Cycling in Australia? - Not Much Fun!
Trish
travelling around the world. We had our bicycles with us and used them
to cycle in three continents, concluding our trip with over 3000 km of
cycling around Southern Africa (Zimbabawe, Mozambique & South Africa).
Nowhere did we experience any problems; to the contrary - travelling on
bikes seems to arouse people's curiosity and we had many friendly chats
with the locals.
We arrived back in Australia and thought we would stop over in WA for a
month or so, to catch up with friends in Perth and cycle down to Albany
& Esperance and back, before continuing on home to the East Coast.
It only took one little, slow ride on the beach bike path from Duncraig
to Cottesloe for us to be pulled over by two gun-carrying police on
mountainbikes. Reason? Australia's favourite: No helmets!
Upon learning we were not WA residents, the police decided not to issue
us with traffic infringement notices - probably too much hard work,
having to chase payment from Qeensland! Instead, we were ordered to walk
back - that is, 25 kilometers! Naturally, we refused to do this, and
were subsequently formally placed under arrest for disobeying police.
One of the cops attempted to call a paddy wagon on his two-way radio,
so, he explained, we could be taken to the station, fingerprinted and
locked up in the watchhouse for the time being. He was, however,
usuccessful in getting through (comforting thought for victims of any
possible real emergency), so they let our tires down and let us go,
wishing us a "nice walk back to Duncraig" and warning us not to attempt
to pump the tyres up and continue riding, or we really would be taken
into custody.
What a homecoming! I must say it's great to be back in Australia and
only through travelling overseas one can fully appreciate the quality of
life we Australians generally take for granted. However, this damned
helmet law is one major blot on that lifestyle. Nowhere else have we
been hassled for peacefully riding along a road, minding our own
business. No other country we visited penalizes its citizens for
exercising their bodies and using an environmentally friendly mode of
transport at the same time - not even some of the semi-dictotorial
regimes!
Having had a read through aus.bicycle, I notice the "great debate" is
still raging - and the authorities are still taking no notice of what
failure this law, this infringement of civil liberties, has been. The
helmet zealots are still bleating their naive message of "if it saves
one child's life, blah, blah, blah..."
In some ways, it is disappointing to see how easily some people are
brainwashed into believing whatever the authorities want them to
believe...
Alas, I don't think we'll be doing that Albany bike trip after all. Who
wants to be constantly hassled? Hiring a car, maybe? Now, there's an
idea I'm sure would fix the helmet problem - as it has already fixed it,
once and for all, for many ex-cycling commuters. Shame it's nowhere near
as much fun...
Iestyn
Sorry to hear about your incident.
If you were trying to start a flame war however, then you are probably going
the right way about it.
Rick Jones
possibly complain about being pulled up. Thus you were not being "hassled
for peacefully riding along a road, minding our own business" as you put it.
Cyclists who continue to break the law making it very difficult for
non-cycling community support (and thus a government response) for extended
bake lanes/ paths etc.
Now here comes that flame war................
David
that one (not the only) reason why they are in place is to save money. I pay
my taxes (a lot actually) and I don't want to see $20k-$30k spend to
rehabilitate some idiot who got brain damage in an accident on their bike
that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet.
Time and time again we see people in this group venting over stupid car
drivers not looking out for cyclists. We all know they are out there so we
should be taking the precausion of wearing protective head gear.
Sure, in this case I think they cops may have gone a bit overboard but it is
THE LAW. If you don't like the law, write to your local member. The cops
where initially excersing their right to issue you with a warning rather
than a fine and I am not at all surprised that they tried to throw the book
at you when you told them that you were going to continue to break the law
by riding back without a helmet. At least if they had got a paddy-wagon you
wouldn't have had to walk back. :)
-DaveB
Paul Smart
bike, I do not have a problem with wearing a helmet. When I got to the
hospital the nurse showed me my helmet and showed me the deep gouge in the
left hand side. this gouge would have been in my head had i not been wearing
the helmet. So although sorry to hear about your less than friendly
homecoming, I do not have a problem with wearing helmets. Saved my head
once.
--
Regards
Paul "Max" Smart
http://www.home.gil.com.au/~psmart/ibug.html
http://www.max86.net
Lindsay Rowlands
: My husband and I have just returned to Australia after almost a year of
: travelling around the world. We had our bicycles with us and used them
: to cycle in three continents, concluding our trip with over 3000 km of
: cycling around Southern Africa (Zimbabawe, Mozambique & South Africa).
: Nowhere did we experience any problems; to the contrary - travelling on
: bikes seems to arouse people's curiosity and we had many friendly chats
: with the locals.
SNIP
I'm sure you're very nice and well intentioned, however, take it as good
advice: stop whinging and just wear a bloody helmet! Problem solved.
Lynzz
PS Reflecting on your complaint I'm reminded of a close friend whose
husband had a farm accident on a motorcycle (read, low speed fall; no
helmet). The medical expenses and disruption to the farm work were
manageable. It's the 'loss' of a vital family member through permanent
brain damage that's hard to take. The family will never be the same again.
Perhaps you're like every speedster in a car, believing 'it' will never
happen to them. Your indignation about helmets just seems so vaporous.
Peter Signorini
the incident was handled by two "Nazi" coppers. They might have been on bikes
but they showed no empathy with Trish's situation. Letting down tyres - now
that,s really impressive.
Picture it: motorist is pulled over driving with one headlight blown. Police
officer is told that driver has just found this out and is driving home. Officer
then proceeds to let driver's tyres down, and warns him not to get anyone to
reinflate them or he'll really be in trouble!
Does this happen everyday on the roads? Off course not - a ticket or warning and
probably a roadworthy required, then drive straight home with care. Persecution
of minorities by meathead police on a power trip is always offensive. And by the
way I happily wear my helmet, but not because it is the law.
Cheers
Peter
R. Sitch
What a load of shit....
How many lives are saved a year by wearing helmets?... bugger all if you
compare it to the amount of people that don't ride cos they don't want to
wear a helmet...
So who pays... for the increased rates in heart disease/stroke from people
not cycling..
Maybe police should bust druggies/drug dealers... compare the amount that
die
I can smoke cigarettes but I can't ride a bike without a helmet.... what
kills more people?
And my favourite sayng I hear from people;
"I think cyclists should wear a helmet, but I don't ride a bike."
but who gives a shit for my freedom of choice/freedom of expression?
"Lindsay Rowlands" <lrow...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote in message
news:93jgtv$cki$1...@gruvel.une.edu.au...
Mickey
wearing a helmet in the bush, I never have and never will ride without a
helmet.
M
"Trish" <p...@sun.net> wrote in message news:3A5D1870...@sun.net...
Tom Osborn
> ...for us to be pulled over by two gun-carrying police on
> mountainbikes. Reason? Australia's favourite: No helmets!
> Upon learning we were not WA residents, the police decided not to issue
> us with traffic infringement notices - probably too much hard work,
> having to chase payment from Qeensland! Instead, we were ordered to walk
> back - that is, 25 kilometers! Naturally, we refused to do this, and
> were subsequently formally placed under arrest for disobeying police.
> One of the cops attempted to call a paddy wagon on his two-way radio,
> so, he explained, we could be taken to the station, fingerprinted and
> locked up in the watchhouse for the time being. He was, however,
> usuccessful in getting through (comforting thought for victims of any
> possible real emergency), so they let our tires down and let us go,
> wishing us a "nice walk back to Duncraig" and warning us not to attempt
> to pump the tyres up and continue riding, or we really would be taken
I think they should have fined you, but I expect that police letting down
your tyres is going beyond their powers of enforcement. Ie, that one
would be worth a complaint to the minister, RTA equiv, or the police
ombudsman. Being forced to walk 25 Km in WA, pushing a bike
in summer is exposing you to unnecessary dangers and inconvenience.
May well be a property crime as well.
T.
--
Dr Tom Osborn
Director of Modelling
The NTF Group
Level 7, 1 York Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000
Dorre
: I believe that your complaint about helmet laws is a little flawed. I think
: that one (not the only) reason why they are in place is to save money. I pay
: my taxes (a lot actually) and I don't want to see $20k-$30k spend to
: rehabilitate some idiot who got brain damage in an accident on their bike
: that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet.
You might be interested in taking a look at a article published
in the December 200 edition of the BMJ.
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7276/1582
Included is the comment:
"The statistical wrangle over the effectiveness of helmets is
actually a side issue; what we need people in authority to understand
is that cycle helmets inevitably damage public health. Even for cyclists
on Britain's roads, the health benefits exceed the risks
by a factor of 20.7 The health benefits of cycling are so great and
the health injuries from driving so great that not cycling is really
dangerous."
It's a strong statement that cycle helmets inevitably damage public
health, and that it's really *not cycling* that is dangerous
but I think it's pretty close to the mark.
Although David says he doesn't want our hospitals to have to pay
to rehabilitate head injuries that could have been prevented by
helmet wearing, the cost is, in fact, peanuts compared with the cost
of lack of exercise.
It has been estimated that if another 40% of Australians took
regular exerise such as cycling, we'd save $2.4 BILLION a year.
A comparison of suveys of people out riding before and after the
helmet laws showed that, without the law, we'd have 50% more km cycled.
That's not a trivial figure, and I bet it is costing us a lot in
terms of healthcare and other expenses.
Also, there's little or no real evidence that the helmet law
saved us money. See
http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/roadsafety/papers/bicycle_helmet_legislation.html
This is the most comprehensive evaluation of the helmet law
and it showed that the cost of the the helmet law was more than
twice as much as the savings in hospital costs. Not very impressive!
: Time and time again we see people in this group venting over stupid car
: drivers not looking out for cyclists. We all know they are out there so we
: should be taking the precausion of wearing protective head gear.
In Anglia, UK, there was a 'Think Bike' campaign a few years ago.
TV ads were aimed at getting motorists to look out for bikes. I believe
it worked wonders - car/bike collisions dropped by 30 or 40%, I believe.
Contrast that with the helmet law here, where the amount of km
ridden dropped by 36%, non-head injuries by about the same, and head
injuries by about 40%.
There is a good graph of the effect of the helmet law at:
http://lash.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html#HeadInjuries
The effect of the helmet law was so slight that most people
have difficulty telling which line is which.
So, if the real problem is cars not looking out for cyclists,
what would you prefer - an effective education campaign aimed
at getting drivers to look out for cyclists, or a helmet law
which discourages people from cycling and has such a tiny effect
on head injuries, that it's very difficult to tell which is which
from a graph of head and non-head injuries?
Dorre
: -DaveB
Peter Cremasco
>Alas, I don't think we'll be doing that Albany bike trip after all. Who
>wants to be constantly hassled? Hiring a car, maybe? Now, there's an
Anyone could be forgiven for thinking that you weren't really serious
about cycling, if you're going to let the requirement for helmets
interfere with your planned bike trip. :)
---
Cheers
PeterC
[Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
[and there's nothing you can do about it at all]
Peter Cremasco
>business. No other country we visited penalizes its citizens for
>exercising their bodies and using an environmentally friendly mode of
>transport at the same time - not even some of the semi-dictotorial
>regimes!
And neither are you being penalized for doing likewise in Australia.
You are being penalized for failing to obey a law which requires you to
wear a compulsory item of protective equipment.
If you don't like the law, then lobby governments with sufficient
evidence to have it overturned/repealed. In the meantime, be prepared to
accept the consequences of your actions - and take it like an adult
instead of bleating about it like a kid who's been caught doing
something that they know they shouldn't be doing.
Trish
...some comments skipped, as others here have already adressed them.
Just one additional point to make on this statement:
> Sure, in this case I think they cops may have gone a bit overboard but it is
> THE LAW. If you don't like the law, write to your local member.
Dave, it has been done - that and more. Western Australia had an
anti-compulsory helmet petition going in, I believe, 1993 or 94. About
17 thousand people signed it. The result: Just what my husband and I
experienced a couple of days ago.
Don't put too much trust into politicians; and don't put too much trust
into helmets. All I know is that riding quietly, slowly along the bike
path, minding our own business, does not endanger or inconvenience
anyone, least of all ourselves. We do not deserve to be hassled like
that, and the approach to cycling here by the authorities presents a
huge contrast to what we experienced elsewhere in the world - and we
visited 27 countries on this trip.
Trish
>
>
> I think they should have fined you, but I expect that police letting down
> your tyres is going beyond their powers of enforcement. Ie, that one
> would be worth a complaint to the minister, RTA equiv, or the police
> ombudsman. Being forced to walk 25 Km in WA, pushing a bike
> in summer is exposing you to unnecessary dangers and inconvenience.
> May well be a property crime as well.
>
But that is exactly the dilemma police officers like these two must
often be forced to solve, all thanks to a ridiculous law that has cost
community lots of money in all sorts of ways (these have been discussed
here to death, so no need to repeat them again).
I don't intend to shoot the messenger and I do not blame the police
themselves for hassling us - they were just doing their job, even though
a little too zealously.
But what would you do, Tom, if you were a police officer: You have two
cyclists, 25 kms from "home", with no helmets. You fine them, as the law
allows you to, and then do - what? Let them go, knowing they will break
the law again as soon as they're out of your sight? Arrest them, take
them to the police station and notify their friends to come and pick
them up - doing it the "safe" way - in a car?
These are the things our police have to waste time and resources on,
with the net effect being that fewer people cycle and no lives are saved
anyway - at least the statistics show that is the case (I believe WA had
the worst ever year for cycling fatalities in 1998 - despite helmets and
fewer people cycling).
These laws need to be scrapped. They were not thought through properly
before being introduced and it shows.
David
> David wrote:
>
> Dave, it has been done - that and more. Western Australia had an
> anti-compulsory helmet petition going in, I believe, 1993 or 94. About
> 17 thousand people signed it. The result: Just what my husband and I
> experienced a couple of days ago.
> Don't put too much trust into politicians; and don't put too much trust
> into helmets. All I know is that riding quietly, slowly along the bike
> path, minding our own business, does not endanger or inconvenience
> anyone, least of all ourselves. We do not deserve to be hassled like
> that, and the approach to cycling here by the authorities presents a
> huge contrast to what we experienced elsewhere in the world - and we
> visited 27 countries on this trip.
