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

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:11 am

Xplora wrote:But... people drive to be free, not to actually commute.


Image
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17458
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

by BNA » Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:14 am

BNA
 

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Wed Jul 03, 2013 2:14 am

simonn wrote:Italy actually has a worse traffic-related death rate than Australia -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... death_rate

High speed autostradas no doubt. They are a bit manic I am told. Certainly as a cyclist on the regular strada statale and strada provinciale roads, I have been far happier than I am generally on Australian roads, in particular in their larger cities.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17458
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Wed Jul 03, 2013 9:59 am

warthog1 wrote:And another of your personal faves - Lycra :roll:

Who me? Surely you jest, I wear Lycra myself.


What is with your offensive and rude behaviour? I made a factual observation. Stop taking things personally.
human909
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby warthog1 » Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:02 pm

human909 wrote:

What is with your offensive and rude behaviour? I made a factual observation. Stop taking things personally.


:lol: :lol: Ah, the mock outrage and protestations of victimisation :roll:

http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/search.php?keywords=lycra&terms=all&author=Human909&sc=1&sf=all&sr=posts&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:52 pm

Huh? Outrage? No. Victimisation? No.

Is it too hard to be civil and discuss things without making things personal?
human909
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby London Boy » Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:13 pm

warthog1 wrote:Your last 3 posts. Fantastic mate.
If you are in Italy great 175 in a 110 zone no worries at all. Higher casualty rate sure, there is a bit of increased risk.

You work with their rules. Not the written ones, the real ones. The ones that plod cares about and will lift a finger to enforce.

The Italians are starting to push down their limits, the real ones, not the written ones. They've put a few cameras up now and enforcement by camera doesn't depend on plod's mood. So here or there some Italians are slowing down a bit. Not by much, mind.

warthog1 wrote:In Australia OTOH stick to within 3km/h of the speed limit or you have no right being on the road, the sheer incompetence demands you surrender your licence immediately.

This thread is the best :mrgreen:

It's not about how far you break the rules, the comment is purely about awareness. If you're in Australia and you can't simultaneously watch your speed and the road then you've not got the bandwidth to drive. Seems logical enough. If you're in Italy, same rules apply. Just different things to watch. But you still have to watch them. And you won't be fined if you get it wrong, you'll be in bits. As you say... 8)
User avatar
London Boy
 
Posts: 576
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2010 2:43 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby traveldreamer » Sat Jul 06, 2013 3:35 pm

Watching the history of the
“Tour de France: The Legend of the Race” that was on SBS TV.

I noticed that almost the entire history no helmets were worn by the racers.

This is an extreme marathon sport. They are racing.

This must be considered a high-risk activity, but it seems the riders were/are not Mandated to wear helmets

Some of the years as it’s a bit sketchy to tell are the years of 1997, 1999, 2000, and 2003. With some very tight headshots so you know that they do not have helmets.

In 1992 one rider had an aerodynamic sprinting type helmet, it had no air vents at all.

The first helmets seen looks like it was about 2004. A friend tells me this is because by this stage it was an aerodynamic advantage to wear a helmet, so you would be at a race disadvantage to not wear a helmet.

So it seems the safety of the helmet was never an issue for the tour de France.

I am no bike racing expert and have very little interest in this. Others maybe able to inform me about why they now seem to wear helmets.

It is very telling that up to 2004 that’s 14 years after 1990 when it was made mandatory to wear a bike helmet in Victoria, that they were racing without helmets.

So I would say if they are not compelled to wear a helmet in a high risk-racing environment then why am I compelled to wear one to just ride down the street?
traveldreamer
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 12:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:28 pm

traveldreamer wrote:Watching the history of the
“Tour de France: The Legend of the Race” that was on SBS TV.

I noticed that almost the entire history no helmets were worn by the racers.....



.....The first helmets seen looks like it was about 2004. A friend tells me this is because by this stage it was an aerodynamic advantage to wear a helmet, so you would be at a race disadvantage to not wear a helmet.

So it seems the safety of the helmet was never an issue for the tour de France.

I am no bike racing expert and have very little interest in this. Others maybe able to inform me about why they now seem to wear helmets.

Google "Fabio Casertelli" 18th July 1995. This was the beginning of riders campaigning for the UCI helmet rule.



Later followed by the 2003 death of Andrey Kivilev - the UCI rule came in two months after. The rule at that time still allowed for some exceptions however eg. on final climbs >5kms, and most aero-helmets (TT) would not be Australian Standards compliant.

A change of tune for next year's TdF however

The change in the rules came about after a special request from cycle campaigning organisations and local authorities keen to use the event to promote everyday cycling.

The uniform anonymity of a fully helmeted peloton is thought by some to alienate non-cyclists and, while inspiring some to take up racing, may not generate the quotidian, utilitarian cycling – to shops, schools or for commuting - that leads to reduced congestion, pollution and improved health.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/helmets-not-requi ... and-depart
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17458
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby RonK » Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:52 pm

traveldreamer wrote:Watching the history of the
“Tour de France: The Legend of the Race” that was on SBS TV.

