[rustynutz]

SEPTEMBER 22
By Tom Rabe

Bicycle helmets reduce the risk of serious head injury in a crash by almost 70 per cent, new research shows, but not all cyclists are convinced they must be mandatory.

Researchers from the University of NSW reviewed data from 43 international studies and found that helmets dramatically improved a cyclist's chance of survival in a crash.

Wearing a helmet reduced the risk of death in a crash by 65 per cent and serious injury by 69 per cent.

Helmets would also reduce facial injury in more than a third of crashes.

Authors Jake Olivier and Prudence Creighton found reason for countries around the world to consider strategies to increase the use of helmets.

But Freestyle Cyclists spokesman Geoff McLeod said while he did not dispute the science behind the effectiveness of helmets, the way governments enforced their use in Australia was pushing people away from cycling.

"It's not about helmets, it's about implementing the law correctly, where it doesn't cause a negative health effect in the population," Mr McLeod told AAP on Thursday.

"Right now cycling is dead and buried in Australia except for a few trendy pockets.

"We should adopt a healthier approach and reform the law so I can cycle on a separated bike path, or park environment, without the need of worrying about whether the police are going to pull me up."

While the study found no evidence to support arguments against mandatory helmet legislation, it outlined they are not a silver bullet to cycling injuries.

"Any comprehensive cycling safety strategy should consider the promotion or legislation of bicycle helmets only in concert with other injury prevention strategies," the study said.

Lead author Jake Olivier presented the study's findings at an international injury prevention conference in Finland.

The latest study comes after years of debate about bike helmets.

A study by Canadian researchers from the University of Toronto and the University of British Columbia in 2015 found no link between compulsory bicycle helmets and head injuries.

Source: http://www.news.com.au/national/breaking-news/bike-helmets-do-work-study/news-story/9de8ef5600bba0573bcfdeb07eb97bce

[FatBoy]

Reasonable thoughts there, Rusty.  I believe that bike helmets work, but question whether they are required by kids riding their bikes in the park.

[eye30]

Reasonable thoughts there, Rusty.  I believe that bike helmets work, but question whether they are required by kids riding their bikes in the park.

I would say yes as it does not matter where they are, they may still going to fall off!

[FatBoy]

Reasonable thoughts there, Rusty.  I believe that bike helmets work, but question whether they are required by kids riding their bikes in the park.

I would say yes as it does not matter where they are, they may still going to fall off!

Do they have to wear helmets when playing on the playground equipment?  After all, they may fall off and hit their head.  I wear a helmet when I ride my bike, but mine is a choice about risk management.  I ride on roads near cars and lorries, travelling at higher speeds.  If I have an accident in these conditions then it is going to hurt, so I reduce the risk of head injury in these cases by wearing a helmet.

Unfortunately we have to set rules to the lowest common denominator, who generally can't decide when to wear a helmet and when not to, so the default setting is "wear a helmet".  I have no problem with this.  However, in a perfect world we should all be able to use our common sense and decide when or when not to wear a helmet.  Young kids learning to ride: helmet.  Teenage kid in the park: no helmet.  Kid on a BMX track: helmet.  Mountain biking: helmet.  Commuting on bike path: maybe.

[rustynutz]

I'm sure they do help reduce some head injuries...what sh*t's me though is that our safetycrats feel the need to make everything compulsory.

I'm a big believer in personal choice, if it makes you feel safer, then fine, wear a helmet, but if you'd rather take your chances without one, I reckon that should be up to you...

Yeah, yeah, about now the wowsers will trot out the "but I'm paying for your hospital bills when you fall off and crack your skull blah blah blah"...
I say get over it, I'm paying for all you smokers and p*sspots and you don't hear me whinging...   

[AlanHo]

you don't hear me whinging...   

You're right - my hearing aids don't have the range...........

[The Gonz]

I'll step in as the ultimate prude and say I don't want to pay for reckless idiots, smokers or pisspots ('reckless idiots' would have sufficed as a general term there) but I qualify that with having people exercise and take personal responsibility for their decisions, hence:
 - down with the nanny state
- idiots go unsubsidised

Gonz for PM!

 

[xiziz]

Working in radiology, this comes as no supprise to me. Helmet or not is usually defined by one going into the CT scanner and hopefully not having a massive hemmorage or walking into CR for a "just to be safe" xray of the cervical spine. Difference on motorbikers is even more pronounced, one group bypassing radiology altogether...

Of course it could have to do with that people who wear their helemts generally are better at obiding the traffic laws and looking/listening at the surounding traffic.

Mandatory for under 18s here, ought to be mandatory period. Its also illegal to ride a bike without a working bell on public streets here.

#Nannystate <-another good alcohol free beer btw.