Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby outnabike » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:21 pm

Interesting that after hearing the no votes for helmets the mind is clearly made up with the word "Every body"

Houser says she’s happy to comply with the helmet law: “Everybody involved feels like it’s an important law that we don’t want to see go away.”
outnabike
 
Posts: 847
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:53 pm
Location: Melbourne Vic

by BNA » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:40 pm

BNA
 

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Fri Feb 08, 2013 4:40 pm

outnabike wrote:Houser says she’s happy to comply with the helmet law: “Everybody involved feels like it’s an important law that we don’t want to see go away.”

What they were saying in Melbourne when the bikeshare concept was first launched here. How misguided they were (or hamstrung by Vicroads and the road rules) :roll:

We have 0.6 hires per bike per day. International bikeshare hire rates (with no helmet rule) are about 6 per bike per day.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18256
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wizdofaus » Wed Feb 13, 2013 8:19 am

I rode my bike for the first time since I was overseas last without a helmet today...just a couple of km along a dedicated bike trail, riding at no more than 15 k/h. Boy did it feel good, and I can see exactly why having to wear a helmet could be all the difference for many casual cyclists being able to enjoy getting on their bike with no stress or hassle and see it as a relaxing, safe way to get around rather than some method of transport so inherently risky and out-of-the-ordinary that we have to strap these bits of polystyrene to our heads before we getting on, and hence likely to go in the 'too hard' basket.

Anyway, 'nuff said.
wizdofaus
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Kensington, Melbourne, VIC

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby bychosis » Tue Feb 19, 2013 4:53 pm

News tonight, bloke in brisbane went to court defending his not wearing helmet charge because he wears a turban as part of his religion.

How do you wear a helmet with a turban? Does a turban provide any form of protection?

He rattled out the old "no statistics proving the benefit of helmets" argument, case adjourned to allow him to seek legal counsel.

EDIT: Can't find a link, was on nine news this arvo
bychosis (bahy-koh-sis): A mental disorder of delusions indicating impaired contact with a reality of no bicycles.
User avatar
bychosis
 
Posts: 2157
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:10 pm
Location: Lake Macquarie

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Tue Feb 19, 2013 5:12 pm

Sikhs. Don't ever ask a Sikh to remove his turban.

http://fateh.sikhnet.com/s/WhyTurbans
The Guru has given his Sikh specific instructions to keep his or her natural form as created by God. Thus, all hair is maintained, uncut, and untrimmed. The Guru has given his Sikh a standard of dress which distinguishes him or her as a human being dedicated to a life of truthful living. The Guru has instructed his Sikhs to maintain high moral character, symbolized by the wearing of the steel bracelet, ("kara") and to stand prepared to defend righteousness, wearing the "kirpan" or sword.


In some states an exemption can be granted. Rani is apparently having trouble in NSW.

She’d love to be able to ride here as freely as she did in Holland. But she has the problem of her Dumalla. That’s her Sikh turban.

Sikhs never cut their hair, rather they wind it round in clothe under the Dumalla.

This makes it impossible for Rani to wear a helmet. So every day she has to run the gauntlet of cops who’d like to ticket her for breaking our laws.


Image
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18256
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Wed Feb 20, 2013 7:50 am

If he gets the turban defence through, that pretty much spells the end of MHL in Australia IMO. The lady in Scone defended against it successfully, I'm sorry but "God will look after me" is an unacceptable legal position from the perspective of the State (and I'm a Christian, I understand the motivation!)...

I'd have to say that if the whims of religion can't be accommodated by the law then the religious either have to accept exclusion, or the law must change. Facial identification and burquas are a similar situation where the needs of the religious don't outrank the needs of the State without consideration inconvenience for the Muslim lady.

Ultimately, the fact remains... if the helmet doesn't automatically stop injury and danger, and a guy in a turban doesn't have to wear it, then why should anyone else? Sikhs don't have stronger bones or tougher skin than everyone else :shock:
Xplora
 
Posts: 5820
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:28 am

Xplora wrote:If he gets the turban defence through, that pretty much spells the end of MHL in Australia IMO.

I only this was the case!

Special treatment for minorities and the magic of helmets is too ingrained in our society.
human909
 
Posts: 4765
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wizdofaus » Wed Feb 20, 2013 10:56 am

Xplora wrote:If he gets the turban defence through, that pretty much spells the end of MHL in Australia IMO. The lady in Scone defended against it successfully, I'm sorry but "God will look after me" is an unacceptable legal position from the perspective of the State (and I'm a Christian, I understand the motivation!)...

I'd have to say that if the whims of religion can't be accommodated by the law then the religious either have to accept exclusion, or the law must change. Facial identification and burquas are a similar situation where the needs of the religious don't outrank the needs of the State without consideration inconvenience for the Muslim lady.

Ultimately, the fact remains... if the helmet doesn't automatically stop injury and danger, and a guy in a turban doesn't have to wear it, then why should anyone else? Sikhs don't have stronger bones or tougher skin than everyone else :shock:


Alternatively, Sikhs could campaign to have their turbans classified as helmets meeting the necessary approved standards :-)
wizdofaus
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Kensington, Melbourne, VIC

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby AKO » Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:24 am

Plenty of Sikh cricketers manage to wear a helmet while batting and fielding at stupid point, bat pad and other such positions.
Malvern Star Oppy C5
Malvern Star XCS 5.0 MTB
User avatar
AKO
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:16 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby high_tea » Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:33 am

Interesting point. What's the very biggest AS compliant helmet out there?
high_tea
 
Posts: 1265
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:40 am

AKO wrote:Plenty of Sikh cricketers manage to wear a helmet while batting and fielding at stupid point, bat pad and other such positions.

