Vancouver man challenges bike helmet law
#76
Bicikli Huszár
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#77
Senior Member
in addition to the link provided in the OP, here is some more coverage of the story
https://www.cbc.ca/earlyedition/columnists/highvelocity/
https://www.cbc.ca/bcalmanac/
https://www.theprovince.com/health/Bi...829/story.html
https://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...shColumbiaHome
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/vancouver-m...021921000.html
https://www.vancouversun.com/health/K...750/story.html
https://www.straight.com/article-4023...s-docs-backing
https://www.straight.com/article-4289...s-and-freedoms
https://www.straight.com/article-4256...ontinues-court
I would guess more press will follow once the case returns to court. If the case moves along to the Supreme court, I'm sure there'll be more still
https://www.cbc.ca/earlyedition/columnists/highvelocity/
British Columbia has had a mandatory helmet law since 1996. Ron Van Der Eerden strongly believes that such a law does more harm than good, for a variety of reasons. That's why he's challenging it in court this week.
His view is strongly supported by many in the cycling world, where helmet laws are the source of heated debate
His view is strongly supported by many in the cycling world, where helmet laws are the source of heated debate
lawyer David Gray on bike helmet law challenge
“I’m trying to make things better for everyone,” he said. “I want to resist this being a story about me.
"for every brain we potentially may save with a helmet, we may be losing another one in an accident that wouldn't have happened if we didn't enact the law."
"Can you imagine if the government came out tomorrow and said, 'You know what? We are going to legislate helmets for everybody that is in a motor vehicle. It would be a much much higher cost savings to the public health care system,'" he said.
"But instead they pick on the 0.5 per cent head injuries that come from cyclists."
"But instead they pick on the 0.5 per cent head injuries that come from cyclists."
there is conflicting research as to the effectiveness of bike helmets in preventing cyclist fatalities. One report says there is no discernible difference in the number of deaths with or without a helmet. Other reports do not differentiate between deaths caused by head or neck injuries, and considering a helmet does almost nothing to protect a cyclists' neck, jaw and face, it is really difficult to determine the overall benefit of wearing a helmet all the time.
A cycling physician says he “absolutely” supports a Vancouver resident’s charter challenge of the provincial law requiring cyclists to wear helmets.
At the end of the day, Van der Eerden is attempting to achieve a political remedy through the courts. It is not the role of the judges in British Columbia to substitute judicial opinions for legislative ones. The helmet law challenge, while thought provoking, is poorly conceived, and the attention it has generated is disproportionate to its legal merit.
Justice has been delayed for a local cyclist representing himself in a charter challenge of the provincial law requiring cyclists to wear helmets.
“They went all day [August 12] and then they realized, ‘Well, this is running out of time; they are going to need more time,’ and it also came up that it could be that we’re completely in the wrong court. Which is interesting because, well, this is where they put me, you know?”
“I think it actually went quite well,” van der Eerden added of his day in court. “It’s disappointing that this is another kind of bureaucratic, legal thing that isn’t getting me where I ultimately want to be. But in terms of the way the court process worked that day, and the way the two expert witnesses were called—one from either side—and [the fact that] I had all day, or two-and-a-half hours or more, to tear apart their case. And I thought that was pretty good, if the court allows me to get there.”
“They went all day [August 12] and then they realized, ‘Well, this is running out of time; they are going to need more time,’ and it also came up that it could be that we’re completely in the wrong court. Which is interesting because, well, this is where they put me, you know?”
“I think it actually went quite well,” van der Eerden added of his day in court. “It’s disappointing that this is another kind of bureaucratic, legal thing that isn’t getting me where I ultimately want to be. But in terms of the way the court process worked that day, and the way the two expert witnesses were called—one from either side—and [the fact that] I had all day, or two-and-a-half hours or more, to tear apart their case. And I thought that was pretty good, if the court allows me to get there.”
Last edited by closetbiker; 09-13-11 at 07:35 PM.
#78
bedazzled fingernails
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 418
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RolandArthur
The cracked open 'skunions' are mostly on your side of the pond. Perhaps you should try a different approach.
Come on man, that is just derp...