If you watched the entire production then you cannot have missed the scene showing Fabio Casertelli lying and dying in a pool of blood from a massive head injury.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 4915
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby RonK » Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:58 pm

il padrone wrote:A change of tune for next year's TdF however

The change in the rules came about after a special request from cycle campaigning organisations and local authorities keen to use the event to promote everyday cycling.

The uniform anonymity of a fully helmeted peloton is thought by some to alienate non-cyclists and, while inspiring some to take up racing, may not generate the quotidian, utilitarian cycling – to shops, schools or for commuting - that leads to reduced congestion, pollution and improved health.

http://www.ctc.org.uk/helmets-not-requi ... and-depart

Did you not notice that the article was dated April 1 ? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Or the comment at the end of it?
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 4915
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby chriscole » Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:01 am

traveldreamer wrote:Watching the history of the
“Tour de France: The Legend of the Race” that was on SBS TV.

I noticed that almost the entire history no helmets were worn by the racers.

This is an extreme marathon sport. They are racing.

This must be considered a high-risk activity, but it seems the riders were/are not Mandated to wear helmets

Some of the years as it’s a bit sketchy to tell are the years of 1997, 1999, 2000, and 2003. With some very tight headshots so you know that they do not have helmets.

In 1992 one rider had an aerodynamic sprinting type helmet, it had no air vents at all.

The first helmets seen looks like it was about 2004. A friend tells me this is because by this stage it was an aerodynamic advantage to wear a helmet, so you would be at a race disadvantage to not wear a helmet.

So it seems the safety of the helmet was never an issue for the tour de France.

I am no bike racing expert and have very little interest in this. Others maybe able to inform me about why they now seem to wear helmets.

It is very telling that up to 2004 that’s 14 years after 1990 when it was made mandatory to wear a bike helmet in Victoria, that they were racing without helmets.

So I would say if they are not compelled to wear a helmet in a high risk-racing environment then why am I compelled to wear one to just ride down the street?


Because riding down the street is much higher risk than riding in an organised road race.
chriscole
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:35 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby warthog1 » Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:15 am

RonK wrote:Did you not notice that the article was dated April 1 ? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Or the comment at the end of it?


That was a bit inconvenient wasn't it :lol:

This thread has some good laughs along with the heavy dose of BS :mrgreen:
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby citywomble » Sun Jul 07, 2013 2:09 am

Yeh,

But did you notice one of the 'other articles of interest' which was not an April Fool:

http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen ... lmet-claim

That one is well worth reading and actually fairly well refutes one of the prime arguements earlier in this thread related to the recycled 85% statistic which has been the base of so many other reports. The same methodology for the 85% reduction in head injuries shows helmets also reduce all other injuries by 77% - really? Just shows how useless those statistics were, yet they have been cited as the basis for most other pro MHL 'reports'.

How about the dutch report that says (by implication) helmet wearers have 13 times more accidents?

MHL, perhaps it's actually an acronym for the Most Harmful Law that has actually damaged cycling, the health of many potential cyclists and allowed the harmfull car lobby to thrive while making harmless cyclists pay for almost useless protection under the guise of safety.
citywomble
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Sun Jul 07, 2013 6:25 am

RonK wrote:Did you not notice that the article was dated April 1 ? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Or the comment at the end of it?


Drat, missed those finer details, I didn't read the second last paragraph.

:oops: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Darned April Fool's Day web-pages, catching you out loooong after the event :|


It was hoped by the Yorkshire organisers that some teams may consider wearing flat caps instead of helmets, to help inspire a generation to get back on their bikes. One company has even specially designed ‘flatter’ cap, with enhanced aerodynamics, but retaining the sun and rain repelling peak which may be so necessary if July 2014’s weather goes the way of previous years.


LOVE it :lol: :lol: Might need to get in early and order one for riding my vintage single-speed.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17458
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby warthog1 » Sun Jul 07, 2013 10:08 am

il padrone wrote:
RonK wrote:Did you not notice that the article was dated April 1 ? :roll: :roll: :roll:

Or the comment at the end of it?


Drat, missed those finer details, I didn't read the second last paragraph.

:oops: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Darned April Fool's Day web-pages, catching you out loooong after the event :|


It was hoped by the Yorkshire organisers that some teams may consider wearing flat caps instead of helmets, to help inspire a generation to get back on their bikes. One company has even specially designed ‘flatter’ cap, with enhanced aerodynamics, but retaining the sun and rain repelling peak which may be so necessary if July 2014’s weather goes the way of previous years.


LOVE it :lol: :lol: Might need to get in early and order one for riding my vintage single-speed.


Kudos :)
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2235
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby citywomble » Sun Jul 07, 2013 11:55 am

Il Padrone,

It's funny that now your back posting I am more inclined to post replies.

