Election time voting against mandatory helmet laws.

[il padrone]

IMHO I would suggest there has been a decline in people riding to work after 1991 due to the negative publicity surrounding the mandatory helmet laws. Its telling people that cycling in general is unsafe so you should be wearing a helmet. Once the parents of Australia are alerted to this thought they stop the kids riding to school and spouses stop each other riding to work. It also gives the perception that riding to work is not a safe and viable option in Australia.
In my household I ride after work and on the weekends mainly on low traffic -rural roads. Rarely ride to work because I havent got a PSP route and wife doesnt want me to . Most people who ride to my workplace ride a PSP.

This is a self-fulfilling attitude. Roads are made safer when more people ride bikes on the roads.

My daughter rides for fitness and pleasure as well. Only rides locally or along the river PSP without a bike helmet - She reckons its not cool would mess the hair. Wouldnt ride to work as riding facilities are not safe or adequate on route to work. Reckons helmet laws wouldnt stop her riding around anyway.
She has spent time in Europe and reckons that bicycle riding is seen as a legitimate form of transport while in Australia its percieved only as a leisure activity.

Does she see the irony in this ??

[The Womble]

And again, there are several reasons that people choose not to ride a bicycle. Helmets are not THE reason.

but it is a reason...
it does keep pople from riding...

Thats their loss really. Not ours. If cycling is seen by these people as unsafe, then helmets probably dont make them feel any safer. Not wearing a helmet because the law doesnt compel us to, will all of a sudden make cycling safe though? If you dont wear a helmet, the same risks are still there. Do we want cyclists on the roads who are that ignorant?
Maybe if they were forced to buy bikes and clothing that make them look more like small taxis so we could all avoid them?

[human909]

And again, there are several reasons that people choose not to ride a bicycle. Helmets are not THE reason.

but it is a reason...
it does keep pople from riding...

Thats their loss really. Not ours. If cycling is seen by these people as unsafe, then helmets probably dont make them feel any safer. Not wearing a helmet because the law doesnt compel us to, will all of a sudden make cycling safe though? If you dont wear a helmet, the same risks are still there. Do we want cyclists on the roads who are that ignorant?
Maybe if they were forced to buy bikes and clothing that make them look more like small taxis so we could all avoid them?

Actually it is our loss too. That is the entire point. More cyclists on the road means its safer for everybody. Its much safer for you too if you wear a helmet AND have more cyclists on the road.

[il padrone]

More cyclists on the road means its safer for everybody. Its much safer for you too if you wear a helmet AND have more cyclists on the road.

I get the feeling that some people dispute the 'safety in numbers' concept - that they don't think it's any safer with more riders about. Maybe they don't do any bunch rides?

Well here's a little test: go for a ride, solo down the busiest road you can think of near you. Note the way traffic behaves around you, how close drivers pass and how you feel.

Now do the same stretch of road, but in a group - it doesn't need to be a huge group, just 4-6 other cyclists, riding two-abreast (as is quite legal). Note now how the traffic behaves, how close drivers pass and how you feel. Even bigger groups of 5-15 have a remarkable effect on taming the passions of drivers

Imagine how differently the drivers of motor vehicles would behave if you were frequently riding with other cyclists, not in any organised fashion, just that there were more other cyclists out there. Drivers' speeds go down, they are forced to think - about overtaking correctly, about giving way, about caring about a fellow human being. When there's just one rider amongst a maelstrom of car traffic it's too easy to ignore the cyclist.

[jules21]

Just one piece of data graphed from that site, but please read more of it, and tell us where it is incorrect.

incidentally my dad cycled to work, in Melbourne, in that period during which there was a spike (80s). he claims he got so sick of public transport strikes that he took up cycling, as did some of his colleagues.

[damhooligan]

but it is a reason...
it does keep pople from riding...

