Fifty Plus (50+) - Negative health effects from mandatory helmet laws

Found this while reading a Wikipedia entry on unintended consequences (link). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences)

In 1990, the Australian state of Victoria made safety helmets mandatory for all bicycle riders. While there was a reduction in the number of head injuries, there was also an unintended reduction in the number of juvenile cyclists—fewer cyclists obviously leads to fewer injuries, all else being equal. Research by Vulcan et al. found that the reduction in juvenile cyclists was because the youths considered wearing a bicycle helmet unfashionable.[22] A health benefit model developed at Macquarie University in Sydney suggests that, while helmet use reduces "the risk of head or brain injury by approximately two-thirds or more", the decrease in exercise caused by reduced cycling as a result of helmets laws is counterproductive in terms of net health.[23]

Bolderdash. Hogwash. There is alway someone willing to put a spin on something.

Great, we needed a new helmet thread.

How can you say that is "bolderdash". If the number decreased because of not wanting to wear a helmet, then it decreased by not wanting to wear a helmet. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

Continue to read the last sentence. The one about putting a spin on things. Don't be gullible enough to believe everything you read as gospel.

As with motorcycles, I would not ride without a helmet but would not support a helmet law. However, if you do not wear a helmet and sustain a serious injury do not expect me to pay for your medical cost and long term TBI care.

Bolderdash. Hogwash. There is alway someone willing to put a spin on something.

Come now, the article states two things as facts and then quotes a conclusion based on some model. The facts quoted are (1) the use of a helmet reduces probability of brain injury by 2/3rds and (2) juveniles are less likely to cycle in the presence of helmet laws. Do you dispute either of the assertions?

One step further: there are health consequences with lessened exercise levels in juveniles, well everybody for that matter. So far I think we're far below the threshold for "bolderdash (sic) and hogwash".

Concluding with certainty that the relative negative health consequences of helmet laws exceed the positive utility could approach "spin". And that's ignoring the possibility that the juvenile energy doesn't just find another outlet, like gang violence (joke!!!).

As far as I'm concerned the quote has one important part, that about helmet use decreasing brain injuries by 2/3rds but I'm not real concerned with appearing trendy nor am I particularly susceptible to peer pressure.

OP is in Florida, so my cold ears and neck , that I avoid while wearing my warm hat and putting
the Hood of my parka over it, and securing both under my chin, helmet wont fit.

Has no Importance to them.. it's not cold enough there..

they don't let the Pilots get in their airplanes at the Pensacola NAS base ... without a helmet.

Oregon requires juveniles wear helmets, once older they too can choose..
until they get motorbikes.

:popcorn: :beer:

Are there no other forms of exercise than Cycling? :eek: If helmet use decreases juviniles from riding doesn't that put them on foot? They aren't able to drive if they are juviniles and cycling isn't the only way to get to the basket ball court or the track.:innocent: So yes it has moved to balderdash if we aren't told what the kids moved on to. If they had to go back to walking then we need the same eggheads to study the health and safety benefits of walking. Oh never mind there is no answer to this debate continue as you were.:lol:

Unfashionable!!??? If true, they don't know what unfashionable is! Would someone please show them how helmets looked (except for the old leather "hairnets" the racers wore) prior to 1987! They were quite geeky, nerdy, lame, heavy, unsleek, non-aerodynamic looking!! The Bell V1-Pro came close to looking cool (I bought one in 1983). PLEASE!!!! Today's helmets look no different than the cool ones worn by pro racers!

Another vote for "not balderdash". The article is just one reason to not favor helmet laws but not a major and conclusive blow for such a justification IMO. I always wear a helmet myself though.... they are cool looking anyway.

Maybe a media campaign to convince the youth that "helmets are cool babe magnets" is in order???:D

A&S alert!

They can take my helmet when they pry my cold dead ears off the chinstraps.

