Sat, 15 January 2011
0:00:00 Comments[4]
|
- I really enjoyed the interview on food tech and I am stoked to add “food poisoning” incident to my yearly pseudo-psychic predictions (they are gag predictions but I am beating the best woo-psychics at the current time).
Eran’s Grain of salt on helmets was interesting as a thinking point. Being a regular mountain bike rider I always take an interest in the subject. I think the discussion was done very well given the constraints of time.
It is interesting that a lot of thought is given to serious injury but not to minor injury. Stitches to the head take up resources to a much lesser degree than major head injury but could possibly be more common.
I know anecdotally (I know crap evidence but used to suggest potential area of investigation) that I have avoided minor head injury in bike crashes where the helmet was rendered unusable as a result of absorbing the damage.
It would be interesting to have a study that considered the prevention of minor injury as a result of helmets.
Of course science can inform policy decisions and I would hope that the legislation now and into the future would be based on sound scientific study (and driven by the science and not science used to support an agenda) and reviewed as the science self corrects. (My perfect little world)
- Eran, thanks for the rational approach and discussion on bicycle helmets.
As a former cyclist who has been in two accidents involving cars, I find that the arguments against helmets are often specious.
The claim that helmets can cause injuries remind me of claims made of seatbelts and airbags. No doubt the claim may have some truth in it but on the whole like seatbelts and airbags, it does save lives. Speaking anecdotally (and I do realise that this is not evidence), the second incident involved a direct hit on the road with my head. Upon examination of the helmet, the amount of damage done to the helmet is inconsequential compared to what it would have done to my head. I am reasonably sure that I would not be typing this today if I had not worn one.
As for the libertarian view on helmets, I agree with you on the fact that as tax payers we ultimately foot the medical bill should these people sustain head injuries. As a physiotherapist, I have unfortunately seen the effects of head injuries and how they impact on people’s lives. One has to also consider that this results in expensive medical bills (for the rest of their lives), affect quality of life for these people but also their family and friends. At some point, the Government has a duty of care for the people they govern. If it is to protect them from their own stupidity then so be it. I would consider this to be similar to the situation of seatbelts.
One area that appears to be in need of addressing is road user attitude. There has been some studies that have looked at the safety margin made by drivers with cyclists wearing helmets versus not wearing helmets. Disturbingly, drivers left a smaller margin of error to riders wearing helmets apparently based on perceived competence on the bike. Having been at the wrong end of this, I can attest that it is concerning when a car nearly side swipes you off the road. This is usually accompanied by abuse and the argument that we should not be on the road in the first place. I firmly believe that until this attitude is addressed then cycling on Australian roads will not be considered safe.
Keep up the good work, Grain of Salt is one of my favourite segments as it is always thought provoking and evidence based (much like Skeptoid) and I look forward to the next one. - Eran...thanks for the well rounded discussion of bicycle helmets, and helmet legislation. Here in Ontario Canada, helmet use is mandated for children, and adults are left to decide for themselves. My personal opinion comes from a couple of times when my own helmet definitely protected my "coconut" from some kicked up stones and minor crashes. Helmets are a good idea for most cyclists, but legislation is a distinct (though related) issue.
- Guys, love the show but can you try and keep it apolitical. This episode's think tank ragged on the Liberals and their responses to the Queensland flooding. You seemed to be scoring cheap points for no real reason or gain. It is quite possible to be right-of-centre politically and still a sceptic. Argue specific points if your like (gay marriage, climate change etc.) but generalised bashing of one side of politics is not what the sceptic movement is about, I hope.
Post your comment:
