# Helmet Law Study Uncovers the Obvious



## garage monster (Oct 13, 2006)

Can you believe they get funding for studies like this? At least I learned that Montrealers think they're better than all the rest of us. :skep: 












The Globe and Mail said:


> *Cyclists may not like them, but helmet laws work *
> 
> Mandatory bike helmet rules may be viewed by some as overbearing, intrusive and anathema to the romantic wind-in-the-hair image of cycling. They do, however, appear to be effective.
> 
> ...


----------



## XLNC (Mar 21, 2010)

garage monster said:


> Can you believe they get funding for studies like this? [/IMG]


"University of Manitoba"... Suprised?

Things like this makes them feel important. However, to the rest of Canada it's sorta like a medal ceremony at the Special Olympics.

Back on topic, I don't really care what other people do, but I ALWAYS wear my helmet, even if it's just riding down my little street after a quick adjustment. Further there's something about 'cumbersome', 'hot' and 'unfashionable' in there but my helmet (Specialized Tactic) is pretty much the opposite. It's quite light, it's really cool, and it doesn't look bad at all. On top of all that, it was only $70 which pretty much makes it the cheapest piece of 'insurance' I have purchased in the last 20 years.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

I will support the law once they mandate car drivers and passengers must wear helmets as well. 

I do wear helmet and think that it is stupid to ride without it. But it should be individual call. Government is already too deep in our lives, not to mention pockets...


----------



## Kay. (Jan 24, 2005)

> Nonsense, say the authors of the study, which appears in the August edition of the journal Injury Prevention. After studying health data, they found that helmet legislation introduced in two jurisdictions, PEI and Alberta, had no negative impact on bicycle use.


Not everyone should feel free to drop the N-bomb. It's an advanced word and we have to earn the right to use it. Let's consider. "Health data" tells us about bicycle injuries, not bicycle use. Therefore, what this sentence says is that helmet legislation had no negative impact on bicycle injuries. Which is clearly nonsense... it's the opposite of what the authors meant to say! So until they get their message straight, I'll keep my [email protected]@ on the sidewalk where I'm safe and ferget relying on a helmet to save me from a moron cager. (I poach the sidewalk deliberately by the way).


----------



## garage monster (Oct 13, 2006)

I wonder if there's any data on how many bicycle-related head injuries are caused by collisions with cars? Personally, I've never been hit by a car but I've bounced my head off both road and trail all on my own.  

This statement seems a little short-sighted to me: “It’s my safety. And if I were hit by a car, I don’t think a helmet would make a difference.” :skep:


----------



## dskunk (Jan 13, 2004)

I don't like mandatory helmet laws. I don't like people telling me that I have to do something "for my own good/safety". I already get enough people telling me that I shouldn't ride a bike on the road because it "isn't safe". Whatever.
I don't feel particularly safe when I'm in a car either. And I happen to know that an awful lot of people get hurt badly in cars.
It would make more sense to teach and enforce safe driving and riding than to bring in virtually unenforceable mandatory helmet laws.
My opinion, yours may differ.


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

osokolo said:


> I will support the law once they mandate car drivers and passengers must wear helmets as well.





dskunk said:


> I don't like mandatory helmet laws.


Can we really trust the opinions of people who look like they are wearing helmets, even when they're not wearing helmets? :skep:


----------



## dskunk (Jan 13, 2004)

Circlip said:


> Can we really trust the opinions of people who look like they are wearing helmets, even when they're not wearing helmets? :skep:


Ahhh. I didn't understand before. The helmet law would make everyone else start to look as good as me and Oggie!!! Well why didn't they just say so???? :thumbsup:


----------



## superlightracer (Feb 11, 2004)

osokolo said:


> I do wear helmet and think that it is stupid to ride without it. But it should be individual call. Government is already too deep in our lives, not to mention pockets...


+ 1

Personal responsibility ftw.


----------



## rkj__ (Feb 29, 2004)

I kind of like Ontario's law. Mandatory for the young people. Develop good habits early. 

Beyond that, I have mixed feelings. I believe that wearing a helmet is the right choice. I'm not quite so sure that people should not have the freedom to make their own choices regarding their safety.


That said, when is the last time you saw a police officer force a kid to wear a helmet?


----------



## Mysty (Oct 27, 2009)

times when I see parents riding with their kids on the road or trails as a family and the parents are NOT wearing helmets makes me think FTW? Great example.

Althought I agree that the government has too much say in our lives and pocketbooks, the helmet law should be mandatory.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

very sharp observation indeed... 
however, if it earns me the privilege of being in the same sentence with skunky, i am honoured...


----------



## lukey (Mar 7, 2008)

> Nonsense, say the authors of the study, which appears in the August edition of the journal Injury Prevention. After studying health data, they found that helmet legislation introduced in two jurisdictions, PEI and Alberta, had no negative impact on bicycle use.


The ten-year longitudinal study on helmet requirements in Ontario determined that cycling participation rates were cut in half for children. The well-publicized reduction in injuries was EXACTLY due to the reduction in cycling. It's not clear that helmets, per se, did much. In other words, it's a giant scam. A giant, very well meaning, totally misguided scam. I read the final report in depth a couple of years ago, and from what I read, it looks a lot like they got rid of half the cyclists in the province to reduce head injured patients by 1 every year, on average.

The same was true in Australia, except not just for kids. Australia lots a ton of adult cyclists.

The experience with helmet legistlation in Ontario and Australia is why the other western countries didn't ultimately follow suit. Health costs went UP. Cycling is one of the best cardiovascular exercises. Chronic disease rates were measureably higher in both places. In other words, cycling was the only exercise that some people ever got. Me included.  The Canadian case study was looked at, and consider a major failure for overall health.

So yeah, you have one less head injury, and then tons of childhood diabetes. Bad tradeoff.

It's possible that the Alberta and PEI "no effect" findings are themselves anomalies. Without digging too deep, I think I have some theories here, just considering the obvious.

I lived in Alberta for 3 years and found that the freeway-centric urban design was pretty dissuasive for transportational cycling (ie, few cyclists in the first place, you just don't see any) and perhaps the cyclists there were particularly interested in helmets given major bike/car speed disparities.

PEI only has a small population so it might not be statistically relevant to bigger and more urban centres.

Without further analysis, I don't buy that on face value.

Where half the country lives in Ontario, there was a major, major reduction in the cycling rates.

So you can make anecdotal arguments about helmets and injury rates. And I always wear mine. But helmets also increase rotational injuries to the neck and spine. From a total health cost standpoint, the benefit is surprisingly not clear cut at all. After all this time, there's still controversy.

Montreal has made huge advances in separated bike lanes, and they have the 4000km off-street touring network called the Route Verte. With the Bixi fleet, there's a huge number of casual / unplanned cycling trips happening. It's hard to think of how helmets would make anything safer given the fantastic, enlightened infrastructure that's years and years ahead of Ontario and other parts of Canada. No wonder they don't get the whole helmet idea, and have so much opposition. They solved the problem in other ways, making the whole idea irrelevant.


----------



## Unglued (Apr 20, 2009)

I agree that helmets should be mandatory for anyone under 18,

However, if someone wants to scramble their brains b/c they are not wearing a helmet, then more power to them. I always wear mine, though.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

@ lukey: can you provide a link to the ten-year longitudinal study in Ontario you refer to? I've Googled for it and can't find it. 

I'm curious how this study links a reduction in cycling and an increase in chronic diseases directly to helmet legislation. I would tend to blame bad weather, McDonalds and XBox.


----------



## Baulz (Sep 16, 2005)

rkj__ said:


> I kind of like Ontario's law. Mandatory for the young people. Develop good habits early.
> 
> Beyond that, I have mixed feelings. I believe that wearing a helmet is the right choice. I'm not quite so sure that people should not have the freedom to make their own choices regarding their safety.
> 
> *That said, when is the last time you saw a police officer force a kid to wear a helmet?*


That's my problem with it right there. The current law does not get enforced, so why bother making more laws?