#79
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 329
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Uh - I think that's his point. The approach of mandating helmets does not solve the head injury problem. But making the roads safer for cyclists does. This could be as simple as getting more people on bikes or as complex as rebuilding physical infrastructure. In other words, we should be looking across the pond to see what's ACTUALLY working ... and it ain't helmet laws.
#80
Psycholist
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 514
Bikes: Devinci Amsterdam, Litespeed Teramo
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think that helmet laws are different from province to province. I think Ontario (for example) states that anyone under age 18? must wear a helmet.
I too advocate helmet use but not helmet laws. I don't like what the nanny state slippery slope holds... ban certain foods, physical activities, etc.. because they are statistically dangerous. Imagine the elderly mandated to wear hip protectors during icy winters in case they fall.
Let people decide how they want to ensure their health and let them take responsibility for it. Perhaps the provincial health care system refused to pay for head injuries sustained while cycling without a helmet. That might sober some cyclist up.
Heck - lets add lung cancer treatments resulting from smoking too.
I too advocate helmet use but not helmet laws. I don't like what the nanny state slippery slope holds... ban certain foods, physical activities, etc.. because they are statistically dangerous. Imagine the elderly mandated to wear hip protectors during icy winters in case they fall.
Let people decide how they want to ensure their health and let them take responsibility for it. Perhaps the provincial health care system refused to pay for head injuries sustained while cycling without a helmet. That might sober some cyclist up.
Heck - lets add lung cancer treatments resulting from smoking too.
Last edited by radshark; 08-25-11 at 12:28 PM.
#81
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 329
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#82
Senior Member
Actually, this suggestion is already partially true. A cyclist who wasn't wearing a helmet and receives a head injury in a collision with a motor vehicle while not at fault in that collision, will not receive compensation for his/her head injury. Treatment yes, compensation, no.
Funny how very few comments make the point that people on bikes (even when they don't wear helmets) need less medical care than those who don't ride. Be as slovenly as you like, heart disease, stroke, diabetis, respritory disease; all is covered even if you actively contributed to your demise
Funny also how it's perfectly acceptable to drive 10 mph over the speed limit even when that extra speed can double the impact force if a crash were to happen. No calls for insurance to be invalidated in that scenario.
Many link helmets to seat belts too. Not only are the two completely different, the point is lost that cycling actively improves health while sitting in a car does not. Even if the two had an equal record of effectiveness, the contribution of the benefits of cycling would have to be factored into the risks of injury of riding without a helmet to come up with a realistic risk/benefit ratio.
I think the bottom line is, people think riding a bike doesn't save lives through improved health, people think riding a bike risks the life of anyone who rides it.
Under our law the police can seize the bicycle of anyone convicted of riding without a helmet. No helmet, no bike. It is better not to ride at all, than ride a bike without a helmet.
Last edited by closetbiker; 08-26-11 at 07:44 AM.
#83
Single-serving poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...elmet-law.html
"Ron van der Eerden argues that being forced to wear a helmet by the Motor Vehicle Act violates his rights concerning life, liberty and security.
He cites studies that show wearing a helmet can cause more harm than good.
"Can you imagine if the government came out tomorrow and said, 'You know what? We are going to legislate helmets for everybody that is in a motor vehicle. It would be a much much higher cost savings to the public health care system,'" he said."
"Ron van der Eerden argues that being forced to wear a helmet by the Motor Vehicle Act violates his rights concerning life, liberty and security.
He cites studies that show wearing a helmet can cause more harm than good.
"Can you imagine if the government came out tomorrow and said, 'You know what? We are going to legislate helmets for everybody that is in a motor vehicle. It would be a much much higher cost savings to the public health care system,'" he said."
#84
Bicikli Huszár
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think that helmet laws are different from province to province. I think Ontario (for example) states that anyone under age 18? must wear a helmet.
I too advocate helmet use but not helmet laws. I don't like what the nanny state slippery slope holds... ban certain foods, physical activities, etc.. because they are statistically dangerous. Imagine the elderly mandated to wear hip protectors during icy winters in case they fall.
