Advocacy & Safety - Anti helmet newspaper article

Wasn't sure whether to start new thread for this or ad to other "sticky" helmet thread, decided to start new. Moderators please move if innappropriate.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/experts-collide-over-benefits-of-cycle-helmets/2006/03/24/1143083999509.html


Experts collide over benefits of cycle helmets
By Ben Cubby
March 25, 2006

FORCING cyclists to wear helmets damages public health because they discourage many people from riding, an academic says.

Dorothy Robinson, a former senior statistician at the University of New England, found that while laws that make wearing helmets mandatory reduced the seriousness of some head injuries, the cost to public health and fitness outweighed their benefit.

But some researchers suggest Ms Robinson's conclusions "crumble" under scrutiny.

Writing in the British medical journal BMJ, Ms Robinson compares data between countries and regions that have made it illegal to ride without head protection.

"When we brought in helmet laws it discouraged people from cycling; there was a big drop," says Ms Robinson, a keen cyclist who has been struck by a car and wears a helmet.

"The overall effect on public health is bad, with less people getting fit by cycling since the laws came in, and more driving."

One study she used found the number of bicycle riders counted at 25 locations around Sydney fell by 48 per cent between 1991, when mandatory helmet laws were introduced in NSW, and 1996.

In surveys riders frequently said helmets were uncomfortable and expensive, she says.

Mandatory helmet laws were still "very contentious", said Peter Strang, executive director of the Bicycle Federation of Australia. It opposed the laws when they were introduced, but many of its constituent associations have since accepted them.

"[Ms Robinson] certainly makes some claims that I think deserve further research," he said.

A group of researchers - Brent Hagel, Alison Macpherson, Frederick Rivara and Barry Pless - also writing in BMJ, dismisses Ms Robinson's conclusions.

"For example, a fall in the number of bicyclists in the 1990s may simply reflect an increase in in-line skating or other recreational activities," they say.

They also say that there is no proven link between a decrease in cycling and falling fitness levels.

The Roads and Traffic Authority did not respond directly to Herald queries about mandatory helmet use. A correctly worn helmet "can reduce the risk of head and brain injury by up to 85 per cent in a crash", the authority said.

The NSW Minister for Sport and Recreation, Sandra Nori, was sceptical. "I haven't seen the research yet, but it doesn't appear to address the grave problem of head injuries caused by bike accidents."

Makes sense to me. I have found myself favoring a ball cap over a helmet more and more.

I can see where having to wear a helmet would cut down on the number of cyclists.

I dont think the article is anti-helmet.
Its not arguing the benefits of wearing one, only peoples choice in the matter.
Its pointing out anti-commonsense, to me.
In Pennsyslvania when they were debating the helmet laws for motorcycles
ABATE supporters and others were, without laffing at themselves, saying
helmets were more dangerous than not wearing them and gave a myriad of
reasons why they supposedly were. People have thier priorities and no
overbearing authoritarian agancy is going to change them, whatever they
might be or no matter how ludicris.

I don't like wearing a helmet and I have tried on several occassions, but find them uncomfortable and obtrusive. Fortunately, in twenty-five years of riding I have never had a serious crash where a helmet would have saved me from injury. But, if Ontario---as they are considering---were to legislate mandatory helmet use, I would comply---not without complaint, mind you, but only because I love cycling. I'd sacrifice comfort for the pure freedom and love of riding.

Helmets are of limited utility. This is a fact. They will cut down on the severity of impact under very limited circumstances. If you have an accident and happen to fall into that very limited circumstance, then yes it may reduce or eliminate a head injury. But, it's like driving an SUV for it's crash protection. Sure, the occupant of a Chevy Suburban will most likely come out better than the occupant of a VW Jetta in certain accident situations. But, the driver of the Jetta has a much better chance of avoiding the accident in the first place. A Jetta (or any car) will out-corner and out-brake a Suburban by a wide, wide margin. Helmets do nothing to help the cyclist avoid accidents. Personally, I think bike helmets cause a lot of wind noise. The wind noise masks traffic sounds that I want to hear.

I wear a helmet almost all the time mostly because it's expected and the club wants it's members to put on a good face for the public. But, helmets are a PIA in general. I suspect that more folks would take short bike trips for utilitarian purposes if helmets were not mandatory in locations where they are mandatory.

Regardless of what peoples opinions of helmets are,
mine is, I am not going to take any law or safety related
edict from another useless, overbearing authoritarian
agency seriously until they ban cigarettes and alcohol too.
Anything less is pure hypocracy.

I don't think the article is anti-helmets either as it states various arguments based on different studies. Nor I think is Ms Robinson, what she is questioning there is the legislation that has been imposed on people.

It's debatable, I am strong advocate of wearing one but am not too keen on seing a legislation for adults. Kids are a different matter, particularly small ones.

As an avid cyclist, she has a point but her studies are more based on intuition and feelings than facts. She is associating drop in cycling to helmet inforcement within a period where all physical excercise has dropped. Her observations are based on Australian stats, maybe someone from there can comment.
Helmets are not mandatory for adults here, so how do we explain the drop in the 90s?

As for helmet comfort, this is usually more of a fit and adjustment problem. Helmets nowadays come in different shapes and sizes (of heads, that is) that can be less intrusive than a ball cap.

Also the price argument in the study may be based on old numbers, a good helmet today doesn't cost more than $30-$40, sometime less.

Her arguments should be handled with care and fall short of any anti-helmet interpretations. They are just hypothetical and not factual.

. . . "For example, a fall in the number of bicyclists in the 1990s may simply reflect an increase in in-line skating or other recreational activities," they say . . . .


An in-line skater died from a blow to the back of the head while skating, about 3 - 4 years ago: married, two children left behind. He normally wore a helmet. It was found on his bed; he forgot it that eventful day.

