Cycling gets worse in Australia's "worst cycling state" New South Wales as newly raised fines surge

L.Willo wrote:

giff77 wrote:

Seriously? I can't believe you've provided the link to a seriously flawed publication. Did you actually read it?

Yes. Very impressive research. Did you read it or knee jerk because you hate the conclusions?

And before you criticise his methodology, here are Professor Gilchrist's impressive academic credentials in the area of impact and crash simulations.

http://www.ucd.ie/eacollege/mme/staff/academicstaff/professormichaelgilc...

Can we see yours?

I dont' think we need to see his.  He comprehensively demolished your quoted research, and your only defence is to attack him;  no further evidence needed.

You might like to take a look at some of the reliable, robust, long term, large scale, peer reviewed research, which shows at best, no benefit from mass helmet wearing, and at worst, an increase in risk with helmet wearing, but I'm guessing from your post that you aren't interested in evidence that doesn't support your pre-conceived position.

L.Willo wrote:

giff77 wrote:

Seriously? I can't believe you've provided the link to a seriously flawed publication. Did you actually read it?

Yes. Very impressive research. Did you read it or knee jerk because you hate the conclusions?

And before you criticise his methodology, here are Professor Gilchrist's impressive academic credentials in the area of impact and crash simulations.

http://www.ucd.ie/eacollege/mme/staff/academicstaff/professormichaelgilc...

Can we see yours?

i can assure you. I did read the paper. And I can also assure you that my post was not based on hatred for his conclusions. Again,  look at his data. 37 fatalities over 10 years. The list on page 33 shows ages, types of vehicle (usually large cars or lorries)  and the majority of the collisions are at speed. NOWHERE does Gilchrists present cause of death or where survival is attributed to helmet use or if the 'helmetless' deaths could have been prevented. He does however recommend that research is carried out to improve the design of helmets to deal with high speed impact  The Republic is dealing with an average of 10 deaths per year of cyclists (pedestrians double maybe even triple that) and that's with a population of 4.5 million. Road fatalities are shockingly high and all the safety authorities can do is push for helmet legislation or wear hi viz rather than push for presumed liability or implement decent infrastructure. 

The Dutch back in the 70's took the bull by the horns after people started blockading streets due to the horrific levels of road deaths of young people and we have what we have today. When ever there is a fatality the Dutch investigate and tweek the structure to ensure the safety of the vulnerable road user. They don't make noises about helmets and high viz. Meanwhile. The Anglo Saxon nations would rather enforce draconian laws and fines as their interpretation of road safety. 

Go and pull the stats from the RSA website for the Republic. You will find the majority of fatalities have been killed by distracted motorists driving heavy vehicles at speed. There is no way a helmet will protect you. Nothing will. The Australian authorities need to be looking at infrastructure, speed control etc to protect the vulnerable. NOT implementing punitive fines as the means of protection. 

I will ill point out that I have no issue with fines for traffic offense but these fines and offences need to be realistic. 

giff77 wrote:

i can assure you. I did read the paper. And I can also assure you that my post was not based on hatred for his conclusions. Again,  look at his data. 37 fatalities over 10 years. The list on page 33 shows ages, types of vehicle (usually large cars or lorries)  and the majority of the collisions are at speed. NOWHERE does Gilchrists present cause of death or where survival is attributed to helmet use or if the 'helmetless' deaths could have been prevented. 

Well I did wonder, because you are aware that that is not a research paper but a set of slides from a Powerpoint presentation for a lecture? As such, the level of detail that you expect would be totally inappropriate.

Survival? What survival? The research is clearly into cycling fatalities. The cause of death is irrelevant. No one honestly thinks that cycle helmets will protect you from a spinal fracture. 

The research had three stated aims:

• Analyse kinematics of cyclist-motor vehicle collisions: Helmeted Vs Non-helmeted
• Investigate effects of primary and secondary impacts: 1: against vehicle 2: subsequently against ground
• To examine how the velocity and orientation of the collision affect helmet performance

e.g. to analyse what happens to the head during a fatal road accident and whether or not a helmet would likely have made a difference to the severity of the head injuries that were incurred. 

Prof. Gilchrist used his considerable, award winning expertise in this discipline to use computers to model primary and secondary head impacts and calculate the effects of wearing a helmet. His conclusions contribute to an overwhelming body of evidence that a well-designed helmet offers significant head injury protection in accidents where the impact speed is less than 30 mph .... eg the urban speed limit eg persuasive grounds for making cycle helmets mandatory for road cycling in urban areas.

Finally, a pic from the one case study out of the 37 highlighted during the presentation, if I were to make that shape in a windscreen, with the back of your head, would you rather be wearing a helmet or not? Maybe ask your wife and kids the same question?