We just need a picture of the lastest teenage heart throb band/singer riding a bike and wearing a helmet to appear, then all the young wolf pups will want to do the same in order to look cool and attract the sweet young ladies. Problem solved.

Great, we needed a new helmet thread.

Not just another helmet thread, another helmet law thread. ;)

Wearing helmets is good, helmet laws, bad. I always wear a helmet when I am out on my own bike but rarely wear a helmet when I ride a CABI (Capital Bike Share) around town. Public bike share programs will not succeed anywhere helmet use is mandatory. I would much rather see robust bike use than robust helmet use - witness Amsterdam.

Wearing helmets is good, helmet laws, bad. I always wear a helmet when I am out on my own bike but rarely wear a helmet when I ride a CABI (Capital Bike Share) around town. Public bike share programs will not succeed anywhere helmet use is mandatory. I would much rather see robust bike use than robust helmet use - witness Amsterdam.

In our state it is only manditory for kids. The study talked about juviniles and reduction of riding. Are you opposed to those laws as well?:innocent:

That is all the more important as an adult you set the standard by wearing your helmet around children. The pros have had a rule since Paris Nice in 2003. This report was in the 1990s. Kids are learning from their eviroment. If you looked at the adults in AU in the 1990, you can bet not one was wearing a helmet. Kids will be monkey see monkey do... So the report is not valid in today's society.

Found this while reading a Wikipedia entry on unintended consequences (link). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences)

In 1990, the Australian state of Victoria made safety helmets mandatory for all bicycle riders. While there was a reduction in the number of head injuries, there was also an unintended reduction in the number of juvenile cyclists—fewer cyclists obviously leads to fewer injuries, all else being equal. Research by Vulcan et al. found that the reduction in juvenile cyclists was because the youths considered wearing a bicycle helmet unfashionable.[22] A health benefit model developed at Macquarie University in Sydney suggests that, while helmet use reduces "the risk of head or brain injury by approximately two-thirds or more", the decrease in exercise caused by reduced cycling as a result of helmets laws is counterproductive in terms of net health.[23]

From this haven't a clue what the study, assumption and paremeters were. That they say "suggests" reinforces the idea that the study was more of an academic exercise than a real attempt to find a conclusion or cause-effect recommendation.

There may be more real information in the study. But, it sure isn't presented.

Sure does get a lot of comments though. Frankly, I'm mystified about all the smoke and fire associated with helmets.

Fashion!!!! :lol: :roflmao:

This is the helmet I wore back in the late 70s through the mid 80s when I was in college--and for a few years after--riding my old Ross steel rodie.

http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/photos/features/fondo-helmet.jpg

Talk about not fashionable. I wore it so I had protection. The helmet definitely saved my skull one Sunday morning at 7AM. A car ran me off a four lane road and there was not a single other car!

Please take anything you read on the internet and WIKI with a suspicion and a large grain of salt.

Found this while reading a Wikipedia entry on unintended consequences (link). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences)

In 1990, the Australian state of Victoria made safety helmets mandatory for all bicycle riders. While there was a reduction in the number of head injuries, there was also an unintended reduction in the number of juvenile cyclists—fewer cyclists obviously leads to fewer injuries, all else being equal. Research by Vulcan et al. found that the reduction in juvenile cyclists was because the youths considered wearing a bicycle helmet unfashionable.[22] A health benefit model developed at Macquarie University in Sydney suggests that, while helmet use reduces "the risk of head or brain injury by approximately two-thirds or more", the decrease in exercise caused by reduced cycling as a result of helmets laws is counterproductive in terms of net health.[23]

huh?

A health benefit model developed at Macquarie University in Sydney suggests that, while helmet use reduces "the risk of head or brain injury by approximately two-thirds or more", the decrease in exercise caused by reduced cycling as a result of helmets laws is counterproductive in terms of net health.[23]

It's only a model (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3dZl3yfGpc#t=00h08s).


