Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 22
3456 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1059


  Reply # 1974057 13-Mar-2018 15:42
Send private message quote this post

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? 

 

 


3456 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1059


  Reply # 1974060 13-Mar-2018 15:44
Send private message quote this post

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. 

 

 


 
 
 
 


Try Wrike: fast, easy, and efficient project collaboration software


11615 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1992

Trusted

  Reply # 1974069 13-Mar-2018 15:56
Send private message quote this post

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.


2244 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1066


  Reply # 1974134 13-Mar-2018 17:08
Send private message quote this post

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.

 

 


4301 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 790

Moderator
Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1974137 13-Mar-2018 17:15
3 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

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


Mad Scientist
18102 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2267

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1974143 13-Mar-2018 17:26
Send private message quote this post

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.


11873 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5511

Trusted

  Reply # 1974149 13-Mar-2018 17:35
2 people support this post
Send private message quote this post

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.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 It's our only home, lets clean it up then...

 

Take My Advice, Pull Down Your Pants And Slide On The Ice!

 

 


64 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 20


  Reply # 1974151 13-Mar-2018 17:42
Send private message quote this post

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.  




11615 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1992

Trusted

  Reply # 1974175 13-Mar-2018 19:24
Send private message quote this post

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..




11615 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1992

Trusted

  Reply # 1974177 13-Mar-2018 19:28
Send private message quote this post

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. 




11615 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1992

Trusted

  Reply # 1974179 13-Mar-2018 19:30
Send private message quote this post

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.


16502 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4597

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1974180 13-Mar-2018 19:32
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

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.

 

 


16502 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4597

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1974182 13-Mar-2018 19:33
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

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.

 

 


13781 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1714


  Reply # 1974184 13-Mar-2018 19:35
Send private message quote this post

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.


13781 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1714


  Reply # 1974187 13-Mar-2018 19:43
Send private message quote this post

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 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 22
Filter this topic showing only the reply marked as answer View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Amazon launches the International Shopping Experience in the Amazon Shopping App
Posted 19-Apr-2018 08:38


Spark New Zealand and TVNZ to bring coverage of Rugby World Cup 2019
Posted 16-Apr-2018 06:55


How Google can seize Microsoft Office crown
Posted 14-Apr-2018 11:08


How back office transformation drives IRD efficiency
Posted 12-Apr-2018 21:15


iPod laws in a smartphone world: will we ever get copyright right?
Posted 12-Apr-2018 21:13


Lightbox service using big data and analytics to learn more about customers
Posted 9-Apr-2018 12:11


111 mobile caller location extended to iOS
Posted 6-Apr-2018 13:50


Huawei announces the HUAWEI P20 series
Posted 29-Mar-2018 11:41


Symantec Internet Security Threat Report shows increased endpoint technology risks
Posted 26-Mar-2018 18:29


Spark switches on long-range IoT network across New Zealand
Posted 26-Mar-2018 18:22


Stuff Pix enters streaming video market
Posted 21-Mar-2018 09:18


Windows no longer Microsoft’s main focus
Posted 13-Mar-2018 07:47


Why phone makers are obsessed with cameras
Posted 11-Mar-2018 12:25


New Zealand Adopts International Open Data Charter
Posted 3-Mar-2018 12:48


Shipments tumble as NZ phone upgrades slow
Posted 2-Mar-2018 11:48



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.