they would be suppressed to save embarrassment for the Govt and NZTA and all the helmet-zealots.

If it *was* proven to be a good idea, my newly-coined Law of Positive Publicity (*) says that the stats would be broadcast to all and sundry to show what a good idea it was, and to save cyclists' lives.

I know someone who was killed when cycling, when a car door opened on them.

Right. But what was the actual cause of death? Were they wearing a helmet? If so, why didn't it save their life? If not, could a helmet have saved them?

It just made sense to wear a helmet.

Did it? Really? Or was it a pointless expense and item to be carried around?

So, here's a challenge to the pro-helmet brigade... find the stats that show that a helmet does significantly improve a cyclist's life expectancy.

(*) Frank's Law of Positive Publicity: The probability of information being disseminated is proportional to the perceived benefit of the dissemination to the owners of the information.

It's very hard to prove anything if the critical mass do not want to believe something, and it is very easy to prove something if the critical mass wants to believe something.

For the impartial observer like myself, this is what I see

- "no evidence for helmets"

- do they mean helmets do not reduce fatalities? if so, then that's correct. If you crash hard enough, putting your head in a tank makes no difference. they are saying that the light cycle helmets will not save you if a truck runs over you. that is 100% correct.

- BUT. did they test other kinds of crashes? how many kinds of crashes are there? are they testing old firm polystyrene helmets only? did they test new EPA material? did they test MIPS? did they do NCAP style standardized test?

- in countries with no ACC, well you can take care of your precious hair style. but in wellington, that's not going to help your hair. And if I'm paying ACC, the answer is I'm not paying for you. which is difficult ethically because people get pregnant and go on state benefit. people drink alcohol and hurt themselves. so in that vein, i have no say really, regarding helmets.

- law or not law? don't know, but helmets should be encouraged.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12769

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1974149 13-Mar-2018 17:35

Please take it from someone with a few disabilities, please please please keep using the cycle helmets. The results of concussion can be catastrophic and more and more is being understood about the very bad affects of this injury. Frankly anyone that courts severe head injury when there are means to mitigate it is bloody idiot. As for the nanny state BS I imagine those protestors that end up with concussions etc will want that nanny state to care for them and nanny them back to health.

Believe disabilities are not fun, helmets are inexpensive, light weight and don't detract from the please of cycling.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

debo

309 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 154

#1974151 13-Mar-2018 17:42

gehenna:

Wow, reading through this thread is like watching American's debate the efficacy of gun control.

I totally agree. If american school kids were forced to wear body amour and bullet proof helmets, then they would not die in school shootings.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1974175 13-Mar-2018 19:24

gehenna:

Wow, reading through this thread is like watching American's debate the efficacy of gun control.

Yes, one half says, its a no brainer, obviously, mental not to as someone said. The other half said nah. It is such a small thing to put on, but the consequences can be horrific. A bit like safety glasses. very very little chance of something hitting my eye, but if it did..

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1974177 13-Mar-2018 19:28

frankv:

tdgeek:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/well-good/teach-me/84548973/bike-helmet-review-throws-cold-water-on-sceptics-theyll-likely-save-your-life

64000 cyclists, a global meta study. Stats included.

Yes, the stats included show that the chances of head injuries is about halved. I doubt that anybody disputes this... it's a helmet that you wear on your head, for gods' sake. But what proportion of cycle accidents involve head injuries?

The text in the link is interesting; "theyll-likely-save-your-life". In all likelihood, a helmet *won't* save my life. I rarely cycle nowadays. If I do, it's unlikely that I'll be involved in an accident ("A recent Australian cohort study of adult cyclists estimated 0.29 crashes per 1000 km cycled"... no definition of "crash" though). If I am involved in a crash, it's unlikely to be serious ("cyclists seeking medical treatment in 8% of these crashes"). And it's maybe 50/50 to cause a fatal head injury without also causing some other kind of fatal injury. ("in Canada, 55% of [cycling fatalities] were caused by head injuries"). It's not obvious what proportion of "crashes" involve head injuries of any kind.