Let people decide how they want to ensure their health and let them take responsibility for it. Perhaps the provincial health care system refused to pay for head injuries sustained while cycling without a helmet. That might sober some cyclist up.
Heck - lets add lung cancer treatments resulting from smoking too.
I too advocate helmet use but not helmet laws. I don't like what the nanny state slippery slope holds... ban certain foods, physical activities, etc.. because they are statistically dangerous. Imagine the elderly mandated to wear hip protectors during icy winters in case they fall.
Let people decide how they want to ensure their health and let them take responsibility for it. Perhaps the provincial health care system refused to pay for head injuries sustained while cycling without a helmet. That might sober some cyclist up.
Heck - lets add lung cancer treatments resulting from smoking too.
Seriously: If there is so much questioning around helmets (which there obviously is), is it really a good idea to make penalties for not wearing them? While I still disagree with it, cigarettes would be one thing: They are pretty unquestionably linked to lung cancer. Seat belts? Almost unquestionably save lives. Bike helmets? Pretty questionable; there's ample evidence they don't do as much as claimed, and there's also studies showing they do. I think you're drawing a false comparison.
#85
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Zaandam, Netherlands
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It must be the helmets, right? Not because there is more developed bicycle infrastructure or that drivers have increased awareness towards cyclists because a greater percentage of the population rides? Never mind the studies that show that helmeted riders have a higher crash survivability rate than non helmeted riders....
Come on man, that is just derp...
Come on man, that is just derp...
Less @ssholes mandating rules for cyclists to follow = more cyclists (~40% of <5km rides commuters in Dutch cities use a bike) = more funding = more safety for cyclists.
It's very easy
#86
Single-serving poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Earlier in this thread I tried to explain why Europe has less cycling deaths. Perhaps you should read my earlier posts? People are riding their bikes here because they don't have to bother with excessive and unnecessary safety precautions like helmets.
Less @ssholes mandating rules for cyclists to follow = more cyclists (~40% of <5km rides commuters in Dutch cities use a bike) = more funding = more safety for cyclists.
It's very easy
Less @ssholes mandating rules for cyclists to follow = more cyclists (~40% of <5km rides commuters in Dutch cities use a bike) = more funding = more safety for cyclists.
It's very easy
#87
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Zaandam, Netherlands
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
And instead of listening to someone from a country where the safety is better and still improving you choose to blame the "planning, geography and culture" you are responsible for (Canada is a democracy, right?). That really helped your cause.
#88
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Zaandam, Netherlands
Posts: 104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
#89
Senior Member
Those residents of Vancouver who care should be using this to fight the MHL politically, striking while the iron is hot, while this other fellow is in the news taking it through judicial channels.
https://www.cityofvancouver.us/Strate...8&itemID=52302
Strategic Plan with all kinds of mention of bicycles, livability, environment, congestion etc.
Take the issue of helmet use as it applies to ridership up with either the Planning Commission (they are responsible for implementation of the Strategic Plan) or the Public Health Advisory Council... who is apparently one person, Joan Caley.
Cultivate a working relationship with Joan Caley working from the Health Advisory Council, and attend Planning Commission meetings. When the opportunity for public comment at Planning meetings arises, bring the MHL up and how it works in many ways against the Strategic Plan.
https://www.cityofvancouver.us/Strate...8&itemID=52302
Strategic Plan with all kinds of mention of bicycles, livability, environment, congestion etc.
Take the issue of helmet use as it applies to ridership up with either the Planning Commission (they are responsible for implementation of the Strategic Plan) or the Public Health Advisory Council... who is apparently one person, Joan Caley.
Cultivate a working relationship with Joan Caley working from the Health Advisory Council, and attend Planning Commission meetings. When the opportunity for public comment at Planning meetings arises, bring the MHL up and how it works in many ways against the Strategic Plan.
