Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[The 2nd Womble]

"I am astounded Mr Womble. Supporting those who claim that people who ride a bike because it is a cheaper form of transport are non-cyclists. Why are you against utility cyclists?"

Where on earth did that come from? Wait, don't answer that. I didn't say it so I don't particularly care.
If you wish to take offence and REFUSE to understand my or SCA's very basic logic for not supporting helmetless riders there's not much point in replying with anything of substance.
Do you similarly hate the AGF, CPF or those who have also continually sought to improve cycling conditions because they prioritise differently, or who choose not pursue MHL's because of the blind outrage such as yours which is associated with the subject and often lacks reasoning (that isn't a reflection on this thread in general btw people)? By default you do. I'll let them know they similarly lack your support. They'll sleep as well at night as I'm about to. Should you doubt my sincerity in terms of advocacy or wish to compare our respective achievements DS, let me know when
Oh and for the record, the majority of SCA's supporters are Mum and Dad cyclists and or commuters. The SCA Balls Out Racing Team was disbanded last week unfortunately. Ah well.

[The 2nd Womble]

Finally from me tonight, a suggestion if i may. Put your money where your mouth is and start lobbying if you feel you're not fairly represented by the major groups or any of the myriad of influential individuals advocating for safer cycling. Or continue to whine about SCA's reasonable approach - ie: support for the abolishment of MHL's but not the support of current helmetless riding - here for another 2 years.

[The 2nd Womble]

Popcorn and an extra large coke please

[human909]

Or continue to whine about SCA's reasonable approach - ie: support for the abolishment of MHL's but not the support of current helmetless riding - here for another 2 years.

But why does SCA need go to lengths to comment on helmetless riding? Surely it should just stay silent on the issue? I do not see SCA approach as reasonable give its claimed support of MHL abolishment.

[human909]

But my interest in tracking all my rides is about as much as a motorist's interest in tracking all his drives.

Why does it need to be one or the other? Its a common theme from you two.

The common theme here is your simplistic interpretation of written words. It doesn't have to be one or the other. I track some rides I don't track others.

This idea that you are either a problem with cycling in Australia[lycra speedsters or some other derogatory term as you put it, constantly] or the cure to the countries cycling woes depending on what you are riding/wearing is what I have a problem with because it only encourages division.

Again nobody is saying this.

I have no problems with lycra speedsters. In fact I am one on occasion and have helped introduce friends to the scene. The problem is the attitude portrayed by many. I take issue with the continued projection by many that lycra, gloves etc is the proper way to ride and are necessary for riding. Look no further than recent posts adivising noobs coming into this forum. Most strongly I take issue with comments like the ones made earlier that people riding cheap bikes for transport are not 'cyclists'. This is offensive in the extreme and smacks of elitism. This attitude does not encourage casual cyclists. So who is encouraging division Baldy?

I own 6 bikes. I mountain bike, road bike, ride in long organised rides, commute, utility cycle, I hire bikes for transport when I'm a tourist, and I aim to go tour cycling one day. I love bikes cycling of all types. The division and derogatory terms is what I object to Baldy. Please don't twist my words.

[The 2nd Womble]

Or continue to whine about SCA's reasonable approach - ie: support for the abolishment of MHL's but not the support of current helmetless riding - here for another 2 years.

But why does SCA need go to lengths to comment on helmetless riding? Surely it should just stay silent on the issue? I do not see SCA approach as reasonable give its claimed support of MHL abolishment.

Again very simple. Helmetless riding under current laws requiring helmets to be worn reinforce the stereotype. The behaviour that can result from this is detrimental and counterproductive to the majority that choose to obey the law.
You know exactly what motorists attitudes towards cyclists are by the overwhelming response in your local fish n chip wrapper to cycling stories in general, and it includes more than just the brogan brigade.
I highly doubt that the civil disobedience of a few in a minority group will sway public opinion let alone our pollies by riding helmetless.
While we are trying to gain government support for a host of other measures, such law breaking behaviour does nothing to promote ours or your cause. I'm sorry but public opinion, the press and our pollies will take more convincing than the odd cyclist riding without the motorist's perceived get-out-of-jail-free card.

