Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

[DavidS]

Ok, back to the popcorn and coke then

DS

[The 2nd Womble]

Firstly, if you're going to refer to a 24 hour old post without directly qutoing it for reference with (20= posts in between, expect people not to know what you're on about. I didn't categorise anyone. I was merely quoting the terminology that was being referred to, and it should also be obvious that I and SCA cater to all levels and types of rider for you are indeed right. If you cycle, you are a cyclist. When have I ever made that distinction? Again, feel free to quote me and I'll gladly clarify whatever may have been taken out of context.
You will not find a single inference on our FB page, Twitter account or website which suggests we concern ourselves with any particular type of bike riding. Edit] there is no distiction to be made between a cyclist and a bike rider. That Gas(Americanism) and Petrol are different is equally non-debatable.

[The 2nd Womble]

Ok, back to the popcorn and coke then

DS

Get your own coke!

[human909]

Fair enough. I think we have had two pages now of objecting to that divisive terminology.

[The 2nd Womble]

Amen.

[greyhoundtom]

If I may add a little to that whole issue of who is considered a cyclist......... not only is everyone that rides a bike for whatever reason a cyclist in my book, but also that being a cyclist is a state of mind.

I have not been able to ride a bike for some 5 months now due to a number of health issues, and yet in my heart I know I’m a cyclist, and even if I’m never ever able to ride a bike again I will still be a cyclist.

[human909]

At they risk of shooting my own arguments in the foot.

If I may add a little to that whole issue of who is considered a cyclist......... not only is everyone that rides a bike for whatever reason a cyclist in my book, but also that being a cyclist is a state of mind.

I have not been able to ride a bike for some 5 months now due to a number of health issues, and yet in my heart I know I’m a cyclist, and even if I’m never ever able to ride a bike again I will still be a cyclist.

I do sort of agree re; state of mind. But as far as bigotry goes until I can start reading the state of mind of everybody I'll stick with a more inclusive definition of anyone who is riding a bike.


Recently I've spent as much time on these forums as on a bike. My excuse is that I've been a bit sick. So in many ways I'm barely cycling and I'm unfit. But I met a nice young lady the other day who is a recent convert to cycling who is trying to drag me out to beach road ride. So I've got even more motivation now to get more fit.

[Baldy]

https://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/helme ... yer/013638

Racing cyclists are not the enemy.

Amanda Grant is the enemy.

"If you are involved in an accident severe enough that a head injury will kill you, other parts of your body will be injured severely enough to kill you." Jim Moss

Oh well that settles the whole debate then. Everyone thank Jim

[human909]

Racing cyclists are not the enemy.

Nobody has suggested they are. But divisive comments are.

[Percrime]

"If you are involved in an accident severe enough that a head injury will kill you, other parts of your body will be injured severely enough to kill you." Jim Moss

Oh well that settles the whole debate then. Everyone thank Jim

Mmm.. Its not the whole truth of course. But their is some truth to it. SInce the introduction of motorcycle helmets (yes I just commented on another thread that they are a different beast so let that go and bear with me) most motorcyclists who die of a head injury (or could have died of a head injury ) have an average of 2 life threatening injuries other than the head injury.

One day soon I am going to index all these references so I can just pull up the appropriate one and post it. Not yet alas. But the study is out there.

The point being I guess that if you die in a bicycle crash its usually because you got hit solidly by a car and usually you die so thoroughly that a bicycle helmet was never ever going to make a difference.

Its undoubtably rare that a bicycle helmet makes the difference between life and death, it must be rare (in spite of massive and unbelievable anecdotal evidence to the contrary) or the debate and arguing about what the statistics mean would be long over.(as it is in motorcycling.. nearly is in climate change and so on ) Because the statistics would be convincing beyond fudging. And really thats not what they are intended for. THey are intended to save minor damage and the odd concussion. and maybe at a pinch the odd fractured skull (although the average skull is around 10 times as strong as the average helmet, but sometimes a 10th more toughness matters)

Which does not mean it doesn't happen of course. Just that it doesn't happen very often.