Come now, the article states two things as facts and then quotes a conclusion based on some model. The facts quoted are (1) the use of a helmet reduces probability of brain injury by 2/3rds and (2) juveniles are less likely to cycle in the presence of helmet laws. Do you dispute either of the assertions?

I don't, but keep reading. The alleged reduction in health was derived from a model. The assumptions in building the model may be flawed. Or worse yet, they could be selected to produce a predisposed result. For instance, in their assumptions, do they assert that kids who choose not to ride to avoid wearing a helmet subsequently do not engage in an alternate healthy activity? Is this a valid assumption to make? This model used to derive the overall health benefit of helmet use is really kind of squishy.

For the record, I wear a helmet but do not advocate helmet laws.

From this haven't a clue what the study, assumption and paremeters were. That they say "suggests" reinforces the idea that the study was more of an academic exercise than a real attempt to find a conclusion or cause-effect recommendation.

There may be more real information in the study. But, it sure isn't presented.

Sure does get a lot of comments though. Frankly, I'm mystified about all the smoke and fire associated with helmets.

No. It just reflects the cautious language that scientists everywhere are trained to use.

Suggest is one of the weaker words they might have used. It was BS. The point was not the conclusion, but that sometimes there can be unintended consequences.

A mod needs to move this self immolating turkey to A&S where it can get the attention it deserves.

We just need a picture of the lastest teenage heart throb band/singer riding a bike and wearing a helmet to appear, then all the young wolf pups will want to do the same in order to look cool and attract the sweet young ladies. Problem solved.

++++++100 This is the answer to the situation. Justin Bieber on a fixie with helmet. Have Rebecca Black reshoot scenes from Friday, so she's riding to school with her friends on their bikes. overthehillmedi is right on target.

This is not a thread about helmets or helmet laws. It's a thread about being cool.

A mod needs to move this self immolating turkey to A&S where it can get the attention it deserves.
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x40/TWLBA/fireturkey.jpg

A mod needs to move this self immolating turkey to A&S where it can get the attention it deserves.

Are you suggesting that 50+'rs are somehow inadequate and unable to give this interminably debated subject the attention it deserves?

Sounds AGEIST to me. :)

GET OFF OUR LAWN!!

Probably the ever increasing popularity of video games has more to do with the decrease in the number of kids riding bikes than any helmet law.

A mod needs to move this self immolating turkey to A&S where it can get the attention it deserves.
naw, we need to get all the "players"to find a rest room where the urinals go all the way to the floor,that way you can get an accurate measurement in the "pizzin"contest...
Bud

Ooh, ooh! I brought marshmallows!

We just need a picture .... Problem solved.

http://www.ziligy.com/photos/posts/cycle-london.jpg

OK here in the 50+ area... who grew up with a helmet?

Right, and yet we somehow managed to survive... You probably had wooden seats on the swings on the playground and the playground was covered with sharp gravel, yet somehow you made it to 50+.

Do we really need to "nanny" our youngsters today?

http://www.ziligy.com/photos/posts/cycle-london.jpg

How does that make helmets cool? :lol:

Must wear Bell Biker or get off my lawn! Young people in Oz would all wear helmets if only they could get their hands on Bell Biker!

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z284/JanMM/janmm.jpg

OK here in the 50+ area... who grew up with a helmet?

Right, and yet we somehow managed to survive... You probably had wooden seats on the swings on the playground and the playground was covered with sharp gravel, yet somehow you made it to 50+.

Do we really need to "nanny" our youngsters today?

Well, those that didn't survive would have a really hard time posting to tell us they didn't!!

How does that make helmets cool? :lol:

Is this better?

I made a subtle change to the original. Can you spot it?

Is this better?

I made a subtle change to the original. Can you spot it?

:thumb:

I cannot think of any new ground in this discussion. The mainstream attitude here, which I share, is that helmets are generally good, but helmet laws are bad. Because of risk compensation, however, some folks are probably better off without a helmet -- if you think a helmet makes you invincible, please do not wear one!