I agree that the article gives small taste of both sides of the issue as oppsed to "anti-helmet". I've just started riding recently and to be honest with you I don't even notice the helmet is on. The same way I don't particularly notice my shirt, shorts, pants, socks, shoes etc etc. It just feels like another piece of apparel, one that can save my life though.

In my state we have laws mandating the usage of various pieces of reflective equipment, especially for biking at night. To complement those laws, we have other laws mandating that any bike sold here come complete with those same reflectors.

We also have a very toothless and rarely enforced helmet law for children. It would make sense if the helmet law was complemented by a law requiring that all children's bikes be sold with a helmet. Even if the child receiving the bike already has a helmet, its a sure thing that he/she has a friend who doesn't have one. Or an adult parent who should be wearing one.

An in-line skater died from a blow to the back of the head while skating, about 3 - 4 years ago: married, two children left behind. He normally wore a helmet. It was found on his bed; he forgot it that eventful day.
Too bad Ronald Reagan's dead, he would have loved this anecdote... :rolleyes:

One hundred more people a day would be alive if they had just not gotten in their cars that morning, too.

One hundred more people a day would be alive if they had just not gotten in their cars that morning, too.

Good point.

Something like 45,000 people die each year in auto accidents in the US. Not sure how many would have survived if they had been wearing a motorcycle helmet, but lets just guess and say 2000 might have been saved had they been wearing a helmet. That's more than twice as many people who died in bicycle accidents from all causes. So why not mandatory helmet use in autos?

I would wear a helmet regardless of what the law states. What argument could possibly invalidate any attempt on my part to improve my chances of surviving a mishap?

I suspect that many cyclists'* professed dislike of helmets have more to do with their senses of fashion than with function.

(*I stated 'many', not 'all'. Save the flames, please.)

Regardless of what peoples opinions of helmets are,
mine is, I am not going to take any law or safety related
edict from another useless, overbearing authoritarian
agency seriously until they ban cigarettes and alcohol too.
Anything less is pure hypocracy.

I can't see where smoking is a 'safety' issue. I mean, it's a health issue, sure, but it doesn't make anyone safer on the roads or anywhere else if they're not smoking. I can see your point with alcohol, however, considering the number of alcohol-related car accidents there are and the subsequent deaths and injuries. It seems to me that there are countless people who are able to consume alcohol without becoming a menace, however and there are plenty of places to smoke where it doesn't bother non-smokers. So, wouldn't it be better if the 'overbearing authoritarian agency' just banned cars? They're the real danger, after all. You never hear of cyclists killing each other in a crash, drunk or not, and they don't pollute the air or dirty the streets. You might have a few drunk people bumping into each other, but they'd be alive. And even if they smoked, the damage to the environment would be minimal at best in comparison to what cars do.

^^^^ Yes, to all the stuff you said.
Anything has a certain amount of danger. People should understand
the risks they are taking when they do whatever it is they do.
Im against rules of any type but it seems authoritarians
pick on certain groups of people to justify their own
existance. I only use alcohol has an example because realisiticly
and quatifiably it has hurt society more than anything else in the
world. My point is dont say you are going to do something
that is in the publics best interest when there are activities that
regulating more would benefit the public more. I use a helmet most
of the time but I dont want to see rules on it for those who consistantly
dont. Dont single out a small, weak minority when there are way more
pressing things to worry about. If the UOAA where truly concerned about
our wellbeing they would be sending a clear message to cars, utilizing thier
uniformed authoritarian figures and enforcers issuing monitary fines and
insurance uppage, that thier daily assualts on us are unacceptable.

I do agree about hte price/comfort aspect.

Many sub $40 helmets have absolutely horrific fit...the rear adjustment is underpadded, the helmet itself is often now shaped in a way that makes much sense, poor ventilation, etc.

That's the single biggest problem. It would be nice to see a helmet similar to my Louis Garneau OZ-ZY, but in a bargain version. Big vents, nice comfortable design, tape on the shell instead of in-molding it to save cost, less "aggressive" design, and maybe a visor....for $35. That would be a great deal.

As for wind noise, my old T-bone did make a good bit of noise, but that's in part due to having tons of tiny vents on it (over 30 of them)....big, large vents make less noise, but those again cost more, since they have to design the helmet around those vents to keep them strong enough to meet sfety standards.

The last side is fashion...most of the good helmets have too much of an alien look to them (usually the bike shop types), and others just look stupid (usually the x-mart types). The ones in the middle are usually only found online, and then you can't figure out if it fits well before buying (but again, neither can you wtih most x-mart helmets).

As an avid cyclist, she has a point but her studies are more based on intuition and feelings than facts.


Her conclusions, maybe so, but the safety and effectiveness of helmets and thier limited uses are hardly "intuitions and feelings"

FORCING cyclists to wear helmets damages public health.

It's anti-helmet law. Not anti-helmet.

Big difference

Several thoughts:

1.) I always wear my helmet, but I've never really been sure it would do much to protect me in a crash. The only time I ever fell off my bike, I landed on my face, which wasn't covered by the helmet. (Fortunately, I didn't hit very hard--I had a skinned nose and some sand in my teeth, but that was it.)

2.) If I don't wear a helmet, how is that the government's business? As Thomas Jefferson put it, "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others." But I'm not injuring any "others" by not wearing a helmet.

3.) As for style: I think helmets look kind of cool. When I ride to the grocery store, I like to carry my helmet inside with me, to make a statement: "Hey, look at me, I got here under my own power, unlike the rest of you couch potatoes in your SUV's!" Okay, okay--that's a pretty pathetic display of narcissism, I'll admit. But as a paunchy, middle-aged utility cyclist, I have to take what small dribblets of glory I can get.

