Pushbike helmets

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by tweeked

The biggest issue i see with pushbikes is that the are allowed to move to the front at every set of lights.

The biggest danger is passing the things, but in the inner city you pass the same bike 10 times. They should have to wait in the queue like every other vehicle, then you could conceiveably halve the accidents, because you only pass them once.

The only difficulty with this is that would have to follow another road rule.......

Actually, they are not legally allowed to pass at the lights unless in a lane of their own.

[tweeked]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Actually, they are not legally allowed to pass at the lights unless in a lane of their own.

And there you have it, i am reasonably intelligent and yet since i have witnessed them doing this without exception and never ever seen one being pulled up for it, I assumed that it was legal!!

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

I see your point. Things that are potentially bad for us should be prevented.

Ok......

No cigarettes anymore.
No alcohol other than wine and light beer.
No motor vehicles that do not have ABS, airbags and DSC.
No motorbikes.
No computer games.
No mobile phones (or at least make them not operate when moving)
etc etc etc........

Sure it will cost a lot of money and upset a few and cause a bit of inconvenience but think how healthy and safe we will all be........

After all so far 34 people have voted that "safety is paramount".......

Ok you are right, lets improve peoples civil liberties, put the choice back in their hands and remove all public duty of care.

Legalise the use and distribution of all drugs.
Remove all public health standards.
Remove all speed limits and road laws.
Remove all criminal law.
Remove all vehicle standards.
Remove all alcohol and tobacco laws.

That way, every person has the right to choose what actions they take, where they go, what risks they take, what car they use and what way they drive. All this is done with the onus completely on them to conduct their life in a manner that is safe for them and others. It is their choice and they should have that right, we all know that everyone will use that right responsibly.

Let the carnage begin.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by tweeked

And there you have it, i am reasonably intelligent and yet since i have witnessed them doing this without exception and never ever seen one being pulled up for it, I assumed that it was legal!!

Agreed it is done regularly but it is not legal.

I am a cyclist but I do not do it in the lane of another car. I do roll to the front if there is a wide shoulder on the other side of a fog line (the solid white line on the left of a lane). I am allowed to do this as I have my own lane and cars are not allowed to drive on the left of the fog line anyway. In this situation I am in an area of the road that cars are not allowed to use and there is more than enough room for them to roll past me without problems. If there is no such lane, I wait behind the cars because I don't trust the ability of the average motorist to get past me without clipping me, all motorists are morons and out to kill me.

Although rare, I have seen cyclist pulled up for this. It is like saying I see so many people running amber lights I thought it was legal. Just because it happens does not make it legal.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I have no idea what the ratio is and I have no intention of trying to find out. This is not an easy answer because even if you found more public health budget was spent on conditions due to "unfit" reasons, how do you quantify how much of that is from a lack of exercise and how much is due to changes in work habits, dietary habits and a whole plethora of other reasons? My point here is it is too complex for me to give any informed opinion on and nor do I have any intention to find out.



Evidence in bike sales actually suggests there have been an increase in bike use, unless there are a lot of adults spending $2200 on garage decorations.



Never said it is not worth discussing it because I do not agree with it. I just said it is pointless if the discussion is based purely on anecdote and opinion without any evidence to back up statements. There is a big difference there and if such evidence is provided I would gladly change my opinion. I am actually not a supporter of "nanny state" concepts at all, I am however an avid supporter of worthwhile changes that support public health and safety. Those here that truly know me will agree with that.



I see the term of "LCF" as a derorogatorry term and would appreciate it not be used. Just like I am sure you would appreciate me not referring to you as a beer swilling, fat old man in a midlife crisis who thinks he is a sports car owner. By the way, I still ride and have a $9000 road bike as well as a mountain bike (admittedly I ride the MTB more than the road bike now).



I have no problem in the mandatory use of protective motorcycle gear, which I used to use when I had my bike (Honda CBR900RR Fireblade).



No one had suggested it should not be discussed, just that it should be done with a bit more meaning than opinion only, lets actually look at some facts.

Whilst opinion and anecdote are so popular here, let me put forward mine.

At work I have dealt with many cyclist crashes (been in a few of my own as well). I have seen many cyclists with significant damage to their helmet yet I have never dealt with a rider that has damage on the helmet and a brain injury. I have dealt with a rider with a brain injury that was not wearing a helmet. Helmets work.

I have been involved in cycling of variously levels up to and including state and national competition since I was 13, I am now 38. In that time I have seen a massive increase in the number of serious recreational and competitive cyclists out there. When I first started, cycling was highly unusual for anything other than casual recreation and commuting. Now there are group rides and clubs that number in the hundreds everywhere.

The presence of large, well stocked bike shops has at least doubled in the last 20 years, they must be making a living somehow. Therefore if someone is buying the bikes supporting these businesses, someone must be riding them.

By the way, my observations are based on my experience which is not formed by casual observations whilst sipping latte's at a cafe.

Ah thats better.....this is the Gecko I remember.

The $2200 garage decorations may or may not be stored next to the $2000-$30000 boats that adorn yards and sheds up here but have not seen the ocean in years, the paddocks full of caravans used once, the $squillion rifle or shotgun that has fired less than 100 rounds etc. etc. etc.

Maybe people are buying more bikes or maybe not.

Again the point is being lost or at least diluted. It is not about whether a helmet is safe or not safe rather that you have a choice.

You have a choice whether you smoke or drink, both of which cause far more injury than bike accidents.

Childern are prevented from smoking and drinking until they are old enough to make a decission for them selves.

How is bike helmets any different?

P.S. You KNOW that I drink flat white not latte.......

P.P.S. the F in LCF was not the word detailed above......you should know me better than that.

[Mad_Aussie]

IMO if you aren't wearing a helmet on a bike, you're a friggen idiot.

I cycle up to 40kms a day, and have been knocked off a couple of times. If I didn't wear a helmet every time I got on my bike, I wouldn't be sitting here today enjoying my iced coffee.

If you're the sort of shallow, appearance driven knobhead that won't ride a bike with a helmet because it would muss up your hair, well then you don't deserve to own a bike. And if you do get knocked off and don't have a helmet, the hospital shouldn't have to deal with your severe head trauma. You should be left to bleed out on the footpath, and rid yourself from the gene pool.

[3vXT]

Originally Posted by flappist

I see your point. Things that are potentially bad for us should be prevented.

Please don't quote my post as an excuse to impress everyone with your sarcasm skills.

My point wasn't "Things that are potentially bad for us should be prevented", I don't even know how you attributed that too me.

I'm just suggesting that the benefits from compulsory helmet laws (some people getting injured slightly less) outweigh their potential harm (some people giving up riding pushbikes and getting fat as a result).
I've acknowledged that people are fatter now then they were in your good old days and that helmet laws probably do play a small part in that. I just believe there are other, larger causes than helmet laws and the occasional lessening of an injury to someone is more important and makes a more noticeable difference. As I said, If the laws were the only reason we are fatter now then it would be different but only an idiot would be that naive.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Ah thats better.....this is the Gecko I remember.

The $2200 garage decorations may or may not be stored next to the $2000-$30000 boats that adorn yards and sheds up here but have not seen the ocean in years, the paddocks full of caravans used once, the $squillion rifle or shotgun that has fired less than 100 rounds etc. etc. etc.

Maybe people are buying more bikes or maybe not.

Again the point is being lost or at least diluted. It is not about whether a helmet is safe or not safe rather that you have a choice.

You have a choice whether you smoke or drink, both of which cause far more injury than bike accidents.

Childern are prevented from smoking and drinking until they are old enough to make a decission for them selves.

How is bike helmets any different?

P.S. You KNOW that I drink flat white not latte.......

P.P.S. the F in LCF was not the word detailed above......you should know me better than that.

Ok, so are you suggesting the law on motorcyclists requiring helmets should be lifted? If it was I am sure there would be many more that would use a motorcycle to commute.

If cyclists were to have that choice, surely motorcyclists should too?

Yes smoking and alcohol is a burden to the public health system, by why re introduce another burden (head injuries from bike crashes) rather than focus on reducing other burdens?

As for the whole children should be compulsory, adults optional concept. If it was compulsory for children to wear seat belts and adult had the choice, would we have the seat belt compliancy in children that we have today? Would we have the bike helmet compliancy in children wearing bike helmets if adults had the choice. The simple answer is no we would not, children do not follow laws to the same extent that they follows their parents example.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Ok, so are you suggesting the law on motorcyclists requiring helmets should be lifted? If it was I am sure there would be many more that would use a motorcycle to commute.

If cyclists were to have that choice, surely motorcyclists should too?

Yes smoking and alcohol is a burden to the public health system, by why re introduce another burden (head injuries from bike crashes) rather than focus on reducing other burdens?

As for the whole children should be compulsory, adults optional concept. If it was compulsory for children to wear seat belts and adult had the choice, would we have the seat belt compliancy in children that we have today? Would we have the bike helmet compliancy in children wearing bike helmets if adults had the choice. The simple answer is no we would not, children do not follow laws to the same extent that they follows their parents example.

The motorcyle helmet one is actually quite interesting. I have ridden bikes in the back yard over the years without a helmet mostly when I was working on them and wanted to listen to the noises and it felt very strange and unsafe.

Also I have rented motorcycles overseas where helmets were not mandatory and actually went out and bought one (the black one I wear on track days now you might remember) because it was too weird and I felt unsafe.

Just to make it clear from my own position. I would wear a helmet if I was going anywhere near traffic but not down to the local shop or on bike tracks as it becomes a pain. That is my view.

Obviously many disagree (which is the good thing about forums) but the poll is still leaning towards optional ....

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Obviously many disagree (which is the good thing about forums) but the poll is still leaning towards optional ....

Yes it does, but then the wording of the poll answers promote this response, it is hardly non suggestive in its wording. Not to mention there is one response to compulsory helmet use and about five responses to optional use (and one completely worthless response).

Actually, if you disregard the last two answers as they give responses that are not focussed directly to the topic, the poll suggest the majority favour compulsory helmet use.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

The motorcyle helmet one is actually quite interesting. I have ridden bikes in the back yard over the years without a helmet mostly when I was working on them and wanted to listen to the noises and it felt very strange and unsafe.

Also I have rented motorcycles overseas where helmets were not mandatory and actually went out and bought one (the black one I wear on track days now you might remember) because it was too weird and I felt unsafe.

Just to make it clear from my own position. I would wear a helmet if I was going anywhere near traffic but not down to the local shop or on bike tracks as it becomes a pain. That is my view.

So what is your answer, yes or no, do you think this choice should apply to motorbikes as well?

[flappist]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

So what is your answer, yes or no, do you think this choice should apply to motorbikes as well?

Wel I think that it is good now. You need a helmet to ride on a road, no where else.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Yes it does, but then the wording of the poll answers promote this response, it is hardly non suggestive in its wording. Not to mention there is one response to compulsory helmet use and about five responses to optional use (and one completely worthless response).

Actually, if you disregard the last two answers as they give responses that are not focussed directly to the topic, the poll suggest the majority favour compulsory helmet use.

Hmm.... so if you disregard all the no answers the majory say yes?

How can "NO there is too much nannyism" be read as not being against a "nanny" law....

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Wel I think that it is good now. You need a helmet to ride on a road, no where else.

That is not really going to work is it? The majority of bike crashes do not involve a car. Also regardless of crashing at 40 km/h on the road or on a concrete path, the damage is the same. If in doubt, get a mate and one of you thrust your head at just 20 km/h into the bitumen road, the other at the same speed into a concrete path, I bet the injuries will be similar.

The other reason it will not work is many cyclists use a mix of road and path. Road when a path is not available and vice versa when one is available. What about when they are riding on a path and it crosses a road, do they then have to put a helmet on to cross the road.

In my opinion, "the on road yes, on path no" is an unworkable option that would be ineffective in the provision of bike safety and also next to impossible to enforce making the whole thing pointless and a waste of legislative ink.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Hmm.... so if you disregard all the no answers the majory say yes?

How can "NO there is too much nannyism" be read as not being against a "nanny" law....

Because it is influenced by the respondent's opinion on other issues such as vehicle modifications, speed cameras, workplace safety etc. All topics hotly debated on this site frequently.

I am just saying it is not a specific answer to the presented question with a focus on this topic and is greatly influenced by other, non relevant topics.

[zdcol71]

This is gold!!!

[04redxr8]

Interesting poll.

As a former cyclist/bmxer/ mountain bike racer, I find the responses here very interesting.

I think the worst thing about the compulsary helmet laws is, the removal of personal choice. If an idiot wishes to risk his own life, why must we stop them???? I cannot fathom why we must nurture and protect carriers of the idiot gene. It seems that we are no longer able to carry out a risk assesment on our own, we need laws to protect us.

Riding a bicycle on the road now is much more different than 20 years ago. I personally would not even consider taking a bike on the road these days with the fools I see driving cars.

The major flaw with this law, and it seems no-one here knows about it, but modern helmets are a use once only item. They must be replaced after each accident. How many helmets do you think have been damaged and are still being used. A fractured helmet is almost the same as no helmet. Is there a law to stop this?

I didn't vote, because i'm torn between compulsory for under 18's (only because some parents have no idea), and too much nannyism.

Ride At Your Own Risk.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Because it is influenced by the respondent's opinion on other issues such as vehicle modifications, speed cameras, workplace safety etc. All topics hotly debated on this site frequently.

I am just saying it is not a specific answer to the presented question with a focus on this topic and is greatly influenced by other, non relevant topics.

Well using that logic, "safety is paramount" could be influenced by the respondents opinion on issues such classic cars being unsafe or high performance motor vehicles being only owned by hoons, again things that have been debated on here.

Irrespective, no AFF thread is going the change the law but it has managed to bring quite a few opinions, views and discussions on a subject that many had not even considered.

Which is why I started it.......

[zdcol71]

Originally Posted by flappist

Irrespective, no AFF thread is going the change the law but it has managed to bring quite a few opinions, views and discussions on a subject that many had not even considered.
Which is why I started it.......

Off topic, but it's amazing how many threads actually do involve some attempt to "change the law"!!!! then devolve into anecdotal argument or questionable rhetoric. It would be good to see some of this discussion in many more threads here.

[geckoGT]

I think the worst thing about the compulsary helmet laws is, the removal of personal choice. If an idiot wishes to risk his own life, why must we stop them???? I cannot fathom why we must nurture and protect carriers of the idiot gene. It seems that we are no longer able to carry out a risk assesment on our own, we need laws to protect us.

Because, unfortunately when they survive with massive disability we have to provide for them, for the rest of their life which could be a further 60-70 years. Pity we don't get to choose if we pay for their mistake or not.

Well using that logic, "safety is paramount" could be influenced by the respondents opinion on issues such classic cars being unsafe or high performance motor vehicles being only owned by hoons, again things that have been debated on here.

Agreed, so the poll really is pointless then?

[04redxr8]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Because, unfortunately when they survive with massive disability we have to provide for them, for the rest of their life which could be a further 60-70 years. Pity we don't get to choose if we pay for their mistake or not.

I feel the same way about our hard working paramedics resuscitating voluntary drug overdoses too, but that still happens, costs money, and usually ends in tragedy also.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by 04redxr8

I feel the same way about our hard working paramedics resuscitating voluntary drug overdoses too, but that still happens, costs money, and usually ends in tragedy also.

Yes agreed, but drug use is illegal and we are not discussing giving people the legal right to use.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by vztrt

There's a whole heap of cycling lanes that have popped up in my area only thing lacking are the cyclists.

Yes, they're quite annoying too, there is barely any cyclists in an area yet they decide to ruin a perfectly nice wide road with a cycle lane.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Big Damo

Yes, they're quite annoying too, there is barely any cyclists in an area yet they decide to ruin a perfectly nice wide road with a cycle lane.

Unless you are the cyclist that just about gets his knuckles taken off by car door handles because they have absolutely no concept of a safe passing distance (had this happen numerous times despite almost being on the kerb at the time).

[HLC]

i do a lot of riding throughout perth city now. im no LCF riding around on the road, i use a path when i can but i do ride on the road, lane splitting/filtering, running red lights and being a general nuisance.

I always wear a lid though. Not risking my life if i have a stack- my fault or not.

I have noticed that drivers here are unsure of how to behave with cyclists on the road- commuters, not the LCF's. When i wqas in germany, we rode everywhere with no helmets and the cars, buses, trucks allowed for bicycle riders and gave us the room neccessary because it is a society that relies heavily on the that form of transport. we dont, so our drivers dont have the same consideration.

[joolz]

Used to road race years ago when i was fit and only wore a helmet when competing before it was law cause i had too and it wasnt much more than a basket for my head! I guess back in the 70's if one said soon it would be law to wear a stack hat they would laugh at you. Maybe now if i was to say it would be law to wear a pedestrian hat you all would laugh!! With the trends over the past 2 decades it may be on the cards along with stack hats for cars and anything that may involve a head impact. All would also come with a $$ penalty if one did not comply.......

[FGX-351]

Magpies, they **** me.

[DBourne]

Originally Posted by HLC

I have noticed that drivers here are unsure of how to behave with cyclists on the road- commuters, not the LCF's. When i wqas in germany, we rode everywhere with no helmets and the cars, buses, trucks allowed for bicycle riders and gave us the room neccessary because it is a society that relies heavily on the that form of transport. we dont, so our drivers dont have the same consideration.

People in Europe actually have the ability to drive.

Something 90% of Australian's do not.

Even driving to work this morning, the last little bit of straight road before our car park, there was a group of 10 "LCF's" riding, they went to turn right, signalled and began their turn.

A knob infront of me in a hilux decides to go on to the right hand side of the road and belt (i use that term loosely) past them, all because what? he couldn't wait 10 seconds?

I was happy to wait behind them and arrived at the car park just after him.

It's the typical scenario, which also seems like some FFau members are a apart of too..

That is the reason I don't ride to work.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

People in Europe actually have the ability to drive.

Something 90% of Australian's do not.

Even driving to work this morning, the last little bit of straight road before our car park, there was a group of 10 "LCF's" riding, they went to turn right, signalled and began their turn.

A knob infront of me in a hilux decides to go on to the right hand side of the road and belt (i use that term loosely) past them, all because what? he couldn't wait 10 seconds?

I was happy to wait behind them and arrived at the car park just after him.

It's the typical scenario, which also seems like some FFau members are a apart of too..

That is the reason I don't ride to work.

If they are obeying the road rules with consideration for others they are "cyclists" not "LCFs".

In the same way that a performance car owner (or hilux owner) who does not act like an idiot on the road is not a "hoon".

[Yellow_Festiva]

I don't think helmets should be made compulsory, having said that, there should be the usual 'terms and conditions' associated with any law these days.

* Helmets on a public road only if the speed is above X km/h and there is no bike lane provided.

* Helmets to be worn by all 'children'. But what age defines a child?? I have taught 8 year olds that have more common sense than some of the adults I have shared a chat with in the staffroom over the years.

* No helmet needed for dedicated bike lanes that are cordoned off from the road.

Just some thoughts I guess.... We are VERY different to Denmark and The Netherlands. Both of those countries have been 'conditioned' over decades to share the road. There isn't a 'us and them' mentality.

Both countries (or their capital cities at least) are fairly flat and have ample space for riders to use the road. If memory serves, I think Copenhagen had dedicated traffic lights for the cyclists in their lanes.

I cycled 20-30km per day in Copenhagen for the 4 days I was there and didn't catch public transport once. I loved it, and was in awe at how well it all worked.

I have also rode in Amsterdam, but their setup is not as good as Denmarks.

I think it's also the case that anyone over 12 MUST ride off the footpath. Now that is a joke... a 12 year old has not the experience or the knowledge of the road rules to share a lane with a car but I digress.