Tell me Trish, have you ever been in a bicycle accident? I have, I was
T-Boned by a Honda Civic. I rolled off of the bonnet and my head hit the
vertical roof support on the left hand side of the windscreen. If I hadn't
been wearing a helmet I would most certainly recieved a bad concussion or
brain damage. Because my helmet took most of the impact I survived with only
a couple of scratches.
I believe that these days, anyone who claims that they would ride more if
they didn't have to wear a helmet are:
1. Just looking for an excuse
2. A cheapskate.
3. Too concerned about their vanity.
There are so many helmets around that if you feel that they make you too
sweaty, look like a moron, feel too heavy or any other excuse I am sure you
could find a helmet that meets your needs.
-DaveB
Marty Wallace
"Trish" <p...@sun.net> wrote in message news:3A5D1870...@sun.net...
Marty Wallace
lawbreakers like yourself off the road.
What next, turn a blind eye to drunk drivers?
"Trish" <p...@sun.net> wrote in message news:3A5D7F60...@sun.net...
Marty Wallace
But I don't get much freedom of choice when my taxes go towards subsidising
your hospital expenses do I?
"R. Sitch" <john....@aph.gov.au> wrote in message
news:G7c76.54783$xW4.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Alan Bishop
1. When a policeman tells you to walk back - don't argue. Don't get on
your high horse, don't try to hold the high moral ground, don't call him a
fat pig. Do what every other sensible person does - agree with the nice
policeman, nod, smile, grovel and so forth until he goes, walk for 10 or 15
minutes, then ride home.
2. Almost every 'civilised' country will penalise its citizens for
'exercising their bodies and using an environmentally friendly mode of
transport at the same time' if they behave like mugs. Bouyancy vests are
law for boating. Motorcylists are required to wear helmets - even in
Italy. Cyclists are required to obey traffic laws, use lights at night (and
to have a bell on their bicycle). So what?
3. From your posting, brain damage is not likely to be a problem.
AJB
Peter Cremasco
>But what would you do, Tom, if you were a police officer: You have two
>cyclists, 25 kms from "home", with no helmets. You fine them, as the law
>allows you to, and then do - what? Let them go, knowing they will break
>the law again as soon as they're out of your sight? Arrest them, take
>them to the police station and notify their friends to come and pick
>them up - doing it the "safe" way - in a car?
Me? I'd fine you. Then I'd fine you again if I caught you doing the
same thing 10 minutes from now. And again if I caught you again.
You see, that's what fines are - incentives to NOT disregard the law.
I certainly would NOT have let down your tyres and made you walk.
If you really wish to keep paying those fines, just so you can enjoy
your freedom to ride without a helmet, then so be it.
Peter Cremasco
>with the net effect being that fewer people cycle and no lives are saved
>anyway - at least the statistics show that is the case (I believe WA had
>the worst ever year for cycling fatalities in 1998 - despite helmets and
>fewer people cycling).
Maybe that is a factor of motorists being more aggressive, and not that
wearing helmets increases risk of injury.
How is repealing the helmet laws going to change that statistic?
Steve@Newsgroups
"Trish" <p...@sun.net> wrote in message
>so they let our tires down and let us go,
> wishing us a "nice walk back to Duncraig" and warning us not to attempt
> to pump the tyres up and continue riding, or we really would be taken
> into custody.
In a similar case recently in Qld a teenage girl had her tires deflated by
the police and told to walk home - alone and at night. Regardless of the
rights or wrongs of helmet laws do the police legally have the authority to
do this?
Steve
Marty Wallace
If a drunk was stopped do you think it would be unreasonable for the
policeman to let down a drunks tires?
Or do you think the drunk should be allowed to drive home?
What if the drunk killed himself on the way home? Would the police be
responsible for letting him carry on?
Ditto for the cyclists, if they fell off their bikes and smashed their heads
in, would the police be held responsible?
The police did the only thing they could do in the circumstances.
To allow someone to break the law would lead to charges of failing to do
their duty.
In any case, I find it hard to beleive that the cyclists in question did not
know that they had to wear a helmet. In which case they willing broke the
law and thus deserved everything they got.
"Steve@Newsgroups" <steve_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3a5da81a$0$15493$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
John Kane
Lindsay Rowlands wrote:
> Trish <p...@sun.net> wrote:
> : My husband and I have just returned to Australia after almost a year of
> : travelling around the world. We had our bicycles with us and used them
> : to cycle in three continents, concluding our trip with over 3000 km of
> : cycling around Southern Africa (Zimbabawe, Mozambique & South Africa).
> : Nowhere did we experience any problems; to the contrary - travelling on
> : bikes seems to arouse people's curiosity and we had many friendly chats
> : with the locals.
>
> SNIP
>
> I'm sure you're very nice and well intentioned, however, take it as good
> advice: stop whinging and just wear a bloody helmet! Problem solved.
Right. Damn stupid law but 'shug'. However you might consider lodging a
formal complaint against the two police officers for their behaviour maybe
backed up by copies of your post to your local MP, and maybe the responsible
minister for police in WA. Add in one or two of the main newspapers in Perth,
or where ever else is appropriate. The police behaviour appears totally
outrageous.
--
John Kane
Hull, Quebec Canada
R. Sitch
All I've found is that since people have started wearing helmets, cars have
seen cyclists as fair targets...
The number of people riding bikes now is less than half of pre-legislation
levels... yet the death/accident rate has not dropped to those levels... so
please explain!
"Marty Wallace" <ma...@geo.net.au> wrote in message
news:0kf76.3$9n3...@wa.nnrp.telstra.net...
R. Sitch
a drunk behind the wheel of a car can kill people...
a cyclist without a helmet... that would wipe out the entire population...
Just because it's law doesn't mean it's right...
I ride without a helmet.. and I call them pigs....
"Marty Wallace" <ma...@geo.net.au> wrote in message
news:C0i76.8$9n3...@wa.nnrp.telstra.net...
Galen Rutledge
which happens to follow Mickey's post, sorry Mickey)
In article
<Hjc76.23920$Xx3.1...@news1.eburwd1.vic.optushome.com.au>,
"Mickey" <mi...@please-spank-the-monkey-optushome.com.au> wrote:
> Myself being like Paul and recovering from an 8 foot drop onto
> my head while wearing a helmet in the bush, I never have and
> never will ride without a helmet.
And that's great... you are exercising your personal freedom. I
am all for personal freedoms.
The authoritarian right would set themselves up as our nanny.
Eventually bacon and eggs would be illegal - because of the
cholestorol, and laws against particular forms of consenting
adult sexual relations - on "moral" grounds, as if they are
saving my soul.
Where is the personal freedom in having the state having the
final say on all of your personal behaviour "for your own good"?
How about making gambling illegal, because it ruins families
financially?
How about making it illegal to not insure your car for personal
loss or damage?
How about laws which enforce the theft of money from every wage
earner to pay unemployed people to surf, or get enourmously fat
and run up more bills on Medicare jut to stay alive?
Those are the reactions of the authoritarian left, and we all
like them, don't we?
(This is not directed at anyone in particular, it's just a rave
which happens to follow Mickey's post, sorry Mickey)
BTW, I will almost always wear a helmet when driving my bike.
Galen "BrainFart" Rutledge
--
Killfile-
aus.bicycle
The Red Krawler, Kingpin, Shane, Neil Fisher, Roadwatch / Kennith Vaughan
alt.planning.urban
Robert Cote (for legal reasons)
Galen Rutledge
pet...@alphalink.com.au wrote:
> The way I read it the major problem (and inconsistency) here
> is all about how the incident was handled by two "Nazi"
> coppers. They might have been on bikes but they showed no
> empathy with Trish's situation. Letting down tyres - now
> that,s really impressive.
>
> Picture it: motorist is pulled over driving with one headlight
> blown. Police officer is told that driver has just found this
> out and is driving home. Officer then proceeds to let driver's
> tyres down, and warns him not to get anyone to reinflate them
> or he'll really be in trouble!
>
> Does this happen everyday on the roads? Off course not - a
> ticket or warning and probably a roadworthy required, then
> drive straight home with care. Persecution of minorities by
> meathead police on a power trip is always offensive. And by
> the way I happily wear my helmet, but not because it is the
> law.
>
> Cheers Peter
>
Excellent example Peter... I can think of another one.
SCENE: A Police officer stops a car in WA.
Officer: (Leaning into the window, car window framing face)
"Excuse me, but you should be wearing your seatbelt."
Driver: (Rised eyebrow)
"But this car is very old, it has no seatbelts. This car was
built before seatbelts were compulsory, and I am therefore exempt
from the seatbelt law."
"Besides, it is a restored antique, and adding seatbelts would
damage the body, and therefore value, of the car. I would have to
further reinforce the seats to take the weight of the occupants
during a collision, and insert heavy bolts and reinforcing
through the 'B' columns."
Officer: (Physically smaller now, with a beetle brow)
"But I read about taxpayers on usenet who don't want to pay for
your rehabilitation if you crash and hurt yourself without safety
equipment,...
(Looking directly at the camera now.)
...even though they seem strangely happy to pay for the heart
disease you will probably develop if you have poor diet and lack
of exercise."
(Turning pink, and nose growing. Still getting physically
smaller. Looking again at the driver now.)
"How about this. I can't fine you, but I will let your tyres
down, and you can push the car home."
"If I see you pumping up the tyres I would love to arrest you,
but I guess I will just have to let your tyres down again."
"OK?" (Almost an "Oink?")
Driver: (Face purple with rage.)
Get stuffed you moronic-bigot-bully-pig - *Vrooommmm.....*"
DRIVER EXITS STAGE RIGHT
Pig: "I guess I deserved that. Squeak"
PIG EXITS STAGE LEFT, WADDLING
End of mindless satirical drivel.
Galen
Toms bigpond address
Others have said it, but I will say it again
YOU ARE AN IDIOT !!!!!
Helmets are always a good idea. I wear riding gloves also. No Law makes me.
it's just a good idea. I make my living using my hands and my head, so to
me, protecting these is paramount.
I work in Heavy industry, so I need to wear a Dard hat, Hearing protection
and Eye protection. This is required by law in this country, It is also a
good Idea !!
My work takes me to Indonesia and India. THere are no laws in these
countries regarding protective equipment ( or at least no obvious ones,
because no one else was wearing them ) I certainly did , even at the
expense of jeering and ridicule from the locals, 120 decibels of sound does
just as much perminant damage to you hearing in India as it does in
Australia,
Falling of a bike and hitting your head can do just as much damage in
Zimbabawe as it does in Perth. You should be wearing a helmet , not because
a law says so but rather because protecting your head should be of paramount
importance.
Do you think for just one second that perhaps it is laws like these that
make Australia the place it is?
You have been around the world , So Have I . Where would you like to live?
Mozambique? Perhaps you would like to go back, There are no bicycle helmet
laws there. We have a lot of other laws to protect us from other less civic
minded people, Do they have these in Mozambique? Do you suggest we do away
with these as well ? At least I won't be subsudising your medical costs if
and when things do go wrong for you. (More than Likely. Thou, I bet that
the moment something did go wrong, you would suddenly remember you are
Australian and find some Australian Government type person to fly you
straight back home on a Mercy dash, Funded in part by none other then Moir )
Get a life, Trish. You obviously have quite a bit of energy to vent, Why not
put it to something usefull instead of bleating here about police behaviour
and the differences between Laws here and in other places in the world.
Tom
Suzy Jackson
>
> The law is there for your own protection.
> If a drunk was stopped do you think it would be unreasonable for the
> policeman to let down a drunks tires?
> Or do you think the drunk should be allowed to drive home?
> What if the drunk killed himself on the way home? Would the police be
> responsible for letting him carry on?
>
> Ditto for the cyclists, if they fell off their bikes and smashed their heads
> in, would the police be held responsible?
> The police did the only thing they could do in the circumstances.
> To allow someone to break the law would lead to charges of failing to do
> their duty.
>
> In any case, I find it hard to beleive that the cyclists in question did not
> know that they had to wear a helmet. In which case they willing broke the
> law and thus deserved everything they got.
You didn't pick a very good example, I for one can't see anything wrong
with a drunk riding a bicycle. After all, the only person they're
likely to injure is themself, and that's entirely their business, isn't.
But hang on, I think I just figured something out! You're a pro-life
person, aren't you? How do you feel about contraception? About
abortion? Euthenasia? How about IVF for single mothers? I'll _bet_
you get all upset about these things, because it would appear that you
hold people in so much contempt that you would force your own judgement
on them, even when it comes to their own body.
Peoples bodies belong only to the person concerned. Not you. Not the
government. Not anyone. Should I wish to wear a helmet or not, or for
that matter wear a seatbelt or not, should be entirely up to myself.
Further, we're all grown ups, we should take a little responsibility for
our own actions.
To the two cyclists who were harassed by the police for not wearing
helmets; your actions are commendable. I reckon you've got really good
grounds for a complaint to the WA police about damage to property.
Cheers,
Suzy
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Suzy Jackson http://www.suzyj.net su...@suzyj.net
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dorre
: On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 19:39:44 +1000, Trish <p...@sun.net> wrote:
: >with the net effect being that fewer people cycle and no lives are saved
: >anyway - at least the statistics show that is the case (I believe WA had
: >the worst ever year for cycling fatalities in 1998 - despite helmets and
: >fewer people cycling).
: Maybe that is a factor of motorists being more aggressive, and not that
: wearing helmets increases risk of injury.
: How is repealing the helmet laws going to change that statistic?
The Bicycle Planning Book tells us that, in towns where there
are more cyclists, motorists have more respect for cyclists' rights.
This makes a lot of sense. If motorists often see cyclists on the
road, they start expecting to see them at intersections where they
have to give way, so reducing the "I didn't see you, mate" syndrome,
because the motorist never expected to see a cyclist, so what was seen
didn't register.
Also, if there are enough people cycling that it is considered
a normal activity, motorists are more likely to see it as such - that
could be their son, or daughter or uncle or aunt out there - and so
treat cyclists with respect.
So, because the helmet laws have reduced cycling activity, they
have marginalised cyclists - motorists see fewer of them, so they are
less likely to expect to see them, and this has an effect on
overall safety.
