Giro helmets - huge appreciation

[Red Light]

Or of course the reverse. When helmets were bought in as law in Australia the number of people cycling declined
yet the accident level remainded the same.

Up to 90% decline for teenagers. The same was seen with the mandatory laws in NZ as well. In fact the increased numbers of helmet wearers was far outweighed by the numbers that stopped cycling.

 

[abo]

No the earth is divided up into up into sections and laid on top of one another. Just look at a Road Atlas to get the idea.

Wrong, they're folded over on each other as the OS has been saying for years

 

[Red Light]

Or of course the reverse. When helmets were bought in as law in Australia the number of people cycling declined
yet the accident level remainded the same.

The most interesting graph of the lot from Ontario, Canada. A graph of the percentage of head injuries in cyclist accidents vs helmet wearing levels for a helmet law that was introduced but not enforced. You can see the massive influence the latter had on the former.

 

[david k]

Up to 90% decline for teenagers. The same was seen with the mandatory laws in NZ as well. In fact the increased numbers of helmet wearers was far outweighed by the numbers that stopped cycling.

i think we all agree that mandatory helmet wearing reduces the amount of cyclists

what we fail to agree on it appears is the protection a helmet gives.

i feel you are safer with one on, you and others think they are dangerous to wear as they lead to more accidents. I have maintained that i find this hard to believe. you give reasons of conspiracies, again this is hard to believe.

 

[benb]

The most interesting graph of the lot from Ontario, Canada. A graph of the percentage of head injuries in cyclist accidents vs helmet wearing levels for a helmet law that was introduced but not enforced. You can see the massive influence the latter had on the former.

[attachment=4512:Photo Apr 14, 6 17 37.gif]

That's interesting. So the % of head injuries continued to decline at the same rate, regardless of the % helmet wearing.

 

[david k]

The most interesting graph of the lot from Ontario, Canada. A graph of the percentage of head injuries in cyclist accidents vs helmet wearing levels for a helmet law that was introduced but not enforced. You can see the massive influence the latter had on the former.

[attachment=4512:Photo Apr 14, 6 17 37.gif]

more accidents in 96/97, i cannot see on the graph were the helmet use is?

 

[tigger]

Or of course the reverse. When helmets were bought in as law in Australia the number of people cycling declined
yet the accident level remainded the same.

So less Aussies on the road but the same amount dying? With risk of getting repetitive... "what's not to like?"
(thats a joke BTW!)

On a serious note. Does that mean people who don't wear helmets ride more safely? or does it mean the type of people who don't wear helmets prefer to philosophise about their liberty whilst riding their bikes slowly, whereas those more interested in the perforance aspect of the sport take greater risks - and knowing the risks choose to wear helmets?

How do we evaluate this evidence?

 

[benb]

more accidents in 96/97, i cannot see on the graph were the helmet use is?

Try again. The red line is helmet use.

 

[lukesdad]

Up to 90% decline for teenagers. The same was seen with the mandatory laws in NZ as well. In fact the increased numbers of helmet wearers was far outweighed by the numbers that stopped cycling.

..and how did they arrive at these figures ?

 

[tigger]

i think we all agree that mandatory helmet wearing reduces the amount of cyclists

what we fail to agree on it appears is the protection a helmet gives.

i feel you are safer with one on, you and others think they are dangerous to wear as they lead to more accidents. I have maintained that i find this hard to believe. you give reasons of conspiracies, again this is hard to believe.

+1

 

[snorri]

does it not stand to reason that if more people are wearing helmets more people are cycling more and therefore there will be more accidents?

I don't follow your reasoning.


"more people....", more than what or when?

"if more people are wearing helmets, more people will cycle more" You feel that that non helmet wearers will cycle more if they decide to become wearers?

 

[david k]

Try again. The red line is helmet use.

oh i see, so the amount of head injuries have decreased consistently. A more accurate measure would be accidents or similar accidents to head injuries. There are numerous variables that could have led to that stat

 

[david k]

I don't follow your reasoning.


"more people....", more than what or when?

"if more people are wearing helmets, more people will cycle more" You feel that that non helmet wearers will cycle more if they decide to become wearers?

ok, if more people are judged to be wearing helmets overall and the percentage of people wearing helmets is the same then more people are cycling.

to simplify for your benefit:

50% wear helmets (just an example)

100 people wear helmets, 200 people cycling

300 people wear helmets, 600 people cycling

if 600 people cycle as opposed to 200 there is 3 times more potential for accidents

so if a stat suggests more people wear helmets equaled more accidents it could be explained this way

as with all stats they are there to be challenged, dont take this personal, im just trying to get to the bottom of the stats, as for now i am not convinced

 

[4F]

..and how did they arrive at these figures ?

People between 13 and 19

 

[snorri]

ested in the perforance aspect of the sport take greater risks - and knowing the risks choose to wear helmets?

I didn't think this thread was about helmets in cycle sport.