Sue heads for Court, helmets case, down under

[yakdiver]

deleted photo ....well I don't want to frighten new cyclist away

[Steady rider]

"
EdinburghFixed » Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:36 am wrote

"Surely the outcome was never in doubt - once a "safety law" like this has been put onto the statute books, it can effectively never be repealed. Just politically impossible."

In the USA some motorcycle helmets laws have been repealed.

In Canada their Constitution requires laws to be demonstrably justifed.
The Constitution Act, 1982, this marked the first time a charter of rights had been included in any Canadian constitutional document. Because of this, courts were given a much greater say in government and can now disallow legislation on the basis of violations against the Charter of Rights.
Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. ie helmet benefits would have to exceed health and safety loss etc.

In the UK the Human Rights Act 1998, beliefs are included, if a court found legislation incompatable with human rights (Convention rights) there is provision to make a declaration of incompatibility. This could lead to legislation being repealed.

In Australia they provided a regulatory impact statement (RIS) prior to introducing legislation,this led MPs to supporting introducing their laws. The RIS did not make any assessment for the effects of discouraging cycling, their MPs were effectively misled. The main effect of their laws were to discourage cycling. Reports from Monash University contributed to making appear that helmet laws were a success, leading to other States in Australia and others following with legislation, NZ, parts of Canada and confusing the picture. Their press and media has not provided a full picture and therefore the public is still thinking this must be a good idea.

Bicycle helmet laws are diferent to other laws in their effect on discouraging cycling and the health loss exceeding the possible gains, so they will always be a problem and have just grounds for opposing. Only be misleading the public/courts/MPs can helmet laws be justified.

[Steady rider]

by numbnuts » Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:14 am

Stolen from another web site, shows us pictures of a damged helmet, cyclist and a damaged car.

The helmet picture appears to show most of the damage on one side, typical of impact zones they incur. There could be a higher risk of brain damage from rotational accelerations from this type of impact by wearing a helmet. Injuries to the face could have occured with or without a helmet. How strong this helmet was prior to impact is diificult to say with the medium sized holes designed into it. Other possible injuries legs, arms, neck etc are not detailed, showing only head injuries. No details of why and how the accident occured. Without a helmet there may have been a lower risk of having the accident, possibly a lower risk of impacting the head and the forces on impact could have been reduced, all depends on impact direction and location to some extent. Seems like an accident after dark perhaps and possibly on a main road, risk factor level can increase a lot in these circumstances.

The car picture is not that clear, where the impact occured, appears a fontal impact. There is research on bummies being hit by vehicles in side impacts (to cyclists) from impact speeds of 30 and 40 km/hr. Head injury severity can be reduced by about 70% due to driving at about 2 to 3 mph slower, when reaction, breaking distances and lower impact speeds occur. The front of the car seems long, drivers position to bumper, a short car allows for better viewing when pulling out, avioding accidents. Improved vehicle technology may help drivers to aviod impacting both people and animals.

This type of pitcure tends to focus on the helmet story and the bigger picture of avioding accidents may take a back seat, could put people off cycling, reduced cycling levels means reduced safety for all cyclists, are they helpful pictures, yes they provide useful information.
They may put more people off cycling than adding to the number wearing helmets.

[Regulator]

Australia is a nice and clear case: after compulsion, cycling down, injury rates up.

Except that isn't exactly what happened. Be very careful of assuming that the studies which purport to show this are correct - they are often based on flawed and partial data, as I have demonstrated to CTC bods on a number of occasions.

That said, I'm no fan of compulsion. I occasionally wear a helmet - but only when I think it will be helpful, e.g. when mountain-biking. I don't bother the rest of the time.

[EdinburghFixed]

Stolen from another web site

Unfortunately, showing this sort of stuff is worse than meaningless.

Right back at you:







There we go - a cast iron case for everyone to wear walking helmets

Cycling bareheaded is so dangerous that it actually *increases* your life expectancy. Perhaps because your chance of dying from a heart attack is 1:3, while the mileage before you'd expect to die of a cycling head injury is many millions.