If you want more proof, think about the safety, per km cycled
on a non-helmeted cyclist in Holland or Denmark, compared to
a helmeted cyclist here. The helmeted Australian cyclist is two
or three times more likely to be killed per km cycled, compared to
the non-helmeted Danish cyclist. Where there are more cyclists,
cyclists' rights are better respected and the authorities try
to plan for them.
So yes, if repealing the helmet laws gets people back on
their bikes, cycling will become safer and more pleasanter
than it is now.
Dorre
: PeterC
Tim Boevey
attacked by a pair of magpies which repeatedly hurled themselves -
beak first - into my cycle helmet. Had I not been wearing one, it
would have been my head.
Why are cycle helmets such a problem (for some people)? Here in the UK
we don't have to wear them, and I usually don't. In Australia - except
in Queensland where they don't seem to bother - it's no problem to be
required to wear a helmet. They are light and you quickly forget
you're wearing one.
Australia is a marvellous and varied and spectacular place for cycling
- and Australians are remarkably kind and welcoming (even to Poms).
One exception: cycling in Sydney; 'Not Much Fun!' seems about right
for that.
Tim
Simon
>All I've found is that since people have started wearing helmets, cars
>have seen cyclists as fair targets...
Sure they have, they ARE out to get you, you know ?
>The number of people riding bikes now is less than half of
>pre-legislation levels...
And I'm sure that a bunch of other factors (like computer games, people
sufing the internet instead of riding, staying indoors to avoid sun cancers
to name a couple) couldn't possibly be having an effect here, it must be
soley attributable to having to wear a hat.
>yet the death/accident rate has not dropped to
>those levels... so please explain!
Darwinian selection (of non-hat wearing cyclists)??
More cars on the roads ??
less experienced cyclists (because they spend more time indoors than ever
before) ??
roads which encourage drives to drive faster ??
Road Rage ??
Not riding because you need to wear a helmet is like not driving because
you need to wear a seatbelt, and we all know someone who refuses to wear a
seatbelt, and havn't they got some great excuses/reasonings (My reaction
times are so good that I can brace myself if I see an accident coming!!!)
Get over it and get on with life, it's not a big deal.
SD
Peter Signorini
categories when it comes to the choice between bike and car. Why make it so easy
for them to choose the car?
For Joe Average the compulsory helmet law is just the last deterrent when he/she
may have chosen to ride for exercise, because it was cheaper than driving,
quicker than driving or just plain fun.
As others have pointed out, it would be far better for community health (read
your own health) if more people cycled , more often - even allowing for the risk
of serious accident on roads or bike paths.
Peter
Tom Osborn
Dorre's comments about marginalised cyclists - Aus vs Holland),
I've been pondering the car driver problem for a couple of weeks.
There's a "theorem" in criminology that the discentive value of a
penalty is the product of the *perceived value* (aka "utility") of
the impose fine (or the *perceived value* other loss such as
TIME to community service, or TIME in the lock-up) AND
the probability of being caught.
For speed drivers or drivers with overt challenging behaviour (both
bad news cycling), the probability of being caught is pretty low.
Speed cameras increase the odds for speed, but not other looney
behaviour. It seems to me that many drivers with "the attitude"
just take the occasional fine as part of the game - and in very
self-righteous ways blame the "pigs", etc. The lost dollars don't
count as a utility loss.
What I'd like to see is a loss of TIME associated with each infringement
either as community service, or [even stronger], standing in queues at
the RTA, VERY SLOW queues, to pay their fine. The speeders, have
a serious regard to lost time. [Which is paradoxical in that they often
spend hours a week in cars in congested traffic - although they "make
up time" by driving faster than warranted or allow]. A while back there
was a program for serious offenders to spend some time in emergency
wards, but that was intended as educational, rather than time penalty.
My bet is that time penalties (as well as dollars) would work...
---
My other comment is to those respondents who said it's OK "if drivers
only injure themselves". This is an invalid argument. (a) There are
plenty of innocent victims, (b) the cost of repairing the injury is
a social burden on everyone, and (c) their families are paying in
all sorts of ways.
Tom.
--
Dr Tom Osborn
Director of Modelling
The NTF Group
Level 7, 1 York Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000
Peter Cremasco
> The Bicycle Planning Book tells us that, in towns where there
>are more cyclists, motorists have more respect for cyclists' rights.
>
> This makes a lot of sense. If motorists often see cyclists on the
>road, they start expecting to see them at intersections where they
>have to give way, so reducing the "I didn't see you, mate" syndrome,
>because the motorist never expected to see a cyclist, so what was seen
>didn't register.
Without having seen hard evidence of this, I still agree with you
wholeheartedly - which is one reason why I do not necessarily advocate
dedicated cycle paths.
> So yes, if repealing the helmet laws gets people back on
>their bikes, cycling will become safer and more pleasanter
>than it is now.
And that is the question that I find unanswered (I grant you, I
haven't gone out hunting for answers in a big way):
IF the compulsory requirement for wearing helmets has REDUCED the
incidence of bicycle riding, and IF removing that law will result in an
INCREASE in bicycle riding....
Who is currently compiling the evidence in favour of repealing the
compulsory use of helmets, and who is lobbying governments on behalf of
cyclists, and to whom are any lobbying actions directed?
---
Cheers
Peter Cremasco
>Why are cycle helmets such a problem (for some people)? Here in the UK
>we don't have to wear them, and I usually don't. In Australia - except
>in Queensland where they don't seem to bother - it's no problem to be
>required to wear a helmet. They are light and you quickly forget
>you're wearing one.
I'm in Qld. Yesterday I rode over to my Sister-in-law's place to mow the
lawn. I was half way through mowing the lawn when I caught the profile
of my shadow on the ground and realised I was still wearing my helmet.
I honestly had not noticed that I was wearing it. It's light and
probably even helped to keep me cool.
On the downside, I took it off and finished cutting the grass and doing
some other stuff. Jumped on the bike and had gone about a block before
coming upon a funeral procession. I stopped and went to remove my hat
(call me old fashioned) and discovered that I hadn't put my helmet on
(bloody embarrassing) so rode back to the house and picked it up, put it
on and came home.
I reckon that when you can't tell if you're wearing your helmet or not,
that means that a helmet is a pretty unobtrusive piece of equipment (or
that I'm a bit thick headed or a bit s-l-o-w). :)
Mark Lee
offending cyclists with their cars. And if that doesn't work, they shoot to
kill!
"Trish" <p...@sun.net> wrote in message news:3A5D1870...@sun.net...
> My husband and I have just returned to Australia after almost a year of
> travelling around the world. We had our bicycles with us and used them
> to cycle in three continents, concluding our trip with over 3000 km of
> cycling around Southern Africa (Zimbabawe, Mozambique & South Africa).
> Nowhere did we experience any problems; to the contrary - travelling on
> bikes seems to arouse people's curiosity and we had many friendly chats
> with the locals.
> We arrived back in Australia and thought we would stop over in WA for a
> month or so, to catch up with friends in Perth and cycle down to Albany
> & Esperance and back, before continuing on home to the East Coast.
> It only took one little, slow ride on the beach bike path from Duncraig
> to Cottesloe for us to be pulled over by two gun-carrying police on
> mountainbikes. Reason? Australia's favourite: No helmets!
> Upon learning we were not WA residents, the police decided not to issue
> us with traffic infringement notices - probably too much hard work,
> having to chase payment from Qeensland! Instead, we were ordered to walk
> back - that is, 25 kilometers! Naturally, we refused to do this, and
> were subsequently formally placed under arrest for disobeying police.
> One of the cops attempted to call a paddy wagon on his two-way radio,
> so, he explained, we could be taken to the station, fingerprinted and
> locked up in the watchhouse for the time being. He was, however,
> usuccessful in getting through (comforting thought for victims of any
> possible real emergency), so they let our tires down and let us go,
> wishing us a "nice walk back to Duncraig" and warning us not to attempt
> to pump the tyres up and continue riding, or we really would be taken
> into custody.
Paul Bartram
"Dorre" <drob...@lash.une.edu.au> wrote
Just a personal opinion, but I think half the problem with motorists
not 'seeing' cyclists is that so many people driving today never rode
a bike as a kid. I did, and even though I didn't ride for close to 20
years after childhood I still retained the memories of the trials and
tribulations of stayin' alive with all those busses and Hillman Minx's
out to get me (one nearly did!) As a result, I SEE cyclists when I
drive, and I anticipate their actions. Some 19 year old driver who has
never ridden a bike without training wheels simply won't treat the
cyclists with the same respect, and that's not even considering the
testosterone factor!
As stated above, in places like Holland (or Christchurch New Zealand)
where there are heaps of bikes the motorists take more care, but that
may also be because they are probably recreational cyclists
themselves.
Paul
Peter Cremasco
wrote:
>You got off easy - here in Queensland the police are trained to ram
>offending cyclists with their cars. And if that doesn't work, they shoot to
>kill!
Nah. Surely you've got that confused with Victorian police tactics. lol
Barbara La Scala
> The Bicycle Planning Book tells us that, in towns where there
> are more cyclists, motorists have more respect for cyclists' rights.
> This makes a lot of sense. If motorists often see cyclists on
> the road, they start expecting to see them at intersections where
> they have to give way, so reducing the "I didn't see you, mate"
> syndrome, because the motorist never expected to see a cyclist, so
> what was seen didn't register.
> Also, if there are enough people cycling that it is considered a
> normal activity, motorists are more likely to see it as such - that
> could be their son, or daughter or uncle or aunt out there - and so
> treat cyclists with respect.
> So, because the helmet laws have reduced cycling activity, they
> have marginalised cyclists - motorists see fewer of them, so they
> are less likely to expect to see them, and this has an effect on
> overall safety.
> If you want more proof, think about the safety, per km cycled on
> a non-helmeted cyclist in Holland or Denmark, compared to a helmeted
> cyclist here. The helmeted Australian cyclist is two or three times
> more likely to be killed per km cycled, compared to the non-helmeted
> Danish cyclist. Where there are more cyclists, cyclists' rights are
> better respected and the authorities try to plan for them.
I suspect the reason it is safer to cycle in Holland than here has less to
do with the fact we have a Helmet Law and they don't, and more to do with
the fact under their law if a motorist hits a cyclist the motorist is held
to be at fault unless he can prove otherwise. Here in Australia, the law
is - effectively - the reverse.
Barbara
Anthony Morton
>I believe that your complaint about helmet laws is a little flawed. I think
>that one (not the only) reason why they are in place is to save money. I pay
>my taxes (a lot actually) and I don't want to see $20k-$30k spend to
>rehabilitate some idiot who got brain damage in an accident on their bike
>that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet.
<sarcasm>
I really think compulsory helmets in CARS should be introduced immediately,
to save money. I pay my taxes (a lot actually) and I don't want to see
$20k-$30k spent to rehabilite some idiot who got brain damage in an accident
in their car that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet. And those
motorists who object to wearing a helmet should just put up and shut up.
</sarcasm>
To all the people who've joined the chorus on this newsgroup saying "anyone
who rides a bike without a helmet is an idiot / lawbreaking criminal / loser":
consider that around 600 people in Australia die each year from head injuries
incurred in car crashes. Still more come out seriously brain damaged. A
typical motorist who spends as much time in their car as a typical cyclist
spends on their bike bears a similar risk of head injury. If all this death
and carnage could be prevented by bicycle-style helmets, do you think they
should be made compulsory for motorists?
And what about pedestrians? The risk of death by head injury to pedestrians
is actually slightly _greater_ per hour of activity than for cyclists. Now
of course the lion's share of this risk is borne by those pedestrians who
happen to be drunk. Should we then make a rule that no-one over 0.05 is to
step out in public places without a crash helmet?
The British Medical Association has said repeatedly that compulsory helmets,
by discouraging cycling, have negative health implications for society. As
someone else said, the latest issue of their journal includes an article
(re)stating the case. Doctors of all people would be expected to understand
the trade-off between risky behaviour, safety, and medical costs.
Very many cyclists want to see the law changed - particularly commuter
cyclists who don't face the same risks as the off-road adventure cyclists.
However getting laws changed seems more difficult than even getting them
passed in the first place. In this case there are two major factors working
against change: commuter cyclists in Australia are a minority in a population
ignorant of the health benefits of cycling, and bike helmet laws for some
reason are a sacred cow within the Australian road safety establishment
(perhaps not least because they are a great source of guaranteed income to
helmet manufacturers).
Given the institutional resistance to legislative change on this issue, it
just may be that civil disobedience is justified - as when black Americans
defied segregated seating laws on Mississippi buses. That was THE LAW too,
remember.
Regards,
Tony M.
Anthony Morton
>Tell me Trish, have you ever been in a bicycle accident? I have, I was
>T-Boned by a Honda Civic. I rolled off of the bonnet and my head hit the
>vertical roof support on the left hand side of the windscreen. If I hadn't
>been wearing a helmet I would most certainly recieved a bad concussion or
>brain damage. Because my helmet took most of the impact I survived with only
>a couple of scratches.
David, have you ever been in a car accident? I have but I was lucky, the
car ran off the road into a paddock but failed to collide with anything. Had
the car hit the tree nearby I could potentially have been killed or suffered
a severe head injury. Had I been wearing a helmet in this hypothetical
situation I may have come off better than if I weren't. Does this make me
want to wear a helmet whenever I get in a car? No. Should it make me want
to wear one? That's a very interesting question.
I've never been in a bicycle accident of any severity, despite probably
having spent as much time riding a bike as I have driving a car. I've had
the odd fall and grazed hands caused by skidding on wet pavement, but in my
experience it would be really bad luck for one's head to be endangered in
such an incident - the kind of bad luck that has a tree fall on one's car
while driving in stormy weather. Taking out insurance against that kind of
bad luck just isn't worth it in my view.
What near-death experiences I have suffered have all been while in a car
(as a driver or as a passenger). Perhaps this means I should seriously
consider a car helmet and bugger my vanity.
Cheers,
Tony M.
Anthony Morton
>Having just coming out alive from a coming together with a car on my road
>bike, I do not have a problem with wearing a helmet. When I got to the
>hospital the nurse showed me my helmet and showed me the deep gouge in the
>left hand side. this gouge would have been in my head had i not been wearing
>the helmet. So although sorry to hear about your less than friendly
>homecoming, I do not have a problem with wearing helmets. Saved my head
>once.
