Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[Bob_TAS]

This is Australia's attitudes to helmets and bikes

Were I that kid, I wouldn't be concerned about the helmet; it's the tacky white shoes with a suit that I'd be worried about!

[human909]

Yet most people here are so in love with their road bikes their 23mm tyres, their Lycra, their carbon that they don't see or don't care and have no respect for other more sedate forms of cycling. They don't care that MHLs have helped destroy other forms of cycling.

Please don't put us all in the same basket. I am a 23mm tyre loving, Lycra wearing rider of the carbon steed and I object most vociferously to the damage to cycling participation rates caused by mandatory helmet laws.

Everyone's not in the same basket. As I have ALWAYS tried to emphasize it doesn't matter what basket you are in. I hope I've made that clear, if I haven't I apologise. When I am in my Lycra with my 23mm tyres I am largely indistinguishable from the like. I fit into most baskets from roadie to hipster to fred to PBSO.

I don't give a stuff what kind of BSO a person rides, or how fast, or where, but I always think 'good on them' for riding at all.

+a bazillion!

[Percrime]

I don't give a stuff what kind of BSO a person rides, or how fast, or where, but I always think 'good on them' for riding at all.

To a point. That point is when it has the forks on backwards and /or has training wheels. Neither can be tolerated.

[Ross]

I'm in a typical Perth suburb and live withing walking distance of my shops. I can cycle to three local centres within 5 minutes but, guess what, I drive to them. Why, because my BSO is accessible but I can never easily find my helmet and, when I am at the shops where do I put it. On the occasion I have ridden the lack of bike parking is not an issue, traipsing around like a wannabe racer with a helmet is.

I am a POBSO and proud of it. I dislike wearing a helmet but do when I ride, if I don't have a helmet then I do not ride.
The problem here is that the vast numbers of POBSOs don't like to wear helmets and those that ride without are the law breakers and do not represent the silent majority. The people we deter, and subsequently miss, are the law abiding riders who we really need. Darwin has got it, ride the paths and you don't need to wear one - that's official! The result, 6% bicycle modeshare and rising.

Why can you not find your helmet? Sensible thing would be to leave it with your bike. Same when you get to the shops on your bike with your helmet, just leave it on the bike. I doubt anyone is going to steal a second-hand helmet.

Do you have the same trouble when you want to walk outside? Can't find your shoes, or maybe your pants?

Sounds like you are just using your own lack of organisational skills as an excuse not to ride your bike.

[simonn]

I fit into most baskets from roadie to hipster to fred to PBSO

Why do you seem to assume that a lot of others are not also like this?

You have posted several times insinuating that I am just a fred, which I am at times, but most of my riding is commuting and we regularly do shopping etc on bicycles.

[simonn]

Do you have the same trouble when you want to walk outside? Can't find your shoes, or maybe your pants?

Why can't I walk around naked? Surely having to wear clothes puts others off walking? Maybe if we allowed people to perambulate without being constricted by clothing they would walk more and walking would become more normal? We would have more footpaths! All clothes do is indicate to people how dangerous walking must be!

[high_tea]

Australia's social attitudes to clothing are awful, no doubt about it. Social mores are the problem, though, not de jure laws.

[John Lewis]

Came across this. Don't know if it has been posted before. May be of interest.
John

http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/?cm_ ... -senseless" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[human909]

Came across this. Don't know if it has been posted before. May be of interest.
John

http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/?cm_ ... -senseless" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting..... What fundamentally matters in impact damage reducing measures is the impact absorbing distance. Helmets at best doubles this distance. This is great if you happen to have an impact that slightly exceeds the capabilities of our own skull. Beyond that you still aren't looking good.

Better not to impact in the first place. In the twenty plus years I've been riding I've never struck my head. I intend to keep it that way.

[foo on patrol]

Came across this. Don't know if it has been posted before. May be of interest.
John

http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/?cm_ ... -senseless" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting..... What fundamentally matters in impact damage reducing measures is the impact absorbing distance. Helmets at best doubles this distance. This is great if you happen to have an impact that slightly exceeds the capabilities of our own skull. Beyond that you still aren't looking good.

Better not to impact in the first place. In the twenty plus years I've been riding I've never struck my head. I intend to keep it that way.

Well not everyone can be so fortunate Human because I've had a number of falls during racing, training and general riding having car doors opened on me and all had visible damage to helmet and on one occasion broke one of the straps. The last one was only a couple of months ago, where I drove my shoulder and head together into the ground. Not all can be so lucky, hence the reason for helmets.

Foo

[human909]

Not hitting my head isn't about being lucky it is about not taking risks and and knowing how to fall. This notion that hitting ones head while cycling is simply a probabilistic notion is simply false.

(I did take a big tumble 3 weeks ago mountain biking at king lake, I broke my hand. No head impact, i tucked and rolled! )

Well not everyone can be so fortunate Human because I've had a number of falls during racing, training and general riding having car doors opened on me and all had visible damage to helmet and on one occasion broke one of the straps. The last one was only a couple of months ago, where I drove my shoulder and head together into the ground. Not all can be so lucky, hence the reason for helmets.

Foo

Racing is obviously higher risk. Training is too if you are riding fast on busy roads or riding with bunches. I have no reason to discourage you from wearing a helmet. However not everybody takes that much risk. Hence making helmets mandatory really isn't appropriate.