#90
Psycholist
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 514
Bikes: Devinci Amsterdam, Litespeed Teramo
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Not really. If those paying for health care (general population) think helmets should be worn then its not. Scientific/statistically proof doesn't enter the equation. Law makers can and will pass laws, rules and form public policy based on public perception without conclusive scientific studies. Want proof? We already have bike helmet laws
Besides - if you push hard enough for scientific proof law makers might up the ante and insist on DOT approved helmets. Just imagine your hair-do after cycling an hour in a sweaty 10lb motorcycle helmet. It would probably look like Squiggy's:
While this could be an improvement for some, I think most would rather focus on infrastructure and enforcement issues than rock the boat about helmets.
#91
Bicikli Huszár
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
There isn't so much questioning. Yes there is a court case but this issue is not even close to being on the cycling community's radar in Canada. I'd say we are more worried about cycling infrastructure and a legal system that dismisses cagers killing multiple people on rural stretches of road. Maybe when we win some of those battles and get to a safer state of affairs we'll turn our attention to helmets and how they cramp our style and ruin our hair-dos.
Not really. If those paying for health care (general population) think helmets should be worn then its not. Scientific/statistically proof doesn't enter the equation. Law makers can and will pass laws, rules and form public policy based on public perception without conclusive scientific studies. Want proof? We already have bike helmet laws
Besides - if you push hard enough for scientific proof law makers might up the ante and insist on DOT approved helmets. Just imagine your hair-do after cycling an hour in a sweaty 10lb motorcycle helmet. It would probably look like Squiggy's:
That alone is a good reason to push against it, IMO.
While this could be an improvement for some, I think most would rather focus on infrastructure and enforcement issues than rock the boat about helmets.
#92
Senior Member
Think about what cycling advocacy is. It's about fair treatment of people riding bikes, and encouraging people to ride a bike. Helmet laws work against both points
A politician can pass any law that is popular, the charter holds those laws to task, so an unjust law can be struck down
Last edited by closetbiker; 09-01-11 at 06:03 AM.
#93
Bicikli Huszár
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 2,116
Bikes: '95 Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Originally Posted by closetbiker
and it's conclusive that people who ride bikes (even without helmets) live longer and require less health care than those who don't. people who suggest cyclists are a drain on the public purse are ignorant of the facts
Last edited by sudo bike; 08-27-11 at 07:30 AM.
#94
Senior Member
Those residents of Vancouver who care should be using this to fight the MHL politically, striking while the iron is hot, while this other fellow is in the news taking it through judicial channels.
https://www.cityofvancouver.us/Strate...8&itemID=52302
Strategic Plan with all kinds of mention of bicycles, livability, environment, congestion etc.
Take the issue of helmet use as it applies to ridership up with either the Planning Commission (they are responsible for implementation of the Strategic Plan) or the Public Health Advisory Council... who is apparently one person, Joan Caley.
Cultivate a working relationship with Joan Caley working from the Health Advisory Council, and attend Planning Commission meetings. When the opportunity for public comment at Planning meetings arises, bring the MHL up and how it works in many ways against the Strategic Plan.
https://www.cityofvancouver.us/Strate...8&itemID=52302
Strategic Plan with all kinds of mention of bicycles, livability, environment, congestion etc.
Take the issue of helmet use as it applies to ridership up with either the Planning Commission (they are responsible for implementation of the Strategic Plan) or the Public Health Advisory Council... who is apparently one person, Joan Caley.
Cultivate a working relationship with Joan Caley working from the Health Advisory Council, and attend Planning Commission meetings. When the opportunity for public comment at Planning meetings arises, bring the MHL up and how it works in many ways against the Strategic Plan.
After decades of selling the public on the idea that cycling is dangerous, and helmets are the cure, developing support to throw out the law is a politically dicey one and an issue most elected officials will not commit to. This is why the publicity that surrounds this challenge is important. The public needs to learn certain facts that run in the face of the impressions they've been sold.
#95
Senior Member
while it's always good to educate people on the problems with helmet laws, it's important to remember this is a provincial law and only the provincial legislators can change it.
After decades of selling the public on the idea that cycling is dangerous, and helmets are the cure, developing support to throw out the law is a politically dicey one and an issue most elected officials will not commit to. This is why the publicity that surrounds this challenge is important. The public needs to learn certain facts that run in the face of the impressions they've been sold.