Your nurse was being a little simplistic. Helmets are made of foam, and
foam will yield when any sort of pressure is applied. The human skull not
surprisingly is a lot more robust than a piece of foam.
The stated function of helmets is to protect the head against moderate blows
as would be suffered by someone falling off a bike onto their head. Without
a helmet such blows would result in superficial injury (grazed scalp) and
perhaps concussion. There is a very narrow window of impact speeds where
the helmet is actually effective in preventing brain damage.
In the kinds of bike-car collisions that typically kill cyclists, a helmet is
almost completely ineffective. Only a motorcycle-style helmet would mitigate
this kind of collision, but the law does not require this. (I wonder why?)
Cheers,
Tony M.
David
most head injuries, a roll over. I was wearing my seatbelt and it kept my
head from hitting anything.
In a car you have the bodywork of the car to protect you in an accident,
saying that if you don't need a helmet when driving a car then you don't
need one riding is just plain silly.
A $30-$50 one off payment to drastically reduce the risk you become a
vegetable should you have an accident sounds like a good idea when you
compare it to the rates that income insurance costs.
-DaveB
"Anthony Morton" <amo...@mudguard.ee.mu.oz.au> wrote in message
news:93lnki$eea$1...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU...
R. Sitch
one person gets attacked by a shark... they close the beaches... for your
own safety.. How many died from drowning in the same period... bloody
idiots.
When are the roads going to be closed... anyone wanna do the odds?
half a dozen people die from bicycle accidents... make them wear helmets...
Wouldn't a drivers education campaign be more effective?
but what would I know? I don't force people to do anything... If it doesn't
hurt me.. do what you want... your body, your problem.
"Mark Lee" <mark...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:Qhs76.55999$xW4.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
David
> David <beaum...@spam.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >I believe that your complaint about helmet laws is a little flawed. I
think
> >that one (not the only) reason why they are in place is to save money. I
pay
> >my taxes (a lot actually) and I don't want to see $20k-$30k spend to
> >rehabilitate some idiot who got brain damage in an accident on their bike
> >that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet.
>
> <sarcasm>
> I really think compulsory helmets in CARS should be introduced
immediately,
> to save money. I pay my taxes (a lot actually) and I don't want to see
> $20k-$30k spent to rehabilite some idiot who got brain damage in an
accident
> in their car that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet. And
those
> motorists who object to wearing a helmet should just put up and shut up.
> </sarcasm>
On a bike you have NOTHING to protect you head if you have an accident
except for a helmet if you are intelligent enough to wear one. In a car you
have at least the crumple zones of the car and a seatbelt, and in newer
cars, airbags and seatbelt pre-tentioners. I am sure if you look at the
percentage of people in accidents not wearing a helmet in both cars,
motorcycles and bikes you will find that a car is by far the safest. Sure
overall numbers show that most people braindamaged in accidents were in cars
but that is only because there are a heck of a lot more car drivers out
there. The potential risk is a lot lower.
> To all the people who've joined the chorus on this newsgroup saying
"anyone
> who rides a bike without a helmet is an idiot / lawbreaking criminal /
loser":
> consider that around 600 people in Australia die each year from head
injuries
> incurred in car crashes. Still more come out seriously brain damaged. A
> typical motorist who spends as much time in their car as a typical cyclist
> spends on their bike bears a similar risk of head injury. If all this
death
> and carnage could be prevented by bicycle-style helmets, do you think they
> should be made compulsory for motorists?
By your logic you are saying that we shouldn't be wearing seatbelts in
cars... 400 of the 1600 people who died on our roads last year died only
because they wern't wearing a seatbelt.
> And what about pedestrians? The risk of death by head injury to
pedestrians
> is actually slightly _greater_ per hour of activity than for cyclists.
Now
Because most cyclists WEAR HELMETS!!!
> The British Medical Association has said repeatedly that compulsory
helmets,
> by discouraging cycling, have negative health implications for society.
As
> someone else said, the latest issue of their journal includes an article
> (re)stating the case. Doctors of all people would be expected to
understand
> the trade-off between risky behaviour, safety, and medical costs.
Sure, maybe make it compusory for anyone who doesn't know any better, such
as children. I got into this argument attempting to show that I think that
people should wear helmets so that my tax dollars don't go toward
rehabilitating a vegetable who was too stupid to wear a helmet. Maybe make
it only compusory to wear a helmet on public roads, bike tracks are exempt.
> Very many cyclists want to see the law changed - particularly commuter
> cyclists who don't face the same risks as the off-road adventure cyclists.
> However getting laws changed seems more difficult than even getting them
> passed in the first place. In this case there are two major factors
working
> against change: commuter cyclists in Australia are a minority in a
population
> ignorant of the health benefits of cycling, and bike helmet laws for some
> reason are a sacred cow within the Australian road safety establishment
> (perhaps not least because they are a great source of guaranteed income to
> helmet manufacturers).
If it is so bad to be wearing a helmet. Tell me why I have seen only a vast
minority of professional cyclists not wearing helmets?
> Given the institutional resistance to legislative change on this issue, it
> just may be that civil disobedience is justified - as when black Americans
> defied segregated seating laws on Mississippi buses. That was THE LAW
too,
> remember.
Except that the law you are referring to was violating the constitution of
the country and that is why it was repealed.
-DaveB
Dorre
: Just a personal opinion, but I think half the problem with motorists
: not 'seeing' cyclists is that so many people driving today never rode
: a bike as a kid. I did, and even though I didn't ride for close to 20
: years after childhood I still retained the memories of the trials and
: tribulations of stayin' alive with all those busses and Hillman Minx's
: out to get me (one nearly did!) As a result, I SEE cyclists when I
: drive, and I anticipate their actions. Some 19 year old driver who has
: never ridden a bike without training wheels simply won't treat the
: cyclists with the same respect, and that's not even considering the
: testosterone factor!
In that case, our problems may be just beginning!
Monash University Accident Research Centre conducted counts of
cyclists in May 1990 (just before the law) and in May 1991, when the
law had been in place for almost a year. They used the same 64
observation sites, wherever possible the same people doing the counts,
it was obviously the same time of year, and they counted for the same
time periods to make the pre- and post-law surveys as identical as
possible, so that the chief difference was the effect of the law. They
even checked the weather, which was pretty similar overall.
The results for teenagers (12-17 years) are particularly interesting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 1990 (pre-law) May 1991 (post-law) Change (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number counted 1293 672 -623 -48%
Number helmeted 272 302 30 11%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's interesting that, in the first place, the law didn't so much
encourage helmet wearing as simply discourage cycling.
Note that the teenagers in the Monash Univ survey will all now have their
driving licences.
Paul said he retained his memories of riding as a child and interacting
with motor vehicles on the road and this made him more aware of cyclists
when driving. I presume most of his road experience was as a teenager,
because younger kids don't tend to be allowed out on the roads on their
own.
But this is precisely the age group most deterred by the helmet
law. The drop in numbers counted was almost 50%. Or, put another
way, there'd be nearly *twice as many* (1293/672 = 192%) teenage
cyclists on the roads except for the law.
If Paul is right the reduction in teenage cycling because of
the helmet law is going to result in an increase in cyclist-unaware
motorists! Ooooh.
: As stated above, in places like Holland (or Christchurch New Zealand)
: where there are heaps of bikes the motorists take more care, but that
: may also be because they are probably recreational cyclists
: themselves.
:
: Paul
Dorre
David
> Paul Smart <ma...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Having just coming out alive from a coming together with a car on my road
> >bike, I do not have a problem with wearing a helmet. When I got to the
> >hospital the nurse showed me my helmet and showed me the deep gouge in
the
> >left hand side. this gouge would have been in my head had i not been
wearing
> >the helmet. So although sorry to hear about your less than friendly
> >homecoming, I do not have a problem with wearing helmets. Saved my head
> >once.
>
> Your nurse was being a little simplistic. Helmets are made of foam, and
> foam will yield when any sort of pressure is applied. The human skull not
> surprisingly is a lot more robust than a piece of foam.
Which is why you read the manual for your helmet and discover that after an
accident they tell you to throw away your helment. It is designed to cusion
the impact and protect your more valueable brain with a piece of infinitly
less value polystyrene.
> In the kinds of bike-car collisions that typically kill cyclists, a helmet
is
> almost completely ineffective. Only a motorcycle-style helmet would
mitigate
> this kind of collision, but the law does not require this. (I wonder
why?)
One thing nobody has answered adequatly is:
"WHY NOT WEAR A HELMET?!?"
Please, I am confused by all your illlogic claming of it being for a better
society and don't realise why wearing a helmet would be a bad thing.
Thanks in advance,
-DaveB
Dorre
: On a bike you have NOTHING to protect you head if you have an accident
: except for a helmet if you are intelligent enough to wear one. In a car you
: have at least the crumple zones of the car and a seatbelt, and in newer
: cars, airbags and seatbelt pre-tentioners. I am sure if you look at the
: percentage of people in accidents not wearing a helmet in both cars,
: motorcycles and bikes you will find that a car is by far the safest.
The graph for WA is at http://lash.une.edu.au/~drobinso/wagph.htm
It pays to look at real data, before you say you are certain of the outcome!
Sure
: overall numbers show that most people braindamaged in accidents were in cars
: but that is only because there are a heck of a lot more car drivers out
: there. The potential risk is a lot lower.
The data I have is a bit out of date (1988), but it doesn't support
your claim.
Fatalities from head injuries per million hours of activity
(Australia, 1988, combined with a survey of hours travellng in 1986)
Cyclist 0.19
Pedestrian 0.34
Motor vehicle occupant 0.17
Motor cyclist 2.90
In the risk per hour, there's very little difference beteween cyclists
and motor vehicle occupants.
: > And what about pedestrians? The risk of death by head injury to
: pedestrians
: > is actually slightly _greater_ per hour of activity than for cyclists.
: Now
:
: Because most cyclists WEAR HELMETS!!!
The data above were for 1988, when hardly any cyclists actually
wore helmets. I don't think there is any more recent data, because
there have been no comprehensive surveys of the amount of km cycled
since 1986,
However, relative to the amount of cycling deaths and serious
injuries seem to have increased since the helmet laws.
: > The British Medical Association has said repeatedly that compulsory
: helmets,
: > by discouraging cycling, have negative health implications for society.
: As
: > someone else said, the latest issue of their journal includes an article
: > (re)stating the case. Doctors of all people would be expected to
: understand
: > the trade-off between risky behaviour, safety, and medical costs.
:
: Sure, maybe make it compusory for anyone who doesn't know any better, such
: as children. I got into this argument attempting to show that I think that
: people should wear helmets so that my tax dollars don't go toward
: rehabilitating a vegetable who was too stupid to wear a helmet. Maybe make
: it only compusory to wear a helmet on public roads, bike tracks are exempt.
But you don't mind rehabilitating someone who was put off cycling
as a child by the helmet law, gets unfit and overweight and needs
bypass surgery in middle age.
You are forgetting that, by our best estimates, the helmet law
has had very little or no effect in reducing the cost of cyclist
head injuries. The cost of the lack of exercise is huge.
As a tax payer myself, I'm sure repealing the helmet law would save
us all a lot of tax dollars.
Dorre
R. Sitch
If you want to wear a helmet wear one... cos I don't think anyone here will
tell you not to... but if you don't want to wear one... just listen to the
wankers.... If you have an opion great, but please don't try and force your
opinion on me..
"David" <beaum...@spam.ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:3a5e7076$0$15491$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
Dorre
: One thing nobody has answered adequatly is:
:
: "WHY NOT WEAR A HELMET?!?"
:
: Please, I am confused by all your illlogic claming of it being for a better
: society and don't realise why wearing a helmet would be a bad thing.
For you, it obviously isn't a bad thing. You have no problem wearing
helmets and it doesn't put you off cycling.
But a lot of other people have been put off cycling by helmet laws.
It's a bad thing for society that these people are not getting the
healthy exercise and cheap, environmentally friendly exercise that they
would have enjoyed without the law.
Discouraging cycling is the bad thing, not helmets per se.
Dorre
Theo Bekkers
Peter Cremasco wrote
> I stopped and went to remove my hat
> (call me old fashioned) and discovered that I hadn't put my helmet on
> (bloody embarrassing) so rode back to the house and picked it up, put it
> on and came home.
Tut tut. You bad boy. You should have let down your own tyres and walked
back to your sister's.
:-)
Theo
Mark Lee
and minimum speed 60+kph thru all the corners down the back - in a 50kph
zone. Shock! Horror! I await the flames from those who've never had the
tenacity to get fit and the guts to learn how to do something that involves
real and obvious risk.
I'm happy to wear a helmet, but I'm old enough to remember when nobody did.
I know a guy who never does and he's been chased through Ashgrove and
Mitchelton but they couldn't find him! I believe that it's his right to
abstain while motorists and pedestrians aren't forced to wear helmets.
Human (particularly motorists') behaviour is the cause of most serious
bicycle accidents. That's where we need change. I was in a bunch of 60
cyclists pulled up at Sandgate last Sunday by a policeman and I thought it
was interesting how he thought we should all get out of the way of any
"vehicle" (car) that came up behind us. He said we had forced a vehicle to
go on the wrong side of the road to pass us. Now my point is that we forced
nothing. We were 60 vehicles, 2 abreast, and although we are happy to make
some room and be polite for other passing vehicles - we don't always know
and we can't always make the room. The motorist would probably have been
happy to wait if we were a slow-moving truck. Years ago I was in a group of
4 riding 2 abreast on a wide road (Waterworks Rd outbound at The Gap) and we
were stopped by a policeman and told we had to ride single file!
Bit of a rant, But how can we expect consideration from the average motorist
when the police are part of the problem. They see us as something less than
a vehicle with less right to be on the road. This is reinforced by things
like Compulsory Helmets, segregated bike paths where the pedestrians (&
dogs), bladers and razers are king and e.g. the "No Cyclists" on the Freeway
leading out of the North of Brisbane when the alternative route is still
100kph but without the broad shoulders. Once there is a sign like that or a
bikeway alternative a few motorists think they are only doing their civic
duty when they run into a bunch of cyclists on the freeway verge after
switching their lights off (result: some broken legs) ...or force you into
the gutter while yelling out "Get on the bikeway" - quote from BCC busdriver
on Coro Dve.
