• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 
Page: 12345
Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:So in the last week, I have seen two children in horrible bike accidents. Neither was wearing a helmet.

One is 15. He's going to need some occupational therapy and he's going to be confused for a while (it's been about a week now). But he'll probably be more or less back to his baseline. He was an honors student.

The other honors student is a 10yo boy who I was kind of hoping would die. His brain looks like someone scrambled it with a fork. The swelling is so bad that they've had to remove a piece of his skull. He has a shear injury to his brainstem and can't even control his body's temperature correctly. He's going to be severely mentally and neurologically disabled if they ever get him out of this. The rest of his body is totally fine save a dislocated ankle. And yeah... horrible. From his school picture he was a really adorable kid. And he was an honors student. frown

Folks, please wear your helmets for biking and skating and climbing. I know they're uncomfortable, but severe brain damage is far worse. And parents, the rule with your kids should be: "If I ever catch you riding or skating without a helmet, you will do neither for one year."


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete Topic

ElectricBlue
GOLD Member since Feb 2002

ElectricBlue

Now with extra strawberries
Location: Canberra, Australia

Total posts: 810
Posted: Written by

I think that compulsory helmets reflect the attitudes of the general community towards cyclists. The more anti-cyclist the community is (like Australia) the more likely they are to have compulsory helmets.





I can see your sentiment with this statement and i would probably agree if I had not seen some of the bike accidents I have. I good friend of mine had a major stack on his bike. He was not riding on the road and there were no cars involved and he wasn't even riding that fast he hit just hit a bit of black ice on the foot path and to a big fall. He hit his head on the ground so hard that his helmet cracked dead in half and this was one of the fancy pants hardcore racing ones. I shudder to think what would have happened had he not been wearing a helmet.



Regarding other statements about the quality of helmets i know in Australia there are guide lines about bike and motorcycle helmets and that they can't be sold if they don't meet these.



:: edited to fix pre caffeine spelling errors::

EDITED_BY: Blueberry (1213074650)


I {Heart} hand me downs and spinning in the snow.<br /><br />

Delete

Dentrassi
GOLD Member since Apr 2003

Dentrassi

ZORT!
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Total posts: 3044
Posted: Written by :FireTom



I was more thinking of something like this -





alas my work internet filter found that first one too kinky ubblol



 Written by :ft



Even a bicycle helmet like the one you displayed - as previously mentioned: many helmets do give a false feeling of protection. Any neck protection on this one? ...





of course im aware that my cycling helmet only protects from impact. theres three other types of forces i could consider with my head on the road - shearing, grinding, splitting. A cycling helmet protects mainly from the brute force impact of the road - i fully accept that. A motorcycle helmet offers somewhat more neck protection - which is more relevant for the higher speeds - but motorcycle accident victims still get neck injuries even with a helmet.



But just becuase a safety measure wont protect you from absolutely every situation doesnt mean theres no sense in wearing it. If my head bounces of a car bonnet or a gutter ill be slightly dazed but alive.



incidently - are you saying you find it uncomfortable to wear a motorbike helmet becuase its too small for your head? can you not get helmets in different head sizes where you live? my motorbike helmet fits me perfectly - i can ride for several hours without next pain.



 Written by :ft



As to your use of i-words: ..... *coughs* juggle meditate no I'm not going to respond to that weavesmiley and join the rising economy of the i...ndians... wink







look mate its all about context. if im on an australian road and see a cyclist without a helmet ill think hes/shes an idiot. im not exactly going to go on a missionary pilgramage to india to preach the good word of safety to the masses.

perhaps thats a result of working in my industry tho which is extremely safety-concsious. After wearing a hardhat, steel cap boots, full overalls etc etc for a day, and dealing with lots of nasty chemicals and mechanical machinery - putting on a bike helmet is a non-issue.



and regardless everyone should be an organ donor anyway... but thats for another thread which im sure has been discussed elsewhere.



peace out meditate ubbrollsmile

EDITED_BY: Dentrassi (1213057741)


"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.

Delete

Rouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003

Rouge Dragon

Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction, Aus...

Total posts: 13215
Posted:I find it interesting how many people don't support compulsory helmets because for adults because basically it's the adult's prerogative as to their life or not. And that's the way I used to think, until I was reminded that even though it's only an individual who gets hurt, other people can suffer.