Thats their loss really. Not ours. If cycling is seen by these people as unsafe, then helmets probably dont make them feel any safer. Not wearing a helmet because the law doesnt compel us to, will all of a sudden make cycling safe though? If you dont wear a helmet, the same risks are still there. Do we want cyclists on the roads who are that ignorant?
Maybe if they were forced to buy bikes and clothing that make them look more like small taxis so we could all avoid them?

i think you missed my point ?
cycling is safe , you don't need a helmet.
forcing people to wear one keeps people from riding.

the one that think cycling is unsafe are more then happy to wear a helmet.
it's the ons that think it's safe that don't want to wear a helmet we are loosing....

[steveagle]

More cyclists on the road means its safer for everybody. Its much safer for you too if you wear a helmet AND have more cyclists on the road.

I get the feeling that some people dispute the 'safety in numbers' concept - that they don't think it's any safer with more riders about. Maybe they don't do any bunch rides?

I would be more inclined to dispute how much the numbers would increase without helmet laws. Yes there will be an increase but i do not believe it will be a big increase as you would think, or not big enough for people to notice whilst driving.

The people who want to ride are most likely doing it already (i.e. because they believe it is safe). The only increase i could see would be in casual/leisure riding and most people who do leisure riding arent concerned with helmet hair ir ride without one already etc.

[il padrone]

The people who want to ride are most likely doing it already (i.e. because they believe it is safe). The only increase i could see would be in casual/leisure riding and most people who do leisure riding arent concerned with helmet hair ir ride without one already etc.

Amazing statements there!!

For some strange reason we have no hope of increasing cyclist numbers here in Australia (in contrast to countries all round the world that have done so), because "the people who want to ride are most likely doing it already" We may as well give up on cycling promotion campaigns right now then.

And leisure cyclists not concerned about helmet hair ? Oh for sure

[uncle arthur]

Funny thing this whole helmet debate.

Seems people who don't like them will find almost any excuse to try and justify not wearing one.

Today's online news had a story about some guy in the states who fell of a longboard (long road going skateboard) at some speed - hit his head and had such traumatic injuries and 10 skull fractures that doctors removed either side of his skull and screwed the broken bits together before putting the repaired bits in the freezer to keep while his brain swelling went down. He's alive, and getting better - currently learning to do things like recognise a green crayon from a red one again now.

I think I'll keep my helmet on.

[Chris249]

i'm not virulently pro-helmet law. but i'm unconvinced that the circumstances in some european countries, that make cycling generally safer, translate well to australia.

Immaterial whether you do or not.

My point was that socialised health care does not have mandatory helmet wearing as a pre-requisite for one narrow group in society

Yeah, but to say it again, socialised health care DOES require mandatory safety equipment wearing (or ownership) as a pre-requisite for other narrow (and wide) groups of society. This is done to protect people such as boat owners (even those who use boats for work, transport and housing rather than sport), motorbike riders (even those who use the bike for transport and work rather than sport), forklift drivers, etc.

The government also exerts other controls on other activities in the name of safety - it's been noted here that rock climbers don't have to use helmets, but according to the web they're banned from 20% of the crags around Sydney, partly because of fears of climber injury and public liability issues.

Since other groups DO have to have safety gear when engaged in their transport and recreation, surely we can't claim that cycling has a right to be exempt? That's NOT saying that mandatory helmet laws are good, necessarily - it's simply saying that we can't say that other groups aren't regulated, because they are.

[steveagle]

For some strange reason we have no hope of increasing cyclist numbers here in Australia (in contrast to countries all round the world that have done so), because "the people who want to ride are most likely doing it already" We may as well give up on cycling promotion campaigns right now then.

And leisure cyclists not concerned about helmet hair ? Oh for sure

Well as far as im aware cycling is increasing?

I just bought a road bike, my sister just bought two road bikes etc...

Promoting cycling for its health/environments benefits padrone (thats why my sister and i joined up). As far as i am concerned if people dont want to ride bikes because it makes their hair look bad, thats their own fault for missing out.

[damhooligan]

Funny thing this whole helmet debate.

Seems people who don't like them will find almost any excuse to try and justify not wearing one.