[Kenzo]

However... it isn't always about death, it can also be about permanent brain injury being prevented by the helmet.
Body can heal, brain can't.
Paraplegia may result from a bodily injury - but combine with brain injury and it can be a greater strain on family/friends.
So many aspects to it, perspectives...
But I still believe in choice for adults....

[Percrime]

True. Still hard to make a compelling case that bike helmets save more than a concussion very often. But yes still true

[lturner]

https://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/helmet-company-is-misrepresenting-dangers-of-cycling-says-lawyer/013638

Racing cyclists are not the enemy.

Amanda Grant is the enemy.

"If you are involved in an accident severe enough that a head injury will kill you, other parts of your body will be injured severely enough to kill you." Jim Moss

Oh well that settles the whole debate then. Everyone thank Jim

Good lord that article by Amanda Grant is terrible.

On another issue, are any MHL supporters willing to take up the case for the affirmative that this guy is doing something reckless and requires police attention?

[The 2nd Womble]

https://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/helmet-company-is-misrepresenting-dangers-of-cycling-says-lawyer/013638

Racing cyclists are not the enemy.

Amanda Grant is the enemy.

"If you are involved in an accident severe enough that a head injury will kill you, other parts of your body will be injured severely enough to kill you." Jim Moss

Oh well that settles the whole debate then. Everyone thank Jim

Good lord that article by Amanda Grant is terrible.

On another issue, are any MHL supporters willing to take up the case for the affirmative that this guy is doing something reckless and requires police attention?

That's missing the point. He's riding in a country (obviously not OZ) where there is no law requiring him to wear a helmet. Nobody is arguing that not wearing a helmet in is reckless in of itself. Those like me are keen to point out that riding like this in Oz where he is breaking the law, and one which practcally every Australian over the age of 5 knows is in existance, is reckless given the message it is sending to all who now label him a law breaker.
The act of riding helmetless is not the issue for the man in the pic. If it were taken on an inner city street here the perception would be entirely different.
I'm currently required to wear a helmet by law. I won't entertain the thought of not wearing one because
1) I'll be fined if caught, and
2) The next cyclist will quite possibly be seen in the same light by the driver who takes offence regardless of whether we're wearing a helmet or not.
I have seen drivers take to abusing several cyclists along a roadway more than once. The driver's anger may be (even further) misdirected at somebody else based on his dim view of my actions. Sure, drivers get it wrong, but ask what three things they object to most with cyclists, and it's going to be red light, helmets and rego.

[human909]

I personally don't care about the "how much a helmet protects you" debate. That said don't disagree with percrime.

However, as far as I am concerned whatever the activity if I am involved in a high speed fall on hard ground I want to be wearing a helmet.

Of course like PawPaw very much likes to point out we can't predict when this will occur. What we need to do is make an assessment of the probability of an occurrence and wear a helmet on those occasions. It is ludicrous to wear a helmet wherever there is a slight risk as this realistically covers our entire life. (In fact my only concussion ever was on a Year 12 formal years ago. Wearing a helmet then would have been very beneficial! )

is reckless given the message it is sending to all who now label him a law breaker.

That is a stretch. Its a motorist not indicating reckless given the message they are sending?

2) The next cyclist will quite possibly be seen in the same light by the driver who takes offence regardless of whether we're wearing a helmet or not.
I have seen drivers take to abusing several cyclists along a roadway more than once. The driver's anger may be (even further) misdirected at somebody else based on his dim view of my actions.

If I based my actions on whether it annoys bigoted motorists or not I wouldn't be cycling on roads.

Sure, drivers get it wrong, but ask what three things they object to most with cyclists, and it's going to be red light, helmets and rego.

I've never heard I driver object to helmets. Maybe its different up where you are though because in VIC there is 98% compliance. Even if they do object though what business is it of theirs?

[The 2nd Womble]

Actually, MHL's at Yr12 formals sounds like a very practical idea. We could have used them as well with the collisions experienced after drunken deck chair races around the pool at the breakwater Casino that night. We aren't robinson Crusoe's there Human.