It's just like my stupid city banning smoking in all parks, they put up big ugly signs everywhere, but have said they have no plans to enforce the new law. Why bother?


----------



## Nerdgirl (Mar 13, 2007)

lukey said:


> It's possible that the Alberta and PEI "no effect" findings are themselves anomalies. Without digging too deep, I think I have some theories here, just considering the obvious.
> 
> I lived in Alberta for 3 years and found that the freeway-centric urban design was pretty dissuasive for transportational cycling (ie, few cyclists in the first place, you just don't see any) and perhaps the cyclists there were particularly interested in helmets given major bike/car speed disparities.


Can't speak for all of Alberta, but Calgary actually had a pretty decent cycling path infrastructure for a commuting. The freeways through the mountains also had pretty good shoulders for road cyclists.

I think the drop in cycling among children is not merely due to helmet laws. When I was a kid, everyone rode their bikes to school and locked them up in the schoolyard. All those facilities have been taken out, and now kids are strongly discouraged from riding to school. Instead, fretful parent drive their kids in and poison them with exhaust fumes.

Anyway, interesting take.

I'm not sure if it's due to legislation of just to helmets no longer looking like giant foam buckets, but I do think there's been a huge increase in helmet usage in the past 20 years.

I'm strongly in favour of helmets. I think I'm in favour of legislation, but I'm not positive. It does seem a little cynical to require it for kids but not their parents.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

The talk about motorists needing helmets more than people riding their cruisers to the corner store has been said more times than enough.

So here's some different food for thought:

I like to wear my full-face when I ride some local stunt trails. I also like to ride there and back. Which involves a long climb on a paved trail and residential sidestreets. I take my full-face off for this part of the ride (gasp!) and hang it on my arm.

If we had a MHL, I would need to do one of:

1. Get heatstroke on the ride home.
2. Wear a XC helmet when I'd really prefer my ASTM-1952 lid. 
3. Drive to the trail instead of ride.
3. Carry two friggen helmets with me.

Do any of these options make sense to you?


----------



## garage monster (Oct 13, 2006)

Another way too look at, with an eye to what the study is claiming, is that with a mandatory helmet law, even with less than full compliance (and little enforcement), you still get high participation.

The odds of you getting ticketed for wearing your full-face on your arm while you ride home are extremely low but on the whole, you get more people wearing helmets. Win?  

Do people feel the same way about mandatory helmets for motorcycles?  

To me, helmets on bikes is analogous to seat belts in cars. Not to use either makes me extremely uncomfortable. It feels like I'm not wearing pants or something... :skep:


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

But then it risks turning into another "$105 fine for not having a bell" law.... a law most everyone ignores (maybe with good reason, or not) and the enforcement is in "blitz" format where they pull people over one week of the year and ticket them for everything they can think of.


----------



## anarawd (Sep 22, 2009)

Once at our bike shop I walked in on a heated conversation between an older gentlman and the storeowner. He was objecting to the bike shop's mandatory helmet rule for their group road rides. The owner cited OCA affiliated club rules and the issue of insurance as reasons for this rule. This guy was absolutely livid and said that he would never wear a helmet for group rides OR racing because in all his years of racing, he had never worn one, and no one was going to tell him that he had to now. He told the owner that as long as the helmet rule was in place, he would never join in any of their club rides and that he would be returning his "racing license" and demanding a full refund from the OCA.  

Personally, I have never had a problem with rules, or laws that benefit my health and well-being. I believe helmets should be mandatory on bikes, ski slopes, skateboards, etc. I believe seatbelts in cars, PFDs in boats, should all be required by law. I also am a firm believer in stringent workplace PPE regulations.

Gee! These are all things that might someday save me from injury or death! I don't have a problem with that!


----------



## rockyuphill (Nov 28, 2004)

The helmet laws versus free choice debate eventually comes back to health care costs. Much like smoking, if you make helmet use a personal choice, or seat belt use, or rock climbing without a helmet, or snow boarding out of bounds, you should also be on your own for paying for health care costs related to preventable injuries. If the government is paying to repair you, then they should be able to limit the damage you do to yourself. 

The organ donor groups are happy to have helmet use optional.


----------



## garage monster (Oct 13, 2006)

rockyuphill said:


> The organ donor groups are happy to have helmet use optional.


"Live fast. Die young. Leave a beautiful corpse." :skep:


----------



## To be named later (Jul 22, 2010)

I don't like being told by law to do something I already choose to do.

But there is already enough people out there stupid enough to ride without a helmet, and many more stupid parents who will send their kids off sans helmet. And too many people without good insurance.

And when the stupid people and those kids bounce their noggins off the pavement and scramble their brains, who pays for it? We do.

Though I don't like gov't telling me what to do, I can live with it if it is the only way to get the stupid people to wear a helmet and stay out of the taxpayer funded emergency room, or have some kid not grow up a few brain cells short just because they didn't know better. 

I want gov't to stay out of my career, healthcare, job, marriage, paycheck etc etc, major things, but I can live with them dictating something small like helmet laws.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

lukey said:


> ...It's possible that the Alberta and PEI "no effect" findings are themselves anomalies. Without digging too deep, I think I have some theories here, just considering the obvious....
> 
> ...PEI only has a small population so it might not be statistically relevant to bigger and more urban centres.....


I can speak to PEI because I grew up there and biked extensively there. It does have a small population, but it has the highest population density per km of any province, by far. Also Charlottetown has a higher population density than Ottawa. Also PEI has the most km of paved roads per capita. So I wouldn't discount the study in PEI simply because it has a small total population and no huge urban centers. The total number of cyclists counted in the study relative to the total population of PEI would be a better indicator if the results of the study are good or just an anomaly.


----------



## Kay. (Jan 24, 2005)

ray.vermette said:


> I can speak to PEI because I grew up there and biked extensively there. It does have a small population, but it has the highest population density per km of any province, by far. Also Charlottetown has a higher population density than Ottawa. Also PEI has the most km of paved roads per capita. So I wouldn't discount the study in PEI simply because it has a small total population and no huge urban centers. The total number of cyclists counted in the study relative to the total population of PEI would be a better indicator if the results of the study are good or just an anomaly.


True, but here in Ontario I don't ride my bike on Yonge St up to Rainy River. I just take it between Carlton and Gerrard. So I'm going to go ahead and discount the PEI data for the time being. Absolutely no relevance to the reality of Monday-Friday action in midtown Toronto.


----------



## Enduramil (Mar 1, 2007)

Simple solution to the helmet wearing issue.

If you don't wear a helmet and have an incident. All medical costs you pay for out of your pocket.
If you wear a helmet and have an incident. You get Healthcare.


Now you decide.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

To be named later said:


> Though I don't like gov't telling me what to do, I can live with it if it is the only way to get the stupid people to wear a helmet and stay out of the taxpayer funded emergency room, or have some kid not grow up a few brain cells short just because they didn't know better.


You do realize that a sizable segment of the general public thinks we are stupid for riding on busy roads, stupid for riding at night, stupid for riding in winter, stupid for riding down mountains with big rocks, etc, right?

For every helmet user who thinks helmetless cyclists are donor patients, there is an SUV-load of non-cyclists who consider ANYONE RIDING A BIKE AT ALL to be a "donor patient".


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

Kay. said:


> True, but here in Ontario I don't ride my bike on Yonge St up to Rainy River. I just take it between Carlton and Gerrard. So I'm going to go ahead and discount the PEI data for the time being. Absolutely no relevance to the reality of Monday-Friday action in midtown Toronto.


True, the streets in PEI aren't like the streets in Toronto, but this study wasn't comparing streets. It was comparing helmet use before and after MHL were enacted and it found helmet use went up, and bicycle use didn't decline.