[human909]

I have to disagree with you here Womble. But I won't continue the argument about SCA's approach beyond this post. On this issue I think we have clearly explained ourselves. Suffice to say, personally I don't believe motorists 'problems' with cyclists have anything to do with whether cyclists are breaking the law by not wearing a helmet. Every motorist (in fact every road user) breaks laws, Be it going 62kph in a 60zone or not indicating on an empty street.

Anyway. As you have already expressed, you do like cyclist breaking the law by riding without a helmet. That fine I can accept that. I do however think that it is in SCA's interest to not go out of its way to comment on the issue.

But of course the choice is yours.

EDIT: Don't worry if you get die on a bicycle the police will go out of their way to discredit you!
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-new ... 26edh.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The 2nd Womble]

Honestly? I wish we hadn't. When I get dizzy from going around and around I throw up.
The kids used to roll down a hill onto the footy fields in primary school when we were about 7 or 8. I distinctly remember hurling on my shoes after trying this once too often.
BTW Human, some like yourself have clearly explained themselves. Others have resorted to "no you are" without much success

[human909]

While a few posters seem to have a toxic attitude and come across as quite unpleasant people, a couple others have a disturbingly blinkered view on topics that insults the rest. Some others merely the ability to form or express cohesive arguments. The great majority of us in this thread and forum simply have different opinions.

I disagree womble, but I don't mean to disrespect. (Ok, enough hugs this morning. I need to get on my bike.)

[The 2nd Womble]

Roger.

[damhooligan]

Its not one or the other....
I just highlighted one thing, thats the recording of rides, and the racing side of it.
That to me is not a cyclist thing, but a racing thing.

racing again has nothing to do with riding for fitness, thats something else again.
One can easily combine reasons for riding, commute and fitness can easily go together.
If I implied otherwise my apolgies.

What I am trying to highlight is the racing element, that clearly has become an established element of our cycling culture.
Strava is just one example of it.
And I can not say I am overly pleased with this development.

Why cause?, cause well... speed is assosiated with danger.
but also the helmet is assosiated with danger.
So... speed equals helmet ??

I think this may be a key element in why so many of us think we cyclists need helmets.
Because so many of us want to go fast and are keen on high speeds, the assosiation to dangerous is very easily made.
Thats fine, that if you wanna go fast as long as realising many of these added risks are done by choice of the rider.

But I feel this goes to the costs of those just wishing to go for a leisurely stroll...
Those I think are in the mionority, and that group I wish to see to grow.
And this group can do without a helmet, but they dont have that choice.

In my experience people like to record their rides for different reasons. I'm sorry mate but saying that anyone who records and keeps track of some or all of their rides is only for racing is wrong. I know quite a few people who use strava or something like it who do not race and have no interest in racing. They just like to keep track of their fitness and efforts on the bike.

Just like some people who jog/run like to keep track of their runs. They note the dista


nce,time,sometimes HR...its all easy with modern gps tools. They do this to keep track of their fitness and it adds some interest to their hobby. It has nothing at all to do with racing because the vast majority of them will never race outside of fun runs.

And the whole speed thing goes out the window if you consider hills. Plenty of hills around that I roll down just as fast on my utility bike wearing trousers/shirt as I do on a roadbike in lycra. High spee
ds are easily obtainable on any bike when you have gravity helping. Like you said yourself, speed it a choice we make. I have had plenty of people in "normal" clothes on "normal" bikes fly past me way to fast for the conditions, taking much more risk than I was in my team kit and CF roadbike

Do you know many people who race bikes? Spoken
to them about this stu
ff? They are just "normal" people too.

The whole point is that having a go at one section of the cycling community in an attempt to progress another part is a cheap,lazy and counter productive way to go about it

I am a familiar face in the critical mass/activist side of cycling down here. And I race, use strava and use bikes for fitness/fun. I have only come across this us vs them attitude on this forum and in particular this thread and in particular from you and Human99.

.

Again. I only tried to highlight something.
I was nog trying to imply that every cyclist that records a ride does this for racing.
I know there are more then one reason to record.
But it is an element of it. And ignoring it or pretending its not there is not productive either.
There is already one casualty that is linked with strava.
And that it not without reason.

A lot of the things i posted are not one or the other....
Its all connected, and they influence each other.
This racing element is not as innocent in my eyes....

[DavidS]

Womble, let me spell this out for you since you seem to be unable to get the gist of what I was saying.
Simonn said, and I quote: “most non-cyclists who ride a bike do so because it is cheaper not because they want to ride a bike.”
I think this is an incredibly silly statement and serves only to exclude people. Claiming that those who ride a bike because it is a cheap, convenient form of transport (ie: utility and commuter cyclists) are non-cyclists is, frankly, outrageous. I took exception to this and reacted with sarcasm, a reasonable reaction to such a ridiculous statement.
You then reacted to my post with support for Simonn. Your claim that I am somehow being alienating when I was not the one who effectively tried to exclude a large proportion of the cycling public by claiming we are "non-cyclists" is absurd. In doing so you are implicitly supporting his statement that those who ride because it is a cheap and convenient form of transport are non-cyclists.
I never said anything about your organisation, I just suggested that someone supports a statement claiming utility and commuter cyclists are non-cyclists is supporting a divisive attitude and should seriously think about who they claim to represent.
Do you agree with Simonn that most non-cyclists who ride a bike do so because it is cheaper, not because they want to ride a bike? If so, why? If not, why do you come here and support that comment?
Anyone who rides a bike is a cyclist, at least that’s how I see it.
DS

[The 2nd Womble]

I do apologise. DS. I thought the statement made was labelled at me and there was nothing to suggest otherwise. I believe "non cyclists" ride a bike for many reasons. Many of those who commute to work by bike have the motor driven 4 wheeled option, but for various reasons including cost, health, traffic gridlock etc, choose to ride instead.

[human909]

Womble, let me spell this out for you since you seem to be unable to get the gist of what I was saying.
Simonn said, and I quote: “most non-cyclists who ride a bike do so because it is cheaper not because they want to ride a bike.”
I think this is an incredibly silly statement and serves only to exclude people. Claiming that those who ride a bike because it is a cheap, convenient form of transport (ie: utility and commuter cyclists) are non-cyclists is, frankly, outrageous. I took exception to this and reacted with sarcasm, a reasonable reaction to such a ridiculous statement.
You then reacted to my post with support for Simonn. Your claim that I am somehow being alienating when I was not the one who effectively tried to exclude a large proportion of the cycling public by claiming we are "non-cyclists" is absurd. In doing so you are implicitly supporting his statement that those who ride because it is a cheap and convenient form of transport are non-cyclists.
I never said anything about your organisation, I just suggested that someone supports a statement claiming utility and commuter cyclists are non-cyclists is supporting a divisive attitude and should seriously think about who they claim to represent.
Do you agree with Simonn that most non-cyclists who ride a bike do so because it is cheaper, not because they want to ride a bike? If so, why? If not, why do you come here and support that comment?
Anyone who rides a bike is a cyclist, at least that’s how I see it.
DS

HERE, HERE!

The same occurred with Baldy responding to my objection to Simonn's coments. Then I wind up having to defend myself!? I do find it odd...

I believe "non cyclists" ride a bike for many reasons. Many of those who commute to work by bike have the motor driven 4 wheeled option, but for various reasons including cost, health, traffic gridlock etc, choose to ride instead.

You seem to have missed the point quite badly. So i'll use bold and colour.

If you are riding a bike then you are a cyclist.

What you are writing there seems massively contradictory and I must say is a concern from advocacy group representative. PLEASE could we stop trying to categorise some people riding bikes as non cyclists!

[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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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....