Today's online news had a story about some guy in the states who fell of a longboard (long road going skateboard) at some speed - hit his head and had such traumatic injuries and 10 skull fractures that doctors removed either side of his skull and screwed the broken bits together before putting the repaired bits in the freezer to keep while his brain swelling went down. He's alive, and getting better - currently learning to do things like recognise a green crayon from a red one again now.

I think I'll keep my helmet on.

thats not just with this debate, we always make excuses so we can do what we want.

so do you ride a longboard as wel?
if not , how does that story relate to wearing a helmet for cycling?
i'm sure i can find way more non cycling related storys that resultes in head injuries....

[uncle arthur]

Funny thing this whole helmet debate.

so do you ride a longboard as wel?
if not , how does that story relate to wearing a helmet for cycling?
i'm sure i can find way more non cycling related storys that resultes in head injuries....

What does this story have to do with cycling.....??? Hmmmmmm???

Well if you are being pedantic/semantic, perhaps nothing. But then again someone looking at this with an open mind might see that the similarities in injury from hitting one's (unhelmeted) head on the ground coming off a longboard at somewhere up to 60kmh could potentially be comparable to those you might expect to see in a similar accidental gravity based experience on a bicycle.

I see a helmet as suitable insurance for the only head I have - rather than some fashion inhibitor. But then again - it's your head - if you break it just don't ask that my tax dollars be paid towards your rehab.

[steveagle]

For some strange reason we have no hope of increasing cyclist numbers here in Australia (in contrast to countries all round the world that have done so), because "the people who want to ride are most likely doing it already" We may as well give up on cycling promotion campaigns right now then.

And leisure cyclists not concerned about helmet hair ? Oh for sure

Actually if you want to promote cycling there are many other productive (i.e. petitioning for this legislation to be scrapped is not productive) ways to go about it (rather than posting it solely on forums that only enthusiasts read).

About two months ago i went to Centennial Park (next to Sydney Olympic Park) on a weekend and they have a bike rental place. Do you want to know how much it costs? $20 for 2hrs!!! I hired one for my gf so that was $40. If you want to "promote" cycling, why not get the government to provide subsidised or cheap bike rental stations in parks etc.

This is what got me to go out and buy a road bike to replace my 15yr old kmart bike.

[damhooligan]

What does this story have to do with cycling.....??? Hmmmmmm???

Well if you are being pedantic/semantic, perhaps nothing. But then again someone looking at this with an open mind might see that the similarities in injury from hitting one's (unhelmeted) head on the ground coming off a longboard at somewhere up to 60kmh could potentially be comparable to those you might expect to see in a similar accidental gravity based experience on a bicycle.

I see a helmet as suitable insurance for the only head I have - rather than some fashion inhibitor. But then again - it's your head - if you break it just don't ask that my tax dollars be paid towards your rehab.

withoout being pedantric a longboard is totally different then a bicycle.
getting into a accident on the 2 are so diiferent.
i assume an accident is something we don't want to have , so comparing accidents is pointless.

[The Womble]

What does this story have to do with cycling.....??? Hmmmmmm???

Well if you are being pedantic/semantic, perhaps nothing. But then again someone looking at this with an open mind might see that the similarities in injury from hitting one's (unhelmeted) head on the ground coming off a longboard at somewhere up to 60kmh could potentially be comparable to those you might expect to see in a similar accidental gravity based experience on a bicycle.

I see a helmet as suitable insurance for the only head I have - rather than some fashion inhibitor. But then again - it's your head - if you break it just don't ask that my tax dollars be paid towards your rehab.

withoout being pedantric a longboard is totally different then a bicycle.
getting into a accident on the 2 are so diiferent.
i assume an accident is something we don't want to have , so comparing accidents is pointless.

How would 2 head impacts at 60kph in the same part of ones skull not be the same? That was a fair point. Bike, longboard, circus clown with a bowling ball...

[m@]

Where the comparison is not relevant though is that the discussion is about mandatory helmet laws, not the individual's choice to wear a helmet or not. I agree with Uncle Arthur that it would be stupid to ride downhill at 60Kmph without a helmet - in fact I would choose to wear one 99% of the time even riding the 2Km to the shops at 15Kmph - but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to legislate that everyone must wear one whenever they are on a bicycle.
/2c

[The Womble]

Where the comparison is not relevant though is that the discussion is about mandatory helmet laws, not the individual's choice to wear a helmet or not. I agree with Uncle Arthur that it would be stupid to ride downhill at 60Kmph without a helmet - in fact I would choose to wear one 99% of the time even riding the 2Km to the shops at 15Kmph - but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to legislate that everyone must wear one whenever they are on a bicycle.
/2c

And you can trip on the footpath and due from that head trauma. The distance travelled, type of use etc have no bearing on actual injurues if and when they occur. A 2km ride can present the same risks a century

[m@]

Where the comparison is not relevant though is that the discussion is about mandatory helmet laws, not the individual's choice to wear a helmet or not. I agree with Uncle Arthur that it would be stupid to ride downhill at 60Kmph without a helmet - in fact I would choose to wear one 99% of the time even riding the 2Km to the shops at 15Kmph - but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to legislate that everyone must wear one whenever they are on a bicycle.
/2c

And you can trip on the footpath and due from that head trauma. The distance travelled, type of use etc have no bearing on actual injurues if and when they occur. A 2km ride can present the same risks a century

So what you're saying is that helmets should be mandatory for pedestrians, right

[steveagle]

People can debate all they want, this legislation is here to stay because no one is actually willing to do anything about it.

[il padrone]

You are most certainly correct about that one steveagle.

My suggestion for action would be an organised civil disobedience campaign - refuse (at times that suit you) to wear a helmet. Maybe have organised 'no helmet' rides. But follow it through, take the ticket if it happens and ride on. Don't pay the fine but take it on to court. Mass numbers could not be ignored.

A law that is not follwed is not a law.

Any takers? I'm fed up with the inconsistency in the treatment of cyclists on our roads and would love to support a real compaign.

Got a name for the campiaign or group too. Call it Wind in your hair.

[damhooligan]

withoout being pedantric a longboard is totally different then a bicycle.
getting into a accident on the 2 are so diiferent.
i assume an accident is something we don't want to have , so comparing accidents is pointless.

How would 2 head impacts at 60kph in the same part of ones skull not be the same? That was a fair point. Bike, longboard, circus clown with a bowling ball...

i said an accident between the 2 are different.
you can't compare an accident with a longboard and a bicycle and say the outcome woulld be the same.

hitting the road at 60 is not a good thing no matter what you are tavelling on.
and not to mention that the bicycle helmet is not designed to absorb impacts for that speed.
if you wanna go downhill safe you are better of wearing a motorcycle helmet.

[damhooligan]

You are most certainly correct about that one steveagle.

My suggestion for action would be an organised civil disobedience campaign - refuse (at times that suit you) to wear a helmet. Maybe have organised 'no helmet' rides. But follow it through, take the ticket if it happens and ride on. Don't pay the fine but take it on to court. Mass numbers could not be ignored.

A law that is not follwed is not a law.

Any takers? I'm fed up with the inconsistency in the treatment of cyclists on our roads and would love to support a real compaign.

Got a name for the campiaign or group too. Call it Wind in your hair.

i would be up fot that.

[The Womble]

People can debate all they want, this legislation is here to stay because no one is actually willing to do anything about it.

They keep skipping over that one, until now. Maybe mass protest rides would have an impact. Mind you, if just one rider by chance happened to come off, regardless of whether a head injury was sustained, youd all find yourselves further behind step one

[damhooligan]

People can debate all they want, this legislation is here to stay because no one is actually willing to do anything about it.

They keep skipping over that one, until now. Maybe mass protest rides would have an impact. Mind you, if just one rider by chance happened to come off, regardless of whether a head injury was sustained, youd all find yourselves further behind step one

what if.......

what if it doesn't ?