Incidentally, I found a study conducted in Toronto that found helmet use went up and average cycling levels were higher in the year immediately after MHL was brought in. I could provide a link to the abstract in the Injury Prevention journal, but you are probably going to discount that anyway as well because it's not relevant to your reality.


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

Enduramil said:


> Simple solution to the helmet wearing issue.
> 
> If you don't wear a helmet and have an incident. All medical costs you pay for out of your pocket.
> If you wear a helmet and have an incident. You get Healthcare.
> ...


Bah, lets all charge people who don't eat 10 servings of fruit and veg everyday for their increased risk of obesity and strain on the healthcare system!

In fact, lets charge cyclists who aren't wearing a full-body armour kit or full face when they get plowed by some texting 16yr old with her shiny new license. Who is really at fault? I would wager that, in the light of a mandatory helmet law, the cyclist could be found at fault for negligence and denied healthcare and legal recourse. Really though it isn't the cyclist's fault. Such a law and ruling would only serve to protect motorist's interests.


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

garage monster said:


> Can you believe they get funding for studies like this? At least I learned that Montrealers think they're better than all the rest of us. :skep:


I'm totally against mandatory helmet laws, they're treated like some cheap panacea for all that is dangerous about cycling. In our current state it feels like the gov't is saying "slap a skid lid on 'em and feed them to the traffic". The government's energies are better spent elsewhere by improving the cities for cyclists, this is where real inroads can be made to increasing our safety.

I do wear a helmet off-road 100% of the time, but when it comes to interactions with giant SUVs and cars I am less convinced of the benefits. Certainly your head may survive but what about the rest of you? I still do wear one road riding usually though, since i'm not that full of hubris. When it comes to slower speeds on cycling pathways, I don't feel the need particularly.


----------



## ro.sniper (Apr 27, 2010)

I just came back from a Europa trip which included Amsterdam, and the tour guide said this... "You'll never see a Dutch wearing a helmet, they look goofy"... There was literally no one wearing a helmet. Do I agree with it? Not necessarily. I also believe that each person has a right no make their choices.

Another thing is that we live in such a nanny continent its unreal... everything is safety this and safety that... and it will lead to a very safe environment where everyone will stay safely on their couch. (and die safely and peacefully)

I remember how cool the playgrounds used to be when I was small... now most of them have this padded crap... a kid won't even know what a knee scrap is. A lot of my lessons were learned by getting slight injured.


----------



## EvilScience (Jul 16, 2004)

electrik said:


> I still do wear one road riding usually though, since i'm not that full of hubris. When it comes to slower speeds on cycling pathways, I don't feel the need particularly.


Conversely, I think helmets may be most useful on bike paths/cruising around town. Lots of chances for low speed collisions (joggers, strollers, rollerbladers, car doors, etc) where the helmet will probably save you from some serious injury. I got doored a few years ago and took out a window with my helmet. I think my head might not have fared so well. Likewise I was knocked over by a car in slow moving traffic.Again, the helmet prevented a nasty knock to the skull. Possibly less useful doing 30 mph down a road with fast traffic, but I'll keep wearing one thanks!


----------



## anarawd (Sep 22, 2009)

rockyuphill said:


> The helmet laws versus free choice debate eventually comes back to health care costs. Much like smoking, if you make helmet use a personal choice, or seat belt use, or rock climbing without a helmet, or snow boarding out of bounds, you should also be on your own for paying for health care costs related to preventable injuries. If the government is paying to repair you, then they should be able to limit the damage you do to yourself.


Especially when one considers whose money the government is using for said repairs! This of course opens a huge can of worms for smokers, sendentary folk, drug and alcohol users, people who make poor dietary chioces, the list goes on.

Hey! I know; maybe instead of punishing those who make poor lifestyle choices, people who take better care of themselves should be rewarded with a monthly, government issued Healthy Lifestyle Bonus Cheque! Think of all the bikes we could buy!


----------



## garage monster (Oct 13, 2006)

electrik said:


> When it comes to slower speeds on cycling pathways, I don't feel the need particularly.


You just have to look at what happened to jackattack yesterday to understand that bad things can happen on bike paths too. 

And when it comes to collisions with motor vehicles, it's not all about getting run over. Just a few weeks ago, a friend cartwheeled over a moving car's trunk (that had made a perfectly legal left turn) and landed on his head. The helmet was destroyed but he walked away. :thumbsup:

Sure, that's more boring anecdotal, unscientific evidence but it's the truth. Nanny state or no, there's value in wearing a helmet.


----------



## rkand (Jun 28, 2010)

The solution for all the fashion conscious people who don't want to look dumb wearing a helmet.


----------



## XLNC (Mar 21, 2010)

electrik said:


> Bah, lets all charge people who don't eat 10 servings of fruit and veg everyday for their increased risk of obesity and strain on the healthcare system!


Some studies suggest obesity, cholesterol, or heart disease and other problems are largely genetic. There are seldom cases of severe brain damage or road rash passed onto children from a parent that neglected to wear a helmet for probably some silly selfish reason. In fact, I think there haven't been any.


----------



## TwoHeadsBrewing (Aug 28, 2009)

Personally, I've never smacked my head on anything when crashing but I think helmets are still a good idea. I have two friends that have crashed hard enough MTB'ing that their helmets had huge scrapes/gouges in them. That would have been their noggin, maybe fatal, maybe just brain damage. That being said, I don't think it should be a law. People should be able to choose whether or not they want to be safe. If they choose not to wear a helmet that is their business.


----------



## ro.sniper (Apr 27, 2010)

XLNC said:


> Some studies suggest obesity, cholesterol, or heart disease and other problems are largely genetic. There are seldom cases of severe brain damage or road rash passed onto children from a parent that neglected to wear a helmet for probably some silly selfish reason. In fact, I think there haven't been any.


I'll agree with the helmet portion, but I'll tell you 100% sure that if you go to Europe you will see 90% less obese/fat people. I'm sure its the GM food they feed us in North America that leads to all the things you mentioned. Which in generations will of course be genetic.


----------



## Nerdgirl (Mar 13, 2007)

ro.sniper said:


> I'll agree with the helmet portion, but I'll tell you 100% sure that if you go to Europe you will see 90% less obese/fat people. I'm sure its the GM food they feed us in North America that leads to all the things you mentioned. Which in generations will of course be genetic.


Gah! Horrible thread derailment based on poor knowledge of pseudoscience! Please get back to the cogent discussion on helmets and stop with your scare mongering about perfectly healthy GM food. And how it can't possibly alter our genetic makeup. Seriously.

Um, helmets are good.


----------



## XLNC (Mar 21, 2010)

ro.sniper said:


> I'll agree with the helmet portion, but I'll tell you 100% sure that if you go to Europe you will see 90% less obese/fat people. I'm sure its the GM food they feed us in North America that leads to all the things you mentioned. Which in generations will of course be genetic.


Absolutely. Processed foods have brought us to where we are, indeed. The point I was making though was that I fully agree with Enduramil's post. Medically, some people can take the precautions and exercise all the due dilligence they can and still be a drain on the social system.

No helmet = no due dilligence = no need for us to pay for your foolishness. Thanks to our bleeding heart social system in Canada we already pay much more than we should for people that don't take responsibility for themselves... There's no need to add more excuses.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*Obesity genetic?*

I can only laugh at that...

Drug addiction may be genetic as well? Alcoholism? Smoking? What else... Everything else can be genetic...

Genetic killers, rapists... Children abusers...

It is just an excuse for not being able to do what is right and not do what is not right... If you are fat, don't go to McDonalds. Limit your intake. What is genetic about that?



