Yet another horrible article, in my hometown newspaper.

[jakub.ner]

Helmet legistlation is bad, but I mostly take offence to this level of journalism. Very easy to pick apart, but will the message get across?

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2012/04/19/19656196.html


Please comment with your insights. My own insights (cannot post yet since I'm at work and facebook login is blocked):

What a terrible article. I'm an avid cyclist, and most of the time I choose to wear a helmet. London health officials, please stop being dumb.

"Cycling on the roads these days are a hazard and you have to take . . . protections,"

That's because of distracted drivers and other such hazards. Helmets are useless when you're accelerated by 2 tons of steel.

"local MPP Dianne Cunningham .. pushed similar legislation ... after her son suffered a brain injury in a car crash."

Then people should wear helmets in cars, I don't see how this relates.

"Only 34% of Ontarians wear bike helmets while usage in provinces that have a law has climbed to between 51% to 66%."

That's because people who don't want to wear helmets stopped cycling. 14% of people know that.

"Each dollar spent on a helmet reduces injury costs about $30."

Not when they stop cycling and stop receiving the benfit of a healthier lifestyle.

"A properly-fitted helmet reduces risk of serious head injury by as much as 85%."

Says who? This probably comes from the 1989 Thomson study that is flawed and has been debunked in 1993. Via the scientific method the study has been duplicated with less favourable results: "helmets give 25% reduction in risk of head injury for adults, but no reduction for serious injuries." (http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/helmet_research.html).

[chipcom]

If cycling on the roads "these days" is such a hazard, why aren't they going after the root problems that make it so hazardous? I mean really, if it was an infestation of rattle snakes causing the problem, would they just require people to wear full body armor and carry vaccine kits rather than trying to get rid of the snakes?

[genec]

If cycling on the roads "these days" is such a hazard, why aren't they going after the root problems that make it so hazardous? I mean really, if it was an infestation of rattle snakes causing the problem, would they just require people to wear full body armor and carry vaccine kits rather than trying to get rid of the snakes?

Of course... and then don't forget to blame the victim if they happen to get bit.

[chipcom]

Of course... and then don't forget to blame the victim if they happen to get bit.

damned victims...the world would be so much better without them.

[dougmc]

"Each dollar spent on a helmet reduces injury costs about $30."

Never heard this one before. Googling for it I found another use of it but no rationale behind it (as expected.)

Of course, the mere idea that a more expensive helmet reduces injury more than a cheaper one offends me (to be fair, they didn't exactly say that, but it's certainly implied), but I'd love to see what sort of rationale somebody used to come up with this factoid. (Looks like it came from STIPDA? Maybe I can track it down further ...)

[dougmc]

If cycling on the roads "these days" is such a hazard, why aren't they going after the root problems that make it so hazardous? I mean really, if it was an infestation of rattle snakes causing the problem, would they just require people to wear full body armor and carry vaccine kits rather than trying to get rid of the snakes?

Because the roads were made for the snakes, and they outnumber the people 100:1 anyways.

As many see it, the "root problem" isn't the cars, it's the bikes ...

[Keith99]

If cycling on the roads "these days" is such a hazard, why aren't they going after the root problems that make it so hazardous? I mean really, if it was an infestation of rattle snakes causing the problem, would they just require people to wear full body armor and carry vaccine kits rather than trying to get rid of the snakes?

Don't propose this. The days of rattlesnake infestations are coming. I know for a fact rattlesankes only have one natural enemy. Free roming 12 year old boys. This natural enemy has all but been eliminated. The rattlesnakles will soon overrun us.

And the same attitude that decimated free roming kids will result in them making us wear body armor.

[Looigi]

The rattlers have every much right to be here as any of the rest of us. If there're are a lot of rattlers about, it's because of of an over abundance of rodents. We cyclists could learn a lesson from this.

[CB HI]

The rattlers have every much right to be here as any of the rest of us. If there're are a lot of rattlers about, it's because of of an over abundance of rodents. We cyclists could learn a lesson from this.

Like carry your Diamond Back with you to throw in the driver's lap when he buzzes you. Then you will have one less rodent.

[Digital_Cowboy]

If cycling on the roads "these days" is such a hazard, why aren't they going after the root problems that make it so hazardous? I mean really, if it was an infestation of rattle snakes causing the problem, would they just require people to wear full body armor and carry vaccine kits rather than trying to get rid of the snakes?