After decades of selling the public on the idea that cycling is dangerous, and helmets are the cure, developing support to throw out the law is a politically dicey one and an issue most elected officials will not commit to. This is why the publicity that surrounds this challenge is important. The public needs to learn certain facts that run in the face of the impressions they've been sold.
Who's your representative in provincial parliment?
Have you established any line of communication with them? Worth forwarding info about the lawsuit and, as I mentioned before, either see if they'd be on board with rescinding the law, or maybe even better, support extending the law to all road users. Especially motor vehicle operators and passengers, seeing as how they form the basis of most head injuries paid by the public in Canada...
This is a political battle, you need to take the issue up in the political arena.
#96
Senior Member
The City of Vancouver has an interest in a successful run of their new PBS system which is due to be up and running next spring, but municiple law is trumped by provincial law; the CoV can't enact a municiple by-law to rid vancouver of the helmet law.
I've talked not only to city officials, but also to my provincial representative, soliciter general, minister of Transport, and the Premier of my province about the law. So far, no traction, but I talked to the director of the PBS system and he's working on an exemption for PBS users based on a business precident and the record of pedi-cab operators who have an exemption. (in the 15 years since our MHL came into effect, there hasn't been a single head injury to any passenger or operator of a pedi-cab)
The superior safety record of PBS systems around the world will help too. Because each time a PSB is used and recorded, and every accident/incident is noted, it is easliy shown that injuries on PSBs are extremely rare. The record of PSBs show them to be very safe and the injuries that helmets are meant to prevent, almost never happen. NO need, no helmet.
I've talked not only to city officials, but also to my provincial representative, soliciter general, minister of Transport, and the Premier of my province about the law. So far, no traction, but I talked to the director of the PBS system and he's working on an exemption for PBS users based on a business precident and the record of pedi-cab operators who have an exemption. (in the 15 years since our MHL came into effect, there hasn't been a single head injury to any passenger or operator of a pedi-cab)
The superior safety record of PBS systems around the world will help too. Because each time a PSB is used and recorded, and every accident/incident is noted, it is easliy shown that injuries on PSBs are extremely rare. The record of PSBs show them to be very safe and the injuries that helmets are meant to prevent, almost never happen. NO need, no helmet.
Last edited by closetbiker; 08-27-11 at 12:17 PM.
#97
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton AB
Posts: 520
Bikes: 2011 Colnago World Cup, 2012 Eddy Merckx AMX-2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I think that helmet laws are different from province to province. I think Ontario (for example) states that anyone under age 18? must wear a helmet.
...
Let people decide how they want to ensure their health and let them take responsibility for it. Perhaps the provincial health care system refused to pay for head injuries sustained while cycling without a helmet. That might sober some cyclist up.
.
...
Let people decide how they want to ensure their health and let them take responsibility for it. Perhaps the provincial health care system refused to pay for head injuries sustained while cycling without a helmet. That might sober some cyclist up.
.
Maybe the provincial health care system should not pay for any treatment where the mechanism of injury was preventable. Tad-ah, I just reduced the healthcare budget by 95%.
At the very least, my plan gets more people riding as the majority of the health care profession would no longer be able to afford cars due to recent layoffs.
My heart weeps for all those potentially homeless Cervelos.
Really, If you think changing a helmet law in provincial legislation is hard try changing the definition of the Canada Health Act.
The vast majority of Canadian provincial traffic acts do not extend the helmet law to adults, quite frankly this is IMO reasonable.
Most acts include mandatory helmet laws for minors which although I disagree with it, is reasonable and no one will vigorously argue against it though personally I would like to see it reduced to an age where parents no longer have constant supervision over their children and they are bright enough to make decisions on their own, for example 13 years of age.
Impounding bikes for non compliance is unreasonable. Motor vehicles get impounded for far more serious offenses such as DUI's and street racing. Impounding a vehicle for non seat-belt use or tire wear wouldn't fly.
Really, arguments aside, I what I really want to do is punch in the face everyone who says: "well, health care shouldn't pay for head injuries if the cyclist isn't wearing a helmet."