Found this while reading a Wikipedia entry on unintended consequences (link). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences)

In 1990, the Australian state of Victoria made safety helmets mandatory for all bicycle riders. While there was a reduction in the number of head injuries, there was also an unintended reduction in the number of juvenile cyclists—fewer cyclists obviously leads to fewer injuries, all else being equal. Research by Vulcan et al. found that the reduction in juvenile cyclists was because the youths considered wearing a bicycle helmet unfashionable.[22] A health benefit model developed at Macquarie University in Sydney suggests that, while helmet use reduces "the risk of head or brain injury by approximately two-thirds or more", the decrease in exercise caused by reduced cycling as a result of helmets laws is counterproductive in terms of net health.[23]

There are about 5 points to make here....

1) There has never been comparative testing of any kind for helmets, comparative testing would be to have sample crashes with and without a helmet and compare the injury results. This could be accomplished with crash test dummies, although criminals on death row.....

2) The summary conclusion's most important word is counterproductive. Yes there were fewer head and/or brain injuries, but the reduction in exercise would mean more sedentary people, so higher rates of diabetes, heart attacks, obesity, and other similar issues. The issue here is that in countries like Australia where there is a national health plan, which is a smaller burden on the tax payer, a couple of guys with permanent TBI's or 50,000 guys who are sedentary and have $50,000 worth of heart surgery to clear blockages that they wouldn't have if they were riding bicycles.

3) There is nothing in the write up to define head injury, not all head injuries would be traumatic brain injuries, a cut from shaving could be considered a head injury. Paraplegia caused from a broken neck caused by excessive neck movement from the extra weight of the helmet on your head, would not be considered a head injury.

4) The issue here isn't actually helmets, it's laws that require them. I wear a helmet, except when using the trainer, that is my choice, if you want to ride without one, I actually do not care, even if your riding with me.

5) Nothing about injury rates breaks it down by type of riding, guys who do urban trick riding and belong to the broken collarbone of the month club, are many times more likely to have a crash that has a serious head injury, then an older guy who does some road riding for exercise, to keep his BMI under 30.... From what I have seen, it's the later who is more likely to voluntarily wear a helmet anyway....

OK here in the 50+ area... who grew up with a helmet?

Right, and yet we somehow managed to survive... You probably had wooden seats on the swings on the playground and the playground was covered with sharp gravel, yet somehow you made it to 50+.

Do we really need to "nanny" our youngsters today?

Well, Bobby, the kid who lived across the street from me when I was little, fell off his bike and onto his head and suffered permanent brain damage...... :(

Are you suggesting that 50+'rs are somehow inadequate and unable to give this interminably debated subject the attention it deserves?


Absolutely not! Us old farts are capable of irreverence and irrelevance as necessary, but the inmates in A&S bring unmatched intolerance, irrationality and fanaticism to the game.

Absolutely not! Us old farts are capable of irreverence and irrelevance as necessary, but the inmates in A&S bring unmatched intolerance, irrationality and fanaticism to the game.

Then it would seem that some lessons and training are in order for the 50+ crowd - emphasizing intolerance, irrationality and fanaticism.

The 50+ forum will NOT be outdone by A&S. Let's stand up (if we can) for our proper place in Helmet threads!!

http://www.ziligy.com/photos/posts/cycle-london.jpg


The Swedes tried that method with a slightly different picture in a government pro-helmet campaign:
230415
But if you notice where the guy is looking it might not be the best example of safe cycling.

So the question becomes, how do we inspire kids to ride, and can the helmet dorkiness be overcome? I looked through 20 pages of photos on Google from the search terms "celebrity cyclist" and "rapper cyclist". The closest I came was Miley Cyrus riding a motorcycle with a helmet. Conan was pedaling with a helmet on, but what teen cares about Conan?