So.... (assuming Aussie stats are relevant here)... on average, I'd expect to seek medical attention for a cycling injury 8% * 0.29/1000 = 2.32/100,000km which is probably more than the km I'd do in my entire life. So, *any* kind of cycle accident needing medical attention is a once-in-a-lifetime event, let alone life-threatening head injuries.

Ultimately, the chances of a cycle helmet saving my life is an *unlikely* event of the order of winning Lotto.

The chances of anyone being involved in any accident that was life threatening is extremely low, thats right. People dont fall off there bikes or get hit and hit throw head on concrete every few hundred km, but it happens. Safety glasses are a similar low risk, but of it happens....

Do you insure your house? The odds of if burning down is really really remote. Id class my eyes, head as not worth the risk, just as as having to fund a new house from scratch. But if some here see riding a bike as an easy and worthwhile risk with an unprotected head, then thats ok.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1974179 13-Mar-2018 19:30

MikeB4:

Please take it from someone with a few disabilities, please please please keep using the cycle helmets. The results of concussion can be catastrophic and more and more is being understood about the very bad affects of this injury. Frankly anyone that courts severe head injury when there are means to mitigate it is bloody idiot. As for the nanny state BS I imagine those protestors that end up with concussions etc will want that nanny state to care for them and nanny them back to health.

Believe disabilities are not fun, helmets are inexpensive, light weight and don't detract from the please of cycling.

You're back, and as usual a sensible and sound post. Great to see you Mike, and I hope whatever your issue was, its on the mend, or resolved or as well as can be expected.

A few here have commented on first hand contact with people who had a head injury. Thats just here.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1974180 13-Mar-2018 19:32

frankv:

Ultimately, the chances of a cycle helmet saving my life is an *unlikely* event of the order of winning Lotto.

That made my head hurt, I am not even sure what you are arguing for.

Regardless of that....

If you won lotto, you'd be pretty freaking happy you bought a lotto ticket every week for the 5 years prior, and if you had an accident involving your head, you'd be pretty freaking happy you were wearing a Helmet.

networkn

Networkn
32873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15475

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1974182 13-Mar-2018 19:33

debo:

gehenna:

Wow, reading through this thread is like watching American's debate the efficacy of gun control.

I totally agree. If american school kids were forced to wear body amour and bullet proof helmets, then they would not die in school shootings.

Umm.. If you stop guns going into schools you 100% solve the problem, if you make people wear armour, there is still a reasonable chance of death or injury.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1974184 13-Mar-2018 19:35

dafman:

tdgeek:

I can't see how a having to use a helmet will put anyone off.

In Europe, in cities where there is no mandatory helmet laws, there is a higher ration of woman cyclists commuting to work. Helmets muck up hairstyles.

It is amazing how superficial we are. If someone falls off and injures their head, the hair is likely to be all shaved off anyway, and that will be the least of their worries. Not to mention the increase in health costs the country may face as a result of it. I do wonder though why there aren't better helmets, more similar to motorcycle ones, that provide more protection, including the face. Even ATV helmets are better, and they are looking at making those compulsory due to the number of accidents.

If they are going to make this voluntary, then why not make other safety things voluntary as well. People will always also try to save money where they can and it is cheaper not to have a helmet, that to buy one. So you may get a lot of parents not wanting to go to the additional expense if it isn't required. My parents didn't bother until it was compulsory, as back then hardly anyone wore helmets voluntarily. But it is seen by many as a definite risk than can be minimized with the use of helmets.

It is interesting how quickly people forget, because when the law came it, I recall it was universally applauded as a way of saving lives and reducing life changing injuries. Whether the helmets provide enough protection, and shouldn't provide more protection, like BMX helmets, is another conversation we could be having.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4798

#1974187 13-Mar-2018 19:43

frankv:

Right. But what was the actual cause of death? Were they wearing a helmet? If so, why didn't it save their life? If not, could a helmet have saved them?

Actually they were wearing a helmet, and I suspect it probably would have saved them when they came of the bike and landed. However they ended up in the middle of the lane, and were run over by a truck, and a helmet vs a truck, isn't going to do much.

I personally would have probably had a head injury if it wasn't for my helmet, when I came off my mountain bike on a dirt track, and the helmet prevented me hitting the side of my head

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ... | 22