Cyclists wanting to get rid of compulsory helmet wearing

[oldrider]

Eggsackery.

Eggsackery again!

Should only be compulsory for events! IMHO

[Woodman]

Damn - tyres are flat and jnr has the pump in his car.

I'll walk to the shops while I can still do that without compulsory hi-viz clothing.

Mate you wanna go for a drive round Nelson at about 5.30 - 6.00 am and check out the amount of people walking around in hiviz gear. There are herds of the fcukers.

[Genie]

Mate you wanna go for a drive round Nelson at about 5.30 - 6.00 am and check out the amount of people walking around in hiviz gear. There are herds of the fcukers.

You are not wrong and the amount of oldies down the railway reserve on their bicycles with high vis gear and damn annoying bells ringing...it's a damn invasion!!!!! NOt safe to be a pedestrian some days!!

[Forest]

I can tell you what would help me make up my mind on this one.

Since the introduction of cycle helmets, what has happened to the accident rate, and in particular, the number of head injuries?

Put another way, what was the drop in the rate of head injuries?

There wasn't any drop in head injuries. The rate of head injuries as a proportion of total injuries remained almost exactly the same after the introduction of helmets. Which indicates that bicycle helmets don't have a significant affect on reducing head injuries.

However what has happened is that the number of bicycle riders dropped considerably after the helmet law was introduced.

I typically cycle about 250km a week and I would wear a helmet regardless of the legal situation. But I sympathise with the folks who want to see the law changed. Most of the countries in western Europe have bicycle friendly cities and a relaxed street culture that encourages casual cycling. You can't do that in this part of the world - just look at what's happening in Melbourne:

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/he...722-10my2.html

I know it's easy to criticise cyclists, but it's an activity that reduces traffic congestion and keeps people healthy. Characterising all cyclists as badly behaved is as stupid as characterising all bikers by the behaviour of squids and other tards.

[davereid]

The biggest study ever done on helmets was done right here in NZ by Mr. Scuffam, who wrote (predictably) "The Scuffam Report".

This report is used by TPTB to justify compulsory helmets as the first line of its conclusion reads (from memory) "Since the introduction of helmets there has been a 5% decrease in the number of head injuries."

The second line is ignored, as it reads "but there has been a 10% decrease in the number of cyclists.".

Mr. Scuffam also said, that "no matter how I manipulate the statistics, I can't find any evidence of gains from helmet usage".

And why would you expect to ?

When you fall off a bike, your head accelerates towards the ground at a rate determined by gravity. The determining factor is the height from which your descent began - your horizontal speed is irrelevant in determining the speed at which you will hit the ground.

It matters not, whether you were stationary, or doing 40 km/hr. The vector of acceleration towards the ground is the same.

So, if I should wear a helmet to protect myself from a fall from my bicycle, I should most certainly wear one while walking. As I am higher. My seat at the bar creates even more danger. I am higher again, and a single malt whisky has apparently destroyed all my co-ordination.

Ahh then, the force helmets brigade argue, what if you hit you head on a lamp-post or a car hits you.

Then they need to do some more basic physics, to determine exactly what accidents a helmet will assist with.

And they will find the answer is virtually none.

Helmets are effective at scrapes, abrasions, and gravel rash prevention. The "open head" type of injury.

They are at best marginal at protecting you from brain injury. A helmet may, if you are very unlucky transform you from dead rider, to alive but brain dead rider.

Those who quote statistics to prove we need helmets will be able to show a small increase in survival rates. Perhaps reducing risk of death by 0.2 - 0.35 times. But they will be reluctant to tell you how many of the survivors they are crowing about are actually in full time care, as they are brain damaged.

[Hoon]

I've taken up cycling recently and doing about 100kms a week. When I saw on the News about them wanting to get rid of helmets I was all for it as 80% of my cycling is on cycleways and haven't ever come close to crashing.
Funny thing is yesterday morning I was going too fast downhill, ran wide in a corner and collected a tree at about 25km, stopped me dead in my tracks. Got off lightly with a badly corked thigh which seems took most the impact with the handle bars as I wrapped myself around the tree.

Sure in this instance the helmet made no difference but it has changed my attitude. I once thought helmets were a waste of time but now I'll wear it for those "one-in-a-million-never-thought-it-could-happen-to-me-because-I'm-too-awesome-to-crash" moments just to be safe. I'm now (like overnight) willing to put up with the slight inconvenience and uncoolness to save unnecessary grief no matter how remote the possibility may be - mainly because now I realise it's not that remote after all.

