Mulger bill wrote:Wondering how young David from the last paragraph is going to get people to strap hemlets to their ankles?
My thoughts exactly.
Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy
My thoughts exactly.
Bicycle-related injuries have been falling as kids have dropped their use of bikes, due to a combination of the restrictive helmet law and parental paranoia. Other injuries have increased as the more acceptable (to parents) and helmet-free scooters and skateboards have become more popular.
BTW, I do seem to recall that scooter use does (legally) require a helmet. Never enforced of course. Must check on it.
But society had been drilling into us all these years that decreasing injury rates are important! It is all about safety improvement!!!!
Kids will be kids. I'd love to see that trend reverse and see more kids getting injured! (as peverse as that sounds) More kids being more active will improve society in so many different ways beyond simply the direct health benefits.
My boy (8yo) has stacked his trike and BMX several times. Each time, I asked if he OK, then complimented him on the impressiveness of his (minor) injuries, and the stoicism with which he handled himself post-crash. We then stop for a few mins and discuss how the crash happened, and I'm careful to be specific about the cause. It's no good just saying "you went too fast around the round-about" when the actual cause was "you were turning at speed when you hit that gravel patch. That made your front wheel slip out" and he now see's stacks as a kind of lesson in physics. His attitude has changed from "I can't ride that far/up that hill/through that etc" to "Lets ride to there/up that hill/through that etc".
Don't get me wrong, I'll always make sure he wears a helmet even though I oppose MHL on principle (after all, kid-stacks are pretty much what they're designed for), but kids need to get out and push their physical boundaries even more than we adults do. Holding them back for fear of what are realistically minor injuries is, to my mind, detrimental to healthy growth and experience.
Surely it is better to hold them back their whole childhood from independence, speed, physical danger and the risk of injuries. Then when they become and finally turn 18 and become an adult they will be well equipped to handle a V6 on the roads. This is especially so for young males as they abhor risk taking activities of all kinds.
Recently a "facebook friend" posted about being in the UK and the joy of riding helmetless. I'm sure you can all guess at most of the responses of her well meaning Australian friends expressing care and concern. I responded in kind by posting helmetfreedom.org videos.
+Even more, well put Dent
London Boy 29/12/2011
so you've made your own MHL in the DH household, but you oppose MHLs? isn't that a contradiction?
Not so. He opposes MHL in the democracy known as 'Oz' but enforces them for the subjects in the benign dictatorship known as the DH household.
A 'personal choice' decision made by Dent on behalf of his son, in his legal role as 'parent'
Percrime and il padrone pretty much have it right. To be slightly more precise, "minors" in the DH household must wear helmets. Adults can make their own decisions. As for my opposition to MHL's, it's the "M" I oppose, not so much the "H". I'd likely wear one most of the time anyway, but I'm opposed to not being allowed that simple choice, as well as the perception that cycling is dangerous that MHL's encourage.
but it's mandatory for your kid(s). the only difference is, it's your decision, not the govt's. is that the issue? i'm not trying to take a shot at you, just trying to define what it is about MHLs that people object to.
Parents make decisions for children. The point of getting rid of the mandatory part of MHLs is to allow adults to decide for themselves and for their children. Different parents may make different choices.
Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
Surely you jest?
I believe that can mandate that their 6 year olds should be in bed sometime before midnight. But that doesn't mean I support a government curfew for all citizens.
Jules I object to the government interfering with my basic freedoms as an adult! The fact that so few people in Australia have a concept of proper freedom is appalling.
Had to think of this thread over the past week as I was doing 2 centuries in 35+ degree heat up some cookin' climbs. At least, my head was cooking... it's simply straight out retardation to imply that the helmet isn't heating your head excessively (and I buzz my head real short!). I am fine with wearing the lid, but there are some tasks that even a nice top end helmet isn't capable of lowering the heat anymore!
There are a few of reasons a lid is mandatory for my boy (in the DH household I mean, separate from the legal reason). For a start, he has less ability to control his machine, and is more prone the the type of head injury a helmet is actually effective for (linear, sub 20kph impact).
Second, he lacks the experience needed to make a judgment call on whether its safe to go without in a given circumstance. I'll ride a remote bike-path lidless, but not suburban streets. He wouldn't make that distinction yet.
Third, while he's a minor, as his parent it's my job to make some decisions for him until he has the experience needed to make those decisions for himself. It is not the gov't's job to make this sort of decision for me. I'm not a child, and the gov't is not my parent.
Like I said, in most circumstances, I'd wear a helmet anyway. It's not the wearing of a helmet I object too, it's having the choice taken from me. Once he is old enough, my son will not need my rules to guide him either (hopefully, if I've done my job as a parent properly).
I believe in Europe it's very common to climb with the lid on the bars and then pop it on for the descent. Alas that isn't an option here.
It makes perfect sense too.. we're always being told we radiate a vast amount of heat through our head... so they mandate us putting on foam esky's whenever we ride. Great. A rule made by people who will never ride for other people they don't really care about.
Once you can climb hills on a bike it's all downhill.
Hopefully I'll know what that's like..... one day.
Yup. The helmet in the heat of the last week or so is a serious challenge. I've started popping it into my front basket when I get too hot. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to ride, and the bike is my mode of transport. IMO overheating is more of a likely life-threatening issue than the possibility of an accident that may involve a head injury.
The helmet will stay back on when these crazy temperatures abate.
Depends on the quality of your helmet and its venting.
I bought a new Specialized helmet recently. Riding in the Otways in the recent heat I noticed that I did not get any of the usual drips into the eyes. This helmet is excellent for ventilation. In fact wearing it was no different or hotter than wearing the sun-hat I had with me for use off the bike.
Note the 'flow-through' air channels
Last edited by il padrone on Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Try THIS on for size ILMB. Excellentventing and channeling. Methinks I'll have to invest in a shower cap with little cutouts for the AyUps to go over the top of mine come winter time.
London Boy 29/12/2011
Thanks Shaun, but my current helmet has at least as many cut outs and air holes, and looks similar aerodynamically, so I don't know how a change would materially benefit It is also high-viz yellow, and has a reflective finish.
if that's true, then why have you and other objectors to MHLs spent so many pages arguing that they are ineffective, rather than just making the simple point that it's your right to decide whether to wear a helmet or not, even if it places you at risk?
As helmets start to get more holes than foam they cease to be called helmets. They become brain sieves.
Seriously Jules!? I have argued the freedom line multiple times and you have rebutted it with public health system arguments. Is your memory that bad? In fact refer to my very first non rebuttal post in this thread:
human 909 (AT) Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:07 pm
Laws, in general, remove freedoms. Unless there is a clear and just reason to infringe on a citizens freedom then the law shouldn't be passed. Speeding laws make sense as unsafe driving can infringe on the fundamental rights of others. Helmet laws do not.
Unfortunately, in Australia we most of us have very little concept of freedom and we are more than happy to let our government dictate our lives. Hence more and more we live in a nanny state and politicians do what they do best and force their will on others.
Helmets are not mandatory in hundreds of other more dangerous and risky activities where they could be far more beneficial. Why is cycling singled out? (Probably because when it was passed cycling was seen as a activity mainly for children.)
Kids not wearing helmets gets on my goat (not literally). IMO kids should all wear helmets (cycling, scooters, skateboards), cops should police it and it will just become a normal, accepted practice. Yeah I know we shouldn't have a "nanny" state but it is part of governments' responsibility to protect their people from themselves - seatbelts, gun laws, etc etc. If you think that helmets should be optional should seatbelts also be optional?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users