You said:
Drat, missed those finer details, I didn't read the second last paragraph.


I suspect that is the reason why so many of your posts are annoying in that there is a disconnect from what you are commenting about. If you are going to be so 'authoritative' about what you read then at least be proficient about it and not selective.

Perhaps you too are suffering from Confirmation Bias, it can be cured - the antidote is due diligence.
citywomble
 
Posts: 214
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 7:40 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:40 pm

citywomble wrote:Il Padrone,

It's funny that now your back posting I am more inclined to post replies.

You said:
Drat, missed those finer details, I didn't read the second last paragraph.


I suspect that is the reason why so many of your posts are annoying in that there is a disconnect from what you are commenting about. If you are going to be so 'authoritative' about what you read then at least be proficient about it and not selective.

Perhaps you too are suffering from Confirmation Bias, it can be cured - the antidote is due diligence.


Now you're annoying me :x

I make one error in not reading fully a 'trick' page and you go out and damn ALL my comments with this ?????

Give a bloke a break.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17458
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby lycraless » Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:48 pm

"It is very telling that up to 2004 that’s 14 years after 1990 when it was made mandatory to wear a bike helmet in Victoria, that they were racing without helmets.

So I would say if they are not compelled to wear a helmet in a high risk-racing environment then why am I compelled to wear one to just ride down the street?"

Its even stranger.
The only transcript of parliamentary proceedings available on the subject I have found so far has been the ACT's "debate" that brought in MHL there and they actually put in provision for exemptions for competitions.
lycraless
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:17 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby traveldreamer » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:50 am

lycraless wrote:"It is very telling that up to 2004 that’s 14 years after 1990 when it was made mandatory to wear a bike helmet in Victoria, that they were racing without helmets.

So I would say if they are not compelled to wear a helmet in a high risk-racing environment then why am I compelled to wear one to just ride down the street?"

Its even stranger.
The only transcript of parliamentary proceedings available on the subject I have found so far has been the ACT's "debate" that brought in MHL there and they actually put in provision for exemptions for competitions.


Interesting may we have a link to this ?
traveldreamer
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu May 30, 2013 12:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Summernight » Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:54 pm

I found it interesting that the horse world also has an ongoing debate about wearing helmets when riding horses.

This is one blogger's view posted on one of the bigger equestrian magazine sites: http://www.equestrianlife.com.au/articl ... met-Debate

(I know it isn't compulsory for horse-riders like it currently is for cyclists)
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1392
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Thu Jul 11, 2013 10:48 pm

So does the rock climbing world and the skiing world and a host of other sports and activities. :D

I think its great to have the debate, the discussion and the choice. Personally I normally choose to wear a helmet when rock climbing and skiing.

What is not great is denying people choice through legislation. :idea:
human909
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:13 pm

The best plan is simply to ensure that helmets are held to standards (the Australian standard isn't a bad one, but it would be smarter to just use the Snell one since it's just not that a difference) so people can rely on a certain level of protection, but ultimately let someone decide if they need the hat or not. If you are not epileptic, you can reasonably foresee the likelihood of a prang by your riding style.

Helmets for peds and car passengers if you aren't allowed to decide. A lot more people with braindeath on foot or in a car than on bikes (as a raw number). Cycling is not a magically dangerous activity versus everything else.
Xplora
 
Posts: 4675
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:26 pm

Xplora wrote:Helmets for peds and car passengers if you aren't allowed to decide. A lot more people with braindeath on foot or in a car than on bikes (as a raw number). Cycling is not a magically dangerous activity versus everything else.


This argument is spectacularly bad. It doesn't get any better each time someone repeats it either.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:33 pm

high_tea wrote:This argument is spectacularly bad. It doesn't get any better each time someone repeats it either.

Which premise of the argument do you dispute?

That the risk of those activities aren't comparable?
Or that laws should be consistent?
Or that helmets wouldn't improve safety of pedestrians and motorists?

Please inform us why this is argument is so "spectacularly bad".

(Or do you believe that minority activities should be held to different standards from mainstream activities? Or do should the risk of cycling be considered higher simply because some types of cycling are higher risk?)
human909
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:58 pm

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:This argument is spectacularly bad. It doesn't get any better each time someone repeats it either.

Which premise of the argument do you dispute?

That the risk of those activities aren't comparable?
Or that laws should be consistent?
Or that helmets wouldn't improve safety of pedestrians and motorists?

Please inform us why this is argument is so "spectacularly bad".

(Or do you believe that minority activities should be held to different standards from mainstream activities? Or do should the risk of cycling be considered higher simply because some types of cycling are higher risk?)

More to the point, why do you believe the sort of pedestrian regulation being mooted is remotely acceptable?
high_tea
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Support BNA
Click for online shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Cycling Express Cycling Express
Ebay Ebay AU
ProBikeKit ProBikeKit UK
Evans Cycles Evans Cycles UK
JensonUSA Jenson USA
JensonUSA Competitive Cyclist