The way motorists use their cars as weapons against cyclists is why I do
most of my cycling in groups - more chance of crashing but less of getting
killed.
Mark Lee
Mark Lee
perfect but it's still fantastic and the hint of danger probably gives it
some of its spice ...and contributes to its exclusivity?
Mark Lee
Galen Rutledge
"Toms bigpond address" <tgra...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> Trish,
> Others have said it, but I will say it again
>
> YOU ARE AN IDIOT !!!!!
That's not a nice thing to say about someone making an informed
personal choice.
If she really doesn't want to wear a helmet, I would have thought
that was her own business.
> Helmets are always a good idea. I wear riding gloves also. No
> Law makes me. it's just a good idea. I make my living using my
> hands and my head, so to me, protecting these is paramount.
Yes. I see.
So you like to protect yourself for your own good.
Groovy.
> I work in Heavy industry, so I need to wear a Dard hat,
> Hearing protection and Eye protection. This is required by law
> in this country, It is also a good Idea !!
I agree, it's a good idea.
Is it also a good idea to make other people do what you like to
do?
I like to recycle. I think it is a good idea.
It's also a good idea to brush your teeth every day, isn't it?
I think it's a good idea to wear sunscreen during the day, but
should these things be made compulsory? I don't think so.
You see, the thing with most "good ideas" is if they were really
such good ideas they should be able to stand on their own,
without law enforcement.
If wearing a helmet is such a good idea, why not treat it like
any other form of personal care.
If the negative consequences of not wearing a helmet were as
clear as those for not brushing teeth, then they should be able
to stand on their own, without law enforcement.
I think the negative consequences of not wearing a helmet are
pretty vague and flimsy, but like you I still choose to wear one.
Aren't personal freedoms neat?
> My work takes me to Indonesia and India. THere are no laws in
> these countries regarding protective equipment ( or at least
> no obvious ones, because no one else was wearing them ) I
> certainly did , even at the expense of jeering and ridicule
> from the locals, 120 decibels of sound does just as much
> perminant damage to you hearing in India as it does in
> Australia,
Yes, you even like to protect your body in other countries.
Good for you.
You think it should be enforced in other countries. Well, that
may be imposing your value system on another culture. Do you
really want to do that?
OTOH, I think information about the consequences of not
protecting ones self should be made freely available, so others
can make an informed decision for themselves.
> Falling of a bike and hitting your head can do just as much
> damage in Zimbabawe as it does in Perth. You should be wearing
> a helmet , not because a law says so but rather because
> protecting your head should be of paramount importance.
Granted.
But who are you to call people names when they make an informed
decision not to protect themselves.
> Do you think for just one second that perhaps it is laws like
> these that make Australia the place it is?
Yes, and isn't it a wonderfully open place to live, where money
is extorted from healthy citizens to pay for the poor health of
couch potatoes with heart disease, or for the liver disease of
those who spend their extorted dole money on alcohol or gambling.
Fun fun fun. The workers who care about themselves get to
support all the gluttons, slackers, layabouts and alcoholics who
slowly kill themselves with our money. You really like that?
It enrages me.
And they get to vote too!
It's compulsory for these wastrels and apathetic alcohohol and TV
junkies to actually have a say into how this country operates!
We are all screwed.
> You have been around the world , So Have I . Where would you
> like to live? Mozambique? Perhaps you would like to go back,
> There are no bicycle helmet laws there.
Yes, and everyone knows that the only difference between
Mozambique and Australia are the enforcement of personal
protection laws.
:^|
Yeah, right.
> We have a lot of other laws to protect us from other less
> civic minded people, Do they have these in Mozambique?
Huh?
Protect us from less civic minded people?
Which laws are they?
You mean laws against assault, rape, murder and other activities
where citizens actively deny human rights from other citizens?
If you are really comparing these criminal acts with civil laws,
then you are being very silly.
> At least I won't be subsudising your medical costs if
> and when things do go wrong for you.
Oh, I see. This is just a rant about how selfish you are.
Actually, this is pretty clear from the start.
Well, how about you actively oppose the extraction of money from
your earnings to support people you don't like, otherwise this
complaining of yours is useless and worthless.
BTW, it seems you are a bench-thumping conservative. You would
be happy to impose "right" morals on the entire population, while
you dislike the imposition of laws restricting your earning
potential.
I am wondering, how do you stand on gun ownership? This is
usually an oddball issue as it is favored by the right, but is a
social liberty.
Galen
--
Killfile-
aus.bicycle
The Red Krawler, Kingpin, Shane, Neil Fisher, Roadwatch / Kennith Vaughan
alt.planning.urban
Robert Cote (for legal reasons)
Galen Rutledge
<osb...@ntf.com.au> wrote:
> My other comment is to those respondents who said it's OK "if
> drivers only injure themselves". This is an invalid argument.
> (a) There are plenty of innocent victims, (b) the cost of
> repairing the injury is a social burden on everyone, and (c)
> their families are paying in all sorts of ways.
>
> Tom.
>
a) Innocent victims?? Of failing to observe helmet laws??
b) The cost should not be a social burden on everyone. Only
those who choose to pay. Sadly this left-wing authoritarianism
(of universal health-care) makes the left wing freedom of doing
as you see fit for yourself an unpalatable freedom.
The two personal "freedoms" (though universal health-care is
authoritarianism, a negative freedom) almost cancel out, so one
of them had to go.
Sadly, the government took the reactive stance, and made helmet
laws manditory, rather than the pro-active stance, and refused
free medical treatment for personal injury through "misadventure".
I find it funny that this position was taken by a supposedly
liberal left-wing government, when it really brings us closer to
a Marxist authoritarianism.
If a private fund were to insure the individual, they would
surely like to know if they protect their body as much as
possible, and would probably raise premiums if the insured person
admitted they do not wear a helmet when riding.
c) Their families?? All sorts of ways??
Come on Tom, I _know_ you are smarter than that. What's going
on? What have you done with the _real_ Dr. Tom Osborn?
At least give an outline of why you think this way.
Anthony Morton
>Yes Anthony, I have been in a car accident. The type that results in the
>most head injuries, a roll over. I was wearing my seatbelt and it kept my
>head from hitting anything.
>
>In a car you have the bodywork of the car to protect you in an accident,
>saying that if you don't need a helmet when driving a car then you don't
>need one riding is just plain silly.
But you missed my point. If a car body is sufficient to prevent head
injury in a crash, why are there several hundred motorist deaths from head
injury in Australia each year? Only some of those killed were not wearing
seat belts at the time.
TM
Cameron
<snip>
> How about making it illegal to not insure your car for personal
> loss or damage?
Oh, I _do_ like that one.....maybe then the silly folk driving might pay
more attention, instead of the "she'll be right, it's insured" attitude.
<snip>
regards,
CrazyCam who hasn't got a car to insure.
Anthony Morton
>One thing nobody has answered adequatly is:
>
>"WHY NOT WEAR A HELMET?!?"
My answer: for the same reason that motorists don't wear helmets. They're
unnecessary, they're inconvenient and they make the activity look dangerous.
TM
Galen Rutledge
<3a5e7076$0$15491$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>, "David"
<beaum...@spam.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Ok, how about this:
Being forced to do anything for your own good sets up the state
as nanny, and puts restrictions on personal freedoms.
When "trivial" personal freedoms are restricted, then it becomes
easier to make other personal freedoms "trivial" and restrict
them too. Talk to German-Jews about this one.
If wearing a helmet is such a good thing, it should not have to
be enforced by law.
If you think it does, why not advocate enforced tooth-brushing,
enforced levels of personal fitness, and enforced maximum
saturated fat intake?
These things are clearly bad for us, and they are also bad for
our enforced-contribution health system. Using the same logic as
others are using for enforcing helmet laws, why not enforce these
other things?
If the reason not to aply enforcements on things like
"tooth-brushing"is because there are "difficulties with
regulating adherance to the law", then all the other arguments
are invalid. Perhaps you suggest a society where only enforcable
restrictions are made law?
Moreso, how about EVERY enforcable restriction on personal
freedoms is made law, because that is what you would be
proposing, eventually.
People should be able to make up their own mind what is best for
themselves based on free and open information for making informed
decisions.
Galen,
who chooses to wear a helmet, even though it definitely gives him
a false sense of security.
Galen Rutledge
<3a5e698e$0$15491$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>, "David"
<beaum...@spam.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> Yes Anthony, I have been in a car accident. The type that
> results in the most head injuries, a roll over. I was wearing
> my seatbelt and it kept my head from hitting anything.
Nifty. You were very lucky, but it proves nothing on its own.
Head injuries from car accidents are statistically about twice as
frequent as head injuries from bicyclie collisions, based on
hours of exposure.
> In a car you have the bodywork of the car to protect you in an
> accident,
Occupant/driver head injuries from car accidents are
statistically about twice as frequent as head injuries from
bicycyle collisions, based on hours of exposure.
> saying that if you don't need a helmet when driving
> a car then you don't need one riding is just plain silly.
No, I think there were suggestions that perhaps helmets should be
worn in cars.
> A $30-$50 one off payment to drastically reduce the risk you
> become a vegetable should you have an accident sounds like a
> good idea when you compare it to the rates that income
> insurance costs.
"Drastically reduce" is both emotive, and wrong.
Bicycle halmets are only rated to reduce to 50% the likelihood of
fatal impact for a 7kg form factor dropped on a hard flat surface
from 2 meters, which should mean you have a 50% chance of death
when your head strikes an object at 14kph while wearing the
helmet, but in reality, the chances are a little worse due to the
geometry of the human body, and the likelihood of severe
tortional impacts.
That's bugger-all protection.
You want "drastically reduce"? Wear a motorcycle helmet.
Galen
Tom Osborn
> Come on Tom, I _know_ you are smarter than that. What's going
> on? What have you done with the _real_ Dr. Tom Osborn?
Galen has jumped on my post as a means to his own agenda.
He didn't read well at all. If he had read what he quoted, he would
notice the word "driver" in the phrase "if drivers only injure themselves".
He took this as a comment about helmets, and as an argument about
health [sic] insurance.
Instead of refuting his strawman, I'll explain in simpler terms what I wrote:
It's NOT OK for drunks, reckless drivers or non-seatbelt drivers to
carry on as they have done, injuring "only themselves", because:
(1) They injure other people,
(2) Their injuries impact on other parties including their families.
(3) The cost to society at large is real.
IF a time machine were invented so the mindless could return to the
appropriate time to interrupt their conception, then MAYBE. But
beyond that, MOST suicides, accidental self-injury/death, misadventure
has a cost on society. Even for really stupid people...
As far as helmet laws are concerned... ...I think the purchase price
should be subsidised - jeez, some cost over $200. The price/utilisation
elasticity may be real, and it's better that they're worn by all.
As far as health [sic] insurance is concerned. EVERYONE who believes
in it has been conned. Arguments should centre around Paretto laws,
profit taking bureaucracies, John "Wedgie" Howard's relationship to
the _dumb_ part of the big end of town, and very pathetic marketing
and advertising. If health is what you want, health insurance is an
inefficiency. Medicare is a positive social service.
This is aus.bicycle, and the thread has gone off topic...
Tom.
--
Dr Tom Osborn
Director of Modelling
The NTF Group
Level 7, 1 York Street
SYDNEY NSW 2000
Galen Rutledge <galen_r...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:galen_rutledge-186...@news.dingoblue.net.au...
> In article <93lipg$6ar$1...@merki.connect.com.au>, "Tom Osborn"
> <osb...@ntf.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> > My other comment is to those respondents who said it's OK "if
> > drivers only injure themselves". This is an invalid argument.
> > (a) There are plenty of innocent victims, (b) the cost of
> > repairing the injury is a social burden on everyone, and (c)
> > their families are paying in all sorts of ways.
> >
> > Tom.
...
Galen Rutledge
Zebee Johnstone
Galen Rutledge <galen_r...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>In article
><3a5e698e$0$15491$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au>, "David"
><beaum...@spam.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> In a car you have the bodywork of the car to protect you in an
>> accident,
>
>Occupant/driver head injuries from car accidents are
>statistically about twice as frequent as head injuries from
>bicycyle collisions, based on hours of exposure.
Because car drivers tend to hit their heads *on the bodywork*.
Seatbelt or no.
Seatbelts reduce it, airbags, the jury is out on those.
Zebee
David
news:3A5E0E6D...@ar.com.au...
> Galen Rutledge wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > How about making it illegal to not insure your car for personal
> > loss or damage?
>
> Oh, I _do_ like that one.....maybe then the silly folk driving might pay
> more attention, instead of the "she'll be right, it's insured" attitude.
3rd party personal is compulsory in SA. I thought it was Australia wide but
when I went to hire a car in Melbourne I found that it was an optional
extra! It should be compulsory IMHO.
-DaveB
David
change my standpoint. I believe that the following should be lobbied for:
1. Mandetory helmet laws replealed.
2. 3rd Party personal insurance to be compusory Australia wide.
3. If you are injured on a bike and not wearing a helmet it precludes you
from claiming on someone's 3rd party personal insurance or sueing for
damages that could have been prevented by wearing one.
The point of these suggestions is to encourage people to ride by not making
it compulsory but if they are at all concerned about being injured then they
would wear a helmet.
I think that the 3rd party personal insurance is great as it will protect
you and other people from real and personal loss from a motor accident.
-DaveB
David
uniform laws came into place in Dec 1999 it is now legal.
-DaveB
"Mark Lee" <mark...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:I2v76.56159$xW4.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Galen Rutledge
<osb...@ntf.com.au> wrote:
> Galen wrote:
> > Come on Tom, I _know_ you are smarter than that. What's
> > going on? What have you done with the _real_ Dr. Tom
> > Osborn?
>
> Galen has jumped on my post as a means to his own agenda.
You just keep telling yourself that Tom, if it will make you feel
better.
It may be true. It may not.
I don't think it matters either way when it seems you are having
difficulty putting your point across to me in a coherent manner.
I am no more enlightened by this post than I was with your last
It also seems clear by your somewhat antagonistic post that you
are less than fully _interested_ in making yourself clearly
understood, and would rather take cheap shots at me personally.
> He didn't read well at all.
I'm so sorry you think that.
>If he had read what he quoted, he would notice the word
>"driver" in the phrase "if drivers only injure themselves".