Here's a blog on some helmet legislation that has been proposed in Saskatoon Saskatchewan.

http://gaswithcoffee.blogspot.com/

Suggest a change in mandtory helmet laws to read, partly, as follows:

. . . helmets for cycling are mandatory for all riders, *unless* they have signed an organ donor card . . .

2.) If I don't wear a helmet, how is that the government's business?
If you live on a desert island, then its your own business. But if you partake of the benefits of living in a civilized society, then the government has every right to be interested in behaviors that may leave them with an invidual who will require long-term care or that may pose a burden to medical practioners and insurance programs.

This is why our government spends such an incredible amount of effort to stem the tide of illicit drug use, for instance.

Using the excuse that the government allows other dangerous behavior (such as cigaratte smoking and alcohol) is a cop-out. The US government tried to ban alcohol in the 1920s, but found it was counterproductive since alcohol has thousands of years of history behind it and can be produced cheaply. So instead they settled on taxing it and curbing the worst of the behaviors it produces.

Cigarettes had also had a long history behind them, making them difficult to legislate. But the government has done an incredible amount of work to educate and limit cigarettes. No one gets out of high school without knowing the dangers of smoking. Where I live, they've banned cigarettes from theatres, restaurant, and, most incredibly, bars.

Suggest a change in mandtory helmet laws to read, partly, as follows:

. . . helmets for cycling are mandatory for all riders, *unless* they have signed an organ donor card . . .

Everybody should sign organ donar cards. At least cyclists would be more likely to leave healthy organs, unlike the vast majority of head injury victims who don't get enough exercise to be healthy.

It also would be tapping only 1% of potential donors as 99% of head injuries occur to people not on bikes.

This is similar to the lame argument that the government has every right to be interested in behaviors that may leave them with an invidual who will require long-term care or that may pose a burden to medical practioners and insurance programs.

Everybody knows, cyclists benefit society. If everybody rode bikes, most head injuries would disappear and much of the attention paid to patients that have problems related to lifestyle (eg. too lazy to ride their bikes) would free upstress on the medical profession. But that won't happen because it's OK to hurt people as long as you're inside a car while your doing it (even if it is just a slow death to the drivers and passengers that's not very dramatic but bugs doctors because their problems could be so easily prevented by riding their bikes).

If you live on a desert island, then its your own business. But if you partake of the benefits of living in a civilized society, then the government has every right to be interested in behaviors that may leave them with an invidual who will require long-term care or that may pose a burden to medical practioners and insurance programs.

This is why our government spends such an incredible amount of effort to stem the tide of illicit drug use, for instance.

Using the excuse that the government allows other dangerous behavior (such as cigaratte smoking and alcohol) is a cop-out. The US government tried to ban alcohol in the 1920s, but found it was counterproductive since alcohol has thousands of years of history behind it and can be produced cheaply. So instead they settled on taxing it and curbing the worst of the behaviors it produces.

Cigarettes had also had a long history behind them, making them difficult to legislate. But the government has done an incredible amount of work to educate and limit cigarettes. No one gets out of high school without knowing the dangers of smoking. Where I live, they've banned cigarettes from theatres, restaurant, and, most incredibly, bars.

Okay, I know what you mean. But how many dangerous behaviors should the government be allowed to regulate, just because I might use my insurance? In theory, it's dangerous (to some degree) to be overweight. So should the government be able to require me to go on a diet? If I have high blood pressure, and therefore might have a stroke which would leave me dependent on long-term care, should the goverment require me to take my blood pressure medication? Should they do bed-checks to regulate the spread of STD's? Where should we draw the line?

I am not some government-hating radical. I think governments have their place. But I don't really want the goverment meddling in my personal decisions. I'm 45 years old and perfectly capable of looking after myself.

And frankly, considering the waste, incompetence, and lack of fiscal restraint shown by the U.S. government during my lifetime (by both parties), I think maybe they should try fixing their own problems before they try to fix mine.

That said, I ALWAYS wear a helmet. Religiously.

I wouldn't object to others without helmets __IF__ there was a separate insurance pool for them. Similarily I wouldn't object to smokers, again __IF__ 1) they were in a separate insurance pool and 2) I didn't have to smell their reek. (Not sure if reek can be used as a noun but since I'm not in the English teachers insurance pool......)

Okay, I know what you mean. But how many dangerous behaviors should the government be allowed to regulate, just because I might use my insurance?
There are a multitude of factors. But in general, the degree to which they should take action would depend upon the severity of the consequences of your behaviors, and the degree of intrusion into your life.

So invade your bedroom ... probably not. But out on the public road, bought, built, and maintained by the government? Definitely. That's why we have seat belt laws for motorists and maybe someday helmet laws for cyclists. Both may infringe on freedoms very slightly, but that's the price you pay for using a public road.


And frankly, considering the waste, incompetence, and lack of fiscal restraint shown by the U.S. government during my lifetime (by both parties), I think maybe they should try fixing their own problems before they try to fix mine.

Americans tend to think that there was some time in the past when their government was doing things "right". Hmm. When was that? When we were busy wiping out the indigenous populations? When the Supreme Court declared that a black man was no different than a mule? During the Warren Harding administration? (Possibly worse president ever). During the Teapot-Dome scandal? When?

If the government waited until it was perfect to pass basic, common sense legislation ... we'd have no laws.



That said, I ALWAYS wear a helmet. Religiously.And I bet you keep your children pious too :) If you wear a helmet, and if you think its good for your children to wear a helmet, where's the problem with the government making other people do the same thing for themselves and their children that you do for yourself and your children?

Yeah, all those cyclists are a real drain on society :rolleyes:

What advocates.:beer:

If you live on a desert island, then its your own business. But if you partake of the benefits of living in a civilized society, then the government has every right to be interested in behaviors that may leave them with an invidual who will require long-term care or that may pose a burden to medical practioners and insurance programs.