XLNC said:


> Some studies suggest obesity, cholesterol, or heart disease and other problems are largely genetic. There are seldom cases of severe brain damage or road rash passed onto children from a parent that neglected to wear a helmet for probably some silly selfish reason. In fact, I think there haven't been any.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*UGH... Genetically Modified food is crap*

It is harder and harder to find anything that is not genetically modified. However, human digestive system is not capable of digesting genetically altered foods as well as normal food... It IS going to become a huge problem... Time to start educating ourselves on GM food... Seriously.. Nothing to do with fear mongering...



Nerdgirl said:


> Gah! Horrible thread derailment based on poor knowledge of pseudoscience! Please get back to the cogent discussion on helmets and stop with your scare mongering about perfectly healthy GM food. And how it can't possibly alter our genetic makeup. Seriously.
> 
> Um, helmets are good.


----------



## ro.sniper (Apr 27, 2010)

Nerdgirl said:


> Gah! Horrible thread derailment based on poor knowledge of pseudoscience! Please get back to the cogent discussion on helmets and stop with your scare mongering about perfectly healthy GM food. And how it can't possibly alter our genetic makeup. Seriously.
> 
> Um, helmets are good.


I didn't debate the helmet part, as stated above. And I will not agree with you that GM food is healthy. And by the way I'm close friends with a nutritionist studying for their masters, and she kills mice weekly (by giving them cancer). There is a direct link with the mice dying faster with vitamin enriched GM foods. I'm guessing you must work for Monsanto 

I'm not going to derail this thread further. And its perfectly OK for people to have a different opinion. Cheers.


----------



## Nerdgirl (Mar 13, 2007)

osokolo said:


> However, human digestive system is not capable of digesting genetically altered foods as well as normal food... It IS going to become a huge problem... Time to start educating ourselves on GM food... Seriously.. Nothing to do with fear mongering...


It is simply not true across the board that our digestive system would act any differently toward GM food. It depends completely on WHAT the genetic modification is - thus (and here I agree with you) the need to EDUCATE yourself. Crop breeding and selection has gone on for thousands of years, with exactly the same effects. It is rare for things to be introduced that you wouldn't otherwise be exposed to. You have way more to fear from _E. coli_ on your strawberries and lettuce from the manure on the organic farm.

People also confuse genetic modification for processing - completely different story.

As for the helmet thing, all I know is that helmet usage was very very low prior to legislation. Now it's widespread. Can that be bad?

P.S. I don't work for Monsanto, or the food industry, but did do a master's studying genetically modified plants.

And how is it, even without singlesprocket's help, that every thread is becoming about food? Must be getting close to dinner time.


----------



## XLNC (Mar 21, 2010)

osokolo said:


> I can only laugh at that...
> 
> Drug addiction may be genetic as well? Alcoholism? Smoking? What else... Everything else can be genetic...
> 
> ...


Very few people with familial hypercholesterolaemia will be able to reduce their cholesterol levels by diet and lifestyle changes alone. Most will need special cholesterol-lowering drugs.

If they create one to lessen brain damage in people that refuse to wear helmets and crash, thus removing them from backing up our emergency rooms and healthcare drains, then I'll be all for NOT wearing helmets.

However, your last sentence is 100% correct. Repsonsibility lies with the individual, not the rest of the population. If you seek to pass off the responsibility (especially when it comes to themselves), then no one else should have to pay for their mistake. As for the "addictions" you posted, they're simply that. A product of environmental factors, not genetics. There's no alcoholic gene. My parents have had probably 3 drinks in their entire lives. I however, after I met my group of friends drink almost every weekend going back to 1997.


----------



## trailtrash (Jun 25, 2009)

osokolo said:


> It is harder and harder to find anything that is not genetically modified.
> 
> try finding grapes with seeds or watermelons.
> grape seeds are extremely healthy.
> ...


----------



## jcr1 (Aug 21, 2006)

I have to admit that my helmet saved my life or really serious injuries a few times. I always wear my helmet and my kids know that they don't get on their bike without their helmet. I still think that it is my personnal choice and I don't need the government telling me to wear one or not. If people make the decision to ride with no helmet, it's their decision and they will suffer the consequences if something unfortunate happen. As several people already stated, the government is already way to involve in my life and finance. 

I think the Quebec approach is the right one (not only because I am from there). They have the best cycling path network in Canada by far and spend their time advocating cycling, not scaring and pissing people off by telling them what to do. Politician should worry about way more important things than having people wear a helmet.


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Nerdgirl said:


> It is simply not true across the board that our digestive system would act any differently toward GM food. It depends completely on WHAT the genetic modification is - thus (and here I agree with you) the need to EDUCATE yourself. Crop breeding and selection has gone on for thousands of years, with exactly the same effects. It is rare for things to be introduced that you wouldn't otherwise be exposed to. You have way more to fear from _E. coli_ on your strawberries and lettuce from the manure on the organic farm.


It is not true across the board? So it is true for some and it is not true for some. Which GM food it is true for? Which GM food it is not true for? How do I know? Is it disclosed on the package? Is it disclosed on the package that there is a GM content in the package????

Sorry, GM food has not been developed because it is healthier than non GM food. It has been MOSTLY developed so that it is easier and cheaper to produce.

E. Coli has been around for thousands years. Now we are introducing genetically altered crap that we do not even know how it will affect our species... I do appreciate studies and respect your masters degree, however, these changes take a bit more time than 10 or 100 years... There is no way we know what the long term effects are...


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*What is your take on*

the fact that there is way less obesity in Europe, or probably anywhere else in the world compared to USA and Canada?

Honestly, I am not an expert on this subject and can only use common sense. How is cholesterol directly proportionate to body weight... I know some skinny people that suffer from high cholesterols levels...

Maybe we should start a new thread on this subject, but how do we relate it to MTB so that the board police doesn't school us...



XLNC said:


> Very few people with familial hypercholesterolaemia will be able to reduce their cholesterol levels by diet and lifestyle changes alone. Most will need special cholesterol-lowering drugs.
> 
> If they create one to lessen brain damage in people that refuse to wear helmets and crash, thus removing them from backing up our emergency rooms and healthcare drains, then I'll be all for NOT wearing helmets.
> 
> However, your last sentence is 100% correct. Repsonsibility lies with the individual, not the rest of the population. If you seek to pass off the responsibility (especially when it comes to themselves), then no one else should have to pay for their mistake. As for the "addictions" you posted, they're simply that. A product of environmental factors, not genetics. There's no alcoholic gene. My parents have had probably 3 drinks in their entire lives. I however, after I met my group of friends drink almost every weekend going back to 1997.


----------



## saturnine (Mar 28, 2007)

garage monster said:


> To me, helmets on bikes is analogous to seat belts in cars. Not to use either makes me extremely uncomfortable. It feels like I'm not wearing pants or something... :skep:


 i don't necessarily agree with mandatory seatbelt use either. don't get me wrong, i wear one all the time, but to be forced to doesn't seem right. cars weren't even made with seatbelts for quite some time and even still, cars without seatbelts are street legal.


----------



## Nerdgirl (Mar 13, 2007)

osokolo said:


> It is not true across the board? So it is true for some and it is not true for some. Which GM food it is true for? Which GM food it is not true for? How do I know? Is it disclosed on the package? Is it disclosed on the package that there is a GM content in the package????


Agreed completely that the labeling is sub-standard.

I'm not convinced that any GM food is NOT safe. However, I will acknowledge that SOME GM foods contain proteins that would not occur through normal plant breeding (though not all). BT is the biggest one. A protein from a natural bacterial predator of many crop pests is introduced into the plants. When it isn't there, the bacterium itself is often sprayed onto the plants to achieve the same effect. Not sure which is worse. Round-up resistance (ability to live despite being sprayed with a herbicide) is another common one, used so that anything OTHER than the crop (weeds) can be easily removed. This is achieved by introducing a different form of an enzyme (a protein) - one normally in bacteria instead of plants. In both cases, these proteins are almost certainly broken down by your stomach acid (as are all proteins). There could be some concern about the extra Round-up, though equally valid concerns exist for all pesticides/herbicides, and labeling is not done for those either. It just irks me when people target GM foods as the big evil in our food system when there are much bigger problems: high salt levels, trans-fats and general poor nutrition.