What we need in North America is more people riding bikes. Every law that serves as a barrier should be struck and laws such as LA's anti harassment law and the Netherlands' practice of holding motorists at fault in all vehicle-bicycle collision should be encouraged. Federal and Provincial budgets should only approve funding for road construction and resurfacing if it includes provisions for bike lanes where population densities merit it, similar to the green space that developers must plan for.
Make safety equipment, kids bikes, and all bike maintenance tax free.
Ride
Last edited by trustnoone; 08-27-11 at 01:10 PM.
#98
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Edmonton AB
Posts: 520
Bikes: 2011 Colnago World Cup, 2012 Eddy Merckx AMX-2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I'm sure many would have died irrespective of wearing a helmet or not. In fact, I'd hazard about 9% of them would have (The number of deaths of riders even when wearing a helmet).
Or, since people were wearing a helmet, oft times a hospital visit was not even required. I'd hazard there is not a large difference in the numbers of people who wear helmets vs. those who don
Or, since people were wearing a helmet, oft times a hospital visit was not even required. I'd hazard there is not a large difference in the numbers of people who wear helmets vs. those who don
I am beginning to think that you are being deliberately obtuse or you have no understanding of statistics.
If you take a group of 100 cyclists. 91 without helmets and 9 with. And they all die, you really don't know what benefit the helmet served. For all you know the nine may have been wearing their helmet because they ran out of carry-on space and died when the plane crashed.
In normal road traffic if all 100 were wearing helmets would 91 have lived? Not likely. Too bad trauma isn't as neat as neat and tidy as the numbers.
If you removed the mechanism of injury which is undoubtedly a motor vehicle you'd likely surpass the 91% survival ratio.
How are you tracking hospital visits that weren't made?
#99
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 117
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
There's an interesting research done on this. I can't remember the name of the effect; perhaps someone mentioned it before me or could remind me? The basic theory is that the more protection one has, the more danger they feel confident with and procede with, therefore negating the effects of the aforementioned protection.
The simple act of not wearing a helmet cautions the drivers that this cyclist is quite possibly an idiot and dangerous. (I am one of such peoples) This advises drivers to stay farther away from said cyclists and allow more space when passing. This research observed that cyclists who wore helmets had cars that passed by closer.
I wear my helmet when I'm going for a real fast ride. I can go 50km + on flat roads, and 60km + when going downhill. If I intend to go at these speeds, I put on a helmet. Yet if I go at a speed of 10km ~ for a trip to the store, why would I need a damned helmet?
I also put on my helmet when I know I'm going to be working around kids. (I volunteered at a Day Camp for three weeks and wore a helmet everyday there. Nothing like teaching kids to be safe)
The simple act of not wearing a helmet cautions the drivers that this cyclist is quite possibly an idiot and dangerous. (I am one of such peoples) This advises drivers to stay farther away from said cyclists and allow more space when passing. This research observed that cyclists who wore helmets had cars that passed by closer.
I wear my helmet when I'm going for a real fast ride. I can go 50km + on flat roads, and 60km + when going downhill. If I intend to go at these speeds, I put on a helmet. Yet if I go at a speed of 10km ~ for a trip to the store, why would I need a damned helmet?
I also put on my helmet when I know I'm going to be working around kids. (I volunteered at a Day Camp for three weeks and wore a helmet everyday there. Nothing like teaching kids to be safe)
#100
Senior Member
...I am beginning to think that you are being deliberately obtuse or you have no understanding of statistics.
If you take a group of 100 cyclists. 91 without helmets and 9 with. And they all die, you really don't know what benefit the helmet served. For all you know the nine may have been wearing their helmet because they ran out of carry-on space and died when the plane crashed.
In normal road traffic if all 100 were wearing helmets would 91 have lived? Not likely...
If you take a group of 100 cyclists. 91 without helmets and 9 with. And they all die, you really don't know what benefit the helmet served. For all you know the nine may have been wearing their helmet because they ran out of carry-on space and died when the plane crashed.
In normal road traffic if all 100 were wearing helmets would 91 have lived? Not likely...
The supporters of our law place more faith in a few specially selected small case controlled studies (the Cochraine Review) than the results of what has happened to the people of their own province.