[Ross]

Came across this. Don't know if it has been posted before. May be of interest.
John

http://www.bicycling.com/senseless/?cm_ ... -senseless" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting..... What fundamentally matters in impact damage reducing measures is the impact absorbing distance. Helmets at best doubles this distance. This is great if you happen to have an impact that slightly exceeds the capabilities of our own skull. Beyond that you still aren't looking good.

Better not to impact in the first place. In the twenty plus years I've been riding I've never struck my head. I intend to keep it that way.

Interesting too that they say more people are cycling (USA) but more people are getting head injuries even though more people are wearing helmets. My totally unscientific theory is that at least part of the reason is people are doing stupider things like trying to emulate people like the Jackass crew and Danny MacAskill and therefore crashing and injuring themselves more.

[human909]

Interesting too that they say more people are cycling (USA) but more people are getting head injuries even though more people are wearing helmets. My totally unscientific theory is that at least part of the reason is people are doing stupider things like trying to emulate people like the Jackass crew and Danny MacAskill and therefore crashing and injuring themselves more.

There is little doubt that the type of cycling that is common in Australia and the US is vastly different and vastly more risky than the cycling in Amsterdam. This easily makes as much difference to safety as the better infrastructure. But sadly we have a government and many of our cycling 'advocacy' groups actively supporting laws that discourage regular everyday cycling.


Helmets are great for their purpose. When I was going down hill at king lake mountain bike track I wouldn't have dared not wear a helmet. In fact I had the distinct feeling that my jaw was quite exposed, a full face helmet would have been preferable. Long pants, full face helmet, wrist, knee, shoulder, back and neck guards were what other people were wearing. I had my foam hat.

[foo on patrol]

Tuck and roll is good at low speed but at speed and strapped in, it is some what harder to do but that is a good way of not hurting to much in a fall.

Foo

[DavidS]

I think the point is that we can judge where we would wear a helmet. I commute and would not wear a helmet commuting. If I was training in a bunch, racing or going down mountain bike trails I would seriously think about wearing one.

It's the mandatory laws which are the problem.

I know it's only an anecdote but I've been riding bikes on the roads for 40 years and had all sorts of accidents over the years (not that many though - anyone else able to claim having an accident with a boat!!) and have never hit my head. Cycling just isn't so dangerous we have to mandate helmets for all and every trip on a bicycle.

DS

[michael_w]

I commute, and that is my main cycling activity. Had I not been wearing my helmet when struck by a car recently I would nit be typing this response. You can't foresee another vehicle not seeing you.

[biker jk]

I commute, and that is my main cycling activity. Had I not been wearing my helmet when struck by a car recently I would nit be typing this response. You can't foresee another vehicle not seeing you.

Human909 will be along shortly to explain you didn't roll properly.

[DavidS]

michael_w, you are allowed to ride with a helmet, and no-one is trying to deny you this choice, but I am denied my choice, I'm not allowed to ride bare headed.

DS

[michael_w]

I could make that same argument about any number of laws. In most cases it would be nonsensical

[Mulger bill]

Most of which no doubt the bulk of the populace are quite happy to follow anyway because regardless of the legal compulsion they will do the right thing.

[high_tea]

I could make that same argument about any number of laws. In most cases it would be nonsensical

Not to mention completely beside the point. One counterexample doesn't make it a bad rule.

[John Lewis]

A bit off topic perhaps but in today's paper was a picture of a group of skydivers in freefall.
Interestingly only some of them appeared to have helmets. no use if chute doesn't open I guess but handy in the event of a bad landing.

A bit like bike helmets. Some see it one way and the rest another. Ultimately it should be personal choice as appears to be the case above.

John

[human909]

You can't foresee another vehicle not seeing you.

This fatalism attitude is quite bizarre. You CAN foresee another vehicle not seeing you. It is quite expected and every cyclist should be aware that it is a big risk. In fact if you ride around expecting every other vehicle to see you then you are not doing yourself any favours!!

Now you are probably going to be insulted or offended my comments. But it is better to learn and change your riding than to get hit again when the next driver doesn't see you.


(Not that this has much to do with MHLs. But if your arguing that we need helmets because we get hit by cars then you would be far better off changing your riding than wearing a foam hat.)

[michael_w]

Without you knowing any of the factors of my accident, I do take offence. I'm constantly alert and that fact that somebody turned in front of me from the opposite side of the road while I was travelling direct, you can't foresee that. That's the same as expecting anybody travelling in the opposite direction to you to just cut in front of you at any time. Highly unlikely and if you thought it was likely, you'd never leave the house.

Fatalism be stuffed. Nice try with the word games and cherry picking of one statement from my post.

[human909]

I don't know your accident and I have no place to comment on it. So I haven't and I won't. But you suggest we need helmets because we can't foresee other vehicles not seeing us. I was merely pointing out that IS foreseeable and the best way to deal with that is NOT with a bicycle helmet.

But all that is besides the the point. You are welcome to wear a helmet. I would prefer to be free to make my own choice.

My argument that I haven't ever hit my head is about as useful as your argument that you have. Neither make or break the argument on whether one should or shouldn't wear a helmet. However that is not my argument. My argument is about ALLOWING choice!