Hard to say. Many of the Closed Head Injuries occur among the elderly
and that cohort is included in the pedestrian data, so it is somewhat
skewed given the enormous number of elderly who experience falls.
TBI/CHI are largely dependent on the head velocity at the moment of
impact. In a car traveling 60mph, obviously the impact forces can be
extremely high, versus the velocity of a falling body as a pedestrian
falls and hit their head. That's the whole reason for protecting the
inside of autos with airbags (Head, front, side). So, they tend to
reduce the need for helmets in automobiles. The same rationale for
opposing those airbags existed at the time laws were changed to mandate
airbags = will increase the cost of the automobile, is intrusive and big
brotherish, etc. etc. Luckily as a society we came to our senses and
mandated seatbelts, head, front, side airbags despite all of the
economic arguments against the law and rules. There are times when even
cycling advocates should consider the greater social good in terms of
reducing head trauma and death by requiring helmets particularly for
children.
Brian Mink
Monona, WI
Grant Foster wrote:
I feel like I read an analysis somewhere that use of helmets by
pedestrians and MV occupants would have as great/greater an impact on
preventing TBI as/than it does for cyclists.
Maybe I made it up or maybe the analysis was flawed, but it seems like
a viable question. If helmets could help prevent some injury to
pedestrians, should they be mandatory? Why aren't people in motor
vehicles required to wear them (like race car drivers).
Grant
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015, 10:57 Brian Mink <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Why? You mean to tell me that there is no way to have helmet
dispensers
at the Kiosks? Seems like all the arguments against are economic
arguments based on all or nothing logic/arguments. Don't see a lot of
creative thinking here.
Brian Mink
Monona
Mitchell Nussbaum wrote:
> I (almost) always wear a helmet, so a mandatory helmet law
wouldn't affect me if it were adopted in Wisconsin. But it would
probably destroy bike-sharing in Madison and Milwaukee.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steven Meiers"<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
> To: "Charles' 'STRAWSER"<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 9:10:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [Bikies] CA Proposed Mandatory Helmet Law
>
> I am not going to take a position one way or another on helmet
laws but the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute has a rebuttal to
some of the most common objections to helmet laws, about 1/3 of
the way down the page. You might find it interesting to read. As
an aside this website has everything you want to know about
helmets and more.
>
> http://www.helmets.org/negativs.htm
>
> Steve Meiers
> Safety educator
> (608) 267-1102
> Box 2986
> Madison WI 53701
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bikies [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of STRAWSER,
Charles
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 8:53 AM
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Bikies] CA Proposed Mandatory Helmet Law
>
> The safety of cyclists on the road is most highly (positively)
correlated with...the number of cyclists on the road.
> See "Safety in Numbers slide on John Pucher's presentation of
his research here:
>
http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/BikeWalkPublicHealth_April%206.pdf
>
> As for Mike Rewey's question: "Why not motorcyclists? Why not
Pedestrians?"
> Well why not CAR DRIVERS?
>
> ""The results [of studies in Australia show] that a ["motoring
helmet"] headband can greatly reduce the severity of an impact to
the head [by up to] 67 percent with the honeycomb cardboard
prototype, when compared with an impact with no headband."
>
http://www.copenhagenize.com/2009/10/australian-helmet-science-for-motorists.html
>
> Here's the CDC on barriers to helmet use (and hence why
requiring it would discourage cycling):
> Barriers to helmet use include cost, the wearability of bicycle
helmets, and a lack of knowledge regarding helmet effectiveness
(33). In addition, some school-age children (i.e., children less
than 15 years of age) believe that wearing a helmet will result in
derision by their peers (34). Among older children and adults,
rates for helmet use are influenced by some of the same
demographic factors as rates for seat belt use (e.g., age,
education, income, and marital status) (14,33), and some of the
reasons given for not wearing helmets are similar to those given
for not wearing seat belts (e.g., rider was on a short trip,
helmets are uncomfortable, and negligence) (14). Approaches to
overcoming some of these barriers to helmet use include
community-based programs (33) and bicycle helmet legislation,
which may be particularly effective among school-age children
(34-37). http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00036941.htm
>
> I think it's in every individual cyclist's best interest to wear
a helmet and visible clothing (and I do so myself, and require it
of my son), but it's clearly in the best interests of cyclists in
aggregate to eliminate ANY laws that discourage cycling, including
helmet laws. Anyone advocating any laws that would discourage
cycling is either uninformed, or does not really have the best
interests of cyclists (in aggregate) at heart.
>
> Now I must go and get the marshmallows to roast on the flames of
the helmet war that is about to ensue.
> chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bikies [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Michael Rewey
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2015 3:53 PM
> To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Bikies] CA Proposed Mandatory Helmet Law
>
> I agree with the Cal Bike Coalition opposition for many
reasons. First it would make the poor
> the most likely violators. Why not motorcyclists? Why not
Pedestrians.
>
> Mike Rewey
>
> On 19 Feb 2015 at 15:40, Clayton Griessmeyer wrote:
>
> California Bicycle Coalition is opposing a proposed mandatory
bicycle helmet (and reflective night clothing) law. They say it
will make California´s streets less safe.
>
> They argue:
>
> Bicycling with or without a helmet savesas many as 77 livesfor
every life lost in a crash. Per hour of participation, bicycling
isthree times safer than swimming, and twice as safe as riding in
a car. And it´s getting safer. Since 2000, by rate,the risk of
bicycling injury in California has dropped 45%.
>
> http
> _______________________________________________
> Bikies mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
> _______________________________________________
> Bikies mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
> _______________________________________________
> Bikies mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
> _______________________________________________
> Bikies mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
