Malta to scrap compulsory cycle helmet law since it hinders efforts to get more people cycling

Leviathan wrote:

FrankH wrote:

The government tells me not to hurt other people, I'm OK with that (even though I don't need telling, some people do).

The government tells me to do or not to do something that can only hurt me, that should be no business of the government. It's not what I pay them for.

You seem to think the Government is your employee. They are quite interested in the things you do that could harm their tax-paying-unit. They want you fit and healthy and working until 67, then you can do whatever you sodding well want. So drink less, get regular exercise and eat your greens, but don't smoke and we would prefer it if you wore your helmet when cycling, but we won't make you because that might be expensive and make some of you shouty, and shouty people aren't busy working. Fitter, happier, more productive.

I don't think the government is my employee, that isn't what I said. What I said is that I pay them. Not all by myself of course, I do get a little help from all the other tax payers.

And I'm 68, I already do as I sodding want.

Valbrona wrote:

And who is the Government to tell people that they must wear a seatbelt in their own vehicle? Or a helmet on their own motorbike (Sikh's excepted, I believe - turbans, you see)?

You don't understand very much about society do you?

hawkinspeter wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

And who is the Government to tell people that they must wear a seatbelt in their own vehicle? Or a helmet on their own motorbike (Sikh's excepted, I believe - turbans, you see)?

You don't understand very much about society do you?

Or apostrophes.

davel wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

And who is the Government to tell people that they must wear a seatbelt in their own vehicle? Or a helmet on their own motorbike (Sikh's excepted, I believe - turbans, you see)?

You don't understand very much about society do you?

Or apostrophes.

Well, I grew up in a Council house, went to a sink comprehensive school and where I rarely saw a proper English teacher or a new book in all the time I was there becasue the school didn't have two pennies to rub together during the time that Thatcher was in power after lots of people exactly like your parents voted for her hand over fist.

You middle class tit.

Valbrona]<p>

</p>

<p>[quote=Valbrona

wrote:

Well, I grew up in a Council house, went to a sink comprehensive school and where I rarely saw a proper English teacher or a new book in all the time I was there becasue the school didn't have two pennies to rub together during the time that Thatcher was in power after lots of people exactly like your parents voted for her hand over fist.

You middle class tit.

Ahhh, the mask is starting to slip.

Fast approaching 50, balding, over-weight, in a dead end job with a female boss who has a name you can't quite pronounce. After 2 failed marriages, because she just couldn't stop walking into doors, you're nothing more than a Facebook stalker using 'friends' holiday pictures to try and rouse the pathetic little todger.

But it's all them bloody foreigners fault!

I grew up on a council estate too Valerie, and I'm not a total c*nt!*

* I'm a selective one

alansmurphy]

</p>

<p>

[quote=hawkinspeter

wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

Well, I grew up in a Council house, went to a sink comprehensive school and where I rarely saw a proper English teacher or a new book in all the time I was there becasue the school didn't have two pennies to rub together during the time that Thatcher was in power after lots of people exactly like your parents voted for her hand over fist.

You middle class tit.

Ahhh, the mask is starting to slip. Fast approaching 50, balding, over-weight, in a dead end job with a female boss who has a name you can't quite pronounce. After 2 failed marriages, because she just couldn't stop walking into doors, you're nothing more than a Facebook stalker using 'friends' holiday pictures to try and rouse the pathetic little todger. But it's all them bloody foreigners fault! I grew up on a council estate too Valerie, and I'm not a total c*nt!* * I'm a selective one

Valbrona wrote:

davel wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

And who is the Government to tell people that they must wear a seatbelt in their own vehicle? Or a helmet on their own motorbike (Sikh's excepted, I believe - turbans, you see)?

You don't understand very much about society do you?

Or apostrophes.

Well, I grew up in a Council house, went to a sink comprehensive school and where I rarely saw a proper English teacher or a new book in all the time I was there becasue the school didn't have two pennies to rub together during the time that Thatcher was in power after lots of people exactly like your parents voted for her hand over fist.

You middle class tit.

Judgemental bigot

Valbrona wrote:

davel wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

And who is the Government to tell people that they must wear a seatbelt in their own vehicle? Or a helmet on their own motorbike (Sikh's excepted, I believe - turbans, you see)?

You don't understand very much about society do you?

Or apostrophes.

Well, I grew up in a Council house, went to a sink comprehensive school and where I rarely saw a proper English teacher or a new book in all the time I was there becasue the school didn't have two pennies to rub together during the time that Thatcher was in power after lots of people exactly like your parents voted for her hand over fist.

You middle class tit.

We can go all 'Python Yorkshiremen' if you like, but it'll only bore the others.

Suffice to say if it came to a 'you should have seen the state of my house/school/estate'-off, I'd beat you one-handed. And then I'd beat you one-handed.

One of the main differences between us is I read a few books. You seem to be proud of being brought up thick and remaining so, you classless, pigshit-thick, troll bitch.

Valbrona wrote:

And who is the Government to tell people that they must wear a seatbelt in their own vehicle? Or a helmet on their own motorbike (Sikh's excepted, I believe - turbans, you see)?