So it shouldn't be hard to understand that any measure which increases bareheaded cycling will save lives, due to better general health, while any scaremongering (by safety manufacturers or well-intentioned yet misguided cyclists) has a serious adverse effect.

[yakdiver]

It appears that you know it all......good bye

[MartinC]

Stolen from another web site

Unfortunately, showing this sort of stuff is worse than meaningless.

Right back at you:

It appears that you know it all......good bye

That's a very petulant post.

[pq]

It's not petulant. It's a good point well made.

Unfortunately the helmet brigade don't like it when the facts get in the way of their "common sense" position - hence the flouncing.

[MartinC]

Ah pq - my post wasn't clear. I agree with you. Inserting the irrelevant and emotional pictures into a thread about a court case and then flouncing off when it was challenged was what struck me as petulant.

[Si]

I think that you opened yourself up to that one numbnuts. There are cases that can be made for helmets, but pictures of broken helmets and someone's face with a few marks on it are, like the oft heard "helmet saved my life" line, easy enough to discredit.

[yakdiver]

I think that you opened yourself up to that one numbnuts

that's why I said good bye

[EdinburghFixed]

What's funny is that as I read this topic, I'm sitting next to no fewer than eight helmets - five of various types for kayaking, one for climbing, two for cycling, plus a great heap of pads / body armour.

There is no opposition to protective gear in this household - it's just that none of it seems necessary when you're popping out to work (even if that involves sharing the road with.. gasp.. other people). I don't wear walking helmets, driving helmets, or cycle helmets if all I'm doing it riding along. I guess I just don't buy into the culture of fearmongering that seems to grip so many people.

One day perhaps I will get a head injury. But it could be in a car crash or a pedestrian fall (both of which I've had experience of) just as easily. Frankly the chances are too small to loose sleep over

[Yorkshireman]

Possibly one of the first helmets?
http://today.excite.com/toonfunview/id/4|0.html

[johncharles]

I don't see the point in saying that all pedestrians should wear helmets if cyclists do, drivers should be made to wear them if that is the case.

I don't see the point in wearing Hi viz jackets when cycling but some do, also why wear a hard hat when working on the top of a building when the only thing that will fall on your head is a block of ice which has come from a plane emtying it's toilet.

There are points both for the wearing of helmets and against and the proponents of both sides will never agree and both will keep coming up with stupid analogies so it just isn't worth the effort.

[FatBat]

I don't see the point in saying that all pedestrians should wear helmets if cyclists do, drivers should be made to wear them if that is the case.

I don't see the point in wearing Hi viz jackets when cycling but some do, also why wear a hard hat when working on the top of a building when the only thing that will fall on your head is a block of ice which has come from a plane emtying it's toilet.

There are points both for the wearing of helmets and against and the proponents of both sides will never agree and both will keep coming up with stupid analogies so it just isn't worth the effort.

The point is one of examining the arguments used by cycle-helmet promoters and determining if they are willing to accept the conclusions that would be reached if the same logic were used on different problems. If their arguments are sound, then they should have no problem with this. If, however, such an experiment leads to conclusions which they are not happy with, we can only assume that their arguments are based on emotion and rhetoric rather than logic.

For example, helmet promoter says "when cycling,there is a risk of suffering a head injury, therefore you must wear a helmet". So, their argument is that helmets should be worn for any activity that carries a risk of head injury. Walking carries a risk of head injury, as does travelling in a car, as do 101 other things. So, by their argument, helmets should be worn when undertaking these activities. But, they do not support this conclusion, so their initial premise must be wrong. It is a bit like "proof by contradiction" in mathematics. If you assume a premise is true and show that it leads to a logical contradiction, then the premise must be false.

The alternative argument goes like "when cycling, there is a small risk of suffering a head injury - a similar risk to other everyday activities such as walking and driving - therefore, a helmet is not necessary." There is no logical contradiction in this statement.