Government surveys show Victoria cycling participation down since helmet law

LeighNichol wrote:

FFS here we go again ...

So you stick your fingers in your ears and chant na-na-na rather than think. Let me guess, do you wear a helmet and don't really care whether those who don't want to wear one are forced to? FFS.

Aussie Rider wrote:

I wonder how much these figures maybe influenced by the apparent fact that there are a lot less children riding to school these days.

I would suggest that the number of adult cyclists (MAMIL's & Commuters) have probably increased quite dramatically 

I know from from own experience that the number of commuter cyclists to the Melbourne CBD have increased dramatically.

BTW: I've been wearing a helmet long before the helmet laws came into effect

 

Took the words out of my mouth! I wholeheartedly agree with the above... DITTO!

Sounds like my experience is the same... used to ride to school (late 70's early 80's) then started riding again in the 90's as an adult pre-mamil. My kids now get driven to school and despite the fact that I do commute, I do it only 20% of the time (weather & work structure accounting for 80%).

Personally don't think that compulsory helmet wearing is responsible for the above, nor does it really make sense that it should stop people from riding. If kids are brought up equating riding a bike = wearing a helmet, then it's no more onerous than making sure that your tyres are inflated before heading out.

Helmets work! Helmets are obligatory on construction sites because if something inadvertently falls and lands on your head, it'll lessen the damage that would otherwise have occured without one. Same forces and factors at play on a bike. Sure, it won't stop you getting killed from a head on collision with a truck but it raises the bar for the forces required to sustain serious head injuries.

I'm a doctor (anaesthetist) and this is right up my alley. If you really believe that helmets do nothing, then you're indicating you have no understanding of physics and the pathophysiological response of the brain to traumatic injury. In other words you guys in that category should shut the f*** up when it come to this subject.

In this on, Australia is light years ahead of the UK. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves, and I'm sure a lot of you rational thinkers are.

Hypoxic wrote:

Aussie Rider wrote:

I wonder how much these figures maybe influenced by the apparent fact that there are a lot less children riding to school these days.

I would suggest that the number of adult cyclists (MAMIL's & Commuters) have probably increased quite dramatically 

I know from from own experience that the number of commuter cyclists to the Melbourne CBD have increased dramatically.

BTW: I've been wearing a helmet long before the helmet laws came into effect

 

Took the words out of my mouth! I wholeheartedly agree with the above... DITTO!

Sounds like my experience is the same... used to ride to school (late 70's early 80's) then started riding again in the 90's as an adult pre-mamil. My kids now get driven to school and despite the fact that I do commute, I do it only 20% of the time (weather & work structure accounting for 80%).

Personally don't think that compulsory helmet wearing is responsible for the above, nor does it really make sense that it should stop people from riding. If kids are brought up equating riding a bike = wearing a helmet, then it's no more onerous than making sure that your tyres are inflated before heading out.

Helmets work! Helmets are obligatory on construction sites because if something inadvertently falls and lands on your head, it'll lessen the damage that would otherwise have occured without one. Same forces and factors at play on a bike. Sure, it won't stop you getting killed from a head on collision with a truck but it raises the bar for the forces required to sustain serious head injuries.

I'm a doctor (anaesthetist) and this is right up my alley. If you really believe that helmets do nothing, then you're indicating you have no understanding of physics and the pathophysiological response of the brain to traumatic injury. In other words you guys in that category should shut the f*** up when it come to this subject.

In this on, Australia is light years ahead of the UK. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves, and I'm sure a lot of you rational thinkers are.

 

So, how did the Netherlands become so successful since the 70's in reducing the death and injury toll only to become the safest country per rider kilometre? They did something other than killing of the demand for safe infrastructure by not introducing MHLs, that's how. Our MHL introduction will be very difficult to reverse completely as it would spark a sudden revival of bike riders choking up the roads and getting into car bike accidents. I suggest a gradual relaxation of MHLs starting by creating helmet free zones on safe pathways for adults with a car licence and slowly relax further over the years to create a culture and attitude change away from car driver - cyclist rivalry. Eventually, Australia could be like the Netherlands.

Hypoxic wrote:

Helmets work! Helmets are obligatory on construction sites because if something inadvertently falls and lands on your head, it'll lessen the damage that would otherwise have occured without one. Same forces and factors at play on a bike. Sure, it won't stop you getting killed from a head on collision with a truck but it raises the bar for the forces required to sustain serious head injuries.

I'm a doctor (anaesthetist) and this is right up my alley. If you really believe that helmets do nothing, then you're indicating you have no understanding of physics and the pathophysiological response of the brain to traumatic injury. In other words you guys in that category should shut the f*** up when it come to this subject.

In this on, Australia is light years ahead of the UK. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves, and I'm sure a lot of you rational thinkers are.

 

anyone else read that in a Doctor "Bones" McCoy "Im a Doctor!!! not a bricklayer"stylee

well as you are all so clever in Australia, maybe you can work out why your kids now get driven to school instead of cycle & ponder whether its because they have people like you telling them wearing a helmet to cycle is just like being on a construction site with things dropping on your head all the time

Hypoxic wrote:

Personally don't think that compulsory helmet wearing is responsible for the above, nor does it really make sense that it should stop people from riding. If kids are brought up equating riding a bike = wearing a helmet, then it's no more onerous than making sure that your tyres are inflated before heading out.