I suppose you think that the evidence they found with respect to gridiron and the wearing of helmets is all wrong? What about the evidence the ABA found when they looked at concussion rates after they introduced headgear wearing in the amateurs, they then decided to allow males to compete without as the evidence clearly showed massively more concussions with than without?

My brother was a decent level amatuer before they brought about headgear in boxing, we spoke about it and it is very obvious why they are a failure. Bigger target/bigger head circumference (in cycle helmets more likely to hit something), more risk taking because feel you're more protected and the fact that the headgear didn't do shit to absorb a blow, oh and specifically to boxing more tegretting of the head because head shots counted as points (changed in 1992) not body shots far more easily to be seen by the judges than a body shot.

I guess you also don't want to hear about helmet wearing in motorcycle circles in the US, they found that incident rates went up, same as with seatbelt wearing.

Maybe we should be issuing stab vests for when people leave the house and anti rape devices for the vulnerable or people who might have a few too many on a night out? More apt given the near 600 knife deaths in the Uk not to mention thousands of injuries. 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

And who is the Government to tell people that they must wear a seatbelt in their own vehicle? Or a helmet on their own motorbike (Sikh's excepted, I believe - turbans, you see)?

What about the evidence the ABA found when they looked at concussion rates after they introduced headgear wearing in the amateurs, they then decided to allow males to compete without as the evidence clearly showed massively more concussions with than without?

I really don't think seat-belt or helmet wearing is comparable with the boxing helmet debate - especially when you actually examine the reasons for the initial rate of increase in stoppages (not concussion, that's infered). There has always been a clear demonstration in reduction in linear acceleration with headgear, and some that show impact reduction in angled strikes, so it's not just a simple situation. There's also plenty of to and fro there with a number of more recent discussions seeming to tilt away from complete removal of head protection, and the situation is generally not considering the effect of a single incident.

fukawitribe wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

And who is the Government to tell people that they must wear a seatbelt in their own vehicle? Or a helmet on their own motorbike (Sikh's excepted, I believe - turbans, you see)?

What about the evidence the ABA found when they looked at concussion rates after they introduced headgear wearing in the amateurs, they then decided to allow males to compete without as the evidence clearly showed massively more concussions with than without?

 

I really don't think seat-belt or helmet wearing is comparable with the boxing helmet debate - especially when you actually examine the reasons for the initial rate of increase in stoppages (not concussion, that's infered). There has always been a clear demonstration in reduction in linear acceleration with headgear, and some that show impact reduction in angled strikes, so it's not just a simple situation. There's also plenty of to and fro there with a number of more recent discussions seeming to tilt away from complete removal of head protection, and the situation is generally not considering the effect of a single incident.

As I explained, yes there is a direct comparison between boxing head gear and indeed seatbelts to cycle helmets.
They all induce more risk taking, such that along with lack of efficacy gives no real term reduction in overall injuries (because seatbelt wearers teansmitted their risk onto at first their unbelted rear passengers and at all times those outside the vehicle as per the isles report).
Boxers heads are increased in size so the target is bigger, a pynch that would have slipped by without actually catches the headguard and transmits a force both percussive and twisting. This contributed to more concussions, just as increasing the size of ones head with a helmet. Head strikes that would miss completely or be a graze/light bruising all of a sudden become a more serious head strike. The extra circumference and indeed weight particularly on children has a huge influence on heads hitting solid objects when wearing, add in the risk taking and this is almost identical to boxing in its effects and to why.
This same effect is found in skiing also with no perceptible benefits from huge increases in helmet wearing on the piste. Cricket, more serious head injuries due to head strikes POST helmet wearing!!

As an ex rugby player who had a dabble at gridiron the increased risks one takes because you feel prorected is very noticeable, it's exaggerated compared to cycling for sure but the fallout of head injuries even with wearing somethin akin to a motorcycle helmet is absolutely massive. Compare that to rugby where you have more control and take less risks head injuries and latterly permanent damage from such is massively less.
Adding a 'safety aid' in any environment changes behaviour, this is a given, whether that be a building site, a professional kitchen or driving a motor vehicle.
If as proven that safety aid not only isn't enough to actually prevent the injuries it's said to (just look at the actual reductions in forces in the lab with just a head weight for a helmet, not enough to prevent concussion !!) but in fact can induce others like rotational injuries, plus on top of that increase probability of incident and/or contact where none would have ocured otherwise and we have parity or a negative effect purely on an injury/incident basis ( exvluding the damage helmet wearing has done to victim blame/focus responsibility on vulnerable not the criminal and reduce cycling) then it's clear tha that safety aid is a complete and utter failure.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

And who is the Government to tell people that they must wear a seatbelt in their own vehicle? Or a helmet on their own motorbike (Sikh's excepted, I believe - turbans, you see)?

What about the evidence the ABA found when they looked at concussion rates after they introduced headgear wearing in the amateurs, they then decided to allow males to compete without as the evidence clearly showed massively more concussions with than without?