L.Willo wrote:

giff77 wrote:

i can assure you. I did read the paper. And I can also assure you that my post was not based on hatred for his conclusions. Again,  look at his data. 37 fatalities over 10 years. The list on page 33 shows ages, types of vehicle (usually large cars or lorries)  and the majority of the collisions are at speed. NOWHERE does Gilchrists present cause of death or where survival is attributed to helmet use or if the 'helmetless' deaths could have been prevented. 

Well I did wonder, because you are aware that that is not a research paper but a set of slides from a Powerpoint presentation for a lecture? As such, the level of detail that you expect would be totally inappropriate.

Survival? What survival? The research is clearly into cycling fatalities. The cause of death is irrelevant. No one honestly thinks that cycle helmets will protect you from a spinal fracture. 

The research had three stated aims:

• Analyse kinematics of cyclist-motor vehicle collisions: Helmeted Vs Non-helmeted
• Investigate effects of primary and secondary impacts: 1: against vehicle 2: subsequently against ground
• To examine how the velocity and orientation of the collision affect helmet performance

e.g. to analyse what happens to the head during a fatal road accident and whether or not a helmet would likely have made a difference to the severity of the head injuries that were incurred. 

Prof. Gilchrist used his considerable, award winning expertise in this discipline to use computers to model primary and secondary head impacts and calculate the effects of wearing a helmet. His conclusions contribute to an overwhelming body of evidence that a well-designed helmet offers significant head injury protection in accidents where the impact speed is less than 30 mph .... eg the urban speed limit eg persuasive grounds for making cycle helmets mandatory for road cycling in urban areas.

Finally, a pic from the one case study out of the 37 highlighted during the presentation, if I were to make that shape in a windscreen, with the back of your head, would you rather be wearing a helmet or not? Maybe ask your wife and kids the same question?

 

So I'm expected to take Gilchrist's findings as gospel?  Just because he is a highly qualified doctor does not mean that any of his papers/projects or lectures are infallible.  You would think that to validate the use of helmets and their protective properties statistics  would be included. There is no sign of these being mentioned on this lecture.  All that is concluded is that they offer protection below 50kph and that research needs to be undertaken to design helmets capable of >50kph. Though I have mentioned that already. 

As for the pic of the car. Let's tell everyone that it is a Mitsibushi jeep with bull bars that rear ended a cyclist at 100kph on a wet and windy morning on a country road. The only fault of the cyclist was that he had no working lights.  Even then,  the driver should take some responsibity for not anticipating the unexpected. At least that's what I was taught when learning to drive.  And I'll just repeat myself in case you missed it the first time. The autopsy report. There's no mention of head trauma. Something I would have thought pretty important if you are conducting a lecture that is focusing on primary and secondary impacts to the head and the effectiveness of helmets. Don't you think?

giff77 wrote:

So I'm expected to take Gilchrist's findings as gospel?  Just because he is a highly qualified doctor does not mean that any of his papers/projects or lectures are infallible.

Of course not but the point is that neither of us are sufficiently qualified in the field of brain trauma and impact reconstructions to criticise his methodology. So I was  a little surprised to see your comment: riously? I can't believe you've provided the link to a seriously flawed publication 

Quote:

All that is concluded is that they offer protection below 50kph

Significant protection and should be worn, the Professor concludes. Most impacts in urban environments will be at speeds substantially below 50KPH.

Quote:

and that research needs to be undertaken to design helmets capable of >50kph. Though I have mentioned that already.

Who would not welcome even more effective helmets.

Quote:

As for the pic of the car. Let's tell everyone that it is a Mitsibushi jeep with bull bars that rear ended a cyclist at 100kph on a wet and windy morning on a country road. The only fault of the cyclist was that he had no working lights.

A huge fault. To compound that fault, the cyclist was wearing a black coat, dark pants and wellingtons and struggling to maintain his line in a fierce wind at 6am in the morning.

Quote:

Even then,  the driver should take some responsibity for not anticipating the unexpected. At least that's what I was taught when learning to drive.

Some, perhaps. All no, but in any case what does this have to do with Professor Gilchrist's research?

Quote:

And I'll just repeat myself in case you missed it the first time. The autopsy report. There's no mention of head trauma. Something I would have thought pretty important if you are conducting a lecture that is focusing on primary and secondary impacts to the head and the effectiveness of helmets. Don't you think?

"skin wound on left forehead 5cm in length, lacerated wound on the occiput of the scalp 5cm"

Sounds like a head injury to me?

superdx wrote:

Sidewalks are full of pedestrians on mobile phones so that's an accident waiting to happen..."

Totally agree. Those idiot pedestrians not wearing helmets...

superdx wrote:

Helmets will save you from being a drooling organ donor

You can assert that, but the epidemiological evidence - i.e., oh, you know, the real world - contradicts you. Helmets are at best an ineffective public policy tool to making cycling safer. Indeed, as helmet compulsion seems to go hand-in-hand with cycling hostility, high-helmet-use regimes have *worse* cycling safety overall. And worse public health results too.

This bizarre fixation on polystyrene head coverings for cyclists in many parts of the Anglo-Saxon is counter-productive.