This is why our government spends such an incredible amount of effort to stem the tide of illicit drug use, for instance.

Using the excuse that the government allows other dangerous behavior (such as cigaratte smoking and alcohol) is a cop-out. The US government tried to ban alcohol in the 1920s, but found it was counterproductive since alcohol has thousands of years of history behind it and can be produced cheaply. So instead they settled on taxing it and curbing the worst of the behaviors it produces.

Cigarettes had also had a long history behind them, making them difficult to legislate. But the government has done an incredible amount of work to educate and limit cigarettes. No one gets out of high school without knowing the dangers of smoking. Where I live, they've banned cigarettes from theatres, restaurant, and, most incredibly, bars.


Sorry. I respectfully disagree. The premise that someone knows what is better
for me than I do is patently ridiculous. We are not in a civilized society and bicyclists
are easy targets for useless agencies to appear useful because they have no $$$$
Lobbyi$ts like alcohol or cigarette industries do.
Also....I want to know where you live that alcohol is not a problem because I want to
move there. When did these negative behaviours become 'cured' ? Where is this place that
drug dealing and using is being 'stemmed' ?? Nowhere Ive ever lived or visited.
My wife has worked in many school districts on the east coast in programs that work with
problem kids and can assure you that alcohol is the biggest problem in our society today.
Since over-reaching authoritarians might be affected by the same laws they wrote if they
were to enforce them they are never given more than phoney lip service.
Do you really beleive bicyclists, helmeted or otherwise are more of a drain on 'The System'
than alcohol is ???
Again....Im not saying to ban it or cigarettes, just pointing out a blaring inconsistancy.
I have digressed from the topic but I would just leave it at asking the Government to take thier
skewed priorities elsewhere and stay out of my affairs.

I wouldn't object to others without helmets __IF__ there was a separate insurance pool for them. Similarily I wouldn't object to smokers, again __IF__ 1) they were in a separate insurance pool and 2) I didn't have to smell their reek. (Not sure if reek can be used as a noun but since I'm not in the English teachers insurance pool......)

what about fat people?
what about people with substance abuse like alcohol?
what about people with bad diets?

lots of behaviors kill, and do so everyday, where do you draw the line..........you must have spikes on your shoes or something trying to hold that slippery slope your on

almost every choice we make as individuals affects society as a whole, the majority of these decisons have hidden and not easily seen consequences

...and isn't this more about being holier than thou?

My behaviour is one that should be admired and duplicated. Yours isn't.

I wouldn't object to others without helmets __IF__ there was a separate insurance pool for them. Similarily I wouldn't object to smokers, again __IF__ 1) they were in a separate insurance pool and 2) I didn't have to smell their reek. (Not sure if reek can be used as a noun but since I'm not in the English teachers insurance pool......)

That is, if helmets do indeed prevent crashes, but all they do is pretty much reduce(by a negligible amount) the risk of mild injuries(scratches including skinning of your scalps... more or less). It still doesnt matter if you're riding with or without one, if you're involved in a high speed crash, which can kill you and cost considereably more than minor scratches, a modern bicycle helmet is not designed for that.


Cigarettes had also had a long history behind them


but found it was counterproductive since alcohol has thousands of years of history behind it and can be produced cheaply


Can you tell me why pot and other soft drugs is illegal then? They have a "long history" behind them, too, and are hard to legislate, and very cheap to produce even with the current "war on drugs".

Sorry. I respectfully disagree. The premise that someone knows what is better for me than I do is patently ridiculous. We are not in a civilized society .... (various excuses for not doing the right thing) ...
I hardly know where to begin with your post. First, I don't know about Vermont, but the rest of the country is more or less civilized. Granted, civilization may suck sometimes, but there you have it. We have enforced education, child labor laws, drunk driving laws, social security prgorams, disability programs. Lots of people think they can drive fine after a few drinks, but those darn pesky know-it-all police officers beg to disagree. So it is the job of the government to pass and enforce laws for our own good -- and yes, sometimes they really do know what is better for you. Or if not for you, then for your next door neighbor.

Next, who said anything about cyclists being a drain on society? You won't find the word "drain" in any of my posts. But people who are seriously injured can become a drain on our resources. The worst types of injury involve children (because the consequences are life-long) and the brain. Medical science can pin shattered bones, stitch up opened organs, and perform virtual miracles on every part of the body except the brain. Once its gone, its gone. Helmets can prevent more than 80% of the most serious head injuries -- that's significant.

Yes, alcohol abuse is a terrible problem, but the government has done just about everything that can be done about it in a representative democracy. Perhaps in a dictatorship more could be done, but in a civil society there can be limits. We tried prohibition, and it didn't work.

Requiring the government to do a perfect job on various social ills before addressing simpler problems -- like bicycle helmets -- is impractical and unrealistic.

So far I haven't seen anyone give any cogent reason not to wear helmets other than ... what? Bad hair? Looks nerdy? Most of the reasons appear to be pure orneriness: "Wah! Wah! You can't take my freedom away! Wah! Big bad government is stupid! Wah!"

Can you tell me why pot and other soft drugs is illegal then? They have a "long history" behind them, too, and are hard to legislate, and very cheap to produce even with the current "war on drugs".
What are the other soft drugs?

Marijuana never had the social acceptance and consequent momentum of alcohol and cigarettes in this country. Also, at least in some people, marijuana seems to cause more serious damage faster than either of those vices. I'm thinking of an employee that I had the misfortune to oversee who could delete reams of text in front of him and not realize he had done it, was lucky to remember his name, and showed monumental bad judgment in business and personal matters. All before age 30. And had puffed large quantities of the weed while serving in Iraq take one.