That adult doesn't only hurt themselves, they can hurt the person who needs the hospital bed or medical treatment that the non-helmet-wearing adult is taking up. It's rarely just one person who is affected and I don't think that someone should be so selfish as to risk taking hospital beds away from others simply because a helmet messes up their hair (yes, I have heard that excuse more than once)


i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:Well from the motorcyclists point of view, most of the oldschool guys that don't wear helmets don't because they're rather be dead than brain damaged..

Besides, if you think about it they're helping just as much as they're hurting, think of all those perfectly good organs they're donating when they die wink


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by :Rouge Dragon


I find it interesting how many people don't support compulsory helmets because for adults because basically it's the adult's prerogative as to their life or not. And that's the way I used to think, until I was reminded that even though it's only an individual who gets hurt, other people can suffer.




Rougie, I used to think as you do. But I've realized that every personal action I take has a cost for society. By being gay, I am at risk for HIV and a host of other negative consequences. Should I suffer a consequence for choosing to be sexually active? Should smoking and drug use be outlawed? We've seen how well that works... How about eating at McDonald's?

I'm sorry, but I'd rather pay a bit than give into a nanny state. I value the personal freedom of adults above their right to be free from harm. And I definitely value personal freedom more than I value "cost to society." In my view, if you aren't directly harming someone else in a tangible manner, you should have the right to do whatever you like. I'd rather have to pay some money, or risk someone being "offended."

And that's why I don't support cumpulsory measures. I'm even a bit uneasy with mandatory vaccination laws for adults (for children I stand behind them). And I'm a vaccination maven.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Rouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003

Rouge Dragon

Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction, Aus...

Total posts: 13215
Posted:But so why compulsory for children? Because why can't their parents (as adults, we'll assume) decide for them as they would decide for themselves?

i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by :Rouge Dragon


But so why compulsory for children? Because why can't their parents (as adults, we'll assume) decide for them as they would decide for themselves?



Because children are by law not capable of giving informed consent. Now a line has to be drawn somewhere between child and adult. 18 is a good age. So if an adult endangers a child, the child may not protest, even though the child wants protection. Thus, you MUST put your child in an approved car seat, because your child does not have the ability to give informed consent to decline this. That ability is assumed to have fully developed at the age of majority, 18, whether this is true in reality is a different discussion.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Gidg
BRONZE Member since Apr 2003

Gidg

Super Gidg!!!!
Location: Portland Oregon USA

Total posts: 8506
Posted:I would wear a helmet, laws or not.

My nephew does both street and BMX Racing. Two street accidents he was not wearing a helmet and both times he came close to losing his life. Because of the rules, he wears a helmet for BMX, I have personally witnessed four times that his life was saved because of that helmet and I've lost count of all of the other accidents of other riders.

I know that I will always wear my helmet.


Growing old is mandatory; growing up is NOT.
Proud member of the HoP DPS.
Sanity is a highly overrated state of mind.
I'm normal ... it's everyone else that's crazy.

Gidg

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Dentrassi wink peace smile

You think "they" are idiots, you voice it, I am one of "them", feel somehow attacked, have the urge to respond - doesn't get us anywhere further...

Now, I make the choice not to wear a helmet if I can avoid it. It's my freedom. Same I choose *not* to demand a test on Hepatitis before I share a drink or give a kiss. My choice. STD's by far are not the only diseases that can kill and cost (taxpayers) money to treat, rehab or cure.

It's just that I'm over 21 and (even way before that) have to make my own choices. At the moment I don't even got healthcare or any other personal insurance except for compulsory ones on my motorcycles in India and Germany. It's my choice - I don't feel *cool* due to that and I don't call the others "sissies". Everyone to their liking unless they endanger other peoples safety.

By not wearing a helmet I do not endanger anyone else.

@ Mike: that scrambled brain of the kid is raising completely other kind of question for me: when is it humanitarian to disengage life support?

@ Mand: You're a lucky one... hug yet when riding downhill on a bicycle at 40mph speed *without* a helmet -- I would happily accept Detrassi's title wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Personally, I think its a joke that there are cyclists out there who make a such big issue about cyclist safety but are not prepared to wear a helmet.