That is a very good question. Why aren't they going after the real cause of the danger on the roads? Why aren't drivers required to have to complete so many hours of continuing education in order to keep their license?

[eugenek]

That's because of distracted drivers and other such hazards. Helmets are useless when you're accelerated by 2 tons of steel.

You can't eliminate distracted drivers. (At least not until we all have self-driving cars.) I doubt that you can even reduce them significantly.

Being accelerated by 2 tons steel sucks, and helmets won't help you with that. However, once you're done accelerating, you'll travel some distance through the air and then you'll stop when your body comes into contact with some hard surface. It is at that point that the choice of hitting the hard surface with your skull vs. hitting it with a helmet starts to matter.

That's because people who don't want to wear helmets stopped cycling.

I've never met anyone who stopped cycling because of a helmet law. Have you?

Via the scientific method the study has been duplicated with less favourable results: "helmets give 25% reduction in risk of head injury for adults, but no reduction for serious injuries."

Here's a conservative meta-review that tries to correct for several possible flaws, and it gives odds ratios of 0.43 to 0.58 for head injuries (that is, 42% to 57% reduction in head injuries when a helmet is worn): http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/files...eRuneElvik.pdf

Here's a very recent French study that finds 3x reduction in serious head injuries:

http://bmj-injuryprev.highwire.org/c....full.pdf+html

why aren't they going after the root problems that make it so hazardous?

The root problem that makes it hazardous is the fact that you're trying to travel through busy streets without any body protection at speeds exceeding 20 mph, and your body isn't capable of withstanding crashes at 20 mph without injuries.

When faced with these risks, any rational community wouldn't even need helmet laws, because no rational, level-headed person would choose to get on a bike without one. You don't go sailing without a lifejacket, you don't go mountain climbing in winter without an ice axe, and you don't go riding a bicycle without a helmet. But, for some reason, bicyclists and motorcyclists aren't always as rational as, say, mountain climbers.

That is a very good question. Why aren't they going after the real cause of the danger on the roads? Why aren't drivers required to have to complete so many hours of continuing education in order to keep their license?

What makes you think that mandatory continuing education for everyone would have any effect on the problem?

[atbman]

There's one small problem with the belief that helmets save lives: what other injuries will a cyclist suffer in the event of a collision which would have killed him (dubious assumption) had s/he not been wearing one?

Dr. Mayer Hilman (UK) carried out research on the basis of this question. He found that, in the case of collisions where the rider had suffered fatal head injuries, about 92% of them would have died in any case from other injuries. For example, a crash-caused deceleration from 30mph to zero mph can easily tear your aorta. Or, it may push your splintered ribs thro' your lungs (or your aorta). Or, it may separate a number of your cervical vetebrae, thereby breaking the spinal cord, thereby putting an end to the operation of your autonomous nervous system. You know, the one which keeps your heart beating. Or, massive internal abdominal haemorrhages, etc., etc., etc.

I have read, on a number of occasions, comments by surgeons saying that a helmet would have saved his/her life. On what basis? Does s/he have, at that point, a detailed analysis of the speed of the colllision? I doubt it. Has there been a proper assessment of the forces involved in it? For example, what about shearing forces, caused by extremely rapid rotation of the skull?

I always wear one, on the basis that it may reduce the impact if I come off the bike or am hit by another vehicle and lesses any potential injuries. I have had two head-injury causing crashes. One with and one without a helmet but in both cases I hit the deck without even time to take my hands off the bars. The latter lead to my spending a couple of hours in the local hospital A&E department. No headaches/concusion, but two butterfly stitches abouve the left eyebrow and a spectacular black eye.

The helmet wearing one left me semi-conscious with the helmet split at the rear LH corner. the question is, would my head have hit the ground, bearing in mind that the back corner of the helmet projects a couple of inches from the back of my head? Answer, I haven't a clue, but it is entirely possible that my head would not have hit the ground, in which case, the helmet actually caused my semi-conscious state. Alternatively, it did prevent my head from hitting the ground. The truth is that neither I, nor the head injury specialist, know what would have transpired.

The debate is not as open and shut a case as many seem to assume

[hagen2456]

There's one small problem with the belief that helmets save lives: what other injuries will a cyclist suffer in the event of a collision which would have killed him (dubious assumption) had s/he not been wearing one?