But you won't catch me defending the War on Drugs. Seems like each administration feels the need to declare a war on something: War on Poverty; War on communism; War on Drugs; War on halitosis, etc. I've always felt that if we had a real war on drugs that it would be the bloodiest war this country has ever seen. In a real WOD, parents would be turning in their children, children turning in their parents, employees turning in their employers, employers turning in their employees, and friends turning in friends. Its not happening, so obviously its not the social imperative that Bush I thought it should be.

Back on topic: Helmets are a low-cost and common sense precaution to the most serious potential bike injuries (i.e., those to the head). I am not advocating that laws be adopted mandating their use, but, then again, I wouldn't vote against such a law either.

what about fat people?
...
almost every choice we make as individuals affects society as a whole, the majority of these decisons have hidden and not easily seen consequences
If wearing a special "fat helmet" would prevent people from overeating, I would be all for it. But obesity has complicated root causes. The government is not good at dealing with issues that "have hidden and not easily seen consequences". But it can be very good at creating and enforcing simple laws that limit the amount of damage people do to themselves. And the more public the venue, the more right the government has to intervene. On the roadways, in particular, the government can enforce laws, though unpopular (e.g. Seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, 55 MPH speed limits, etc.), save lives.

Several thoughts:
2.) If I don't wear a helmet, how is that the government's business?

3.) As for style: I think helmets look kind of cool. When I ride to the grocery store, I like to carry my helmet inside with me, to make a statement: "Hey, look at me, I got here under my own power, unlike the rest of you couch potatoes in your SUV's!" Okay, okay--that's a pretty pathetic display of narcissism, I'll admit. But as a paunchy, middle-aged utility cyclist, I have to take what small dribblets of glory I can get.

First, I want to congratulate you on being a paunchy middle-aged and narcisistic utility cyclist and I completely understand the need to be 'recognized' for the contribution and efforts you make. So, it's a little self-aggrandizing. Big deal. Those cagers with the tricked out SUV and rice-rockets outside aren't exercising any restraint in showing off what they're proud of. Neither should you. You go, brother!

Second, here in Ontario (and the rest of Canada), if I don't wear a helmet, it does matter to the government becuase we have universal health-care and, therefore, our provincial health system will be employed to care for me should I be injured. That being said, I would suggest to the government---if they're so concerned with safety---that speed kills and that thousands of motorists die needlessly every year because cars exceed the speed-limit. Why should any car be allowed to go far far beyond the speed limit when there is nowhere one can legally operate a car at that speed? So, if I have to wear a helmet---to appease their concern over health-care costs---then they can legislate the mandatory installation of limiters in ALL vehicles except emergency vehicles, thereby reducing speed-related deaths dramatically. The technology exists and is relatively inexpensive to install (all buses and many trucks have them, for instance). But, oh, they won't do that. They reap far too much revenue from speeders and the funeral business would eb sharply impacted if they didn't have accident deaths to rely on anymore. But, you see, there's little money made from cycl;ists who die and more to save by keeping them out of the hospitals. They only care about you if there's a cost saving to them.

it is the job of the government to pass and enforce laws for our own good -- and yes, sometimes they really do know what is better for you...Next, who said anything about cyclists being a drain on society?...But people who are seriously injured can become a drain on our resources. The worst types of injury involve children (because the consequences are life-long) and the brain...Helmets can prevent more than 80% of the most serious head injuries -- that's significant...Requiring the government to do a perfect job on various social ills before addressing simpler problems -- like bicycle helmets -- is impractical and unrealistic...So far I haven't seen anyone give any cogent reason not to wear helmets ...Helmets are a low-cost and common sense precaution to the most serious potential bike injuries (i.e., those to the head). I am not advocating that laws be adopted mandating their use, but, then again, I wouldn't vote against such a law either...On the roadways, in particular, the government can enforce laws, though unpopular (e.g. Seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, 55 MPH speed limits, etc.), save lives.

Is a helmet law good for us? Well I guess it depends on your point of view. If you're all for getting rid of people on bikes without reducing any kind of "real" or "serious" injury to the head (e.g. stopping some bleeding) for cyclists, I guess it is. I just wonder why it is when the largest group of head injury victims (motor vehicle occupants) get exempt when these laws come out? I guess it's just easier to pass a law against a smaller, less popular group, that no seems to understand and is less able to defend itself.

80% reduction? Please, can't we see what a sham that study was? I guess not, if it agrees with what you want to force upon others. Not a single case in that study involved a single collision with a single vehicle. It's been criticized in scientific journals because the review takes no account of scientific knowledge of types and mechanisms of brain injury. Correct me if I'm wrong here but what that that study (80% reduction) proved was that upper middle class white children riding in a park while supervised by adults suffered fewer injuries than lower and working class kids riding on the street in a lower income n'hood unsupervised, and presumably on older/cheaper bikes. 80%? Of what? The 1% of head injuries that are suffererd by cyclists? (and that's if all helmets worked perfectly) The 80% mark certainly hasn't been the case in the areas where MHLs have been passed. Here's a good quote from that blog I limked earlier that addresses the 80% claim.
helmet-law lobbyists continue to make their mendacious and baseless claims, hoping to fool the public and legislators into believing that injury rates will actually fall by as much as 88%. It is an unconscionable promise worthy of the most unethical of politicians - a bold-faced, cynical claim that it's proponents know has never been delivered and can never be delivered.

There is no reason not to wear a helmet. It does prevent some injury. It's just not the type of injury many seem to feel it does. Like serious albeit, rare brain injury. Few people who tout the bicycle helmet as a prevention of this type of injury fail understand what brain injury is and how it occurs. If they did, they would understand the limitations of what they are promoting and stop spreading false hope that helmets can prevent something they were never designed to do in the first place. Bicycle helmets are not a low-cost, simple solution to brain injury. Far more people who were wearing bicycle helmets have had brain injuries from colisions than many would guess.

