Has your helmet saved your life poll

[StuartG]

Its the same mindset that are against helmets for motorcyclists - still fiercely contested
and the Anti-Seat belt lobby.

Fiercely contested? I did not realise that. Indeed I was unaware that these protections do not appear have a statistically significant effect on KSIs. Pray guide me to enlightenment so I can feel happy dispensing with them.

 

[Licramite]

WASHINGTON - In a highly touted safety achievement, deaths on the nation's roads and highways have fallen sharply in recent years, to the lowest total in more than half a century. But motorcyclists have missed out on that dramatic improvement, and the news for them has been increasingly grim.
So it might be no surprise that biker groups are upset with Washington. The twist is what they are asking lawmakers and regulators to do: Back away from promoting or enforcing requirements for safe helmets, the most effective way known to save bikers' lives.
Fatalities from motorcycle crashes have more than doubled since the mid-1990s. The latest figures show these accidents taking about 4,500 lives a year, or one in seven U.S. traffic deaths.
Yet if the biker groups' lobbyists and congressional allies have their way, the nation's chief traffic cop - the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA - will be thwarted in its efforts to reduce the body count. The agency would be blocked from providing any more grants to states to conduct highway stops of motorcyclists to check for safety violations such as wearing helmets that don't meet federal standards.
Beyond that, the rider groups are seeking to preserve what is essentially a gag rule that since 1998 has prevented NHTSA from advocating safety measures at the state and local levels, including promoting lifesaving helmet laws. And the bikers' lobbyists, backed by grassroots activists and an organization whose members include a "Who's Who" of motorcycle manufacturers, already have derailed a measure lawmakers envisioned to reinstate financial penalties for states lacking helmet laws.
Those moves by bikers' groups are partly intended to maintain their clout in state legislatures, which have kept rolling back motorcycle helmet regulations for three decades. With Michigan's repeal in April of its nearly 50-year-old helmet requirement, only 19 states, including New Jersey, have helmet laws covering all riders, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (Pennsylvania's law covers riders 20 and younger.) In the late 1970s, by contrast, 47 states had such requirements.

still a lively debate in the states. - its still flaunted in this country

 

[srw]

It's not impossible that the US motorbikers' groups are motivated by understanding of the risk rather than purely bloody-mindedness. Given the different rules in different states I presume that someone can lay their hands on some solid evidence one way or the other?

 

[StuartG]

....
still a lively debate in the states. - its still flaunted in this country

Sorry - I'm a UK biker. And what has all the stuff I cut out to do with the non-efficacy of motor cycle helmets?

 

[srw]

Oh, and it's "flouted", not "flaunted" - but I suspect you didn't really mean either.

 

[totallyfixed]

[QUOTE 2184531, member: 1314"]An excuse to read Dell's post again: http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/bmj-journal-poll-on-helmets.82162/

"the BMJ journal is having yet another 'let's make helmets compulsory' poll

http://www.bmj. com/

it's a running joke, but I'm getting tired of it

fgodlee@bmj.com, jsmith@bmj.com, tdelamothe@bmj.com, tgroves@bmj.com, tjackson@bmj.com, dpayne@bmj.com, gjones@bmj.com, scook@bmj.com, hmacdonald@bmj.com, tgroves@bmj.com, aburke@bmj.com, kfister@bmj.com, eloder@bmj.com, cmartyn@bmj.com, kpatrick@bmj.com, groggla@bmj.com, atonks@bmj.com, awalker@bmj.com, wweber@bmj.com, dmacauley@bmj.com, aferriman@bmj.com, zkmietowicz@bmj.com, dcohen@bmj.com, kpatrick@bmj.com, mchew@bmj.com, trichards@bmj.com, sdavies@bmj.com, tjackson@bmj.com, rcoombes@bmj.com, sschroter@bmj.com, plapsley@bmj.com, dpayne@bmj.com, btwisselmann@bmj.com, jdobson@bmj.com, ldillner@bmj.com, smalik@bmj.com, rhurley@bmj.com, jwalker@bmj.com, adichiara@bmj.com, vfletcher@bmj.com, lbanham@bmj.com, jannis@bmj.com, mbutler@bmj.com, scarter@bmj.com, mcooter@bmj.com, gcotton@bmj.com, cgriffith@bmj.com, epayne@bmj.com, ksharrock@bmj.com, bsquire@bmj.com, jthompson@bmj.com, aberger@bmj.com, hmarcovitch@bmjgroup.com, dkamerow@yahoo.com, jburrell@bmj.com, eking@bmj.com, sminns@bmj.com, jmayor@bmj.com, edavies@bmj.com, hjaques@bmj.com, studenteditor@bmj.com, are the contact e-mail addresses for the BMJ. Feel free to put them straight.