[ldrcycles]

On another issue, are any MHL supporters willing to take up the case for the affirmative that this guy is doing something reckless and requires police attention?

I'm not a MHL supporter, but that bloke ABSOLUTELY requires police attention. Wearing those shoes in public . My eyes!

[Xplora]

Isn't it worth noting how utterly ludicrous the caption is? It's meant to challenge. Who gives a damn about what country it was taken in... heads aren't stronger in Europe. We're the same genetic stock in Australia.

Take your nanny state and shove it. Your laws aren't enforced when they would protect me from moron motorists, so stop pretending that your interest is protecting my body.

[The 2nd Womble]

Oy yoy yoy.
The one thing that doesn't sink in with you people. We have a law here. It's the very title of the thread. That European's heads are no stronger is the point in contention with regard to my posts? Really???
Drivers hate cyclists because we take up valuable space and break the law on a minute by minute basis. Just ask one who doesn't ride a bike. Don't argue this fundamental point with me. It's them you should be talking to. We have a law, riding without a helmet is breaking it. Drivers hate it. Buff said.

[Xplora]

No one is saying that you should obey or disobey the law. We are saying the law is stupid and should be changed.

You've been reading this thread, haven't you?

[Mulger bill]

Furphy Dave. Smokeboxers hating lidlessness has nothing to do with legal behaviour else they'd be banging on big time about the mora with phones clamped to their heads or failing to indicate. (Note that both these two examples of illegal behaviour have a much greater probability of injuring innocents.) Nude nuttedness is just one more hook they can hang their bigotry on.

Shaun

[PawPaw]

On another issue, are any MHL supporters willing to take up the case for the affirmative that this guy is doing something reckless and requires police attention?

OMGosh, where are all the cars? and what is that thing he is crossing? Do we have them in Australia? Why not? Oh that's right....we don't need them....not wearing helmets is good enough.

Shame on those Euros for misrepresenting the dangers of cycling by excluding cars in cycling promo pics.

[DavidS]

Nobody is arguing that not wearing a helmet in is reckless in of itself.

Womble, I know this does not include you, but there are a hell of a lot of people arguing just this. All those who support MHLs are arguing precisely this. In fact they are arguing it is so reckless that laws have to be passed to make sure we aren't reckless. Every Australian state parliament is arguing this by passing MHLs. I understand your position on the law Womble but the argument is not that we should flout the law, the argument is that the law should be repealed.

There were a number of problems with that article that Baldy quoted but there was one good point: why are so many supposed advocates of cycling arguing it is so dangerous? Not very conducive to getting people to take up cycling. Note, this is not directed at you Womble, it is directed at MHL advocates.

PawPaw, you're right, there are no cars in that photo. I strongly suggest that you should immediately dismount your bike when a car is within 50 metres of you. It's too dangerous. You should just drive. By the way Pawpaw, ever done any track cycling? No cars there so I assume no need for a helmet!

DS

[damhooligan]

Nobody is arguing that not wearing a helmet in is reckless in of itself.

Womble, I know this does not include you, but there are a hell of a lot of people arguing just this. All those who support MHLs are arguing precisely this. In fact they are arguing it is so reckless that laws have to be passed to make sure we aren't reckless. Every Australian state parliament is arguing this by passing MHLs. I understand your position on the law Womble but the argument is not that we should flout the law, the argument is that the law should be repealed

DS

+1

I picked that up to.... you beat me to it....
It is considered reckless to ride without a H. That's why we have the mhl...
And this thread......

[damhooligan]

On another issue, are any MHL supporters willing to take up the case for the affirmative that this guy is doing something reckless and requires police attention?

OMGosh, where are all the cars? and what is that thing he is crossing? Do we have them in Australia? Why not? Oh that's right....we don't need them....not wearing helmets is good enough.

Shame on those Euros for misrepresenting the dangers of cycling by excluding cars in cycling promo pics.

Yeah shame on those euros....
The stats clearly show its dangerous to ride a bike over there....
Mayby we should force them to wear helmets too....