Dr. Mayer Hilman (UK) carried out research on the basis of this question. He found that, in the case of collisions where the rider had suffered fatal head injuries, about 92% of them would have died in any case from other injuries. For example, a crash-caused deceleration from 30mph to zero mph can easily tear your aorta. Or, it may push your splintered ribs thro' your lungs (or your aorta). Or, it may separate a number of your cervical vetebrae, thereby breaking the spinal cord, thereby putting an end to the operation of your autonomous nervous system. You know, the one which keeps your heart beating. Or, massive internal abdominal haemorrhages, etc., etc., etc.

I have read, on a number of occasions, comments by surgeons saying that a helmet would have saved his/her life. On what basis? Does s/he have, at that point, a detailed analysis of the speed of the colllision? I doubt it. Has there been a proper assessment of the forces involved in it? For example, what about shearing forces, caused by extremely rapid rotation of the skull?

I always wear one, on the basis that it may reduce the impact if I come off the bike or am hit by another vehicle and lesses any potential injuries. I have had two head-injury causing crashes. One with and one without a helmet but in both cases I hit the deck without even time to take my hands off the bars. The latter lead to my spending a couple of hours in the local hospital A&E department. No headaches/concusion, but two butterfly stitches abouve the left eyebrow and a spectacular black eye.

The helmet wearing one left me semi-conscious with the helmet split at the rear LH corner. the question is, would my head have hit the ground, bearing in mind that the back corner of the helmet projects a couple of inches from the back of my head? Answer, I haven't a clue, but it is entirely possible that my head would not have hit the ground, in which case, the helmet actually caused my semi-conscious state. Alternatively, it did prevent my head from hitting the ground. The truth is that neither I, nor the head injury specialist, know what would have transpired.

The debate is not as open and shut a case as many seem to assume

And then, of course, there's this paper: http://www.cycle-helmets.com/elvik.pdf

To sum it up: No benefit among adults if neck injury is taken into account.

[Charles Ramsey]

Every year 750 cyclists are killed in automobile crashes. This number is going down in Portland Oregon in one period there was a constant number of deaths even though the measured number of miles traveled by cyclists increased 3 fold. This proves that cyclists are not at fault in most crashes it was because motorists were becoming aware of cyclists. Every year 150 police officers are killed in automobile crashes my preliminary estimate is cycling is 600 times as dangerous as police measured per hour or 3000 times as dangerous measured per mile. Do the math your kid has an equal chance of being killed in 4 minutes of cycling as a police officer does in 40 hours. I have been hit by 4 cars in 80000 miles. I lost 3 teeth to a storm drain and 2 police officers have tried to car door me once doing 40 mph on interstate 10 and once doing 30 mph at Lassen volcanic national monument. I have threatened over 100 police officers with arrest for refusing to enforce ORS 810.150 none of these violations have ever been fixed due to the police.

[chipcom]

Every year 750 cyclists are killed in automobile crashes. This number is going down in Portland Oregon in one period there was a constant number of deaths even though the measured number of miles traveled by cyclists increased 3 fold. This proves that cyclists are not at fault in most crashes it was because motorists were becoming aware of cyclists. Every year 150 police officers are killed in automobile crashes my preliminary estimate is cycling is 600 times as dangerous as police measured per hour or 3000 times as dangerous measured per mile. Do the math your kid has an equal chance of being killed in 4 minutes of cycling as a police officer does in 40 hours. I have been hit by 4 cars in 80000 miles. I lost 3 teeth to a storm drain and 2 police officers have tried to car door me once doing 40 mph on interstate 10 and once doing 30 mph at Lassen volcanic national monument. I have threatened over 100 police officers with arrest for refusing to enforce ORS 810.150 none of these violations have ever been fixed due to the police.

oh, just stop, please.

[CB HI]

You can't eliminate distracted drivers. (At least not until we all have self-driving cars.) I doubt that you can even reduce them significantly.

Being accelerated by 2 tons steel sucks, and helmets won't help you with that. However, once you're done accelerating, you'll travel some distance through the air and then you'll stop when your body comes into contact with some hard surface. It is at that point that the choice of hitting the hard surface with your skull vs. hitting it with a helmet starts to matter.



I've never met anyone who stopped cycling because of a helmet law. Have you?