 Written by Lightning

Folks, please wear your helmets for biking and skating and climbing. I know they're uncomfortable, but severe brain damage is far worse. And parents, the rule with your kids should be: "If I ever catch you riding or skating without a helmet, you will do neither for one year.



 Written by Lightning

I oppose legislation forcing adults to wear safety belts or bike helmets. I support it for those under the age of majority.



Well Lightning, seeing as you started this thread, dont you find that a tad hypocritical that you are not prepared to support compulsory helmets. Im not seeing any leadership here. If adults dont wear helmets, how can you expect kids to wear helmets?

 Written by Lightning

I'm sorry, but I'd rather pay a bit than give into a nanny state. I value the personal freedom of adults above their right to be free from harm. And I definitely value personal freedom more than I value "cost to society." In my view, if you aren't directly harming someone else in a tangible manner, you should have the right to do whatever you like. I'd rather have to pay some money, or risk someone being "offended."



Using the road is a privilege not a right. By your reckoning there should be no speed limits, no road laws and people should be able to do anything they want to on public roads.

 Written by Rouge

I think that compulsory helmets reflect the attitudes of the general community towards cyclists. The more anti-cyclist the community is (like Australia) the more likely they are to have compulsory helmets.

I'm actually fine with compulsory helmet wearing, given the state of emotions here. It just makes me sad that they're required.



Rouge, that's derisive, and has absolutely nothing to do with why helmet laws were introduced in Australia.

Yo Lurch,

 Written by Lurch

But there are plenty of arguments against full face helmets on motorcycles.



Hit me with your top three, bet they all start with having an intact brain.

 Written by Lurch

Well from the motorcyclists point of view, most of the oldschool guys that don't wear helmets don't because they're rather be dead than brain damaged.



Im an oldskool biker and Id suggest that is rubbish. Me and most of my mates would not be around today, if we hadnt been wearing helmets.

 Written by Lurch

Besides, if you think about it they're helping just as much as they're hurting, think of all those perfectly good organs they're donating when they die.



Assuming that oldschool bikers have organs worth donating. Seriously, there are better ways to increase organ donation, for example putting the onus on drivers/riders to say they dont want their organs donated.

Fire Tom, I suspect you probably don't need a helmet whilst riding a Enfield wink


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

natasqi


natasqi

addict
Location: Perth

Total posts: 489
Posted:I'm a bit more pro nanny state... those who ride without helmets, knowing the risks... should be punished somehow...
Like, people who smoke and know the risks and people who eat excessively and get atherosclerosis etc etc

But then.. people who chose to spin fire.. maybe we shouldn't get free burns medical care...

Should we pay insurance for self-caused injuries while non-preventable comes under the govt system?


Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:umm ubbidea ubblol

Thanks for enlightening me, Stone. Not sure why the type of motorcycle makes much of a difference - but still: appreciated. smile

For once - I got a big head. Maybe not so much of a big brain or much intelligence (according to a selected few) - but the container definitely is... big shrug I wear XXL helmets - and I have to look hard for them, because Nolan XXL does not equal Shoei XXL. Meaning that Nolan XXL so far is the only one that remotely fits my head. Putting me on the list of having to import my own helmet to any 3rd and 2nd world country IF I would like to wear one. They give me pain. Period. They make me feel uncomfortable to the extent that I consider applying tfor an exemptive permit to legally ride motorbike in Germany/ Europe without a helmet.

For once: Helmets are like shoes - they are made for average heads that (frankly) don't exist.

For second: My XXL helmet (open face, meeting German TUEV standards) weighs around 1.3 kgs... well that's maybe just around 2% of my gross body weight but in result it makes me not turn my head as often as I should. I more often rely on my mirrors and - you should know - that increases the likelyhood of an accident, unless I'm always ahead of the pack... which is virtually impossible.

For second: Helmets limit my vision to tunnel view, they make me turn my head and observe traffic less.

For third: I have had a great life so far. That much I can tell you... with all ups and downs. I had a great childhood, spent more than 10 years travelling and living in many places. My daughter is well off with a perfectly shining model family (I guess) = I do not have any responsibilities concerning the support of a family, offspring whatsoever. I had the opportunity to run, jump, dive, cycle, fall/raise in and make love to most beautiful women, to learn and to teach, to laugh and to cry - in short: I lived a great life and I'm ready to give way to a younger generation. I'm not clinging on to my existence.