Of greater concern with genetic modifications is the ecological impact. Unlike the health argument, which I do believe is scare-mongering, I think there are some valid and insufficiently-studied concerns. Though, fundamentally, farming messes dramatically with ecology.


----------



## XLNC (Mar 21, 2010)

osokolo said:


> the fact that there is way less obesity in Europe, or probably anywhere else in the world compared to USA and Canada?
> 
> Honestly, I am not an expert on this subject and can only use common sense. How is cholesterol directly proportionate to body weight... I know some skinny people that suffer from high cholesterols levels...
> 
> Maybe we should start a new thread on this subject, but how do we relate it to MTB so that the board police doesn't school us...


I'm no expert either dude, but what I've seen here in NA, it's a processed food and sedentary, ASAP, 'convenient' life. We can make a dinner for 4 in five minutes or less. Most families have 3 cars with only 2 drivers, and no bikes, but they have an Xbox, Wii, PX3, 478 inch LCD Home Theatre, 'family cell phones' etc. When I was a kid (and probably you too) I actually had to go TO my friends house to talk to them. There were no cell phones let alone texting. In Europe they have "siestas" and then party until 2 or 3 in the morning. Here we party until 2 or 3 in the morning, sleep until 4 in the afternoon and then have an after dinner nap. People would rather take their car to the store in 10 mins, when it's actually only a 5 minute walk.


----------



## Dgage (Aug 20, 2006)

osokolo said:


> I will support the law once they mandate car drivers and passengers must wear helmets as well.
> 
> I do wear helmet and think that it is stupid to ride without it. But it should be individual call. Government is already too deep in our lives, not to mention pockets...


What??? what does that have to do with cyclist wearing a helmet? Beside you want to wear a helmet when your in you car going to a cycling event where you will also have to wear a helmet to participate?


----------



## veteran_youth (Nov 21, 2006)

I like frilly shirts..

EDIT: MTBR account hijack......presumably at work. Good job whoever pulled that one off, but is nothing sacred? Unless my account was actually hacked, but it hardly seems worthwhile for frilly shirts


----------



## Circlip (Mar 29, 2004)

veteran_youth said:


> I like frilly shirts..


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

Same reason that may be used to mandate cycling helmet may be applied to cars. Fatalities and head injuries would DEFINITELY be reduced if car drivers and passengers would wear helmets. Am I wrong?

So if government wants to mandate cycling helmets - would it not be hypocritical not to mandate car helmets? Reason is the same - reduce cost to our health system and save lives. No?

Does it make more sense now?

Or lets put it this way: If government mandates cycling helmets - please tell me why they wouldn't apply the same logic to car helmets???


Thanks


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*I think you just confirmed my point...*

lifestyle and not genetics is number 1 reason for obesity, which I agree with completely. Lifestyle that includes all the processed food, genetically altered food, fast food - in one word - garbage food... Garbage in - garbage out...

Anyway, I think we should continue this interesting discussion in a dedicated thread... Nice talking to you, and yes, back in my childhood time, even a land line telephon was a luxury... let alone mobile or internet..



XLNC said:


> I'm no expert either dude, but what I've seen here in NA, it's a processed food and sedentary, ASAP, 'convenient' life. We can make a dinner for 4 in five minutes or less. Most families have 3 cars with only 2 drivers, and no bikes, but they have an Xbox, Wii, PX3, 478 inch LCD Home Theatre, 'family cell phones' etc. When I was a kid (and probably you too) I actually had to go TO my friends house to talk to them. There were no cell phones let alone texting. In Europe they have "siestas" and then party until 2 or 3 in the morning. Here we party until 2 or 3 in the morning, sleep until 4 in the afternoon and then have an after dinner nap. People would rather take their car to the store in 10 mins, when it's actually only a 5 minute walk.


----------



## Enduramil (Mar 1, 2007)

osokolo said:


> lifestyle and not genetics is number 1 reason for obesity, which I agree with completely. Lifestyle that includes all the processed food, genetically altered food, fast food - in one word - garbage food... Garbage in - garbage out...


 Bingo.

We in general don't want to see the truth. The simple truth is out there. Look at the Terrahumar or the Kenyans. When they live on their simple natural diets they are healthy. Despite their diest being high in carbs- rice, corn, beans, and such.

Better example. After August 1945 obesity and things like Cancer increased big time. That is when they started getting more and more western foods.


----------



## Enduramil (Mar 1, 2007)

ro.sniper said:


> I'll agree with the helmet portion, but I'll tell you 100% sure that if you go to Europe you will see 90% less obese/fat people. I'm sure its the GM food they feed us in North America that leads to all the things you mentioned. Which in generations will of course be genetic.


 :lol: the endless fear of genetically modified food.

The cold hard reality is that we have been eating GMF's for decades. This is really nothing new. If you looked at foods available in the grocery store for the last 100 years. They are all GM, not created in a lab but by various methods farmers and such did so that it would grow here in North America.


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

EvilScience said:


> Conversely, I think helmets may be most useful on bike paths/cruising around town. Lots of chances for low speed collisions (joggers, strollers, rollerbladers, car doors, etc) where the helmet will probably save you from some serious injury. I got doored a few years ago and took out a window with my helmet. I think my head might not have fared so well. Likewise I was knocked over by a car in slow moving traffic.Again, the helmet prevented a nasty knock to the skull. Possibly less useful doing 30 mph down a road with fast traffic, but I'll keep wearing one thanks!


Getting doored or knocked over by a car doesn't happen on a bicycle path, the MUP is a fairly safe place if you take your time and travel slowly.


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

garage monster said:


> You just have to look at what happened to jackattack yesterday to understand that bad things can happen on bike paths too.
> 
> And when it comes to collisions with motor vehicles, it's not all about getting run over. Just a few weeks ago, a friend cartwheeled over a moving car's trunk (that had made a perfectly legal left turn) and landed on his head. The helmet was destroyed but he walked away. :thumbsup:
> 
> Sure, that's more boring anecdotal, unscientific evidence but it's the truth. Nanny state or no, there's value in wearing a helmet.


Yeah, but really... drafting and letting people draft on the very same unpredictable MUP? Is that relevant to what i'm talking about? Maybe, I think, he probably had it coming. Maybe next time, slow down and save the drafting and fast speeds for the road where you won't slam on the brakes to say hi to your buddy!

I'm also sure helmets help in _some_ cases, i've heard stories of people's heads being spit out from underneath car tires like a watermelon seed thanks to their helmet. Unfortunately, there are many(most) cases where your organs and body are irreparably injured in direct car collisions(not rolling off the trunk). The head is only a small part of the target area when it comes to the grill of a chest-high SUV and etc.

Anyway, helmets help... but, mandating we must wear them is over the top and shifts onus and blame onto the cyclist. It also furthers the image that riding a bicycle is dangerous - it isn't - cars are the dangerous things. We should be spending our energy on building and retrofitting our cities to accommodate cycling. That is the best way to keep cycling safe and enjoyable.


----------



## EvilScience (Jul 16, 2004)

electrik said:


> Getting doored or knocked over by a car doesn't happen on a bicycle path, the MUP is a fairly safe place if you take your time and travel slowly.


Perhaps, but it depends heavily on the other users. The lakeshore and Don MUPs here in Toronto often see mini peletons of very fast riders (read training road racers, but I dont want that sort of thread here) blitzing through the slower oners. If you add kids on bikes, people learning to rollerblade, and dogs on extended leashes, I'd say accidents could and do happen. I've seen paramedics taking people off the MUP after collisions - including an older man on a hybrid (presumably out for a cruise) who had a head on collision with someone going much faster. It only takes one good blow to the head to leave permanent damage...

