Pushbike helmets

[mik]

my own feelings on the helmet mass debate, i rode pushies until my knee`s started giving me trouble in my early forties, rode heaps when i was young , but on a casual basis as an old fart, my young brother on occasion would see me head off with out a helmet and give me a hard time, i don`t like the feeling of the helmet, it also seems to make me feel less alert to traffic , less vision, less sound from the traffic around me, even my balance feels weird, nothing whatever to do with looks, as such , i won`t bloody wear one, i`ll pay the fine should i get caught.
as for pedestrians not needing helmets , how many dipsticks step out in front of cars on a weekly basis............heaps i`ll bet and not all those use an ambulance!.
BY ALL MEANS PROTECT KIDS, make it compulsory, adults can decide well enough the risk for themselves, for every Knob driving a car there is another one on a bike not obeying road rules, not wearing high visibility clothing at night, not haveing any form of lighting, also not paying any form of registration or licenceing fee, not having any road life / rule instruction what so ever.

[fairBA]

I ride everyday. On the road and bikeways.
Get rid of the law. If you don't want to wear one then don't - I don't care.
However I will choose to still wear one and so will my kids.

A good option maybe you can ride without a helmet only the footpath/bikepath. If you manage to crack you head open on a footpath then thats just natures way of saying you don't belong on a bike.

As cars cutting off/running down bikes and so on - A lot of bikes riders really do need to have a good hard look at the way they ride (motorbikes inc).

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

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

Helmet laws levy a substantial cost on healthcare systems because savings from fewer head injuries pale in comparison to the costs incurred by decreases in cycling; namely people getting less exercise.

A 15-year Danish study found cycling for an average of three hours per week decreases mortality by 40%, but when helmet laws were introduced into Victoria a 29% drop in cyclists occure4d.

I wouldn't be surprised if the number of cases of head trauma has increased due to helmet laws. With thousands of people giving up cycling and leading more sedentaery lives, there must be a lot of people having strokes as a result.

[TRUBLU4DS]

If i go down the local shop i take it easy & dont wear a helmet. When i'm going on a long ride where there will be lots of interaction between pedestrians, vehicles & myself i will wear a helmet.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Helmet laws levy a substantial cost on healthcare systems because savings from fewer head injuries pale in comparison to the costs incurred by decreases in cycling; namely people getting less exercise.

A 15-year Danish study found cycling for an average of three hours per week decreases mortality by 40%, but when helmet laws were introduced into Victoria a 29% drop in cyclists occure4d.

I wouldn't be surprised if the number of cases of head trauma has increased due to helmet laws. With thousands of people giving up cycling and leading more sedentaery lives, there must be a lot of people having strokes as a result.

You are potentially spot on the money.

But, when helmet laws were introduced, did they see a reduction in the use of motorcycles? I would hazard a guess they did. Did that loss of numbers pick back up once people got used to the law, I bet they did.

Just like the introduction of helmet laws may have dropped the number of people riding for a while, but as people begin to accept the laws they will dust off the treadly again. Many that don't probably would have used any excuse.

Over what time period was the stats for victoria and was there an increase in the numbers since that time?

I bet if you look at the stats in an isolated time period you could demonstrate that compulsory seat belt use reduced the number of people driving and the distance travelled by the average person. Extend the time period and you would find that the figures picked up again as people began to accept the law.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

You are potentially spot on the money.

But, when helmet laws were introduced, did they see a reduction in the use of motorcycles? I would hazard a guess they did. Did that loss of numbers pick back up once people got used to the law, I bet they did.

Just like the introduction of helmet laws may have dropped the number of people riding for a while, but as people begin to accept the laws they will dust off the treadly again. Many that don't probably would have used any excuse.

Over what time period was the stats for victoria and was there an increase in the numbers since that time?

I bet if you look at the stats in an isolated time period you could demonstrate that compulsory seat belt use reduced the number of people driving and the distance travelled by the average person. Extend the time period and you would find that the figures picked up again as people began to accept the law.

The difference is that as opposed to motorcycles, bicycles promote fitness.

If that were not the case then it would be a totally moot point but we are getting more and more unfit which is not a good thing and maybe, just maybe if there were some way of making us a bit fitter, how can this be a bad thing?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

The difference is that as opposed to motorcycles, bicycles promote fitness.

How is that relevant to my point that although new laws may reduce numbers of people that continue the affected activity, eventually those numbers often recover as people accept the laws?