Actually, I have been using the term "Driver" for cyclists for
some time. It must have been my slip-up. I also, with attempted
irony, have been calling car "drivers", riders.
Sorry.
Still, if there is only self-injury, I am wondering why you are
talking about drink-driving and reckless drivers.
It doesn't take much thought at all to see that drink-drivers and
reckless drivers hurt other people, though I do wonder about your
inclusion of no-seatbelt-wearers.
Perhaps you could explain this point more fully.
> He took this as a comment about helmets, and as an argument
> about health [sic] insurance.
So "the cost of repairing the injury is a social burden on
everyone," is not related to "health insurance"?
Sorry, I thought that was point b).
Perhaps you should explain what point b) really _was_ about,
instead of calling my arguments "strawman" - implying I had not
read your post, and indeed "didn't read well at all".
As if anyone would believe those things in any case.
> Instead of refuting his strawman, I'll explain in simpler
> terms what I wrote:
Yes, simpler terms are good, but only for where the original
explaination is particularly complicated.
I suggest, however, that a more _complete_ explaination be
offered than the overly simple one originally provided.
Or... are you actually pretending that I will only understand
"simple" explainations?
I assure you this is not the case, even though I do not feel the
need to advertise my tertiary qualifications and position on
every one of my posts.
How would you feel if I suggest my questions should only be
phrased to you using "small words"?
I know you would find the implication offensive and/or
unjustified, so why do you make similar suggestions of my
abilities?
Perhaps you have no answer, and would rather the questions got
lost in a squabble?
Whatever, Tom, I guess we shall see.
> It's NOT OK for drunks, reckless drivers or non-seatbelt
> drivers to carry on as they have done, injuring "only
> themselves", because:
>
> (1) They injure other people,
Yes, that was what I read by your original point a)
> (2) Their injuries impact on other parties including their
> families.
I thought that was point c).
You have made it point 2) here, haven't you?
Or am I reading it all wrong again?
> (3) The cost to society at large is real.
In what way?
This would be your original point b), and I thought it was about
the cost of subsidised universal health care for people who
couldn't care less about their own health, ergo, non-helmet or
non-seat-belt wearers in life-and-limb threatening situations.
I'm sure you can see now why I thought that you meant costs for
health care.
If this is wrong, please help me understand.
For future correspondence, I suggest you try not to put me down,
but instead realise I am confused by your post.
I would just like a more _complete_ explaination, not a "simple"
one.
> IF a time machine were invented so the mindless could return
> to the appropriate time to interrupt their conception, then
> MAYBE. But beyond that, MOST suicides, accidental
> self-injury/death, misadventure has a cost on society. Even
> for really stupid people...
And these costs are...?
Sorry, besides the healthcare issue, other costs seem to me to be
indirect, and could just as easily be created by imprisonment,
family abandonment, or natural death or disability, rather than
not using self-protection devices.
> As far as helmet laws are concerned... ...I think the purchase
> price should be subsidised - jeez, some cost over $200. The
> price/utilisation elasticity may be real, and it's better that
> they're worn by all.
I agree. If the self-protective helmets are made compulsory,
they are clearly _assumed_ to have some social benefit, so why
not encourage that benefit by subsidising.
I say this even though I am strongly against mandatory helmet
laws AND any subsidisation, but I see it makes no sence to have
the one without the other.
> As far as health [sic] insurance is concerned.
"health [sic] insurance"? was my spelling wrong?
Why are you doing that?
The words "health insurance" don't even come up together anywhere
in my post.
> EVERYONE who believes in it has been conned.
Yes, sure.
And if medicare is so great, should we therefore also have
subsidised universal national house insurance, car insurance,
etc., even if it means many people will not look after their
property as well as they would otherwise because it exists?
> Arguments should centre around Paretto laws, profit taking
> bureaucracies, John "Wedgie" Howard's relationship to the
> _dumb_ part of the big end of town, and very pathetic
> marketing and advertising. If health is what you want, health
> insurance is an inefficiency. Medicare is a positive social
> service.
Sad Tom, I thought you were beyond namecalling.
Making the claims you do above without ANY explaination is just a
bunch of words, and your own opinion.
Back it up, or forget it. I will not even bother seriously
discussing the issue with you if you can't do any better than
blankly asserting "health insurance is an inefficiency. Medicare
is a positive social service.".
I strongly believe that the reverse is true, and the evidence is
all around you.
It doesn't matter, your ears are clearly blocked on the issue
anyhow so I would be wasting myself on the topic.
And it's off-topic. Aparrently.
I'll let you raise the issue by attempting to explain your absurd
claims, if you are game.
I wouldn't be surprised if you just call me yet another silly
name, and tell me to sod off - as is the usual style of the "true
believers" I have met in the past.
Whatever.
> This is aus.bicycle, and the thread has gone off topic...
>
> Tom. -- Dr Tom Osborn Director of Modelling The NTF Group
> Level 7, 1 York Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 Galen Rutledge
--
Peter Signorini
Dorre wrote:
> The results for teenagers (12-17 years) are particularly interesting
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> May 1990 (pre-law) May 1991 (post-law) Change (%)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Number counted 1293 672 -623 -48%
> Number helmeted 272 302 30 11%
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's interesting that, in the first place, the law didn't so much
> encourage helmet wearing as simply discourage cycling.
As a cyclist and school teacher at this time I wholeheartedly concur with these
statictics.
At the school I teach at in 1990 we had 200-300 bikes in the bike shed each day.
In 1991 this dropped immediately to about 50-70. One day (fine and warm) I
counted just 19 bikes in the shed. We had two sheds, but one was soon removed. A
few years after this I could no longer get enough interest to get a group
together for the Great Victorian Bike Ride - so few kids actually used bikes or
wanted to bother with helmets.
Now the numbers have risen to about 80 - 100 bikes in the shed, still well below
1990 levels. Result? Kids get less exercise in their daily activities. Much more
traffic around the school as parents drop kids off. Higher pedestrian (student)
accident rate - one year we had 4 students in 4 weeks hit by cars near the
school.
> Note that the teenagers in the Monash Univ survey will all now have their
> driving licences.
>
> Paul said he retained his memories of riding as a child and interacting
> with motor vehicles on the road and this made him more aware of cyclists
> when driving. I presume most of his road experience was as a teenager,
> because younger kids don't tend to be allowed out on the roads on their
> own.
>
> But this is precisely the age group most deterred by the helmet
> law. The drop in numbers counted was almost 50%. Or, put another
> way, there'd be nearly *twice as many* (1293/672 = 192%) teenage
> cyclists on the roads except for the law.
Fewer kids cycling also results in a reduced will to implement programs like
BikEd/Cycleon by school authorities. In 1991 I undetook Cycleon training (the
new cycle safety program aimed at teenagers) and hoped to offer it in school.
But with such low numbers of cycling students, and in a financially strapped
climate, it was not a viable thing to do.
Teenagers are fairly typical of Joe Average really - preoccupied with their
appearance, unwilling to spend extra cash if it can be avoided, and always
willing to take short cuts. Introduce a new, awkward, unfashionable item that is
legally required, costs some precious $$ and it is seen as uncool and easily
avoided. Some ignore the law, continuing to ride for fun, but heavy handed
enforcement like Trish experienced just pushed most over the edge to find other
ways to travel to school, on foot or more commonly dropped of by mum.
The question is do we want to simply accept this low useage of the bike, happy
that everyone is following THE LAW, or would it be more beneficial to all,
helmet wearing taxpayers included, if we changed the law and worked to provide
real, long term health and safety benefits for cyclists. The Geelong Bikeplan of
the 70s identified 4 E's - Education, Encouragement, Enforcement and Engineering
as the way to improve cyclist safety. For far too long the emphasis of our road
authorities has remained upon enforcement and engineering solutions solely.
Cheers
Peter
Peter Signorini
where two-abreast riding was illegal.
With Tasmania's quiet roads a ban on riding two-abreast was ludicrous. We
travelled the island for 4 weeks in 1987 and usually rode as we liked - single
file, two abreast in groups of 2 two, three and six - even over the Tasman
Bridge which was supposed to be banned to cyclists. The only time we had trouble
with this was when some granny in a Corolla tooted us on a straight bit of road
down the D'entrecasteaux Channel.
Peter Signorini
will not get any insurance cover? That one would be laughed out of the court.
And how will the motorist take this? So we have the driver who is paraplegic,
but because he did not wear a seat belt, gets no coverage and has to rely on his
own meagre finances for the rest of his life. Yeah he deserves it perhaps, but
will his voting family support your scheme? What about the passenger who didn't
cause the accident, but wasn't wearing a seatbelt?
Bring back the good old days of slums, beggars, and the noose as well!! :-)
Peter
Peter Signorini
David wrote:
This would have been 3rd party property, to cover damage to vehicles or other
property. The TAC charge paid with every car registration covers any 3rd party
injury (including yourself). And by the way it is 'no fault' to cut down on
pointless litigation and ensure we don't have begars on the streets.
Peter
Dorre
: 3rd party personal is compulsory in SA. I thought it was Australia wide but
: when I went to hire a car in Melbourne I found that it was an optional
: extra! It should be compulsory IMHO.
Are you sure that wasn't 3rd party property insurance, or some sort
of damage waiver?
Some States incorporate 3rd party personal insurance into the
rego charge. In others, you have to obtain a green slip from an
insurance company to show you are covered. But I'd be very surprised
if it weren't compulsory in all States.
Of course, 3rd party personal covers what the name suggests - the
person (ie medical costs for injury) of 3rd party. It doesn't cover
the costs of medical treatment to the driver, though many insurance
policies in fact throw this in to a limit of $250,000. Nor does it
cover property damage - so if you have only CTP and are at fault
crashing into a Mercedes, you may end up bankrupt.
Personally, I think we'd be better off if there was an additional
levy on petrol paid into a fund to cover 3rd party insurance.
With smart card technology, this could still be a contract with
an insurance company, which sets the levy according to your risk of
accident - so safe drivers would pay less per litre than reckless ones.
There's be a default rate, to allow people to buy petrol if they
lost the card. The car number plate would also have to agree with
that on the card, to avoid problems with stolen cards.
There are many advantages to this system for cyclists.
First and most important, reckless drivers would pay more.
At the moment, careful drivers subsidise the reckless ones.
A NSW study estimated that, under a fair system where everyone paid
CTP according to their real risk, the reckless drivers would have
to pay 3 times the premium they currently pay. This was considered
unacceptable. In our society, driving is considered a right, not
a priviledge~ But, with a petrol levy, careful drivers might pay
an additional 5c per litre, the average might be about 10c and
reckless drivers about 30c, so they can still drive, but their
premiums are no longer subsidized by the rest of the community.
The hope is that paying according to risk might encourage
people to drive more safely and so reduce road trauma. Also,
because it's a levy on petrol, it would be much more difficult
to avoid - no card and you pay the default levy, so there'd
be fewer problems from uninsured motorist.
The idea of raising CPT and rego charges as a levy on petrol
was recommended by a task force on climate change - pay as you
go would make cycling, walking and public transport more attractive.
I could go on, but you get the message!
David also wrote in another post:
:After reading all the comments and statistics you all have successfully
:change my standpoint. I believe that the following should be lobbied for:
: 1. Mandetory helmet laws replealed.
:
:2. 3rd Party personal insurance to be compusory Australia wide.
:3. If you are injured on a bike and not wearing a helmet it precludes you
:from claiming on someone's 3rd party personal insurance or sueing for
:damages that could have been prevented by wearing one.
This is fair enough for damages that could have been prevented
by a helmet. The only trouble is, given that a helmet might prevent
about 10% of head injuries, how do you tell which 10% - or do you
just pay all medical expenses apart from 10% of those relating
to head injury? I can almost imagine a lawyer-fest in which
the legal costs of determining whether this was one of the 10%
ends up costing more than paying the sum in full without question!!!!
Dorre
:: -DaveB
Zebee Johnstone
Galen Rutledge <galen_r...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>In article <3A5E0E6D...@ar.com.au>, Cameron
><craz...@ar.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>> regards,
>> CrazyCam who hasn't got a car to insure.
>
>Eh?
>
He hasn't got a car. He's got 3 bikes. Maybe 4 now, I *still* wanna
know how he managed to get permission for the 4th!
His wife has a car, presumably she deals with insurance.
I don't have a car either, and none of my bikes are comprehensively
insured. I did have comp on a bike once for about 2 years over 10
years ago.
Zebee
Peter Cremasco
> But a lot of other people have been put off cycling by helmet laws.
>It's a bad thing for society that these people are not getting the
>healthy exercise and cheap, environmentally friendly exercise that they
>would have enjoyed without the law.
I find it really really really difficult to see how compulsory helmet
laws have stopped a significant proportion of the population from
cycling.
Compulsory seat belts didn't stop people from driving cars, did they?
I know this has probably been done to death, but it would surely be
negligent to allow such claims to go unchallenged.
---
Cheers
PeterC
[Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
[and there's nothing you can do about it at all]
Peter Cremasco
<richard...@dcita.gov.au> wrote:
>all we are saying is... give us the choice.
Then be upfront and lobby for that choice based on what you've just said
- that you want the choice - and not on some far-fetched pretext that
wearing a helmet is bad for you or that being forced to wear a helmet
has turned you into a sedentary couch potato with high cholesterol and
hypertension.
>If you want to wear a helmet wear one... cos I don't think anyone here will
>tell you not to... but if you don't want to wear one... just listen to the
>wankers.... If you have an opion great, but please don't try and force your
>opinion on me..
Ummm - aren't most of the anti-helmet arguments trying to "force" their
opeinion on anyone else? :)
Peter Cremasco
wrote:
Instead, I returned home - beat my breast three times and said 10 Hail
Marys and an Our Father. :)
Alan Bishop
riders. But 25 years later, the same rhetoric is trotted out in support of
'rights' for cyclists. What about seat belts in cars, or aeroplanes? What about
'life belts' for boat users? This is simply selective bullshit!
Get a life.
AJB
Marty Wallace
The invention of computer games and so forth has taken people off bikes.
There is no evidence whatsoever that indicates helmet laws have had anything
to do with cyclist numbers.
"R. Sitch" <richard...@dcita.gov.au> wrote in message
news:qtk76.55749$xW4.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> how about the cost on health.. heart disease etc.