For what it's worth, this is my draft e-mail

You think it's a running joke. I think you're bunch of chinless twats, with not enough to do. You don't give a flying **** at a rolling doughnut that 8000 people die of falls in the home, you neither know nor care that a simple change in the Building Regulations would glass injuries by half, (cutting plastic surgery department time dramatically), you don't give a monkeys about hospital borne infections and you're too scared to think that most GPs are halfwits that couldn't diagnose their way out of a ****ing paper bag. Your readers lead a life of pampered luxury at the taxpayer's expense, dispensing solecisms that would look lightweight in a Christmas cracker and you have nothing better to do than take your 'I'm scared of cyclists' problem for a walk in your sad little excuse for a journal.

Don't, please, send me e-mails from your home addresses telling me that you ride a bike to work, because I'm not ****ing interested. You publish this s***, so you take the abuse. **** off.

Simon Legg"[/quote]
I thought you could have worded that a bit stronger maybe?

 

[totallyfixed]

Yes well, you could always just nuke them and be done with it.

 

[Licramite]

interested by the building regs ref. don,t know what needs changing ? - or to put it in his language - what the f----k--g sh---itting hell you f--cking talking about you big f---king wa---er.(only joking)

yes I didn'tn,t mean flouted or flaunted or even floated , I meant ignored.

I suppose in the states - or in states of the states- the statistics (I love that word) show despite compulsory helmets even more motorcyclist are getting killed. - so helmets clearly are dangerouse as increasing numbers are wearing them and the death rate is increasing - the two must be linked its bloomin obviouse.

I think the same argumentss run true on this debate

 

[Licramite]

don't talk to me about the truth , you can't handle the truth , I doudt your truth handling abilites



re - a few good men ( terrible film and they really said that)

 

[StuartG]

I suppose in the states - or in states of the states- the statistics (I love that word) show despite compulsory helmets even more motorcyclist are getting killed. - so helmets clearly are dangerouse as increasing numbers are wearing them and the death rate is increasing - the two must be linked its bloomin obviouse.

It is true that the increase in crashes has also matched by an increase in blooms placed at the scene of each. That's the only obvious observation. The rest is bunkum. SRW may be along shortly to explain why ...

 

[Norm]

I show evidence and it's "irrlevant".

Have you?

 

[ufkacbln]

Haha, the thing i like about you Cunobelin is that you have an answer for everything. It may end up being unrealistic, trivial and blatantly biased, but the tenacity you show is bordering impressive .

You forgot accurate and true?

In answer to your question, in this instance, i would rather listen to the experts (who also happen to be cycling fanatics) than listen to someone who tries at every turn to discredit valid safety equipment. All of this without credible evidence.

So you would take the evidence of someone like John Heyworth , Chair of the Association for Emergency Medicine as a credible source when he talks about helmets?

Should we rely on his testimony and act upon it without question?

In answer to your question, in this instance, i would rather listen to the experts (who also happen to be cycling fanatics) than listen to someone who tries at every turn to discredit valid safety equipment. All of this without credible evidence.

More importantly - You need to learn the difference between discredit and point out the genuine restrictions, and limitations.

Of course giving evidence and information that shows helmets are not the wonderful lifesavers some would have us believe can be uncomfortable, but it enables an individual to make a genuine informed decision..... surely you understand that?

As for credible evidence, when it was offered you stated you had absolutely no interest

 

[ufkacbln]

Okay i will change that to Sutton claimed a helmet saved his skin and Wiggins claimed helmets will save your life. Happy enough??

Thank you for recognising at last that you made an erroneous claim, recognising that you had failed to substantiate your original claim and now rectifying your statement to something closer to reality

I noticed you brushed past the part where you said Wiggins never mentioned helmets in regards to his crash??

Either you were wrong or your spam bot cpu made an error.[/

How can I post something and brush past it?

ALl you need to do is point to a news paragraph, statement, video or recording where Wiggins stated that a helmet saved his skin or had a beneeficial effect in this accident in this accident...................... I await with bated breath[/quote]

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

You've already linked to www.cyclehelmets.org, which is, to my mind, both fair-minded and comprehensive. It's as close as you're ever going to get to a systematic review of all of the evidence. Your citation of a handful of studies and statistics is not a systematic review of all of the evidence. It is also not an assessment of risk.

That, more or less, is my understanding of what evidence exists - and I say that based on some knowledge of risk assessment. THERE IS VERY LITTLE RELIABLE EVIDENCE OUT THERE. And my best guess is that there never will be, simply because the research would be very expensive, very difficult and not worth the bother.

In the meantime, the question is becoming academic. As more and more people take up cycling as a past-time or means of transport fewer and fewer of them are bothered about buying all the kit.

A point well made. I have said myself on this thread that there may never be concrete evidence. Leaving it down to choice, for now.

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

Why do you think so many people are against compulsion? And why do you think a small percentage of people are against helmets all together? Any ideas? (clue: it's not about 'looking cool')

Really?? How a helmet looks or how hi vis looks is not a factor?? I am against compulsion. Adults can make up their own mind.