Warning: Helmet debate. WAS RE: [bikeqld] bikeqld Digest, Vol 41, Issue 17

[Peter Whittle]

I'm sure I've promised myself never to get into a helmet argument, but what the heck? It's probably a complete waste of time, because our governments will always be too chicken-hearted to consider revoking the laws, given the arguments are not seen as black and white.

In the present discussion, what is lacking is an appreciation of risk management. Someone's view, or even some objective data, on the rate of head injuries from head impacts with and without helmets is only a part of the picture. Cycling has to be taken as a much larger and more complex issue. If helmet laws mean X number of people don't ride and therefore are in cars causing other injuries or damage, including personal health issues from lack of fitness, then that has to be taken into account. In every activity, we don't just go on the raw data, but we weigh up the other considerations. I might die if I got hit by a meteorite, but that doesn't keep me indoors, because it's not very likely to happen and there are things I want to do.

Freedom of choice is another part of the overall issue. I am an adult and I think I ought to be able to make some decisions about my personal safety. I would judge that, after riding far more than 100,000 km in my life, that if I want to pootle on the back streets to the shops with the wind in my hair, I should not have to run the gauntlet of the police. Perhaps children can be protected by such a law, but why adults? Maybe because of the cost to the community? Crap - people are still allowed to smoke, drink alcohol, drive cars, eat fatty foods, play rugby league and other demonstrably dangerous things, so why single out cyclists? Even with children, the time of introduction of helmet laws saw a plummeting in the rate of kids riding to school - my own teenage sister quit because of the helmet's effect on her hair (excuse my anecdote by way of evidence ;)

The question on motorcyclists seems irrelevant to me. Yes, both are two-wheeled means of motility - but that's about where the similarity ends.

Oh, and I choose to wear a helmet too - have since long before they were compulsory - even though I have never banged my head in a crash, but I've seen one other person do it and heard about a handful, but I don't think I should have to, I would sometimes choose not to and sometimes I do go without.

Pete


-----Original Message-----
From: bikeqld-bounces at bikeqld.org.au [mailto:bikeqld-bounces at bikeqld.org.au] On Behalf Of mich rolling
Sent: Sunday, 25 January 2009 6:53 PM
To: bikeqld at bikeqld.org.au
Subject: [bikeqld] bikeqld Digest, Vol 41, Issue 17 

Peter, I have read much of the oft-cited literature on helmet wearing.
Statistical artifact/sample selection/health benefits to crashers vs health benefits to more people cycling/nanny staters vs conspiracy theorists and on and on and on. 

Why do motocyclists wear helmets?

In my case I have stacked enough times (once at low speed but very close to hitting the noggin on the edge of a concrete curb) to value helmets highly.. Impact would have been to the left temporal region - thin bone.

I wear a helmet and strongly encourage others to do so.


      Stay connected to the people that matter most with a smarter inbox. Take a look http://au.docs.yahoo.com/mail/smarterinbox


_______________________________________________
bikeqld mailing list
bikeqld at bikeqld.org.au
http://www.bikeqld.org.au/
http://www.bikeqld.org.au/mailman/listinfo/bikeqld
This list has NO affiliation with Bicycle Queensland.