|
Originally Posted by hotbike
(Post 14372750)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/...er-report.html
Sorry, I'm not allowed to copy the entire article, you have to click on the link and go to CBC News, and read it there. Okay, one flaw I see is that the Ontario Coroner says ALL the deaths would have been preventable, if they had been wearing helmets, but the article also states that ".... 27 per cent — or 35 out of 129 — of the cyclists killed were wearing helmets..." So some of them were wearing helmets, but that didn't save them? http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/...er-report.html |
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
(Post 14372833)
So what are you saying? That since 35 died wearing helmets out of 94 who died that would not have died if they had been wearing helmets, proves that helmets don't work?
Obviously, all cycling deaths in crashes are preventable. All pedestrian deaths are, too. Maybe helmets should be mandatory for everyone who is out of doors? And for everyone who is walking downstairs, or getting into or out of a bathtub? If we adopt this policy we can be sure that nobody will die in an accident in future, right? |
Originally Posted by LesterOfPuppets
(Post 14342033)
Skating to work is WAY more high effort than cycling to work, for me. YMMV.
|
Originally Posted by chasm54
(Post 14372858)
Obviously not. But equally obviously, the implied claim that all these deaths could have been prevented by helmets, is false. Not all cycling deaths are caused by head injuries, and helmeted cyclists die too.
|
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 14373016)
:rolleyes: Crawling on your belly like a reptile would be even more effort. No one really does that either.
Haven't tried snake crawling there yet. I don't know why you find non-driving/non-biking commutes to be so odd. Back in fruit-booting's heyday you'd even see people rollerblading to work all the time. |
How many non-helmet people put thier kids on a bike without one?
|
Originally Posted by curbtender
(Post 14373936)
How many non-helmet people put thier kids on a bike without one?
It's a law in many more locales than all ages helmet laws are. Regardless of the legal implications I'd probably put a lid on the kid (although I'm only approx 80% non-helmet for my current riding pursuits, so I may not count as non-helmet people to you). I remember how much I wrecked as a kid. When first starting out it's probably about a crash per mile. Crashing that often and not knowing how to crash can be rough on the scalp. |
Originally Posted by LesterOfPuppets
(Post 14373917)
I skate to work quite often. I even jog to work a fair amount. Once in a while I'll even walk there.
Haven't tried snake crawling there yet. I don't know why you find non-driving/non-biking commutes to be so odd. Back in fruit-booting's heyday you'd even see people rollerblading to work all the time. The fact that you (one person) does it, doesn't make it common. |
Does it have to be deemed common by you to have any bearing on helmet choices for various forms of transportation or recreational pursuits?
|
Originally Posted by curbtender
(Post 14373936)
How many non-helmet people put thier kids on a bike without one?
|
I'm thinking this is the next gen of bike safety. Keeps you safe from any hazard, as well as the occasional grizzly attack.
http://improbable.com/news/2001/nov/troy-bear.gif |
Originally Posted by njkayaker
(Post 14374054)
It's unusual. Very unusual. (I knew somebody who road a skateboard to work years ago.)
The fact that you (one person) does it, doesn't make it common. While skating to work might not be the most common, skating to and around college campus is completely normal, which is a commute and then some. Skateboarders abound on and around campus. |
Originally Posted by rekmeyata
(Post 14373847)
How do you know the prevention facts are false? Were you there to do the autopsies on all of those people? Did you at least read all the medical reports? I didn't think so, your just making a blind statement.
|
Originally Posted by skye
(Post 14374086)
I did. I can't vouch for anyone else.
|
Originally Posted by hotbike
(Post 14372750)
Okay, one flaw I see is that the Ontario Coroner says ALL the deaths would have been preventable, if they had been wearing helmets, http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/...er-report.html The report simply said that all deaths were preventable, not that the cyclists would have survived had they been wearing a helmet. Also interesting is that most deaths were mean and the peak age was 45-55 |
You can check the coroner's report here: LINK
As far as I can understand, the recommendations regarding helmets are unsubstantiated. Here are the relevant bits I could find.