>
> All I've found is that since people have started wearing helmets, cars
have
> seen cyclists as fair targets...
>
> The number of people riding bikes now is less than half of pre-legislation
> levels... yet the death/accident rate has not dropped to those levels...
so
> please explain!
>
> "Marty Wallace" <ma...@geo.net.au> wrote in message
> news:0kf76.3$9n3...@wa.nnrp.telstra.net...
> > Freedom of choice is fine.
> > But I don't get much freedom of choice when my taxes go towards
> subsidising
> > your hospital expenses do I?
> >
> > "R. Sitch" <john....@aph.gov.au> wrote in message
> > news:G7c76.54783$xW4.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > > Blah BLah BLah...
> > > What a load of shit....
> > >
> > > How many lives are saved a year by wearing helmets?... bugger all if
you
> > > compare it to the amount of people that don't ride cos they don't want
> to
> > > wear a helmet...
> > > So who pays... for the increased rates in heart disease/stroke from
> people
> > > not cycling..
> > >
> > > Maybe police should bust druggies/drug dealers... compare the amount
> that
> > > die
> > >
> > > I can smoke cigarettes but I can't ride a bike without a helmet....
> what
> > > kills more people?
> > >
> > > And my favourite sayng I hear from people;
> > > "I think cyclists should wear a helmet, but I don't ride a bike."
> > >
> > > but who gives a shit for my freedom of choice/freedom of expression?
> > >
> > >
> > > "Lindsay Rowlands" <lrow...@metz.une.edu.au> wrote in message
> > > news:93jgtv$cki$1...@gruvel.une.edu.au...
> > > > Trish <p...@sun.net> wrote:
> > > > : My husband and I have just returned to Australia after almost a
year
> > of
> > > > : travelling around the world. We had our bicycles with us and used
> them
> > > > : to cycle in three continents, concluding our trip with over 3000
km
> of
> > > > : cycling around Southern Africa (Zimbabawe, Mozambique & South
> Africa).
> > > > : Nowhere did we experience any problems; to the contrary -
travelling
> > on
> > > > : bikes seems to arouse people's curiosity and we had many friendly
> > chats
> > > > : with the locals.
> > > >
> > > > SNIP
> > > >
> > > > I'm sure you're very nice and well intentioned, however, take it as
> good
> > > > advice: stop whinging and just wear a bloody helmet! Problem solved.
> > > >
> > > > Lynzz
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > PS Reflecting on your complaint I'm reminded of a close friend whose
> > > > husband had a farm accident on a motorcycle (read, low speed fall;
no
> > > > helmet). The medical expenses and disruption to the farm work were
> > > > manageable. It's the 'loss' of a vital family member through
permanent
> > > > brain damage that's hard to take. The family will never be the same
> > again.
> > > > Perhaps you're like every speedster in a car, believing 'it' will
> never
> > > > happen to them. Your indignation about helmets just seems so
vaporous.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Marty Wallace
I bet if you asked a kid if he wanted to play a computer game or go for a
bike ride they'd pick the computer game.
You don't see many horse riders around in the city, is this because of
helmet laws?
"Dorre" <drob...@lash.une.edu.au> wrote in message
news:93lqj9$4g1$1...@gruvel.une.edu.au...
> Paul Bartram (pbar...@powerup.com.au) wrote:
> : Just a personal opinion, but I think half the problem with motorists
> : not 'seeing' cyclists is that so many people driving today never rode
> : a bike as a kid. I did, and even though I didn't ride for close to 20
> : years after childhood I still retained the memories of the trials and
> : tribulations of stayin' alive with all those busses and Hillman Minx's
> : out to get me (one nearly did!) As a result, I SEE cyclists when I
> : drive, and I anticipate their actions. Some 19 year old driver who has
> : never ridden a bike without training wheels simply won't treat the
> : cyclists with the same respect, and that's not even considering the
> : testosterone factor!
>
> In that case, our problems may be just beginning!
>
> Monash University Accident Research Centre conducted counts of
> cyclists in May 1990 (just before the law) and in May 1991, when the
> law had been in place for almost a year. They used the same 64
> observation sites, wherever possible the same people doing the counts,
> it was obviously the same time of year, and they counted for the same
> time periods to make the pre- and post-law surveys as identical as
> possible, so that the chief difference was the effect of the law. They
> even checked the weather, which was pretty similar overall.
>
> The results for teenagers (12-17 years) are particularly interesting
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> May 1990 (pre-law) May 1991 (post-law) Change (%)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Number counted 1293 672 -623 -48%
> Number helmeted 272 302 30 11%
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> It's interesting that, in the first place, the law didn't so much
> encourage helmet wearing as simply discourage cycling.
>
> Note that the teenagers in the Monash Univ survey will all now have
their
> driving licences.
>
> Paul said he retained his memories of riding as a child and interacting
> with motor vehicles on the road and this made him more aware of cyclists
> when driving. I presume most of his road experience was as a teenager,
> because younger kids don't tend to be allowed out on the roads on their
> own.
>
> But this is precisely the age group most deterred by the helmet
> law. The drop in numbers counted was almost 50%. Or, put another
> way, there'd be nearly *twice as many* (1293/672 = 192%) teenage
> cyclists on the roads except for the law.
>
Marty Wallace
of someone who has actually been fined for the aforementioned crime,
however, the law also protects you from yourself. A person driving a car
dangerously can be charged with dangerous driving even if there is nobody
else around because they endanger themselves. If you don't believe me then
talk to a lawyer and they'll tell you I'm right.
"Suzy Jackson" <su...@suzyj.net> wrote in message
news:3A5E11B4...@suzyj.net...
> Marty Wallace wrote:
> >
> > The law is there for your own protection.
> > If a drunk was stopped do you think it would be unreasonable for the
> > policeman to let down a drunks tires?
> > Or do you think the drunk should be allowed to drive home?
> > What if the drunk killed himself on the way home? Would the police be
> > responsible for letting him carry on?
> >
> > Ditto for the cyclists, if they fell off their bikes and smashed their
heads
> > in, would the police be held responsible?
> > The police did the only thing they could do in the circumstances.
> > To allow someone to break the law would lead to charges of failing to do
> > their duty.
> >
> > In any case, I find it hard to beleive that the cyclists in question did
not
> > know that they had to wear a helmet. In which case they willing broke
the
> > law and thus deserved everything they got.
>
> You didn't pick a very good example, I for one can't see anything wrong
> with a drunk riding a bicycle. After all, the only person they're
> likely to injure is themself, and that's entirely their business, isn't.
>
> But hang on, I think I just figured something out! You're a pro-life
> person, aren't you? How do you feel about contraception? About
> abortion? Euthenasia? How about IVF for single mothers? I'll _bet_
> you get all upset about these things, because it would appear that you
> hold people in so much contempt that you would force your own judgement
> on them, even when it comes to their own body.
>
> Peoples bodies belong only to the person concerned. Not you. Not the
> government. Not anyone. Should I wish to wear a helmet or not, or for
> that matter wear a seatbelt or not, should be entirely up to myself.
>
> Further, we're all grown ups, we should take a little responsibility for
> our own actions.
>
> To the two cyclists who were harassed by the police for not wearing
> helmets; your actions are commendable. I reckon you've got really good
> grounds for a complaint to the WA police about damage to property.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Suzy
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Suzy Jackson http://www.suzyj.net su...@suzyj.net
> -----------------------------------------------------------
Marty Wallace
The law is there to protect yourself.
Breaking the law isn't the way to change them.
I'm sure if you murdered someone because you didn't like the laws regarding
murder a judge wouldn't be too impressed.
You ride without a helmet because you're a fool.
"R. Sitch" <richard...@dcita.gov.au> wrote in message
news:Hxk76.55751$xW4.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> your an idiot...
>
> a drunk behind the wheel of a car can kill people...
> a cyclist without a helmet... that would wipe out the entire population...
>
> Just because it's law doesn't mean it's right...
>
> I ride without a helmet.. and I call them pigs....
>
> "Marty Wallace" <ma...@geo.net.au> wrote in message
> news:C0i76.8$9n3...@wa.nnrp.telstra.net...
> > The law is there for your own protection.
> > If a drunk was stopped do you think it would be unreasonable for the
> > policeman to let down a drunks tires?
> > Or do you think the drunk should be allowed to drive home?
> > What if the drunk killed himself on the way home? Would the police be
> > responsible for letting him carry on?
> >
> > Ditto for the cyclists, if they fell off their bikes and smashed their
> heads
> > in, would the police be held responsible?
> > The police did the only thing they could do in the circumstances.
> > To allow someone to break the law would lead to charges of failing to do
> > their duty.
> >
> > In any case, I find it hard to beleive that the cyclists in question did
> not
> > know that they had to wear a helmet. In which case they willing broke
the
> > law and thus deserved everything they got.
> >
> >
> > "Steve@Newsgroups" <steve_at_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3a5da81a$0$15493$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
> > >
> > > "Trish" <p...@sun.net> wrote in message
> > >
> > > >so they let our tires down and let us go,
> > > > wishing us a "nice walk back to Duncraig" and warning us not to
> attempt
> > > > to pump the tyres up and continue riding, or we really would be
taken
> > > > into custody.
> > >
> > > In a similar case recently in Qld a teenage girl had her tires
deflated
> by
> > > the police and told to walk home - alone and at night. Regardless of
the
> > > rights or wrongs of helmet laws do the police legally have the
authority
> > to
> > > do this?
> > >
> > > Steve
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
R. Sitch
not to wear them.. or try and make it law not to wear one.
Marty Wallace
"Peter Signorini" <pet...@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:3A5EA79E...@alphalink.com.au...
Craig Gurrie
helmets in cars compulsary - you lot reckon you're hard done by done, I will
hate to see you all then.
I can't understand why someone (law or not) would not consider doing
something as simple and easy as wearing a helmet. Like Dave, I have been
t-boned, an innocent victim. I was concussed however. Lucky for thwe
helmet or I wouldn't be here according to the medical staff.
Craig
"Zebee Johnstone" <ze...@zip.com.au> wrote in message
news:slrn95t5nn...@zipperii.zip.com.au...
Craig Gurrie
As a cyclist, and a tax-payer who will be paying for your re-hab WHEN you
come to grief without a helmet, I say stiff luck. The rules are there for
not only your good but for everyone else as well...
And by the way, if I wasn't wearing a helmet when I was hit by a car
12months ago whilst doing everything right (the car went thru a give-way), I
would not be alive now!
Craig
"Trish" <p...@sun.net> wrote in message news:3A5D1870...@sun.net...
> My husband and I have just returned to Australia after almost a year of
> travelling around the world. We had our bicycles with us and used them
> to cycle in three continents, concluding our trip with over 3000 km of
> cycling around Southern Africa (Zimbabawe, Mozambique & South Africa).
> Nowhere did we experience any problems; to the contrary - travelling on
> bikes seems to arouse people's curiosity and we had many friendly chats
> with the locals.
> We arrived back in Australia and thought we would stop over in WA for a
> month or so, to catch up with friends in Perth and cycle down to Albany
> & Esperance and back, before continuing on home to the East Coast.
> It only took one little, slow ride on the beach bike path from Duncraig
> to Cottesloe for us to be pulled over by two gun-carrying police on
> mountainbikes. Reason? Australia's favourite: No helmets!
> Upon learning we were not WA residents, the police decided not to issue
> us with traffic infringement notices - probably too much hard work,
> having to chase payment from Qeensland! Instead, we were ordered to walk
> back - that is, 25 kilometers! Naturally, we refused to do this, and
> were subsequently formally placed under arrest for disobeying police.
> One of the cops attempted to call a paddy wagon on his two-way radio,
> so, he explained, we could be taken to the station, fingerprinted and
> locked up in the watchhouse for the time being. He was, however,
> usuccessful in getting through (comforting thought for victims of any
> possible real emergency), so they let our tires down and let us go,
> wishing us a "nice walk back to Duncraig" and warning us not to attempt
> to pump the tyres up and continue riding, or we really would be taken
> into custody.
> What a homecoming! I must say it's great to be back in Australia and
> only through travelling overseas one can fully appreciate the quality of
> life we Australians generally take for granted. However, this damned
> helmet law is one major blot on that lifestyle. Nowhere else have we
> been hassled for peacefully riding along a road, minding our own
> business. No other country we visited penalizes its citizens for
> exercising their bodies and using an environmentally friendly mode of
> transport at the same time - not even some of the semi-dictotorial
> regimes!
> Having had a read through aus.bicycle, I notice the "great debate" is
> still raging - and the authorities are still taking no notice of what
> failure this law, this infringement of civil liberties, has been. The
> helmet zealots are still bleating their naive message of "if it saves
> one child's life, blah, blah, blah..."
> In some ways, it is disappointing to see how easily some people are
> brainwashed into believing whatever the authorities want them to
> believe...
> Alas, I don't think we'll be doing that Albany bike trip after all. Who
> wants to be constantly hassled? Hiring a car, maybe? Now, there's an
> idea I'm sure would fix the helmet problem - as it has already fixed it,
> once and for all, for many ex-cycling commuters. Shame it's nowhere near
> as much fun...
Marty Wallace
It can stand up to some forces, but hit it in the right place it cracks
easily.
I've seen it happen.
"Anthony Morton" <amo...@mudguard.ee.mu.oz.au> wrote in message
news:93lo7v$epu$1...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU...
> Paul Smart <ma...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Having just coming out alive from a coming together with a car on my road
> >bike, I do not have a problem with wearing a helmet. When I got to the
> >hospital the nurse showed me my helmet and showed me the deep gouge in
the
> >left hand side. this gouge would have been in my head had i not been
wearing
> >the helmet. So although sorry to hear about your less than friendly
> >homecoming, I do not have a problem with wearing helmets. Saved my head
> >once.
>
> Your nurse was being a little simplistic. Helmets are made of foam, and
> foam will yield when any sort of pressure is applied. The human skull not
> surprisingly is a lot more robust than a piece of foam.
>
> The stated function of helmets is to protect the head against moderate
blows
> as would be suffered by someone falling off a bike onto their head.
Without
> a helmet such blows would result in superficial injury (grazed scalp) and
> perhaps concussion. There is a very narrow window of impact speeds where
> the helmet is actually effective in preventing brain damage.
>
> In the kinds of bike-car collisions that typically kill cyclists, a helmet
is
> almost completely ineffective. Only a motorcycle-style helmet would
mitigate
> this kind of collision, but the law does not require this. (I wonder
why?)
>
> Cheers,
> Tony M.
>
Craig Gurrie
of participation in walking (no dog?), playing golf (scared of balls),
swimming???
My point is : Helmet laws cannot be blamed on an unfit population. Sure,
some maybe turned off, but there are plenty of other non-helmet sports out
there........
"Dorre" <drob...@lash.une.edu.au> wrote in message
news:93ls41$4g1$3...@gruvel.une.edu.au...
> David (beaum...@spam.ozemail.com.au) wrote:
> : One thing nobody has answered adequatly is:
> :
> : "WHY NOT WEAR A HELMET?!?"
> :
> : Please, I am confused by all your illlogic claming of it being for a
better
> : society and don't realise why wearing a helmet would be a bad thing.
>
> For you, it obviously isn't a bad thing. You have no problem wearing
> helmets and it doesn't put you off cycling.
>
> But a lot of other people have been put off cycling by helmet laws.
> It's a bad thing for society that these people are not getting the
> healthy exercise and cheap, environmentally friendly exercise that they
> would have enjoyed without the law.
>
> Discouraging cycling is the bad thing, not helmets per se.
>
> Dorre
Craig Gurrie
they won't ride. I don't know many people that think "I would love to ride,
but cause of helmets.....".
Maybe everyone should walk instead - no need for helmets. They could walk
in a park where they don't have to worry about cars or crossing roads.
Getting there maybe a problem though......
"Anthony Morton" <amo...@mudguard.ee.mu.oz.au> wrote in message
news:93ln00$e2b$1...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU...
> David <beaum...@spam.ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
> >I believe that your complaint about helmet laws is a little flawed. I
think
> >that one (not the only) reason why they are in place is to save money. I
pay
> >my taxes (a lot actually) and I don't want to see $20k-$30k spend to
> >rehabilitate some idiot who got brain damage in an accident on their bike
> >that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet.
>
> <sarcasm>
> I really think compulsory helmets in CARS should be introduced
immediately,
> to save money. I pay my taxes (a lot actually) and I don't want to see
> $20k-$30k spent to rehabilite some idiot who got brain damage in an
accident
> in their car that could have been prevented by wearing a helmet. And
those
> motorists who object to wearing a helmet should just put up and shut up.
> </sarcasm>
>
> To all the people who've joined the chorus on this newsgroup saying
"anyone
> who rides a bike without a helmet is an idiot / lawbreaking criminal /
loser":
> consider that around 600 people in Australia die each year from head
injuries
> incurred in car crashes. Still more come out seriously brain damaged. A
> typical motorist who spends as much time in their car as a typical cyclist
> spends on their bike bears a similar risk of head injury. If all this
death
> and carnage could be prevented by bicycle-style helmets, do you think they
> should be made compulsory for motorists?
>
> And what about pedestrians? The risk of death by head injury to
pedestrians
> is actually slightly _greater_ per hour of activity than for cyclists.
Now
> of course the lion's share of this risk is borne by those pedestrians who
> happen to be drunk. Should we then make a rule that no-one over 0.05 is
to
> step out in public places without a crash helmet?
>
> The British Medical Association has said repeatedly that compulsory
helmets,
> by discouraging cycling, have negative health implications for society.
As
> someone else said, the latest issue of their journal includes an article
> (re)stating the case. Doctors of all people would be expected to
understand
> the trade-off between risky behaviour, safety, and medical costs.
>
> Very many cyclists want to see the law changed - particularly commuter
> cyclists who don't face the same risks as the off-road adventure cyclists.
> However getting laws changed seems more difficult than even getting them
> passed in the first place. In this case there are two major factors
working
> against change: commuter cyclists in Australia are a minority in a
population
> ignorant of the health benefits of cycling, and bike helmet laws for some
> reason are a sacred cow within the Australian road safety establishment
> (perhaps not least because they are a great source of guaranteed income to
> helmet manufacturers).
>
> Given the institutional resistance to legislative change on this issue, it
> just may be that civil disobedience is justified - as when black Americans
> defied segregated seating laws on Mississippi buses. That was THE LAW
too,
> remember.
>
> Regards,
> Tony M.
>
R. Sitch
and the result was that without a helmet more people road motorbikes... but
the number of deaths/accidents goes up (as do the number of riders). but
statistically, the number of accidents/death per number of motorcyclists
goes down. (Maybe people are more careful when they aren't wearing a helmet)
I wear a helmet when I ride a motorbike... but if people don't want to why
should I care?
I have to admit the feeling of riding a motorbike without a helmet is
fanfuckingtastic..
If people want to chain smoke... none of my business..
If people want sky-dive... should I stop them?
How about people who try to climb K2...
How about really fat people who eat lots of fast food?
If people want to binge drink?
I wonder how cycling without a helmet compares the above list in terms of
risk?
But why wear a helmet while riding a bicycle? I have not seen ANY statistics
supporting the use of helmets...
"Alan Bishop" <abi...@hyper.net.au> wrote in message
news:3A5ED1C2...@hyper.net.au...
Marty Wallace
It can stand up to some forces, but hit it in the right place it cracks
easily.
I've seen it happen.
"Anthony Morton" <amo...@mudguard.ee.mu.oz.au> wrote in message
news:93lo7v$epu$1...@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU...
> Paul Smart <ma...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Having just coming out alive from a coming together with a car on my road
> >bike, I do not have a problem with wearing a helmet. When I got to the
> >hospital the nurse showed me my helmet and showed me the deep gouge in
the
> >left hand side. this gouge would have been in my head had i not been
wearing
> >the helmet. So although sorry to hear about your less than friendly
> >homecoming, I do not have a problem with wearing helmets. Saved my head
> >once.
>
> Your nurse was being a little simplistic. Helmets are made of foam, and
> foam will yield when any sort of pressure is applied. The human skull not
> surprisingly is a lot more robust than a piece of foam.
>
> The stated function of helmets is to protect the head against moderate
blows
> as would be suffered by someone falling off a bike onto their head.
Without
> a helmet such blows would result in superficial injury (grazed scalp) and
> perhaps concussion. There is a very narrow window of impact speeds where
> the helmet is actually effective in preventing brain damage.
>
> In the kinds of bike-car collisions that typically kill cyclists, a helmet
is
> almost completely ineffective. Only a motorcycle-style helmet would
mitigate
> this kind of collision, but the law does not require this. (I wonder
why?)
>
> Cheers,
> Tony M.
>
R. Sitch
"Craig Gurrie" <cgu...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:uZA76.74$y84....@news0.optus.net.au...
> I am sick of this argument that helmet wearing makes people unhealthy
cause
> they won't ride. [.......
Craig Gurrie
WHEN something goes wrong?
"Galen Rutledge" <galen_r...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:galen_rutledge-779...@news.dingoblue.net.au...
> In article <r_n76.55825$xW4.4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> "Toms bigpond address" <tgra...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
> > Trish,
> > Others have said it, but I will say it again
> >
> > YOU ARE AN IDIOT !!!!!
>
>
> That's not a nice thing to say about someone making an informed
> personal choice.
>
> If she really doesn't want to wear a helmet, I would have thought
> that was her own business.
>
>
>
> > Helmets are always a good idea. I wear riding gloves also. No
> > Law makes me. it's just a good idea. I make my living using my
> > hands and my head, so to me, protecting these is paramount.
>
> Yes. I see.
>
> So you like to protect yourself for your own good.
>
> Groovy.
>
>
>
>
> > I work in Heavy industry, so I need to wear a Dard hat,
> > Hearing protection and Eye protection. This is required by law
> > in this country, It is also a good Idea !!
>
> I agree, it's a good idea.
>
> Is it also a good idea to make other people do what you like to
> do?
>
> I like to recycle. I think it is a good idea.
>
> It's also a good idea to brush your teeth every day, isn't it?
>
> I think it's a good idea to wear sunscreen during the day, but
> should these things be made compulsory? I don't think so.
>
> You see, the thing with most "good ideas" is if they were really
> such good ideas they should be able to stand on their own,
> without law enforcement.
>
> If wearing a helmet is such a good idea, why not treat it like
> any other form of personal care.
>
> If the negative consequences of not wearing a helmet were as
> clear as those for not brushing teeth, then they should be able
> to stand on their own, without law enforcement.
>
> I think the negative consequences of not wearing a helmet are
> pretty vague and flimsy, but like you I still choose to wear one.
>
> Aren't personal freedoms neat?
>
>
> > My work takes me to Indonesia and India. THere are no laws in
> > these countries regarding protective equipment ( or at least
> > no obvious ones, because no one else was wearing them ) I
> > certainly did , even at the expense of jeering and ridicule
> > from the locals, 120 decibels of sound does just as much
> > perminant damage to you hearing in India as it does in
> > Australia,
>
> Yes, you even like to protect your body in other countries.
>
> Good for you.
>
> You think it should be enforced in other countries. Well, that
> may be imposing your value system on another culture. Do you
> really want to do that?
>
> OTOH, I think information about the consequences of not
> protecting ones self should be made freely available, so others
> can make an informed decision for themselves.
>
>
>
>
> > Falling of a bike and hitting your head can do just as much
> > damage in Zimbabawe as it does in Perth. You should be wearing
> > a helmet , not because a law says so but rather because
> > protecting your head should be of paramount importance.
>
>
> Granted.
>
> But who are you to call people names when they make an informed
> decision not to protect themselves.
>
>
> > Do you think for just one second that perhaps it is laws like
> > these that make Australia the place it is?
>
> Yes, and isn't it a wonderfully open place to live, where money
> is extorted from healthy citizens to pay for the poor health of
> couch potatoes with heart disease, or for the liver disease of
> those who spend their extorted dole money on alcohol or gambling.
>
> Fun fun fun. The workers who care about themselves get to
> support all the gluttons, slackers, layabouts and alcoholics who
> slowly kill themselves with our money. You really like that?
>
> It enrages me.
>
> And they get to vote too!
>
> It's compulsory for these wastrels and apathetic alcohohol and TV
> junkies to actually have a say into how this country operates!
>
> We are all screwed.
>
>
>
> > You have been around the world , So Have I . Where would you
> > like to live? Mozambique? Perhaps you would like to go back,
> > There are no bicycle helmet laws there.
>
> Yes, and everyone knows that the only difference between
> Mozambique and Australia are the enforcement of personal
> protection laws.
>
> :^|
>
> Yeah, right.
>
>
>
>
> > We have a lot of other laws to protect us from other less
> > civic minded people, Do they have these in Mozambique?
>
> Huh?
>
> Protect us from less civic minded people?
>
> Which laws are they?
>
> You mean laws against assault, rape, murder and other activities
> where citizens actively deny human rights from other citizens?
>
>
> If you are really comparing these criminal acts with civil laws,
> then you are being very silly.
>
>
>
>
> > At least I won't be subsudising your medical costs if
> > and when things do go wrong for you.
>
> Oh, I see. This is just a rant about how selfish you are.
> Actually, this is pretty clear from the start.
>
> Well, how about you actively oppose the extraction of money from
> your earnings to support people you don't like, otherwise this
> complaining of yours is useless and worthless.
>
> BTW, it seems you are a bench-thumping conservative. You would
> be happy to impose "right" morals on the entire population, while
> you dislike the imposition of laws restricting your earning
> potential.
>
> I am wondering, how do you stand on gun ownership? This is
> usually an oddball issue as it is favored by the right, but is a
> social liberty.
>
>
>
> Galen
R. Sitch
Table 1. Counts of child cyclists in NSW before and in the first two years
of the helmet law (RTA surveys* 14 , 33 ) Year 1991 (Pre-law) 1992 (1st law
yr) 1993 (2nd law yr)
Location Total
counted No
helmeted Total
counted No
helmeted Total
counted No
helmeted
Road Intersections 1741 440 1188 874 881 582
Change from 1991 -553 434 -860 142
Recreational areas 1742 709 1236 899 1184 872
Change from 1991 -506 190 -558 163
School gates 2589 761 1433 1156 1349 1025
Change from 1991 -1156 395 -1240 264
Total child cyclists 6072 1910 3857 2929 3414 2479
Change from 1991 -2215 1019 -2658 569
Your right mate people just make this rubbish up.
"Marty Wallace" <ma...@geo.net.au> wrote in message
news:pHA76.1$%y3....@wa.nnrp.telstra.net...
R. Sitch
http://lash.une.edu.au/~drobinso/velo1/velo.html#EffectOnCycling
Table 1. Counts of child cyclists in NSW before and in the first two years
of the helmet law (RTA surveys* 14 , 33 )
Year 1991 (Pre-law) 1992 (1st law yr) 1993 (2nd law yr)
Location Totalcounted Nohelmeted Totalcounted Nohelmeted Totalcounted
Nohelmeted
Road Intersections 1741 440 1188 874 881 582
Change from 1991 -553 434 -860 142
Recreational areas 1742 709 1236 899 1184 872
Change from 1991 -506 190 -558 163
School gates 2589 761 1433 1156 1349 1025
Change from 1991 -1156 395 -1240 264
Total child cyclists 6072 1910 3857 2929 3414 2479
Change from 1991 -2215 1019 -2658 569
Your right peple just make this rubbish up.
"Marty Wallace" <ma...@geo.net.au> wrote in message
news:pHA76.1$%y3....@wa.nnrp.telstra.net...
R. Sitch
they have to wear a helmet?
If cycling isn't dangerous then why would people be wearing helmets?
you don't see many horse riders around the city, the same reason you don't
see many polar bears...
"Marty Wallace" <ma...@geo.net.au> wrote in message
news:QSA76.4$%y3....@wa.nnrp.telstra.net...
R. Sitch
laws?
http://sciweb.science.adelaide.edu.au/sundries/ph.nsf
"Craig Gurrie" <cgu...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:4XA76.72$y84....@news0.optus.net.au...
R. Sitch
why doesn't it stop me smoking or sky diving?
doesn't make much sense to me.
I ride without a helmet, the same reason I walk without a helmet...
"Marty Wallace" <ma...@geo.net.au> wrote in message
news:aSA76.2$%y3....@wa.nnrp.telstra.net...