Oh, I and said "on bike paths/*cruising around town*" - I included roads in my statement.


----------



## veteran_youth (Nov 21, 2006)

Account double hijack! Cookies ftw! 


Simon woz 'ere.


----------



## XLNC (Mar 21, 2010)

osokolo said:


> Same reason that may be used to mandate cycling helmet may be applied to cars. Fatalities and head injuries would DEFINITELY be reduced if car drivers and passengers would wear helmets. Am I wrong?
> 
> So if government wants to mandate cycling helmets - would it not be hypocritical not to mandate car helmets? Reason is the same - reduce cost to our health system and save lives. No?
> 
> ...


First of all, don't get me wrong dude, I am NOT for government mandating ANYTHING. They have repeatedly proven to be most clueless when it comes to what's best for the public. They only look to give their friends a golden handshake while increasing our taxes in the guise of "protecting us from ourselves."

Secondly the car is an invalid analogy. Cars carry MUCH for mometum and force than a person on a bike. Thus cars undergo extensive "crash testing" to improve "crumple zones" and "air bag deployment zones" etc. etc. I haven't actually taken the time to individually count, but I think my truck might have more airbags than it has lights. That being said, a helmet in my truck would definitely protect me from loose cargo in my back seat flying forward and impaling themselves in my skull in an accident (I do remember a case a little while ago where a person was killed in a relatively minor collison because they had laptop CPU that was loose in the backseat fly up and hit them on the head during the collision). Insurance is also required to operate cars, and in spite of the "best social system on earth" more often than not, for small collisions the resulting medical bills after an accident are paid for by your insurance company, NOT OHIP. I remember getting rear ended by a 94 yr old back in 2002 at a stop sign (I was stopped and he was rolling at MAX. 5 KMH leaving a dimple in my plastic bumper) and in spite of my telling this to my Insurance company, they sent me 10 of the same "hospitalization forms" and kept pleading with me every other day to see a doctor.


----------



## Dgage (Aug 20, 2006)

osokolo said:


> Same reason that may be used to mandate cycling helmet may be applied to cars. Fatalities and head injuries would DEFINITELY be reduced if car drivers and passengers would wear helmets. Am I wrong?
> 
> So if government wants to mandate cycling helmets - would it not be hypocritical not to mandate car helmets? Reason is the same - reduce cost to our health system and save lives. No?
> 
> ...


Your way more vulnerable when your on the bike than you are in a car. In a car you have your seatbelt and airbags to protect you already plus the actual vehicle itself. On your bike, a helmet is the only thing standing between you and a head injury.


----------



## XLNC (Mar 21, 2010)

Enduramil said:


> When they live on their simple natural diets they are healthy. Despite their diest being high in carbs- rice, corn, beans, and such.


I remember reading somewhere before (and my brother confirmed after just visiting Asia a few months ago) that their "high in carbs ...rice ,corn," etc.. are in fact whole grains. Whole grains contain Bran, Endosperm, and Germ whereas our 'processed grains' generally remove the Bran (fibre) and Germ (nutrients) and are left with only the endosperm (starch/crabohydrate). Also much of their food is also generally taken directly from the field to the table and as per my brother's recent trip, contrary to our "minute rice" their rice actually take many hours to cook properly.


----------



## XLNC (Mar 21, 2010)

electrik said:


> Getting doored or knocked over by a car doesn't happen on a bicycle path, the MUP is a fairly safe place if you take your time and travel slowly.


I'm no hardcore 24/7 bike rider but I can personally vouch: Even though it has happened each of the 4 times I've done it this summer, my last trip on the SC Johnston Trail between Brantford and Cambridge I had 4 close calls with dogs running in front of me at the last second - (Stupid people see me coming and decide to call their dog over to them in stead of letting them be. They're happy sniffing the plants, they won't even notice me if the people just let them be but...) compared to only two instances of "close calls" riding my bike to work here in Hamilton (at least 15 times) 1: hearing a door open after I had passed the car and one other time a car passed a little too close in my opinion.


----------



## jrastories (Aug 2, 2008)

It seems to me that for the earlier posts asking why spend money on a study on helmet usage and cycling, the answer is obvious it raises good questions, there are many parties which would be interested in such data. It is something that not a lot of people have looked at and the people on these forms should be particularly interested in. I would love to have access to both of the papers in question here as I have many questions about populations, methods, power of the study ect ect. I find it hard to believe that cycling in youth has decreased by half in Ontario since Canadian data parallels US data and if I recall imports of 20 and 24" tire bikes definitely did not drop by half in the last 10 years, however I do not have this data in front of me.

Personally I would feel odd riding on trails without a helmet, or hopping on the road bike for an hour ride with no helmet. But I commute to work every day without one and I ride for fun on lake shore bike paths ect and I don't even think to bring my helmet. That was pretty much the norm to see in toronto and niagra falls, but when i went to ottawa I was definitely the minority not wearing my helmet on the water front bike path.


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

XLNC said:


> I'm no hardcore 24/7 bike rider but I can personally vouch: Even though it has happened each of the 4 times I've done it this summer, my last trip on the SC Johnston Trail between Brantford and Cambridge I had 4 close calls with dogs running in front of me at the last second - (Stupid people see me coming and decide to call their dog over to them in stead of letting them be. They're happy sniffing the plants, they won't even notice me if the people just let them be but...) compared to only two instances of "close calls" riding my bike to work here in Hamilton (at least 15 times) 1: hearing a door open after I had passed the car and one other time a car passed a little too close in my opinion.


Yes, it happens very often that people don't have their dog under control... I have learned to estimate which dog or child can cross my path and slow down accordingly. I've had close calls also but, to be fair they were just close calls and i usually can slow way down to a walking pace if i'm paying attention. I'm not going that fast to begin with as i'm not bike commuting on a MUP(too slow).


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

EvilScience said:


> Perhaps, but it depends heavily on the other users. The lakeshore and Don MUPs here in Toronto often see mini peletons of very fast riders (read training road racers, but I dont want that sort of thread here) blitzing through the slower oners. If you add kids on bikes, people learning to rollerblade, and dogs on extended leashes, I'd say accidents could and do happen. I've seen paramedics taking people off the MUP after collisions - including an older man on a hybrid (presumably out for a cruise) who had a head on collision with someone going much faster. It only takes one good blow to the head to leave permanent damage...
> 
> Oh, I and said "on bike paths/*cruising around town*" - I included roads in my statement.


Oh you mean the muppets? They are dangerous to everybody... should then, the pedestrians on the MUP be wearing helmets also? Is that why we need a mandatory helmet law?

If you take your time, obey the speed limit on the MUP... that dog/mackerel on the end of its fishing line becomes less trouble. Certainly it only takes on good blow to leave permanent damage(*snicker*) but, you should't make a fear based appeal when it isn't reasonable, they aren't carting reserved cyclists off the MUP in body-bags, despite some broken shoulders(maybe he should have been wearing chest protector also). Of course you are free to determine your own evaluation of the risk, I encourage that. I try my best to evaluate the risks and I might even wear a helmet on those trails you mentioned.

I'm not sure I was previously replying to your post... Cruising around town ups the risk overall because the worst-case scenario becomes a bit more common.


----------



## Wolfchild (Sep 22, 2007)

I always wear my helmet, because I choose to do so, it has nothing to do with any law. I notice that there are two camps within the cycling community, one is the ' anti-helmet' and the other is 'pro-helmet. Both of these groups can be very militant about trying to push their opinions on other people, because they believe that they are right ( just like vegans and global warming crowd ) Some of them will go as far as post useless stastistics, charts, studies, etc. , to try and convince people that they are right. I think that they are both wrong because they take their interpretations and opinions to the extreme. I believe that wearing a helmet is a personal choice and I don't agree that passing another usless law will make cycling safer.


----------



## jrastories (Aug 2, 2008)

osokolo said:


> lifestyle and not genetics is number 1 reason for obesity, which I agree with completely. Lifestyle that includes all the processed food, genetically altered food, fast food - in one word - garbage food... Garbage in - garbage out...


Check out the Documentery Food INC. you will see why north american's eat so much crap.


----------



## jrastories (Aug 2, 2008)

TwoHeadsBrewing said:


> Personally, I've never smacked my head on anything when crashing but I think helmets are still a good idea. I have two friends that have crashed hard enough MTB'ing that their helmets had huge scrapes/gouges in them. That would have been their noggin, maybe fatal, maybe just brain damage. That being said, I don't think it should be a law. People should be able to choose whether or not they want to be safe. If they choose not to wear a helmet that is their business.


This remindes me; when I was working at a shop in kitchener I met a guy who came limping in with his helmet I sold him about a month earlier, the whole back half was in about 3 peices. He asked me for an insurance quote for a new helmet and a new bike to commute to work on, since the week before he was hit by a car. Enough said.


----------



## l-s-d (Dec 11, 2009)

Wolfchild said:


> I always wear my helmet, because I choose to do so, it has nothing to do with any law. I notice that there are two camps within the cycling community, one is the ' anti-helmet' and the other is 'pro-helmet. Both of these groups can be very militant about trying to push their opinions on other people, because they believe that they are right ( just like vegans and global warming crowd ) Some of them will go as far as post useless stastistics, charts, studies, etc. , to try and convince people that they are right. I think that they are both wrong because they take their interpretations and opinions to the extreme. I believe that wearing a helmet is a personal choice and I don't agree that passing another usless law will make cycling safer.


^^^
This. Unsolicited advice is always more for the psyche of person giving it rather than who it's "for".


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

That is not the point - they don't want us to wear helmets because we are more vulnerable on bikes but because they want to save on health care costs. If they want us to be safer on the streets/roads - you would see way more bicycle lanes.

Healthcare costs for injured in car accidents must be thousand fold higher than bicycle related injuries...


----------



## Enduramil (Mar 1, 2007)

XLNC said:


> I remember reading somewhere before (and my brother confirmed after just visiting Asia a few months ago) that their "high in carbs ...rice ,corn," etc.. are in fact whole grains.


 The funniy thing with the whole carbs thing. I got into Tri and Duathlon's in 87 when we didn't have the whole high protein low carb nonsense. By 1989 I was full into the Tri lifestyle. I shoveled in as much carbs as I could at meal time. Rice, pasta, and so on. Never gained weight.

But according to present thinking I should be weighing 300lbs. The present thinking around carbohydrates is ludicrous. It's like saying you need to starve yourself to gain weight. And then over eat to lose weight.


----------



## KINBOY (May 23, 2004)

Just to sum up my thoughts.....

Helmet is your choice 100%.

IF you chose not to have one, pay for your own medical costs. Here we have public health care and I should not pay for your lack of concern for your brain.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_cost_of_brain_surgery

I am sure this is going to spark some discussion about many topics. I feel in a lot of cases if you are not taking reasonable precautions, ie helmet, seatbelts then you should be accountable.

If you are taking part in high risk you should have to carry supplemental insurance. Want to ride with no helmet...cool with me insurance is $..... if you would like to have coverage.

I am sure that there will be the arguement that mountain biking is dangerous, there is inherent risk BUT a helmet is a reasonable way to reduce the risk. Driving is dangerous, a seatbelt is a reasonable way to reduce the risk etc. The issue will be the def of resonable but that is for others to decide.

Next hot topic....smoking and insurance and healthcare...


----------



## Dgage (Aug 20, 2006)

osokolo said:


> That is not the point - they don't want us to wear helmets because we are more vulnerable on bikes but because they want to save on health care costs. If they want us to be safer on the streets/roads - you would see way more bicycle lanes.
> 
> Healthcare costs for injured in car accidents must be thousand fold higher than bicycle related injuries...


Who is "they"? Its usually Doctors and Nurse's that start call for helmets in a certain sport after they start seeing the amount of head trauma from that sport, no matter what that is.
Actually in "injuries per kilometer traveled" cycling rates the highest.
But my point is why make it mandatory for drivers if it is made mandatory for cyclist? You say yourself that you don't like helmet laws so why subject motorists to the same law? Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Wolfchild (Sep 22, 2007)

I can just imagine, if half of the population cycled for transportation ( work, shopping, etc ). Then the government would save millions of $$ in healthcare costs, because people would be much healthier, obesity problem would be solved. Cars and driving has put more people in hospitals and funeral homes then anything else. Now I realize that cycling is dangerous because of all the crazy traffic out there, I do it everyday, I know everytime I get on my bike I am putting my life on the line. But it really doesn't have to be that way. If there was more cyclist on the road and if there was a better cycling infrastructure then cycling would be much safer for everybody, maybe we wouldn't need helmets... and we all know the health benefits of cycling and what it can do for physical and mental health.


----------



## SuperNewb (Mar 6, 2004)

ro.sniper said:


> ....Another thing is that we live in such a nanny continent its unreal... everything is safety this and safety that... and it will lead to a very safe environment where everyone will stay safely on their couch. (and die safely and peacefully)
> 
> I remember how cool the playgrounds used to be when I was small... now most of them have this padded crap...


I agree with the first thing that ppl are getting way too overboard with safety out thier ass nowadays.

The playgrounds thing is true too and I was reading this one comment this one person made about getting hurt on the merry-go-round and getting hit by the bar and saying how back then ppl didnt sue but now she wishes she had...

For the record I think helmet laws are stupid, ok for the kids and such but as adults it should be a choice. If anything there should be more programs teaching ppl about sharing the road and learning how to ride a bike safely rather then making stupid helmet laws.

I never wore a helmet till I started racing and I only wear it when out on the trail not through the city.

Like others have said if all cyclists need to wear a helmet then Drivers should be needing the same sort of law for them. Get the whole works going, body armor, neck brace helmet, mouthgaurd etc.. :thumbsup:


----------



## osokolo (Jan 19, 2004)

*"they" is government*

we obviously do not see things eye to eye... I stated my case and don't want to go on and on...

Why the government didn't ban tobacco all together - it is OBVIOUSLY very harmful and costs us truckloads of money...

Let the people make their own decisions on issues that pertains their health. I don't need my government to protect me and send me a fat bill for doing so, whether I like it or not......

Let's just agree that we disagree... Thanks



Dgage said:


> Who is "they"? Its usually Doctors and Nurse's that start call for helmets in a certain sport after they start seeing the amount of head trauma from that sport, no matter what that is.
> Actually in "injuries per kilometer traveled" cycling rates the highest.
> But my point is why make it mandatory for drivers if it is made mandatory for cyclist? You say yourself that you don't like helmet laws so why subject motorists to the same law? Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

XLNC said:


> Some studies suggest obesity, cholesterol, or heart disease and other problems are largely genetic. There are seldom cases of severe brain damage or road rash passed onto children from a parent that neglected to wear a helmet for probably some silly selfish reason. In fact, I think there haven't been any.


Sure, case #1 for congenital and social factors influencing head trauma. Daddy is a bad-ass with scars on his head who says helmets are for sissies - Jr. can't want to live up.

Besides that, you've completely missed my point. Despite what the studies you don't quote "suggest" about genetics. Why should we allow other "Freeloaders" on the healthcare system, who is making the calls on this slippery slope? Sure he had a helmet on, but not body armor... and now all his ribs need to be fixed because a motorist hit him, cyclist negligence?

P.s. in light of the discussion below, check this out http://www.gladwell.com/1998/1998_02_02_a_pima.htm

The Pima ate dirt for thousands of years and survived on it... they now suffer horrible obesity rates. Nature has a lot todo with it, but culture can be a wrecking ball.


----------



## bcdale (Jun 26, 2010)

Dgage said:


> What??? what does that have to do with cyclist wearing a helmet? Beside you want to wear a helmet when your in you car going to a cycling event where you will also have to wear a helmet to participate?


Guess what, they do have helmets in cars. They're called curtain airbags.


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

bcdale said:


> Guess what, they do have helmets in cars. They're called curtain airbags.


Guess what - Helmets aren't airbags - drivers are!


----------



## bcdale (Jun 26, 2010)

electrik said:


> Helmets aren't airbags


You need to study more. Foam consists of gases and air. And to the poster about heat stroke and wearing FF helmets. Aint gonna happen unless you're ridiculously unhealthy and don't drink enough water. Packing that helmet on your shoulder is going to crack your skull open in a crash, AND give you a broken arm. You can fall off the bike for any $ of reasons, including railroad tracks (and break your hip like one blogger did), and take years to recover or never ride again.


----------



## canadian-clydesdale (Oct 13, 2004)

osokolo said:


> That is not the point - they don't want us to wear helmets because we are more vulnerable on bikes but because they want to save on health care costs. If they want us to be safer on the streets/roads - you would see way more bicycle lanes.
> 
> Healthcare costs for injured in car accidents must be thousand fold higher than bicycle related injuries...


Are you forgetting it is much easier and cheaper to create laws than infrastructure like bike lanes. In these tough economic times government seems to like to create laws to give the appearance they are actually doing something and to create new revenue streams through the fines for breaking said laws.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

bcdale said:


> You need to study more. Foam consists of gases and air. And to the poster about heat stroke and wearing FF helmets. Aint gonna happen unless you're ridiculously unhealthy and don't drink enough water. Packing that helmet on your shoulder is going to crack your skull open in a crash, AND give you a broken arm. You can fall off the bike for any $ of reasons, including railroad tracks (and break your hip like one blogger did), and take years to recover or never ride again.


You seem to know a lot about what will happen when I crash. And I'm not sure how a helmet will protect my hip, please clear that up.

But all of that aside, since you think FF lids are just fine in hot weather, why don't we all wear them all the time? Why don't we make it the law?

Why should my tax dollars pay to rebuild the jaw of some guy whose helmet doesn't even protect his face?


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

bcdale said:


> You need to study more. Foam consists of gases and air. And to the poster about heat stroke and wearing FF helmets. Aint gonna happen unless you're ridiculously unhealthy and don't drink enough water. Packing that helmet on your shoulder is going to crack your skull open in a crash, AND give you a broken arm. You can fall off the bike for any $ of reasons, including railroad tracks (and break your hip like one blogger did), and take years to recover or never ride again.


You need to think about it more. Air consists of gases. Compasses point north. Helmets aren't airbags. You can crash your car for any number of reasons, those pipe-bombs called airbags won't help in some crashes while a helmet will always be there. Car drivers 'ought to be forced to wear helmets, stats show driving a car is more risky than riding a bicycle.


----------



## lukey (Mar 7, 2008)

The Ottawa Citizen carried an opinion piece about mandatory helmet laws today.

The helmet paradox



> In Canada, the claim of a 45-per-cent reduction in the head injury rate for provinces with helmet laws compared with provinces without them failed to adjust for the level of cycling activity.
> 
> A study that compared six-year periods on either side of the helmet laws in the four provinces that have them, calculated a reduction in fatalities of 37 per cent and a reduction in cycling of 20.5 per cent, for a net reduction in fatalities of 20.4 per cent. In provinces without helmet laws, there was a reduction of 29.5 per cent.
> 
> ...


----------



## paul.mtl (Sep 13, 2010)

osokolo said:


> I will support the law once they mandate car drivers and passengers must wear helmets as well.
> 
> I do wear helmet and think that it is stupid to ride without it. But it should be individual call. Government is already too deep in our lives, not to mention pockets...


 :thumbsup:

Ride without helmet it is not necessary stupid depend how do you ride and where ?
It is stupid to ride with helmet when you ride very prudently and without car.


----------



## paul.mtl (Sep 13, 2010)

There are less head injuries with recumbent bike with the cyclist position : feet in front.


----------



## garage monster (Oct 13, 2006)

Who are all these people that stop cycling because of helmet laws? Seems kinda weak.  

There's a law against texting in the car and I don't hear anyone saying that they're going to quit driving (or texting for that matter) because of it. :skep:


----------



## dskunk (Jan 13, 2004)

garage monster said:


> Who are all these people that stop cycling because of helmet laws? Seems kinda weak.


People who are just hopping onto a bike to do a quick run to the corner store or get a video etc. Sometimes the sort of people who do follow the law, only now you've got to stop and find your helmet. And if they're like me that means searching for far longer then it would have taken to ride to the store and that makes it easier to just climb into the car instead. It doesn't take much to make something as simple as riding a bike a hassle.
Texting and driving seems to have come back up to the same level that it was before as far as I can see. Which would lead me to question the point of creating new laws that don't appear to be enforcable. ??


----------



## garage monster (Oct 13, 2006)

Just keep your helmet handier than your car keys and you're all set!


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

lukey said:


> The Ottawa Citizen carried an opinion piece about mandatory helmet laws today.
> 
> The helmet paradox


It has already been legally demonstrated that helmet laws infringe on the charter rights - see sikh man wearing turban on motorcycle.

Frankly, the evidence regarding helmets(for commuting not MTB) i've seen is not spectacular or near conclusive in either way. If that evidence was we could just implement the law using it alone - like we did with seat-belts which have a far more demonstrable effect on safety.


----------



## ghettocruiser (Jun 21, 2008)

Point remains, for the average guy riding his bike on side-streets to the corner store, a mandatory helmet law is every bit as inane as a mandatory DOT full-face law to ride your road bike down Yonge Street.

In fact, I'd suggest a full-face law for Yonge Street (and definitely Don Mills Rd.) makes more sense.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

electrik said:


> It has already been legally demonstrated that helmet laws infringe on the charter rights - see sikh man wearing turban on motorcycle.


I was curious, so I Googled for "sikh man wearing turban on motorcycle.", and the latest news article I could find says he lost:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=1560e901-b615-4ad0-8bd0-5d1fbb55747b&k=56384

The judge ruled that "the law was justifiable because wearing a helmet 'meaningfully' reduced deaths."

Perhaps he appealed and won after that. I dunno....


----------



## electrik (Oct 22, 2009)

ray.vermette said:


> I was curious, so I Googled for "sikh man wearing turban on motorcycle.", and the latest news article I could find says he lost:
> 
> http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=1560e901-b615-4ad0-8bd0-5d1fbb55747b&k=56384
> 
> ...


Interesting, I recalled hearing he had some victory - maybe he just wasn't going to ever motorcycle again or just keep paying the tickets?

Either way, i don't see the province forcing him to take off the turban.


----------



## ray.vermette (Jul 16, 2008)

BC and Manitoba do have motorcycle helmet exceptions for turbans. Perhaps that's what you were thinking of. But Ontario doesn't yet, at least according to the article I linked to. 

In my opinion, claiming that mandatory helmet laws (motorcycle, bicycle, or otherwise) infringe on rights is kinda lame. If people are opposed to helmet laws on the basis of efficacy, cost effectiveness, discouraging cycling, personal responsibility, "slippery slope", "nanny state", etc, fine, fill your boots, argue away, but claiming one's rights are infringed is weak. 

The charter doesn't guarantee us freedom from messy, sweaty hair, or the freedom to not use mandated safety equipment that is readily and cheaply available or the freedom to ignore laws we don't like. And the freedoms it does grant us are not absolute. Other laws can take precedence over them. The government simply has to prove that the law limiting a freedom has a justifiable purpose and it's proportional. As they did in the article I linked to above. 

So what am I saying? If you oppose helmet laws, pick some other argument to base your opposition on, other than rights infringement. There are so many better ones to choose from.


----------