Monty Panesar is a sikh.
Image

With their belief in never cutting their hair, I'd guess Monty is either very young or he has extremely slow-growing hair :? :wink:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18256
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby ILMB » Wed Feb 20, 2013 2:58 pm

Or he's going bald!
User avatar
ILMB
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:15 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wizdofaus » Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:40 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... VVlA6v4N8g

(Courtesy of bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com, a must read for any cyclist with a sense of humour!)
wizdofaus
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Kensington, Melbourne, VIC

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby John Lewis » Mon Feb 25, 2013 11:52 pm

Found this as part of WA regs referring to wearing of helmets.
Seems the Sikh gent would be OK in WA.
Wonder what other states make allowance?

John

Subregulation (2) does not apply to a person who —
(a) is a member of a religious or cultural group and who is
wearing a headdress customarily worn by members of
that group, if the wearing of that headdress makes it
impractical for a person to wear a protective helmet
John Lewis
 
Posts: 1173
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 7:12 pm
Location: Albany. 400km South of Perth

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Mulger bill » Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:12 am

I always though that was part of the Vic law too.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25653
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Tue Feb 26, 2013 6:01 am

Mulger bill wrote:I always though that was part of the Vic law too.

No, it is only if you get a certificate of exemption (could be for various reasons)

Rule 256.....
....(4) The Corporation may issue a certificate stating that it would be impractical, undesirable or inexpedient that the person named in the certificate wear a bicycle helmet while riding on, or being taken as a passenger on, a bicycle.
(5) A certificate issued under subrule (4) must be—
(a) carried by the person to whom it applies while the person is riding on, or being taken as passenger on, a bicycle; and
(b) produced by the person to a police officer or authorised person when requested to do so.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18256
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:23 am

John Lewis wrote:Subregulation (2) does not apply to a person who —
(a) is a member of a religious or cultural group and who is
wearing a headdress customarily worn by members of
that group, if the wearing of that headdress makes it
impractical for a person to wear a protective helmet

Yeah I'm a member of the anti MHL cultural group. This is bloody ridiculous - it's an impracticable foam hat for EVERYONE. :idea:
Xplora
 
Posts: 5820
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wizdofaus » Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:03 pm

Xplora wrote:
John Lewis wrote:Subregulation (2) does not apply to a person who —
(a) is a member of a religious or cultural group and who is
wearing a headdress customarily worn by members of
that group, if the wearing of that headdress makes it
impractical for a person to wear a protective helmet

Yeah I'm a member of the anti MHL cultural group. This is bloody ridiculous - it's an impracticable foam hat for EVERYONE. :idea:


Official headdress being, I dunno, a beer drinking cap? An 80s hairdo? Or perhaps this?
wizdofaus
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Kensington, Melbourne, VIC

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Summernight » Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:08 pm

wizdofaus wrote:Official headdress being, I dunno, a beer drinking cap? An 80s hairdo? Or perhaps this?


Mmm... I want that unicorn headdress. :lol:
User avatar
Summernight
 
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:40 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:29 pm

wizdofaus wrote:Official headdress being, I dunno, a beer drinking cap? An 80s hairdo? Or perhaps this?

Anything you like really, but a nice cap is good :wink: :mrgreen:

Image
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18256
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:22 pm

Seriously, does it need discussion? :roll:

http://app.strava.com/items/1047306413

KOM STYLIN'
Xplora
 
Posts: 5820
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wizdofaus » Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:26 pm

Xplora wrote:Seriously, does it need discussion? :roll:

http://app.strava.com/items/1047306413

KOM STYLIN'


Except that picture quite clearly demonstrates that it's perfectly practical to wear a helmet along with it, so I suspect you wouldn't get far with the police officer. But I wonder how many cops would mess with a cyclist wearing a unicorn horn...
wizdofaus
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Kensington, Melbourne, VIC

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Ross » Wed Feb 27, 2013 7:31 pm

Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 3713
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:11 pm

Misguided basic concept and somewhat inconclusive research paper by my reading (but I'm no expert)

The key thing that is no surprise is that risk-takers (especially teenagers) are more likely to ride without a helmet. In Australia's society, riding helmetless is regarded as a great risk (not in Europe :idea: ). Of course the helmetless will be risk-takers, they have to be to dare to do it..... and as a result more likely to be involved in injury collisions and falls - no surprises there.

If everyone had a choice about wearing a helmet, far more risk-averse people (and teens) would ride without. One would expect the proportion to be somewhat different. Riding without a helmet does not make you a risk-taker, however this seems to be the spin taken with this article.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 18256
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wilddemon » Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:34 pm

^^^ Did you read the same article that I did? The article that I read said that two identities, The Conversation and Sydney Morning Herald represented the paper with "Crash data shows cyclists with no helmets more likely to ride drunk" and "Cyclists without helmets ‘likely to be risk-takers'" respectively. The four UNSW researchers reported results based on statistical research and concluded that helmet use decreased the chance of head injury. They also made conclusions regarding risk: "where non-helmeted cyclists were more likely to display risky riding behaviour, while less likely to cycle in risky areas. While the net result was that they were more likely to be involved in more severe crashes, this difference was small."

So four experts in their field write a paper, and you're no expert, but you are going to write off the paper as "somewhat inconclusive", yet your post seems to suggest that either you did not read the article, or you did not adequately comprehend the article. That comes across to me as "somewhat arrogant". I'm not sure if this post of yours is a misrepresentation of you, but you seem to have jumped on board the same train as The Conversation and SMH, pulling from the article what you saw fit, and ignoring the rest. Hopefully you see the oncoming car better than you see the plain faced facts.

To be honest, I had only heard word of the SMH and The Conversation interpretation of the paper. Good to see that someone has published a more thorough article regarding the paper.
wilddemon
 
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2012 10:09 am

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit