Pushbike helmets

[flappist]

While eating brekky on the beach this morning the conversation turned to pushbikes.
Firstly a mob of LCFs were causing their usual chaos by using the road rather than the bike track next to it.
Then an article in the Sunday Mail detailing problems with the BCCs city bike hire plot coming unraveled due to helmet liability problems.
Finally the general observation that there seem to be very few pushbikes around anymore compared to 30 years ago.
Hardly anyone seems to ride to work (or school). Gone are the huge pushy armadas at 4pm & 5pm as the workers spewed out of the factory gates.

I had a quick ask around as to why people either never have or stopped riding and almost everyone came back with the same answer.

HELMETS.

Now I remember when helmets were brought in for "safety" and the reduce the enormous road toll of pushy riders (that no one seems to remember but it was on TV so it must be true).
And I am sure there are less injuries now although I suspect that this is mostly because there are bugger all bike riders (other than LCFs).

It is most confusing that anyone can use a skateboard, skates, mobility gizmo, scooter, (insert wheeled device here), ride a horse or whatever without a helmet and if you want to ride your pushy in peak hour traffic wearing nothing but budgie smugglers as long as you have a lump of polystyrene foam on your head you are perfectly safe (from getting a ticket).

I used to ride my pushy to the shops to get milk or bread but I just stopped the day helmets were introduced mostly as a protest.

Very few places in the world make helmets compulsory and of those most are only for children.

Of course helmets are a safety item but should they be compulsory?
If they were made optional would people ride again and maybe become a bit more fit and less fat?

So here is the poll.....

[Jason[98.EL]]

they are in Victoria already

taken from http://www.bv.com.au/bikes-&-riding/10377/

Bicycle helmets are compulsory in Victoria.


Bicycle helmets became compulsory in Victoria on 1 July 1990. By law, Victorians must wear a helmet that has been approved to Australian Standards.

The law applies on roads, bike paths, bike lanes, shared and segregated footways and in other public places such as recreational parks and car parks.

Jason

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Jason[98.EL]

they are in Victoria already

taken from http://www.bv.com.au/bikes-&-riding/10377/



Jason

Yes they are mandatory everywhere.....but should they be?

[kinksta]

There was something on TV saying that helmets haven't really help that much which is hard to believe, it was on the Circle the other day (what a fab show).

I would ride more often if I didn't have to wear a helmet, simply because I don't have a helmet at the moment.

[Peuty]

If I fell off, I'd prefer my skull being at least somewhat protected.

I see no issue with helmets.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Peuty

If I fell off, I'd prefer my skull being at least somewhat protected.

I see no issue with helmets.

They would also help in car accidents too wouldn't they?

Do you think they should be mandatory in cars too?

[Jason[98.EL]]

Originally Posted by flappist

They would also help in car accidents too wouldn't they?

Do you think they should be mandatory in cars too?

ffs dont give them any ideas

we dont need anymore we have enough of them

Jason

[Peuty]

Originally Posted by flappist

They would also help in car accidents too wouldn't they?

Do you think they should be mandatory in cars too?

Where did I say that?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Peuty

Where did I say that?

You didn't.

You can wear a helmet in a car if you want or decide not to.

It is not mandatory.

The idea of this is to explore the possibility that the helmet law is a major cause of the huge reduction in pushy riding and therefore a contributor to the generic obesity problem we are currently having.

Making them not compulsory is not banning them all it is doing is giving a choice.

Some people feel uncomfortable having to make decisions and prefer to be told what to do.

Others feel that what think is right is an absolute and others should be forced to comply.

(but we all know him as the Stig.....oops wrong thread)

I think that there should be a choice and am wonder what others think.

Not whether or not helmets save lives but whether you should be forced to wear them.

This is on a push bike wandering along at about walking pace, not some olympic bound road racer doing 50km/h or a motorbike or whatever.

[ST]

Originally Posted by flappist

They would also help in car accidents too wouldn't they?

Do you think they should be mandatory in cars too?

A car has seatbelts, airbags and protection from all sides amidst various other safety equipment. A bike does not. Chances are if you get a knock on your bike that your head will make contact with something.

You don't need to be hit hard on a bike to get permanent head injuries, you do in a car.

[StealthAu]

Originally Posted by Peuty

If I fell off, I'd prefer my skull being at least somewhat protected.

I see no issue with helmets.

Then wear one, if they aren't required by law it doesn't mean those who want them can't wear them.

[DJM83]

No dramas here either, but i must ask what an LCF is?

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by DJM83

No dramas here either, but i must ask what an LCF is?

Lycra C-something "bundle of sticks"?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by DJM83

No dramas here either, but i must ask what an LCF is?

Cycling enthusiast who has little regard for any other type of vehicle on the road.

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by DJM83

No dramas here either, but i must ask what an LCF is?

Lycra clad ****wit.

[DJM83]

Was thinking the same Damo

[svo supporter]

Yes, they're beneficial for pushy riders. I agree they should, be made compulsary for skateboard riders, scooters etc. They can all suffer the same fate as a push bike rider, if they cam off their "mode" of transport.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by svo supporter

Yes, they're beneficial for pushy riders. I agree they should, be made compulsary for skateboard riders, scooters etc. They can all suffer the same fate as a push bike rider, if they cam off their "mode" of transport.

Tony Hawk used to wear kneepads and a helmet and he was one of the best pro skaters of his time (Famous for the first skater to successfully land "The 900").

[svo supporter]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Tony Hawk used to wear kneepads and a helmet and he was one of the best pro skaters of his time (Famous for the first skater to successfully land "The 900").

Is it complusary for him to wear them? The whole thread seems to be whether or not we should make it complusary to wear a helmet when riding a pushy. I've just said it SHOULD be complusary for all forms of transport that was outlined by the OP at the beginning of the thread.

[pauljh74]

Why would anyone suggest kids should wear one and adults don't? An adult can reach higher speeds consistently. All it takes is a dodgy drain, a deep pothole and the cyclist goes head first over the bars. I creased a rim when I was unable to avoid or jump over a strip of road dug up and under filled during road works. I would argue that the occasional cyclist is at higher risk of injury (per km cycled) as their riding skills aren't as sharp as a regular cyclist.

The reduction in cycling - apparently more new bicycles are sold than new cars every year, so the reduction in riding can't be that great if at all. If anything if there has been a reduction in riding, it is due to the "you don't pay rego, get off the road" attitude of many motorists. The seasoned riders keep riding, the person who wants to start again by commuting for example, gets scared off by aggro drivers.

[Kryton]

If you really need to ask the question about helmets, maybe you should ask the same question about seat belts and airbags.

Its a stupid question.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by davway

If you really need to ask the question about helmets, maybe you should ask the same question about seat belts and airbags.

Its a stupid question.

Ok here is another stupid question for you......

Why does anyone need a car that is capable of traveling above the speed limit or capable of accelerating 0-400m in less than 20 seconds?

[g220ba]

My thought process is that generally cyclists travell at some degree of speed. Generally speaking it's above 20km/h, now if they were to come of their bike for whatever reason what protection do they have against head injuries. Without a helmet absolutely nothing.

In a vehicle there is some degree of protection, moreso in later models with the advent of airbags and alike. I'm not saying it's perfect in anyway to say helmets should be mandatory and quite frankly like the seatbelt thread a while ago it's really not that much of an inconvenience to wear one.

In the last thread on this matter a couple of months ago i put forward a similar arguement and had some members ask some quite stupid questions, I'll answer them in advance this time. Yes i believe they should be mandatory for cyclists as they are atleast some form of protection against serious head injuries.

No i don't believe they should be mandatory for motorists to wear them as i said earlier motorists at least have some form of protection.

No i don't believe it should be mandatory for pedestrians to wear them and no i don't wear except when on a bike. The risk to cyclists in my opinion is higher than any other group on the roads.

These are only my opinions and observations.

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by davway

If you really need to ask the question about helmets, maybe you should ask the same question about seat belts and airbags.

Its a stupid question.

Don't think that's entirely fair Davway.

Safety, as with anything, can be taken to extremes. No one would argue safety isn't important, but the question comes as to where we draw the statutory line. I think that's what this question is about, and probably not just as it relates to cycle laws.

I remember it being drummed into us as kids "most accidents occur in the home". Now, I certainly won't be advocating in house helmet laws, though statistically I wouldn't be surprised if someone could make a case for them.

I voted yes for children, no for adults. Kids are far more likely to let peer group pressure decide whether or not a helmet is needed, adults should be able to make their own choice. For example, don't need it for the 1km footpath ride to the shops, do need it for the main roads commute to work (purely hypothetical - me no ride).

Kinksta's link is worth a read, and raises some interesting points.

I think the main reason laws such as these come into question so much, is that they were probably poorly thought through, and implemented more as a political quick fix. It seems that if proper research had been done as to the causes of most serious cycling head injury, and then appropriate solutions enacted, we wouldn't have a higher fatality rate than the Netherlands, which apparently has no helmet laws (see Kinksta's link).

Safety laws are a slippery slope. We definitely need to go down this slope, sometimes to protect the young, sometimes to protect worker exploitation, sometimes to protect the community from exploding health costs. The trick is not to lose our footing and fall all the way to the bottom. One way to do that is to continually question where the legal line is drawn, just like this thread.

[kinksta]

Hey here is an interesting (yet lengthy) read, good old wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle...on_and_culture

it is observed that the countries with the best cycle safety records (Denmark and the Netherlands) have among the lowest levels of helmet use.

hmmm

[Mr Hardware]

As a bmx rider and someone who has had their noggin saved more than once by a helmet, i say all riders should wear a helmet at all times.

[SLO-04L]

i like Jerry Seinfeld's view on the whole helmet debate

"There are many things you can point to as proof that the human is not smart. But my personal favorite would have to be that we needed to invent the helmet. What was happening, apparently, was that we were involved in a lot of activities that were cracking our heads. We chose not to avoid doing those activities but, instead, to come up with some sort of device to help us enjoy our head-cracking lifestyles. And even that didn't work because not enough people were wearing them so we had to come up with the helmet law. Which is even stupider, the idea behind the helmet law being to preserve a brain whose judgment is so poor, it does not even try to avoid the cracking of the head it's in."

its kind of like natural selection really, the smart and/or strong will survive

[|||]

if the benefit of helmets to society via less disabled/injured people is greater than the cost to society of unhealthy people not exercising on bikes as they do not want to wear a helmet then keep the laws.

most kids today would not recall the time when helmets were optional so i say treat them the same as seatbelt laws as for most people it is second nature to wear a helmet/buckle up when on a bike/car.

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by |||

if the benefit of helmets to society via less disabled/injured people is greater than the cost to society of unhealthy people not exercising on bikes as they do not want to wear a helmet then keep the laws.

most kids today would not recall the time when helmets were optional so i say treat them the same as seatbelt laws as for most people it is second nature to wear a helmet/buckle up when on a bike/car.

Until recently,I used to be a firm believer that helmet laws were a no brainer due to the fact that if it cost me one cent(as a tax payer) to keep some one in hospital with a head injury, then mandate helmet laws.
I rememember protesting on the steps of parliament house at an anti lights on/(motor cycle)helmet rally in the early eighties, when I thought "no one is going to tell me I have to wear a helmet or not", so I guess I came a full circle in regards to what I thought was a yes or no answer in regards to helmet legislation.
however ,if I was to say to someone now that you must wear a helmet because I will have to pay for your treatment in hospital, I would also have to say "you must not ride a bike/ motorbike at all, for if you have an accident, I will have to pay for your hospitalisation". Taken to the ultimate conclusion, you should not drive a car or walk on a footpath for fear of being in an accident, that I would have to pay for as well. (Obviously this relies on the basis that we have a fairly good public health system..tax payer funded....., the arguments are going to be vastly different from someone with private health insurance)
So, in that context, I think what||| says is bang on the money. For mine, keep the helmet laws,(pushy or motorbike I think it would be ok to assume that a helmet has more benefits than not), but should the legislation come down to a purely economic decision, which it seems most legislation is, then I think the economic cost to society of people not riding pushbikes should be explored further. If there is a definite correlation to people not riding pushbikes and mandatory helmet laws ,and the fitness/obesity financial concerns outweigh the injury/disabled financial concerns, then ,unfortunately I would have to say dump the helmet legislation, though I would hope most would continue to both wear one and encourage others to do the same.
Ps LCF.. lol... I see them as two wheeled ,crotch hugging billboards
pps so in terms of the poll, I have not voted, would be interested if anyone has cost figures for these 2 scenarios.(I am sure they are available for obesity/ overweight medical/hospital, costs, but wonder if there is anything directly related to health costs in regards to not riding a pushbike

[tranquilized]

I voted NO: too much nannyism
Its not a black and white issue though, as its just like the seat belt law in cars. The question is how many people choose not to ride because of the law. Push bike use should be encouraged whenever possible.

The issue has been getting a lot of coverage lately

http://www.theage.com.au/world/a-lan...917-15ge0.html