Originally Posted by coroner
In this Review, only 34 of 129 cyclists (26%) sustaining a fatal injury were wearing a helmet. Of particular concern was that observation that, despite existing legislation, only 7 of 16 cyclists (44%) under the age of 18 who died were wearing a helmet.
In 71 of the 129 cases (55%), the cyclist sustained a head injury which caused or contributed to their death. In 43 of those 71 (60%), a head injury alone (with no other significant injuries) caused the death. Those whose cause of death included a head injury were three times less likely to be wearing a helmet as those who died of other types of injuries. snip... Because our Review did not look at all cycling injuries (both fatal and non-fatal), we cannot state with certainty the degree to which wearing a helmet decreases the likelihood of a head injury. However, based on our review of cycling fatalities, we do know that those cyclists whose cause of death included a head injury were more than three times as likely to not be wearing a helmet as those who died of other types of injuries. Most people, including most members of our Expert Panel, agree that these data support the use of helmets by cyclists of all ages. There was broad agreement that measures are required which promote and support helmet use. These strategies could include financial incentives (such as a tax exemption for helmets and helmet rebate programs) and public awareness campaigns, especially aimed at parents around existing helmet legislation for children. |
Originally Posted by curbtender
(Post 14375649)
Reason I asked was that a group on a charity ride had a father with his young daughter on a rear seat. He was struggling on a hill and went to dismount. When he put his foot down, the front wheel came off the ground and the kid in the seat spanked the pavement. Tough little girl, but there would have been crying if she didn't have that helmet on.
|
A Helmet Could Have Helped This Guy...
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/teen%E2%80%...ing-spear.html
(Soooo tempted to post this outside of the helmet thread.. ) |
Originally Posted by hagen2456
(Post 14375356)
You really have to try to get a grasp of what "statistics" are.
|
Originally Posted by tuz
(Post 14376610)
The logic seems to be: more deaths without helmet --> helmets save lives
|
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 14380933)
More like: those who ride without helmets ride less safely than those who wear helmets...
Originally Posted by coroner
[TABLE]
[TR] [TD]Contributing factor identified for:[/TD] [TD] # of cases [/TD][TD="width: 122"] % of total cases [/TD][TD="width: 122"] % of cases involving a motor vehicle (N=100) [/TD][/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 234"]Cyclist Only[/TD] [TD="width: 84"] 44 [/TD][TD="width: 122"] 34 % [/TD][TD="width: 122"] - [/TD][/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 234"]Driver Only[/TD] [TD="width: 84"] 33 [/TD][TD="width: 122"] 26 % [/TD][TD="width: 122"] 33% [/TD][/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 234"]Both Cyclist and Driver[/TD] [TD="width: 84"] 48 [/TD][TD="width: 122"] 37 % [/TD][TD="width: 122"] 48% [/TD][/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 234"]Circumstances Not Known[/TD] [TD="width: 84"] 3 [/TD][TD="width: 122"] 2 % [/TD][TD="width: 122"] - [/TD][/TR] [TR] [TD="width: 234"]Total[/TD] [TD="width: 84"] 129 [/TD][TD="width: 122"] 100% [/TD][TD="width: 122"] - [/TD][/TR] [/TABLE] |
Yup after a long time pondering the situation, I have decided that the anti helmet cult was scared at a very young age and traumatized by a turtle. Anyone else have any theories**********
|
I re-read the coroner's report and it seems that the "panel of Experts" recommends helmet use but is against mandatory helmet laws for a few reasons (decreased number of cyclists, etc.). Yet at the end the Coroner says that the data suggest that helmets reduce the risk of fatal had injuries that there should be a MHL. Interesting.
|
Originally Posted by tuz
(Post 14381015)
Not really. In the report they mention the fraction of cases in which the driver was to blame.
33%. Of that, how many riders riding with/without helmets...? |
Originally Posted by mconlonx
(Post 14381689)
33%. Of that, how many riders riding with/without helmets...?
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:34 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.