For third: Yes, I would rather die, then having to face an existence in a wheelchair, depending on help for the rest of my life. I do know a different life and I appreciate it. This is my decision and I do have the freedom to live it.

Fourth: I cannot find any hipocricy in Mikes approach saying that youngsters should compulsory wear helmets and at the same time adults should not.

Same applies to age regulations regarding smoking, drinking, visiting pubs, brothels, watching movies or TV shows, steering a vehicle, buying and carrying a gun (if at all), joining the army and - ultimately: voting. I guess you'll get my point when you allow the dust to settle.

hug

wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Nanny state? No pun intended but only within reason...

As you're so kind to point out, Nat:

 Written by : Nat

people who chose to spin fire.. maybe we shouldn't get free burns medical care...



I can think of a different scenario most people are happy to ignore:

- inhaling the fumes when spinning fire greatly increases your risk of (lung) cancer, compared to someone who don't. We should not be admitted to general healthcare regarding treatment of (lung) cancer if we were to develop it. And

- we expose the audience to toxic fumes while we lure them into spectating our performance. Wearing a T-Shirt with a general health warning should be compulsory whilst spinning fire at any given time... You can think of appropriate wording yourself. tongue

- the burning of fossil fuels for recreational purposes is an avoidable and unecessary contribution to global warming and the shortfalling of fuels, thus contributing to spiralling fuel costs and contributing to global (human) suffering.

- we "self flagellate" ourselves with burning or at least sizzling hot toys... leaving burn marks all over our bodies. Apart from the questions regarding our sanity for doing so: we should not be admitted to public health care for the treatment of skin cancer either.

I could now ramble on and extend this all to the point where we should all get locked up in jail or at least be confined and receive counselling, but I guess labelling firespinners "i...ts" footinmouth *coughs* "errrrresponsible" would be going too far, would it?.... wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Speaking of unconvenient truths (and to end the naughty hijacking of this thread - please forgive me, Mike)

I fully side Rouge but it's a different approach I'm making:

There are a few levels of experience in traffic that too many are happy to ignore. Unfortunately as a pedestrian or (motor)cyclist you put yourself at the very end of the (traffic) foodchain...

Steering a car from A to B is the most unchallenging conduct and drivers training should include riding a bicycle/ riding (at least as pillion) a motorcycle and steering a 7.5t truck in heavy traffic. It should include the full spectrum of human madness traffic experience, but that's only IMHO.

Everybody can live their life, to favour and to create as many laws as they like. IMHO their freedom to enforce these laws end at the point where I am not endangering their property or personal safety. Nobody needs to protect me from myself - protect others from their (ignorant) self itself would make the roads (and subsequently the kids) much safer.

[/triple post]


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by :Stone


Using the road is a privilege not a right. By your reckoning there should be no speed limits, no road laws and people should be able to do anything they want to on public roads.



Speeding puts others in danger. Running red lights puts others in danger. Driving drunk puts others in danger.

Not wearing a bike helmet or a seatbelt only endangers yourself.


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Rouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003

Rouge Dragon

Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction, Aus...

Total posts: 13215
Posted:Stone, I never said that people had to like what I said. I said you can spank me along with Tom. But your attitude contributes to my thoughts so I'm not sorry that you don't like my observations.

i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon, USA

Total posts: 929
Posted:Ummm, pretty sure I've already given three reasons, but I'll put a couple in a nice tidy list for your sake

1. Most of them will dull the senses. Narrow FOV, and hearing
2. While they protect the brain, they're much more likely to cause spinal trauma during an accident due to the increased weight.
3. MUCH more likely to cause even more spinal trauma after the accident because of medical personnel doing what they've been taught.

My state has a helmet law for motorcycles, others don't. It doesn't really bother me that much because a helmet on a bike has never been a question for me. But there are people who disagree, and I think they have that right.

There you go taking things to the extreme Stone :P "road is a privilege and not a right" That couldn't be further from the truth. We have the *right* to freedom of travel, we can go where we want when we want. As far as I know there is no bicycle license. You don't need a permit to ride one, and you don't need a permit to walk down the sidewalk. If it comes to that I'll be moving soon anyways..


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:Quick update:

In spite of having had a section of his skull removed to relieve the pressure, the pressure in his brain continues to mount. A CT scan done today shows increased areas of liquefaction and hemorrhage. None of our medical therapies are decreasing the swelling in his brain and the additional damage is setting up vicious circle in which additional swelling causes additional damage which causes additional swelling...

If care is not withdrawn first, we expect him to live a matter of hours to days.

If this boy had been wearing his helmet, he would just have a dislocated ankle. frown


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

ElectricBlue
GOLD Member since Feb 2002

ElectricBlue

Now with extra strawberries
Location: Canberra, Australia

Total posts: 810
Posted: Written by :Lurch


2. While they protect the brain, they're much more likely to cause spinal trauma during an accident due to the increased weight.
3. MUCH more likely to cause even more spinal trauma after the accident because of medical personnel doing what they've been taught.




Any references?


I {Heart} hand me downs and spinning in the snow.<br /><br />

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Cheers Fire Tom, its a dream of mine to do India on a Royal Enfield. But, back to basics. Come on Easy Rider, I suspect you would never even think of riding around with bare feet, so why would you ride with a bare head? Heads are very useful.



Bell used to make helmets in hat sizes. Ive had problems with tunnel vision, but that was never the fault of the helmet. Perhaps, some restrict hearing, but most modern helmets are excellent in all those areas.



Lightning, speeding was a bad example although many will argue that they have the ability to speed and not endanger other people. And even suggest very slow drivers are a bigger problem.



I hear where you are coming from on the homosexuality angle, and for sure you shouldnt suffer the consequences for choosing to be sexually active. But we are talking protection here, so there are exceptions and I think helmets is one of them. I don't think you would support peoples freedom, especially those people in high risk categories, not to use condoms.



Rouge, if you see Australians as anti-bike, then thats how they will appear. Its equally relevant to say that helmet laws were introduced because bike riders had very poor skills, and need to be protected from them selves. Not much point getting into that argument.



Lurch, Ive ridden bikes for years and done all the helmet laws suck stuff. None of those reasons are really valid.



Hey, the "road is a privilege and not a right is straight out of the Road Traffic Authority handbook. Sure you have the right to travel on roads, but if you break the law you loose the privilege. Its that simple.



Many people do argue that bicycles should be registered and riders licensed. No you dont need a permit to walk down to sidewalk, but hopefully you so called right to freedom doesnt mean you can ride bikes and drive cars down the sidewalk either.


If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

Dentrassi
GOLD Member since Apr 2003

Dentrassi

ZORT!
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Total posts: 3044
Posted:tom, i dont think were really disagreeing with each other too much... the cyclists im exposed to are insane guys who wear lots of spandex, and get up to the speed of Mand, not Kermit the Frog & Miss Piggy dawdling through Central Park.



as i said - if your riding consists of gentle cycles around the park and inner city areas below 20km/h - well you could probably get away with it. thats the rough guide id use. If your weaving between traffic & whatnot at faster speeds in high risk situations without helmet - ill think your a bit of a fool for doing so. just my opinion on one specific action mate, just like an opinion of the safety of firebreathing.



how a person views helmet safety is really right down the bottom of the list of how i choose my friends.

your welcome to disagree with any of my hobbies/habits as unsafe/foolish/idiotic. hell ive certainly done enough of them. Its just an opinion mate smile peace hug



besides - now i want you to come to aus so i can be amazed by your enormous head wink

EDITED_BY: Dentrassi (1213160020)


"Here kitty kitty...." - Schroedinger.

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by :


If this boy had been wearing his helmet, he would just have a dislocated ankle.




I'm not going to personally comment on this, but, having read numerous helmet debates on other forums, I will mention that many who oppose helemt laws for cycles, always will point out that, whenever someone says 'my helmet saved my life when I crashed', or, 'that person who's just died from head injuries that would have been prevented if they had a helemt on', that it's speculation only.

No one knows what state that boy would be in had he worn a helmet- it's entirely possible that he would have the same degree of damage, or may have died.

Cycle helmets are always a compromise between protection and low-weight/convenience of wearing- common sense would suggest that, in most incidents, a helmet will cut the damage (which is why I choose to wear one), but, in a serious head-impacting-the-ground at high speed, brain damge can occur with or without a helmet.

And, there is good reason why the pro-choiceers are keen to point out that views like 'helmet=no head injuries', are erroneous.

It's because, whenever a lobby group or goverment manage to impose new laws that restrict civil liberties, it's always on the back of a whole lot of mis-information.

An obvious example being the whole host of 'anti-terror' laws, which damage civil liberties to the extent that the only way to get them in, was by a concerted campaign of mis-information and fear: making the threats from terror much, much greater in the imagination, than they actually are in reality.

Helmets are not the most important factor in preventing head injuries- pro-choicers frequently point out stats showing that, where helmets are made compulsory, the numbers of cyclists hurt, goes up.

So, to pro-choicers, it's a matter of direct relevance to their own safety and the safety of all cyclists, that helmet use remains a matter of choice for adults, rather than being compulsory.

From their point of view, compulsory helmet laws make their cycling more dangerous (the most common theory being that the most important factor in cycling safety, is a high number of cyclists on the roads: compulsory helmets=less cyclists, therefore, more danger).

Which is why, when you say that-

 Written by :


If this boy had been wearing his helmet, he would just have a dislocated ankle.




they will always point out that there is no evidence or reasoning that supports that assertion.

I am fully aware that you yourself, do not want compulsory helemt laws, i'm just pointing out that, those who do, will cling to and use, to good effect, POVs like the above.

And, there is a very real danger that these people will get their way, in the current climate of state nanny-ing, it's entirely conceivable that helmets could be made compulsory for cyclists, regardless of the actual facts of the issue.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted: Written by :Stone


Lurch, Ive ridden bikes for years and done all the helmet laws suck stuff. None of those reasons are really valid.
.



Ditto..

In fact I have all sorts of first hand experience eschewing safety gear in all sorts of different activities. Although I spouted the common "reasons" for my decisions, what those justifications were was nothing more than a way to try and validate the attitude......I don't want to


Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Well said Stout.

For Fire Tom, Helmets for Large Heads

Seems like a lot of people are really into cycle safety up to the point where it appears to infringe on their so called personal liberties. Like, helmets are great for other people and kids, but not me.

 Written by OWD

I'm not going to personally comment on this, but, having read numerous helmet debates on other forums, I will mention that many who oppose helemt laws for cycles, always will point out that, whenever someone says 'my helmet saved my life when I crashed', or, 'that person who's just died from head injuries that would have been prevented if they had a helemt on', that it's speculation only.



OWD, I dont thinks its so much speculation when you are looking at what is left of your helmet, and you are eternally grateful its not your head. Anyhow, lets end the speculation.

 Written by Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute


There are 85 million bicycle riders in the US.

770 bicyclists died on US roads in 2006, down just 14 from the year before. Over 90 percent died in crashes with motor vehicles.

The "typical" bicyclist killed on our roads is a sober male over 16 not wearing a helmet riding on a major road between intersections in an urban area on a summer evening when hit by a car.

About 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every year. Of those, about 67,000 have head injuries, and 27,000 have injuries serious enough to be hospitalized.

Bicycle crashes and injuries are under-reported, since the majority are not serious enough for emergency room visits. 44,000 cyclists were reported injured in traffic crashes in 2006.

1 in 8 of the cyclists with reported injuries has a brain injury.

Two-thirds of the deaths here are from traumatic brain injury.

A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent.

Direct costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $81 million each year.

Indirect costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $2.3 billion each year.

Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute





 Written by Monash Uni Accident Prevention Centre

A law which required all bicyclists to wear an approved bicycle safety helmet came into effect in Victoria on 1 July 1990. This resulted in an increase in the estimated overall helmet wearing rate from 31% to 75%. Based on TAC claims, in the first 12 months after the introduction of the law there was a reduction of 51% in the number of bicyclists with a head injury killed or admitted to hospital and the corresponding number without a head injury dropped 24%. In the second year the corresponding reductions were 70% and 28% respectively.

While the large reduction in head injuries was a clear indication of the effect of the law, the reduction among bicyclists without a head injury was shown to be at least partly a result of reduced cycling, particularly among teenagers (Finch et al. 1992). A portion of both drops may of course be attributable to the economic downturn, or the speed camera and RBT programs.

Monash Uni Accident Prevention Centre



If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by :Stone




 Written by OWD

I'm not going to personally comment on this, but, having read numerous helmet debates on other forums, I will mention that many who oppose helemt laws for cycles, always will point out that, whenever someone says 'my helmet saved my life when I crashed', or, 'that person who's just died from head injuries that would have been prevented if they had a helemt on', that it's speculation only.



OWD, I don&#8217;t thinks it&#8217;s so much speculation when you are looking at what is left of your helmet, and you are eternally grateful it&#8217;s not your head. Anyhow, lets end the speculation.




It's important to point out here, for anyone not aware of how helmets work (bicycle helemts that is), is that they are designed to collapse and even,once their impact-cushioning work is done, to break apart.

So, after an impact of any strength, you should fully expect your bicycle helmet to look in a very bad state indeed, quite possibly in several different parts.

It does not follow that, just cos your helemt is in bits, your head would have been if unprotected.

(Incidently, this feature of bicycle helmets is the reason why, if one is dropped, even a mild drop, it should be 'retired' as there could be invisible damage to it).

 Written by Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute


There are 85 million bicycle riders in the US.

770 bicyclists died on US roads in 2006, down just 14 from the year before. Over 90 percent died in crashes with motor vehicles.

The "typical" bicyclist killed on our roads is a sober male over 16 not wearing a helmet riding on a major road between intersections in an urban area on a summer evening when hit by a car.

About 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every year. Of those, about 67,000 have head injuries, and 27,000 have injuries serious enough to be hospitalized.

Bicycle crashes and injuries are under-reported, since the majority are not serious enough for emergency room visits. 44,000 cyclists were reported injured in traffic crashes in 2006.

1 in 8 of the cyclists with reported injuries has a brain injury.

Two-thirds of the deaths here are from traumatic brain injury.

A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent.

Direct costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $81 million each year.

Indirect costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $2.3 billion each year.

Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute



Again, any pro-helmet choice cyclists, are going to ask whether an organisation called the 'bicycle helmet safety institute' are necessarily going to be impartial on this issue.

Bike helmet manufacturers are obvioulsy going to fund studies and organisations which promote the view that compulsory bike-helmet laws will improve safety.

 Written by :


A very high percentage of cyclists' brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet, estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent.




Concerning this part of the quote- where the hell have they got a figure of 45 to 88% from?!

As stated there, it's nothing more than a guess/opinion, with no substantiantion whatsoever.

And that's precisisely the kind of talk that the gullible public will take on board and quote as fact, when they run or support campaigns to harrass cyclists into enforced helmet legislation.






 Written by Monash Uni Accident Prevention Centre



While the large reduction in head injuries was a clear indication of the effect of the law, the reduction among bicyclists without a head injury was shown to be at least partly a result of reduced cycling, particularly among teenagers (Finch et al. 1992). A portion of both drops may of course be attributable to the economic downturn, or the speed camera and RBT programs.

Monash Uni Accident Prevention Centre



There you go- the very factor that the pro-choicers are concerned with- a reduction in cyclists on the road as a result of helmet laws, which, they believe, makes the roads more dangerous for all cyclists.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted:It's not about the numbers, Dave.

I wear seatbelts. I will not move my car until all occupants are buckled in. I will not ride in a car where other people are not wearing their seatbelts.

I wear a bike helmet when I ride a bike. Even at Burning Man. I will not get on a bike without a helmet. I will not go on a ride with members of my party who are not wearing helmets.

But I will defend the right of a consenting adult to make a choice to not wear a seatbelt in his own car or to not wear a helmet when biking on his own (i.e. when I don't have to save him).


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

Doc Lightning
GOLD Member since May 2001

Doc Lightning

HOP Mad Doctor
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA

Total posts: 13920
Posted: Written by :onewheeldave


I'm not going to personally comment on this, but, having read numerous helmet debates on other forums, I will mention that many who oppose helemt laws for cycles, always will point out that, whenever someone says 'my helmet saved my life when I crashed', or, 'that person who's just died from head injuries that would have been prevented if they had a helemt on', that it's speculation only.