[DBourne]

Flap, you're not suggesting that if the law was lifted all of a sudden chunkychops would go "oh bike riding?! yeah I should do that"

LOL!

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

Flap, you're not suggesting that if the law was lifted all of a sudden chunkychops would go "oh bike riding?! yeah I should do that"

LOL!

That is exactly how it sounds.

If it was not the helmet thing it would be some other reason. The weather is too cold, it is too windy, it is too hot, I work too late, my planets are not aligned, blah blah blah.

The simple fact is that in every way, every age, the population is getting lazy and no changes to any laws in the name of fashion will change that.

[DBourne]

My planets are not aligned, cheers Gecko, I'll remember that next time I try to skimp out of a ride

Side note: Since April I'd done 4 rides TOTAL and have finally gotten back on the bike as of last Friday, and I am cursing myself for not doing it earlier, so good to be back

[flappist]

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

Flap, you're not suggesting that if the law was lifted all of a sudden chunkychops would go "oh bike riding?! yeah I should do that"

LOL!

Well I don't know.....

What if they actually DID?

Do you know? Or do you just think that everyone else thinks like you?

I remember when SMS was first introduced thinking "What sort of an idiot would text a message rather than talk, it will never take off".

Where did OMG LOL come from anyway.........

Here is a thought. If current bike riders are all so pro helmet and safety conscious and non bike riders will not start riding if helmet laws changed then in they did change NOTHING WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT would it?

Just because you do not agree with something does not make it wrong nor you right.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

My planets are not aligned, cheers Gecko, I'll remember that next time I try to skimp out of a ride

Side note: Since April I'd done 4 rides TOTAL and have finally gotten back on the bike as of last Friday, and I am cursing myself for not doing it earlier, so good to be back

Yep, know your pain. I am still waiting for my planets to align, any moment now!

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Here is a thought. If current bike riders are all so pro helmet and safety conscious and non bike riders will not start riding if helmet laws changed then in they did change NOTHING WOULD BE ANY DIFFERENT would it?

Is it just me having a comprehension moment or does that not really make sense?

I can tell you one thing that will change, I will deal with more head injured bike riders. I think you might find the ones with the head injuries will agree that maybe the lifting of the law was not such a good idea.

Lets face it, the law is not going to be lifted now, not on the basis of some people don't like helmet hair.

Imagine it, the first rider that ends up in a brain injury unit will sue the government because they implied it was safe to ride without a helmet by lifting the law. No government is going to open themselves to that risk of liability for the sake of helmet hair.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Is it just me having a comprehension moment or does that not really make sense?

I can tell you one thing that will change, I will deal with more head injured bike riders. I think you might find the ones with the head injuries will agree that maybe the lifting of the law was not such a good idea.

Lets face it, the law is not going to be lifted now, not on the basis of some people don't like helmet hair.

Imagine it, the first rider that ends up in a brain injury unit will sue the government because they implied it was safe to ride without a helmet by lifting the law. No government is going to open themselves to that risk of liability for the sake of helmet hair.

Well lets hope and pray that the people who think like you don't suddenly find that banning V8s and turbos for P platers has saved lives and applies it to everyone. No more F6 or GT for gecko.

If there was even ONE less accident...........

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Well lets hope and pray that the people who think like you don't suddenly find that banning V8s and turbos for P platers has saved lives and applies it to everyone. No more F6 or GT for gecko.

If there was even ONE less accident...........

My view point of compulsory helmet use does not actually limit you from riding if you wish, you just have to deal with helmet hair. Your idea above actually limits the use of these vehicles so it is a different story altogether.

My responsible use of V8's and turbos does not come without a cost, I pay more rego, higher fuel prices, more rego and higher servicing costs. Perhaps the government should subsidise these cost so more people can enjoy V8's and turbos.

You are placing my beliefs way outside of context for your own agenda.

[Pinch]

back before helmets were compulsory, I came off my BMX. Fractured my skull. Used to road race a bit, came off with helmets with little more than a headache.

I only ride now for transport - can be quicker in my area than driving and because parking sucks. Will always wear a helmet whether someone says I must or not. Have a buzz cut so helmet hair not an issue

[3vXT]

And yes I know, before anyone points it out the first two are on motorbikes and the last one probably already has a head injury (possibly from falling off a pushbike sans helmet?).