[MSTRS:Me]

Young hXc, at age 4ish...
Always made to wear his helmet. First ride off the lawn after mastering his bike without the training outriggers. Off down the footpath. Cocky as, he tries to do a wheelie using a driveway. Off he comes. Face plant on the concrete. Broken nose, no skin on his forehead or chin, both front teeth broken off just under the gum.
Did his helmet make any difference?

[Drunken Monkey]

... Broken nose, no skin on his forehead or chin, ...
Did his helmet make any difference?

...doesn't sound like it fit right.

From an individual's perspective, it really comes down to mitigating risk. No different to the AGAT threads we have here ad nauseum. Legislation and (lack of) enforcement aside, you would certainly think the risks of trundling around at a slow pace around a bicycle-friendly town would be as reasonably close to nil as practical. I don't personally see why one should be forced to wear a helmet in that environment. I probably wouldn't wear one if I was mountain biking slowly in a social group and avoiding the tricks either, but park policy forbids this. As it stands I charge around and test my mettle on whatever jumps and drop-offs I can bring myself to attempt, in those cases I don't even think the helmet on its own is enough, but there's no enforcement of additional arm, back or leg protection. No different to the road, I don't actually wear one if I nip down the other end of the street to pick something up from the dairy, but when I mix it up with traffic and get over 60km/h down the hills, I'll take what little protection the helmet offers.

As observed, in practice enforcement is pretty weak here. I've only been noticed by a cop once while I was dawdling slowly past at walking pace with a bunch of other people:

Him: "You should be wearing your helmet."

Me: "I know."

Him: "Ok."

Notwithstanding only posties and kids 12 and under are allowed to cycle on a footpath anyway, and he didn't say anything about that.

[p.dath]

There wasn't any drop in head injuries. The rate of head injuries as a proportion of total injuries remained almost exactly the same after the introduction of helmets. Which indicates that bicycle helmets don't have a significant affect on reducing head injuries.

I'm looking at this report:
http://www.transport.govt.nz/researc...stics%2009.pdf
I'm looking at the time series table under the page titled Hospitalisations. The helmet law came into effect 1994.

Prior to 1994 there were around 20 fatalities per year. In the last 10 years this appears to have reduced to about 10. I'm sure the number of cylists has not halved.

HOWEVER, I see the 5 years after 1994 the fatality rate didn't really drop. So this makes me think someother factor apart from helmets has been responsible for the halving of the fatality rates.

[MSTRS:Me]

...doesn't sound like it fit right.

It fitted just fine. The front of the helmet hit the ground and was pushed back on his head. All his injuries were to the front of his head (his face). The helmet was useless for protecting from that sort of injury.
Do you not wince (too) when you see those staunch HD riders with their (all but useless) legal pudding bowls?

[FJRider]

HOWEVER, I see the 5 years after 1994 the fatality rate didn't really drop. So this makes me think someother factor apart from helmets has been responsible for the halving of the fatality rates.

The fatality rate may not have dropped, but with an increasing number of cyclists riding ... the ratio of deaths / increasing percentage of riders on the road, would have to improved.
Plus ... more cycle lanes provided ... and more people riding on the footpath.

[Kickaha]

But they will be reluctant to tell you how many of the survivors they are crowing about are actually in full time care, as they are brain damaged.

You've pulled that one a couple of times in helmet discussions, without any figures to back you up how would you know whether there are anymore in full time care or any less since the introduction of compulsory helmet usage?

[FJRider]

Statistics can prove (or disprove) anything you want ... if the right questions are asked.

[Ocean1]

I'm sure the number of cylists has not halved.

It's not safe to make such assumprions. It wouldn't surprise me, cheap powered transport has proliferated over that time.

[Wannabiker]

It fitted just fine. The front of the helmet hit the ground and was pushed back on his head. All his injuries were to the front of his head (his face). The helmet was useless for protecting from that sort of injury.
Do you not wince (too) when you see those staunch HD riders with their (all but useless) legal pudding bowls?

It could have been worse. If the front of the helmet had not hit the gtound first, his wee face would have travelled an extra 30mm to the ground and the contact would have then been with his forehead, nose and lower jaw.

All helmets are useless, a waste of time (add whatever argument you want here), until the moment that your head contacts the pavement, rock, road, tree....it is only then that you appreciate the extra money and time that you spent selecting a good helmet with the correct fit....Like motorcycle helmets, bicycle helmets that have been crashed must be destroyed and disposed of.