Helmets work! Helmets are obligatory on construction sites because if something inadvertently falls and lands on your head, it'll lessen the damage that would otherwise have occured without one. Same forces and factors at play on a bike. Sure, it won't stop you getting killed from a head on collision with a truck but it raises the bar for the forces required to sustain serious head injuries.

I'm a doctor (anaesthetist) and this is right up my alley. If you really believe that helmets do nothing, then you're indicating you have no understanding of physics and the pathophysiological response of the brain to traumatic injury. In other words you guys in that category should shut the f*** up when it come to this subject.

In this on, Australia is light years ahead of the UK. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves, and I'm sure a lot of you rational thinkers are.

 

"I'm  doctor so I know everything" attitudes makes me sick (literally - they gave me antibiotics and even did operations they should not have). I'm an engineer & I proved doctors wrong and walked out of hospital when they said I'd never be able to. Doctors give antibiotics even though they know it's not always needed and leading to resistant strains of bacteria. "More doctors smoke Camel." "DDT is perfectly safe." "Asbestos is harmless." "Bacteria doesn't cause stomach ulcers." "Tonsils don't do anything so we should just take them out." Doctors get so many things wrong yet some doctors like you still believe you are "Gods gift" to humanity & all seeing. The main problem with doctors like you is that you are so "book smart" but fail to understand human behaviour or question engrained attitudes & beliefs (which many medical people suffer from).

Fact is that whether helmets are beneficial or not many people hate wearing the darn things &/or it makes cycling look more dangerous than it really is and puts people off cycling. Then "Risk compensation" & "Safety in numbers" comes into effect and the few riders left are at more risk of crashes.

Helmets also cause injury. I've received a head injury because of my helmet and it was potentially more life threatening than the simple bruise and graze I would have had if I didn't have the "Eski lid" on. Helmets have hung kids to death. (Refer to coroners reports.) Helmets can cause broken necks like this bloke who is now a quadriplegic. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/insurance-for-cyclists-would-li...

Then there's the whole issue of rotational forces which cause the worse drain damage from what I've read. As I found when snowboarding, helmets also make  you hit your head on the ground harder than if you don't have a helmet on & they reduce your ability to roll with the fall. (Think of the size & weight since you know physics so well but if you have any trouble ask an engineer since they know physics & forces better than doctors!) 

I've worked on construction sites and the dynamics are completely different to a bicycle crash so they can't even be compared. Personal Protective Equipment, i.e. helmets, are also recognised in construction safety as the last & least effective way to reduce injury.

I hope you wear your helmet in your car or when at height because that is where you are at far more risk of head injury. http://www.brainandspinalcord.org/brain-injury/motor-vehicle-accident.html  Answer this "Doctor", how many of your patients have car crash brain damage? How many have seditary lifestyle disease that could have been avoided if the car-centric lazy people had been like the Dutch & walked or cycled far more. I don't have the link handy but there was a report showing that Holland has high cycling numbers and low obesity but England has low cycling numbers and high obesity. Go figure clever doctor & learn the facts before making a diagnosis. Start by reading this http://www.bicycling.com/sites/default/files/uploads/BI-June-13-Helmet.pdf and more information on http://www.freestylecyclists.org

Australian cycling is not light years ahead of England, Holland is. England has higher cycling usage than Australia who is at the bottom of the pack for bicycle usage and attitudes against cyclists.

If helmets were a drug they would not pass the medical proof testing required yet you think the whole population should be "mass medicated" via a helmet law. You have got to be kidding.

If you like helmets simply go ahead & wear it but don't you dare tell us what to do & insist on "mass medication" helmet laws. Simply give people facts and let them make up their own minds how much risk they want to accept.

Ride2Wk wrote:

 

 

Personal Protective Equipment, i.e. helmets, are also recognised in construction safety as the last & least effective way to reduce injury.

 

 

so the biggest problem with mandatory helmet laws is that those countries that enact them, stop there, thinking cycling is safe now, so no need for segregated infrastructure like the dutch and danish.

you might talk about passing distance laws, but prosecutions for no bells outweight prosecutions for passing distance infringement.

Bells? FFS  on a busy street no driver will hear a bell, they are only even remotelty relevant on shared use boths, in these locations it is just a simple to say 'ding ding'

I'd like to see this challenged in courts, when asked, where is your bell, the stopped cycliosts says "do you want to hear my nell? .....ding ding"

Hypoxic wrote:

 

Helmets work! Helmets are obligatory on construction sites because if something inadvertently falls and lands on your head, it'll lessen the damage that would otherwise have occured without one.

 

As I said above, if helmets do work we should be able to tell. Goldacre and Spiegelhalter can find no evidence that they do.

Helmets are obligatory on building sites to prevent damage to the employers insurance premiums. Building remains one of the most dangerous occupations. There are many objects on building sites which are much too heavy for plastic hats to save you from.  Making the whole building site safer is the best way to save more builders' lives. Rather like the road environment in fact.

Hypoxic wrote:

I'm a doctor (anaesthetist) and this is right up my alley. If you really believe that helmets do nothing, then you're indicating you have no understanding of physics and the pathophysiological response of the brain to traumatic injury. In other words you guys in that category should shut the f*** up when it come to this subject.

Before you open your yap perhaps you should read up a bit on the subject.

http://www.badscience.net/2013/12/bicycle-helmets-and-the-law-a-perfect-...