Open your eyes and look at the worlds experiences. If MHLs' work, there would be more of them around. A couple passed, far more have been defeated and many more areas that have been lobbied for, have been ignored.

Bicycles are good for society. They make things better for everyone. With or without helmets. Stop trying to make it all about you think is right. The world disagrees. Accept differences. Next thing you know, left handed people won't be allowed to drive because it's been proven they die in car accidents more than right handed people, govenments will be mandating everyone eat oatmeal for breakfast and medical insurance companies will refuse to cover people who have family history of heart disease, no matter how healthy they seem to be at the moment because they can become a drain on our resources.

Simple problem? I think not.

I hardly know where to begin with your post. First, I don't know about Vermont, but the rest of the country is more or less civilized. Granted, civilization may suck sometimes, but there you have it. We have enforced education, child labor laws, drunk driving laws, social security prgorams, disability programs. Lots of people think they can drive fine after a few drinks, but those darn pesky know-it-all police officers beg to disagree. So it is the job of the government to pass and enforce laws for our own good -- and yes, sometimes they really do know what is better for you. Or if not for you, then for your next door neighbor.

Next, who said anything about cyclists being a drain on society? You won't find the word "drain" in any of my posts. But people who are seriously injured can become a drain on our resources. The worst types of injury involve children (because the consequences are life-long) and the brain. Medical science can pin shattered bones, stitch up opened organs, and perform virtual miracles on every part of the body except the brain. Once its gone, its gone. Helmets can prevent more than 80% of the most serious head injuries -- that's significant.

Yes, alcohol abuse is a terrible problem, but the government has done just about everything that can be done about it in a representative democracy. Perhaps in a dictatorship more could be done, but in a civil society there can be limits. We tried prohibition, and it didn't work.

Requiring the government to do a perfect job on various social ills before addressing simpler problems -- like bicycle helmets -- is impractical and unrealistic.

So far I haven't seen anyone give any cogent reason not to wear helmets other than ... what? Bad hair? Looks nerdy? Most of the reasons appear to be pure orneriness: "Wah! Wah! You can't take my freedom away! Wah! Big bad government is stupid! Wah!"


actually the imposition on freedoms IS the most cogent argument of all, and it trumps everything, you may not see it that way, but plenty of others do

your basic premise as pointed out by someone else above is indeed a classic slippery slope argument

Youve mentioned the "drain on society" angle due to head injuries........there are "do not resuscitate(sp?)" and living wills available, pretty common place actually.........and this whole silly angle of argument also opens yourself up into all sorts of other twisted ways to change the laws into things we really dont need or desire. You think its ok to mandate by law that someone who's 20-30lbs overweight for decades is ineligible for care? May sound kinda silly, but my departed upper middle class Dad who was quite wealthy did exactly that, he was 30lbs overweight for almost 3 decades. Had angioplasty operation and a stint installed at the cost to the taxpayer of almost 1 million bucks thanks to medicare, it got him 1 more year of life. Would have been much cheaper and effective for him to exercise LOL, should that be mandated too? Do you understand where your line of reasoning ends up?

Bottom line, let people live, those that want to will, those that dont, wont, its all about freedom. Bike helmet usage and its impact on society is so minscule compared to everything else going on its beyond absurd.

What are the other soft drugs?

Marijuana never had the social acceptance and consequent momentum of alcohol and cigarettes in this country. Also, at least in some people, marijuana seems to cause more serious damage faster than either of those vices. I'm thinking of an employee that I had the misfortune to oversee who could delete reams of text in front of him and not realize he had done it, was lucky to remember his name, and showed monumental bad judgment in business and personal matters. All before age 30. And had puffed large quantities of the weed while serving in Iraq take one.


:roflmao: :roflmao:

This _is_ a joke, right ??
Please tell me this is a joke.

How do you respond to this ?? :roflmao:

I find them uncomfortable and obtrusive.

Other making me look like a total dork, I find my helmet tricky to adjust. Nevertheless, once it is tuned to my mellon the thing does not obstruct my view the least.

Ah! ... dress for the crash, not for the ride! A good rule that I learned for a long distance motorcycle rider.

This _is_ a joke, right ??
Please tell me this is a joke.

How do you respond to this ??
I don't know -- what part do you consider funny? It was my own anecdotal evidence, but there's plenty of statistics if you prefer numbers to stories.

To:

I wouldn't object to others without helmets __IF__ there was a separate insurance pool for them. Similarily I wouldn't object to smokers, again __IF__ 1) they were in a separate insurance pool and 2) I didn't have to smell their reek. (Not sure if reek can be used as a noun but since I'm not in the English teachers insurance pool......)

And


If you live on a desert island, then its your own business. But if you partake of the benefits of living in a civilized society, then the government has every right to be interested in behaviors that may leave them with an invidual who will require long-term care or that may pose a burden to medical practioners and insurance programs.

Isn’t it cheaper if someone just dies, than to keep them alive as a gorp for 12 years? If a helmet could have actually saved your life, I tend to think that if you survived (because of a helmet) you would likely be a quadriplegic. Should society pay for “quads” just because they wore helmets? Looks like your argument could easily come back and bite you.


Using the excuse that the government allows other dangerous behavior (such as cigaratte smoking and alcohol) is a cop-out. The US government tried to ban alcohol in the 1920s, but found it was counterproductive since alcohol has thousands of years of history behind it and can be produced cheaply. So instead they settled on taxing it and curbing the worst of the behaviors it produces.


The US gov is now addicted to the cig companies, because they are the number one taxpayer! How is anyone going to ban that?


…This is why our government spends such an incredible amount of effort to stem the tide of illicit drug use, for instance.