Maybe Bell, Giro and other helmet manufacturers should come together for a celebrity bicycle ride, with all the celebrities under 21, on a bike and wearing a helmet. Or arrange for selected celebrities to be photographed repeatedly with bike and helmet. If they could work out arriving at the Academy Awards or the Grammy's with bike and helmet, that would definitely get noticed.

The Swedes tried that method with a slightly different picture in a government pro-helmet campaign:
But if you notice where the guy is looking it might not be the best example of safe cycling.

A true cyclist would be checking out what kind of bike she rode. That guy is an obvious poseur ;)

So the question becomes, how do we inspire kids to ride, and can the helmet dorkiness be overcome?
The main problem I see with helmet promotion and legal requirements is not the 'dorkiness', but the image of danger that helmets represent. That's not likely a deterrent to the kids directly (it's probably an incentive for some), but it can be one to their parents, especially for parents who never cycle themselves. Many parents already seem overly concerned with risks with all the emphasis on the danger of strangers, abductions, etc. Then consider the implicit message when they are told that they should never, ever, let their child get on a bicycle without a helmet; i.e. that to do so is highly risky and likely to lead to serious injury or death. It doesn't take much of a leap for the parent to decide that they'd rather not have their child riding a bike to school or to a friend's house and instead offer to drive them instead (especially if the parent looks at current bike helmets and realizes how little protection they actually provide).

In reality, the risk of significant injury from bicycling isn't any higher than from many other activities that children engage in regularly without wearing helmets. But that's not the message being sent by the emphasis placed on helmet usage.

The main problem I see with helmet promotion and legal requirements is not the 'dorkiness', but the image of danger that helmets represent. That's not likely a deterrent to the kids directly (it's probably an incentive for some), but it can be one to their parents, especially for parents who never cycle themselves. Many parents already seem overly concerned with risks with all the emphasis on the danger of strangers, abductions, etc. Then consider the implicit message when they are told that they should never, ever, let their child get on a bicycle without a helmet; i.e. that to do so is highly risky and likely to lead to serious injury or death. It doesn't take much of a leap for the parent to decide that they'd rather not have their child riding a bike to school or to a friend's house and instead offer to drive them instead (especially if the parent looks at current bike helmets and realizes how little protection they actually provide).

In reality, the risk of significant injury from bicycling isn't any higher than from many other activities that children engage in regularly without wearing helmets. But that's not the message being sent by the emphasis placed on helmet usage.

They are the same parents who have to drive their kid the half block to school, then wonder why little Johnny is 200lbs and diabetic by the time he is 12.... When I was a kid I couldn't understand the Camel cigarette adverts about walking a mile, because I walked that to school and another one home again...

Well, Bobby, the kid who lived across the street from me when I was little, fell off his bike and onto his head and suffered permanent brain damage...... :(

And how did the rest of the neighbors do... how for instance is Fred doing with his high blood pressure, and James with his heart condition, and Steve with his heart condition, and... anyway I think you get the idea. All things being equal, those of us that lived our youths without wearing helmets did not find the "danger" that is so often touted by riding a bike without a helmet... and more likely those that did not ride a bike may be having sedentary related health problems... but as "12-13-11 07:36 PM Post #40" Wogster points out, there are no real studies to show this... Gee imagine that.

Can you imagine for instance what such a study would really show... forget the helmet argument for a moment... look at all the folks that drive on a daily basis, and compare their health to those that regularly cycle... oh wait, the Surgeon General of the US has already done that... and recommends at least 30 minutes a day minimum just for "maintenance..." and yet so many Americans ignore that totally. So studies, recommendations, even mandatory helmets (or lack thereof) don't really mean squat in the larger picture. Americans are going to choose to do what they want to do in spite of how good or bad it may be for their health... which is why automobiles and big screen TVs are some of the biggest selling items in our country... along with heart attacks and stents.

Just a response to "somehow you made it to 50+." Not all of us made it intact was all I was saying.