Here's a conservative meta-review that tries to correct for several possible flaws, and it gives odds ratios of 0.43 to 0.58 for head injuries (that is, 42% to 57% reduction in head injuries when a helmet is worn): http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/files...eRuneElvik.pdf

Here's a very recent French study that finds 3x reduction in serious head injuries:

http://bmj-injuryprev.highwire.org/c....full.pdf+html



The root problem that makes it hazardous is the fact that you're trying to travel through busy streets without any body protection at speeds exceeding 20 mph, and your body isn't capable of withstanding crashes at 20 mph without injuries.

When faced with these risks, any rational community wouldn't even need helmet laws, because no rational, level-headed person would choose to get on a bike without one. You don't go sailing without a lifejacket, you don't go mountain climbing in winter without an ice axe, and you don't go riding a bicycle without a helmet. But, for some reason, bicyclists and motorcyclists aren't always as rational as, say, mountain climbers.



What makes you think that mandatory continuing education for everyone would have any effect on the problem?

You really are full of stupid straw men.
Did you even live in an area when a mandatory helmet law was passed? No, so shut up with such wrong claims.

[TheHen]

I've never met anyone who stopped cycling because of a helmet law. Have you?

Yes. My nephew got tired of being hauled into court with my sister for refusing to wear a helmet when he was sixteen (MHL in CA for minors). He proceeded to get his license and begin driving everywhere he went. Three years later and he shows no signs of ever getting back on the bike.

[CB HI]

Yes. My nephew got tired of being hauled into court with my sister for refusing to wear a helmet when he was sixteen (MHL in CA for minors). He proceeded to get his license and begin driving everywhere he went. Three years later and he shows no signs of ever getting back on the bike.

Sad, but happens more than most think.

[phoebeisis]

This sounds a lot like the motorcyclists "I don't want to wear a helmet because it interferes with my vision/hearing/coolness" argument.

Riding a bicycle on a city street is dangerous.They were-and are-and will be-designed for 3000 lb vehicles going 25-35mph.
Good bike lanes will help. The "I want to compete with cars crowd because I am an elite rider" crowd are a useless bunch of nuts from the point of view of people who matter.

[mconlonx]

"If we're going for low-hanging fruit, law needs to be amended to require helmet use for operators of and passengers in motor vehicles, the largest source of on-road accident head injuries. Why go after a vast minority when we could curb the majority of head injuries by requiring use of helmets in cars and trucks?

This is wasteful legislation, a solution in search of a problem. Efficacy of helmet use on bicylcles is open for debate; basing legislation on such is shaky at best, wasteful in the extreme."

^^^ my comment.

Why is this posted here, not part of Helmet Thread...?

[hagen2456]

"If we're going for low-hanging fruit, law needs to be amended to require helmet use for operators of and passengers in motor vehicles, the largest source of on-road accident head injuries. Why go after a vast minority when we could curb the majority of head injuries by requiring use of helmets in cars and trucks?

This is wasteful legislation, a solution in search of a problem. Efficacy of helmet use on bicylcles is open for debate; basing legislation on such is shaky at best, wasteful in the extreme."

^^^ my comment.

Why is this posted here, not part of Helmet Thread...?

Now, what WAS the first post about? Ah yes, helmet legislation. Thought so.

[mconlonx]

Now, what WAS the first post about? Ah yes, helmet legislation. Thought so.

Which belongs where? Helmet thread or general A&S?

[hagen2456]

Which belongs where? Helmet thread or general A&S?

I don't know. Do you? Oh I guess, your answer will be "yes", but I don't get why it shouldn't be a new thread. It's about the article about legislation (at least the first post is), and not about helmets per se.

[mconlonx]

I don't know. Do you? Oh I guess, your answer will be "yes", but I don't get why it shouldn't be a new thread. It's about the article about legislation (at least the first post is), and not about helmets per se.

Nope, not me: just suggesting is all. Helmet thread is what it is, wish there was more in there regarding legislative issues and fighting MHLs, but perhaps such issues may get more non-prejudiced eyeballs on it outside that particular den of haterz.

Because that's what the article linked to in the OP is all about, pending MHL in Ontario province. Which is closer to me than NYC.

[CbadRider]

I don't know. Do you? Oh I guess, your answer will be "yes", but I don't get why it shouldn't be a new thread. It's about the article about legislation (at least the first post is), and not about helmets per se.

Helmet discussion belongs in the existing helmet thread, be it about helmets themselves or legislation pertaining to them.

Closed.