The guy who I saw die a few months ago wouldn't have died if they hadn't stabbed his heart.

Of course, that's just speculation. You can never be 100% mathematically sure of this.

But if he had been wearing his helmet, I am as certain as I have ever been about anything that he would be OK today.

He's not dead yet. I wish he'd hurry up. His father is convinced that God will intervene and that the boy will make a miraculous recovery and will "be the talk of the hospital." The problem with God is that you can't argue with him. shrug


-Mike )'(
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella

"A buckuht 'n a hooze!" -Valura

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by biggrinoc Lightning



It's not about the numbers, Dave.



I wear seatbelts. I will not move my car until all occupants are buckled in. I will not ride in a car where other people are not wearing their seatbelts.



I wear a bike helmet when I ride a bike. Even at Burning Man. I will not get on a bike without a helmet. I will not go on a ride with members of my party who are not wearing helmets.



But I will defend the right of a consenting adult to make a choice to not wear a seatbelt in his own car or to not wear a helmet when biking on his own (i.e. when I don't have to save him).





Then we have a couple of things in common, cos I also don't ride a bike, or unicycle, without wearing a helmet.



And, I also defend the right of an adult to choose not to wear a helmet.



However, if anyone else wants to defend that right, then, IMO, they'd better get to work on it right here and now, cos, there is a very real danger that, just like every other nannying legislative measure that has been pushed in amidst campaigns of misinformation and fear and, that in reality, helps to prevent nothing of consequnce- the time is now ripe for enforced helmet wearing to be similarly pushed through.


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by :Doc Lightning


 Written by :onewheeldave


I'm not going to personally comment on this, but, having read numerous helmet debates on other forums, I will mention that many who oppose helemt laws for cycles, always will point out that, whenever someone says 'my helmet saved my life when I crashed', or, 'that person who's just died from head injuries that would have been prevented if they had a helemt on', that it's speculation only.



The guy who I saw die a few months ago wouldn't have died if they hadn't stabbed his heart.

Of course, that's just speculation. You can never be 100% mathematically sure of this.

But if he had been wearing his helmet, I am as certain as I have ever been about anything that he would be OK today.





Personally, I wouldn't class the knife thing as speculation- anyone who gets stabbed in the heart, as far as I know, is either going to be dead or requiring substantial medical intervention- it's not 100% certain of course, but, to come out unscaved, is deeply unlikely.

When it comes to the helmet incident though, I really do not think that, with an impact so severe as to do the damage you describe, that there's much liklihood that a helmet would have reduced the injury to nothing more than a sprained ankle- I would expect that, even had a helmet been present, that a head injury, maybe minor, maybe severe, would be a likely outcome.

Unless I'm missing something here, in which case I hope you will help me out by explaining what reasons underly your conviction that a helmet would have prevented any head injury in this case?


"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."

--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32


Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!

Delete

ElectricBlue
GOLD Member since Feb 2002

ElectricBlue

Now with extra strawberries
Location: Canberra, Australia

Total posts: 810
Posted: Written by

It's important to point out here, for anyone not aware of how helmets work (bicycle helemts that is), is that they are designed to collapse and even,once their impact-cushioning work is done, to break apart.



Yes I under stand this but the thing is if your not wearing the helmet then the energy that is being absorbed by the helmet by it breaking apart is absorbed by your head. Sure you head may not split in half like the helmet was designed to do but that means you head would be coming to a stop in a shorter amount of time and getting more of the impact.

It is like saying an air bag in a car dosen't help beacuse after the accident it is deflated. That dosen't mean if it had not been there you head would also be deflated but it sure as hell would have come to a much more abbrupt stop there for increasing the chance of damage.


I {Heart} hand me downs and spinning in the snow.<br /><br />

Delete

Page: 12345

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [bike helmet*] we found the following similar topics.
1. Learn > Hoop > Mini hoop > Emergancy helmet *help/resource
2. Forums > Bike Helmets [147 replies]
3. Forums > Bike chain and fire breathing [9 replies]
4. Forums > Bike messengers on crack [10 replies]
5. Forums > bike lights [4 replies]

     Show more..