Seems like the $80K spent to bust each currently incarcerated drug dealer, shows more of a concern about perpetuating the system then getting rid of drug-related health care costs. How many meth heads can even get it together to go to seek medical help, and can get the system to actually give it to them? Also why is Canada’s health care system so much better, if they rarely bust pot heads? (US is not even in the top 20 countries for quality of healthcare for its citizens.)

I think that someone "important" is making cash off of illegal drugs.

Of course there are no laws in the States, that require that adults wear helmets when using a bicycle. Seems like in order to eat at McDonalds, you should at least have health insurance.

Before we require helmet use, we should take a close look at these other risky behaviors. These are even more of a “burden to the health care system” than the mere 800 bike deaths every year.

Watching more than 1 hour a day of tv—Fine $1 per extra hour.

Driving a car that contributes to smog and therefore health issues: .20 per gal tax

You are more likely to die in a car accident, then as a pedestrian—Saftey surcharge: --none-- included in your car insurance.

Still can die as a pedestrian: safety surcharge: $1 for every mile walked on public roads.

Like to parachute? Safety surcharge $5 per jump.

Eating more than 1 hoggie a week: $1 per each

Not getting your heart rate above 150 every week.-- $10 per every week that you did not get your hr above 100 for at least an hour.

Consuming more than the amount of calories that It takes to maintain you at your ideal weight: 1 cent for every calorie over.

Genetically inferior DNA? Extra surcharge.

White skin? Higher charge for skin cancer

Brown skin? Higher charge for highblood pressure.

Not a billionaire or a republican? You get the picture.

I just wonder why it is when the largest group of head injury victims (motor vehicle occupants) get exempt when these laws come out? I guess it's just easier to pass a law against a smaller, less popular group, that no seems to understand and is less able to defend itself.

Motorists have a metal cage, seat belts, and air bags to substitute for helmets.


80% reduction? Please, can't we see what a sham that study was? I guess not,
Typical "wah-wah-wah" response. Reminds me of cigarette smokers I've known who could go on for hours explaining why the hundreds (thousands?) of studies showing the dangers of cigarettes were flawed in some usually minute, unimportant way.


It does prevent some injury. It's just not the type of injury many seem to feel it does. Like serious albeit, rare brain injury.
Oh, so it only prevents minor brain injury? :lol:

Well, that's good enough for a start! It may not be helpful in high speed collision injuries, but then what is? But on a bike, you can have a head calamity at ZERO miles per hour -- the kind lots of kids in particular are likely to encounter.


If MHLs' work, there would be more of them around. A couple passed, far more have been defeated and many more areas that have been lobbied for, have been ignored.
Politics always enters into these things -- in a representative democracy. The motorcycle lobby is loud and organized. Nevertheless, all but FOUR of the 50 states of the US have some type of MHL. To me that says there was a pretty compelling case for MHL's that overcame even the strong political opposition to them.

Once again, no one has come up with a reasonable reason not to wear helmets. If everyone wore them, it would be just one of those things that you do in a civilized society -- like wearing clothes or driving on a particular side of the road. More importantly, it would eliminate the peer pressure on kids to not wear helmets. Its also just part of being a responsible biking citizen. When I'm out biking, the people I see who are blowing red lights, riding on sidewalks, and going the wrong way are almost always the same ones who are not wearing helmets. Helmet laws could be a stand-in for biking licenses (which I am not in favor of, BTW), allowing law enforcement a chance to educate people engaged in a variety of behaviors. Overall, its a good thing.

But don't worry too much about it. In my state we have an almost never enforced helmet law for children. The actual penalty is $25, which can be waived if the parent or guardian swears that they didn't know the law exists, :lol:

Wow, so much whining just because you don't want to disturb your coiffure with a little bit of head gear! To much to respond to it all, but ...


Isn't it cheaper if someone just dies, than to keep them alive as a gorp for 12 years?
Gosh, what a dismal outlook!


The US gov is now addicted to the cig companies, because they are the number one taxpayer!I kind of doubt that they're #1 anymore. The government provides frequent warnings against smoking. They mandate that every package has a warning label. There are warning signs in stores and even bars. They tax the product heavily in order to reduce its usage. Where I live they ban it from stores, theatres, restaurants, and even bars. What more could they do but ban it outright? Which would lead to a vast blackmarket and the associated street crime.


Seems like the $80K spent to bust each currently incarcerated drug dealer, shows more of a concern about perpetuating the system then getting rid of drug-related health care costs. How many meth heads can even get it together to go to seek medical help, and can get the system to actually give it to them?

Only $80k ?? We're doing better than I thought. $80k for a drug dealer would be a bargain. For drug users, on the other hand, yes, we could do better as a compassionate civilization.


Also why is Canadas health care system so much better, if they rarely bust pot heads?Its not. They have universal health coverage, but that doesn't necessarily mean that its better. I actually have a relative who is a leading practictioner in his field who left Canada because the government was too heavy-handed.


Still can die as a pedestrian: safety surcharge: $1 for every mile walked on public roads.

Like to parachute? Safety surcharge $5 per jump.


Ordinary activities, like walking or eating are covered through various societal devices (County medical services, disability, etc.) You already pay for them through your taxes and fees. Extraordinary activities, like parachuting, require you to directly or indirectly pay into an insurance fund. In some cases personal insurance is optional, but they won't take you up without liability insurance (in case you land on a billionaire or Republican :) ).

Wearing helmets makes sense. Its part of responsible biking. There's no reason not to other than pure obstinacy.

I always find it interesting that a lot of people who speak out on an issue have such a poor grasp of the issue.

Try to educate yourself Mark, on just who are head injury victims, how head injuries work, how studies are conducted and what has happened when MHLs have been put in effect before you start making claims. You reveal your ignorance when you post such things, but it's not all bad because ignorance can be remedied with a little study. Try to pull your head out of your a**. The air's fresher out here. You'll like it.

