Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy
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.
Cannondale Quick Speed 2, Allegro T1
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.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
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?
That is what cycling for kids should be about!
I strongly disagree. It is the responsibility of the gov't to protect us from OTHERS, not ourselves. I'm responsible for protecting myself, not a collection of politicians and bureaucrats. This opinion that it's up to the gov't to "protect us from ourselves" is how so many of our freedoms have been removed.
I actually think helmets should be mandatory up till age 12. After that, they should be optional.
I believe anything we can do to encourage kids to build a habit if cycling in their teens should be encouraged. Helmets are a disincentive for teens - and particularly females IMHO.
Once you can climb hills on a bike it's all downhill.
Hopefully I'll know what that's like..... one day.
This is from http://www.lessonsindemocracy.org/forum/govtresp.html
Having examined the legitimate roles of government, it is also appropriate to consider what it should not do. And for this, a basic provision is that government should not attempt to protect us from ourselves. We have free will and we must retain the ability to use it as we choose, even if this involves danger. The government should not tell us how to live our lives. It should not treat us as children, by assuming the role of a highly restrictive parent.
I need some more goats!
Am I being the highly restrictive parent? I mean, I don't care particularly if you hit heroin every day of the week but I want my son to wear a helmet. So are the liberals here also campaigning for shooting galleries and looser gun laws alongside removing mandatory seatbelt laws? If highly addictive drugs were readily available then they wouldn't contribute (so much) to crime. But are we really debating some individual right to choose whether we hurt ourselves or not? I'm not. I'm comfortable with MHL probably in part because I would choose to wear a helmet anyway. I'm not comfortable with repealing MHL because I'd like my son to be forced to wear a helmet. Yes I know the irony in that if the person (me) riding on the road didn't have a helmet they would get done (but I always wear one), whereas cops don't seem to give a toss whether the kids wear helmets or not (and they never seem to wear one).
...are different, apparently.
Godwin's Law beckons thee... there are a truckload of laws enacted that have put the interests of one party in front of another with no reasonable justification beyond basic discrimination. I'm somewhat ambivalent personally about suffrage but denying women the vote is not something that you can really justify except for basic discrimination (good or bad). Denying Aboriginals the vote, same deal. This was to protect the democratic process from these people. Doesn't that scare you? It should.
Seatbelts SHOULD be optional. It is legal to smoke and drink and eat badly and stay out in the sun too long, and plenty more people are dying from those things than seatbelts. The responsibility of the Government should be in regulating the facilities available - I think a helmet standard is a great idea. Recommended dietary intake, great idea. Ads to slip slop slap. I do not give a toss about those three things in my life. I must eat 25% more than the RDI to maintain my weight at a lowly 72kgs. I tan like a madman... but it's good to have the alternatives known, and to have scientifically established standards to assist in your decision making.
It doesn't matter what the speed limit is, or the RDI for booze, or what the rules are about seatbelts... someone will choose to disregard those rules. We need to establish which rules are going to be enforceable, and which ones are really worth the effort of enforcement. If you fight a helmet charge, you have suddenly caused an ENORMOUS social cost to community, because the courts are damn expensive to run and the amount of paperwork and time to go through all that is just obscene compared to the gravity of the charge being laid. When you consider that a lot of crime simply isn't even charged by the police (because the likelihood of successful prosecution is minimal) and there are much greater dangers facing cyclists that have no real legal consideration (close shaves aka an inch from putting you in hospital!?), we have to consider the usefulness of a helmet law. I don't need you to force my kids to wear a lid, I need you to force the drivers around my kids to behave like their vehicle isn't a toy. I don't need to take licences away from people who don't put seatbelts on kids, I need you to design roads that make it safe for everyone to use.
If you misunderstand the role of the Parliament in our society, you'll let them get away with absolute horror. Do you realise that Rudd's Government borrowed that 900 bucks they gave you? I work in lending. Only a madman borrows 900 bucks and pays interest on it without questioning the person giving you the money. Your kids will be paying back that money. How many debts do you want to leave your kids? Probably none. Yet we've let this Government borrow huge amounts of money, so people can spend it on Chinese TVs? I ain't happy about it, but I accept the economic reasoning... the USA has done similar things, but gave the 900 to the loan sharks who caused the problem!!! That's what misunderstanding the role of Government means. They get away with heinous crimes of morality, economics and logic, and end up screwing us all for their agenda. Yay.
Helmets are part of that picture.
There isn't any debate here about parents choices over their children.
Start the thread and I'll join the debate. Regarding lax gun laws? No. Guns were invented to kill people. That is still their primary role in the world. Keeping it citizens from violent harm to one another certainly is a role of government!
Yep. And many well respected individuals advocate less restriction on drugs for this very reason.
Wearing a helmet isn't choosing to hurt yourself!
So you don't seem to embrace freedom at all. You seem to be embracing laws that align with your choices.
Looks like we opened Pandora the Xplora's box!
Yeah sorry, its all a bit convenient for me.
I honestly thought it was pro or anti MHL thread, not "freedom" thread, whatever you might think that is.
Who is online