 

I really don't think seat-belt or helmet wearing is comparable with the boxing helmet debate - especially when you actually examine the reasons for the initial rate of increase in stoppages (not concussion, that's infered). There has always been a clear demonstration in reduction in linear acceleration with headgear, and some that show impact reduction in angled strikes, so it's not just a simple situation. There's also plenty of to and fro there with a number of more recent discussions seeming to tilt away from complete removal of head protection, and the situation is generally not considering the effect of a single incident.

As I explained, yes there is a direct comparison between boxing head gear and indeed seatbelts to cycle helmets.
They all induce more risk taking, such that along with lack of efficacy gives no real term reduction in overall injuries (because seatbelt wearers teansmitted their risk onto at first their unbelted rear passengers and at all times those outside the vehicle as per the isles report).
Boxers heads are increased in size so the target is bigger, a pynch that would have slipped by without actually catches the headguard and transmits a force both percussive and twisting. This contributed to more concussions, just as increasing the size of ones head with a helmet. Head strikes that would miss completely or be a graze/light bruising all of a sudden become a more serious head strike. The extra circumference and indeed weight particularly on children has a huge influence on heads hitting solid objects when wearing, add in the risk taking and this is almost identical to boxing in its effects and to why.
This same effect is found in skiing also with no perceptible benefits from huge increases in helmet wearing on the piste. Cricket, more serious head injuries due to head strikes POST helmet wearing!!

As an ex rugby player who had a dabble at gridiron the increased risks one takes because you feel prorected is very noticeable, it's exaggerated compared to cycling for sure but the fallout of head injuries even with wearing somethin akin to a motorcycle helmet is absolutely massive. Compare that to rugby where you have more control and take less risks head injuries and latterly permanent damage from such is massively less.
Adding a 'safety aid' in any environment changes behaviour, this is a given, whether that be a building site, a professional kitchen or driving a motor vehicle.
If as proven that safety aid not only isn't enough to actually prevent the injuries it's said to (just look at the actual reductions in forces in the lab with just a head weight for a helmet, not enough to prevent concussion !!) but in fact can induce others like rotational injuries, plus on top of that increase probability of incident and/or contact where none would have ocured otherwise and we have parity or a negative effect purely on an injury/incident basis ( exvluding the damage helmet wearing has done to victim blame/focus responsibility on vulnerable not the criminal and reduce cycling) then it's clear tha that safety aid is a complete and utter failure.

There's already a built-in head safety aid for boxing, in the frailty of human hands. Fist-head strikes in actual fights often result in hand damage.

One of the common explanations given for some of the old bare-knuckled fights lasting 100 rounds or so is that there were very few head shots - too risky. Put gloves on... particularly 8-12oz gloves (as opposed to 4oz as in MMA)... watch behaviour change.

Stands to reason that headguards would drive behaviour too.

davel wrote:

There's already a built-in head safety aid for boxing, in the frailty of human hands. Fist-head strikes in actual fights often result in hand damage. One of the common explanations given for some of the old bare-knuckled fights lasting 100 rounds or so is that there were very few head shots - too risky. Put gloves on... particularly 8-12oz gloves (as opposed to 4oz as in MMA)... watch behaviour change. Stands to reason that headguards would drive behaviour too.

That's true, and seen in practice. Boxers stopped shielding their heads so much, butted more (less risk of cuts), and the head was now a larger target as BTBS says - no-ones disputing that. The figure that is often quoted is 'number of concussions' but that's not actually what rose when boxing headgear was introduced. What did rise, apparently, was stoppages due to signs of lack of control and mental faculty. However another change confounds that and the figures most often quoted are for two different styles of boxing. Taking into account all stoppages - knockout and actual or perceived loss of faculty - and there seems to be little or no change, which leads to another point .. the number of knockouts. Anecdotal evidence that there are less KOs but more, repeated heavy blows to the head have been around since it happened; on the surface seems to make sense but what about data ? Digging around there is this, for instance

http://www.centrechatbleu.com/competition/AIBA_Headgear_Analysis.pdf wrote:

In fact, the introduction of headgear and the switch to computer scoring were the two leading changes that have significantly reduced the number of KOs in a 3 round 3-minute format. As of 2011, the KO rate had dropped to less than 1/10th the KO rate without headgear

There is also the issue of who seems more inclined to argue for fights without headgear and who doesn't. In the former camp there were a number of those from the various boxing associations involved in promoting the sport, and in the other quite a number of physicians, e.g. the Association of Ringside Physicians were countering the AIBA at the time. 

There is evidence of a changes, but don't believe people who tell you it's clear cut or obvious or thing X has 'massively increased' - there is quite a bit of data and it's not simple at all to form concrete conclusions. FWIW there seem to be a number of more recent studies that indicate headgear is a net benefit but, even if true, that doesn't mean to say it's not without risk and those studies themselves may be subject to further scrutiny and counter-claim in the future. Things like this are rarely clear-cut, that's just the way it is - reality really doesn't give a shit about people opinions and beliefs.