Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy
someone mentioned this and i thought.. why not? if it's good enough for helmets, let's also have a law for glove wearing.
hands are very important. many of us rely on our hands for our livelihoods and of course for everyday tasks.
my worse hand injury was when i came off my bike and got it trapped under my body as i tumbled down the road. i crashed as i had my hands down my pants and off the bars. i ripped the side of my thumb off, it was a terrible mess. what was i doing with my hands down my pants, you ask? it's a fair question. my hands were cold - another reason why you need gloves.
so there you go. incidentally when i had my pinky pinned recently, i ended up $1000 out of pocket - hand surgeons are expensive!
i now await someone to tell me people would stop riding if they had to wear gloves
So in other words if you were not wearing pants you would not have injured your hand
GO! RUN!! GAAAH!!!
I would be for mandatory glove laws before MHLs. Not remotely in favor but if that was the choice its the way I would vote.
Hand injuries pretty much dont kill anyone (well you know.. someone dies from tetanus every once in a while) but I would bet that if you did a study working days lost through head injury vs working days lost through hand injury and made the assumption all head injuries would be stopped by helmets (as if) and all hand injuries would be stopped by gloves, (might be a decent percentage actually) you would decide a glove law made better sense.
Without bringing any other factors in.. all of which would seem to weigh more heavily against MHLs than MGLs that is.
I decided to stop traveling as a passenger in a car when they introduced compulsory seat belt rules.
A mate decided to stop driving to the shops when they introduced local 50kph speed limits.
Another mate decided to stop driving when they banned talking on mobiles, but not 2 way radios.
Yet another mate decided to stop driving when they introduced mandatory child restraint rules.
Think of all the obesity and heart attacks those rules have caused.
Bugger trolls. A mate decided he hated them when they started a useless thread. Another mate decided he hated them when they posted a useless post. Another mate decided he hated them when he realised they could not even try and understand another point of view. And yet another mate when he realised they knew nothing about rational discourse or statistics. And another when he realised that no one on forums has ever actually met them. But my reason is I dont think they actually ride bikes
this is exactly true. in fact, i would have preferred to be wearing pants, but i KEEP GETTING ARRESTED FOR THAT, DUE TO THE MANDATORY PANTS LAWS!!!!1!
internet. serious business.
Did I mention the mate who stopped riding when they introduced the mandatory bell law? Yep!!! traded it all for sitting at home in his arm chair, tallie on one hand, bag of crisps in the other, getting fatter, coronary arteries just about to pop, watching his pre school kids play xbox.
And the mate who lost his right arm in a combine harvester accident. He won't ride because bike rules discriminate against him - can't make a right hand turn signal, let alone wear two gloves.
surely he can use a prosthetic arm and put a glove on it? people are always making excuses for why they can't comply with the law
you seen the price of new prosthetic arms recently? and try as he might, there's a dearth of recycled prosthetic arms, at flea markets.
talking bout excuses, he won't use gloves either, cos he says he can't just buy a leftie.....another example of discrimination against people with disabilities!
maybe we need all the headless to step up and challenge MHL because it discriminates against them.
So your injury resulted from you not abiding by the laws applicable to riding a bicycle http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_reg/rsrr2009208/s245.html, not from not wearing gloves
"ROAD TRAFFIC CODE 2000 - REG 211
211 . Riding bicycles
The rider of a bicycle shall —
(a) sit astride the rider’s seat facing forward (except if the bicycle is not built to be ridden astride); and
(b) ride with at least one hand on the handlebars; and
(c) if the bicycle is equipped with a rider’s seat — ride the bicycle seated in or on that seat.
Modified penalty: 1 PU. "
i still say we need a mandatory gloves law
How about mandatory closed shoes...steel capped. Feet injuries are a lot more disabling than hands.
And mando eye wear. getting an eye poked out is tough, and two eyes catastrophic.
But guess what.....give your head a good knock, and you can lose control of hands, feet, eyes, intelligence, personality....not to mention bowels and bladder.
Sorry to tell it how it is, but feel free to put me on ignore.
I've still got the 5cm scar on me right forefinger, full flexion is still a tad uncomfortable years later. I was wearing gloves too.
I suggest that sensible people leave this thread for the people that have constantly failed to say "challenge accepted" when asked to put up or shut up in t'other thread. Poor things need a win
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
But the people who shut up are Level 1. So that would make other habitual posters what, Level 4 or 5?
http://www.systemcomic.com/2011/08/03/s ... -internet/
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users