You're right about one thing though. Politics do enter into these laws. Representatives often are pressured to pass laws that would be popular for one group or another, but do no good. (and the issue is helmet laws, not wearing a helmet - Big difference)

Try to pull your head out of your a**. The air's fresher out here. You'll like it.
Thank you -- I WIN! When you have to resort to insult and profanity, it means you have no case!

I arrived on the scene of my cubicle mate's motorcycle accident only minutes after it occurred. The moans he -- the strong x-marine type -- made sent shivers up and down my spine. Blood was trickling into the gutters. Incredibly enough, thanks to the miracle of modern surgery, he was able to walk back into work only a month later (on crutches ... under medication). From his position on the pavement, I have no doubt that without a helmet he would have been toast. I've seen helmets do their job. They do work.

Once again, what is the down side of helmets? Bad hair? Vanity? Just a general rebelious wish to stick it to the man? What? Sheesh ... grow up.

Thank you -- I WIN! When you have to resort to insult and profanity, it means you have no case!

Just giving a little friendly advice Mark. You need to educate yourself to avoid looking like you have no idea what's going on.

But hey, it's a free country. If you like the air up there, good for you. Just feel lucky the government doesn't legislate a law that someone should pass a base compentency test before they're allowed to speak out on a topic.

Just giving a little friendly advice Mark. You need to educate yourself to avoid looking like you have no idea what's going on.

But hey, it's a free country. If you like the air up there, good for you. Just feel lucky the government doesn't legislate a law that someone should pass a base compentency test before they're allowed to speak out on a topic.


+1
:beer:

This (MarkS)attitude and lack of tolerance and awareness is a pefect example of why
we now suffer a government that will take away rights, legislate bizarre religious moralities
and kill, **** and pillage to show people the 'right' and 'good' way they should be living
and people actually see nothing wrong with that.
Yes...this is related to bicycling. We are an easy target to bully and this proves it.
First helmets, than registration, than road use tax....Think it cant happen ?
I approve of helmets. Disapprove of overreaching, self declared moralistas forcing unnecassary
interference into my life.

Wow, so much whining just because you don't want to disturb your coiffure with a little bit of head gear! To much to respond to it all, but ...

Who said that I dont wear a helmet?



Gosh, what a dismal outlook!
...
(REF: helmet use raises health care costs because you will live as a gorp for years with the gov or ins co flipping the bill)
If you do something that costs sosciety more money, shouldn't that be wrong, according to your argument? Shouldn't we be resposible for our choices?



I kind of doubt that they're #1 anymore. The government provides frequent warnings against smoking. They mandate that every package has a warning label. There are warning signs in stores and even bars. They tax the product heavily in order to reduce its usage. Where I live they ban it from stores, theatres, restaurants, and even bars. What more could they do but ban it outright? Which would lead to a vast blackmarket and the associated street crime....

My point is that the government gets used to the tax money generated by cig sales. They would no sooner ban that than legal gambling. More poor people die from cig use, should they pay more?



Only $80k ?? We're doing better than I thought. $80k for a drug dealer would be a bargain. For drug users, on the other hand, yes, we could do better as a compassionate civilization.

So you dont see anything wrong with paying 2 state troopers to catch one person a year? I want that job. How hard can it be? Seems like you could hire more troopers to stop speeding and DUI and save more lives.



Its not. They have universal health coverage, but that doesn't necessarily mean that its better. I actually have a relative who is a leading practictioner in his field who left Canada because the government was too heavy-handed.
RE: Canadian better health system.
So you have to wait a month for a cancer screen mri, many an american is waiting this long as well.

I agree that you should wear a helmet, but I do not think that people should be compelled to do it. If they do start requiring helmet use. On the other hand pink helmets might be big sellers in the UK.
http://www.gearshift.co.uk/acatalog/WHE1-Giro_Me2SM.jpg

RE: Canadian better health system.

Mark shows his ignorance isn't limited to bike helmets. It extends to other topics as well.

Wow, so much whining just because you don't want to disturb your coiffure with a little bit of head gear! To much to respond to it all, but ...

Who said that I dont wear a helmet?



Gosh, what a dismal outlook!
...
(REF: helmet use raises health care costs because you will live as a gorp for years with the gov or ins co flipping the bill)
If you do something that costs sosciety more money, shouldn't that be wrong, according to your argument? Shouldn't we be resposible for our choices?



I kind of doubt that they're #1 anymore. The government provides frequent warnings against smoking. They mandate that every package has a warning label. There are warning signs in stores and even bars. They tax the product heavily in order to reduce its usage. Where I live they ban it from stores, theatres, restaurants, and even bars. What more could they do but ban it outright? Which would lead to a vast blackmarket and the associated street crime....

My point is that the government gets used to the tax money generated by cig sales. They would no sooner ban that than legal gambling. More poor people die from cig use, should they pay more?



Only $80k ?? We're doing better than I thought. $80k for a drug dealer would be a bargain. For drug users, on the other hand, yes, we could do better as a compassionate civilization.

So you dont see anything wrong with paying 2 state troopers to catch one person a year? I want that job. How hard can it be? Seems like you could hire more troopers to stop speeding and DUI and save more lives.



Its not. They have universal health coverage, but that doesn't necessarily mean that its better. I actually have a relative who is a leading practictioner in his field who left Canada because the government was too heavy-handed.
RE: Canadian better health system.
So you have to wait a month for a cancer screen mri, many an american is waiting this long as well.

I agree that you should wear a helmet, but I do not think that people should be compelled to do it. On the other hand pink helmets might be big sellers in the UK.
http://www.gearshift.co.uk/acatalog/WHE1-Giro_Me2SM.jpg