Pushbike helmets Part II

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by Mad_Aussie

You have to remember also, its not about your skills - its about the other person's skills.

I'm guessing that, despite the helmets, there were a fair few dollars expended on hospital bills after this.

Knowing full well that in many cases even a helmet won't negate your harm when a car is involved, are you not also one of "those people" who choose to put themselves in harms way, simply by deciding to share the road with 2 tonne vehicles travelling at speed.

You have stated before that your choice to wear a helmet gives you a greater right to exist than those who don't.

Originally Posted by Mad_Aussie

IMO people who refuse to wear helmets deserve to be skittled, but only on the condition that said skittling is enough to permanently remove them from the gene pool. Its common sense to preserve ones self. Those who don't have that inbuilt preservation circuit are flawed units, and need to be returned to sender.

So I'm assuming you are OK with people who choose not to ride for fear of being hit by a car, having the same view of you. After all, compared to their viewpoint, you "don't have that inbuilt preservation circuit".

Please understand, I don't think this, and am not having a go at you. I am hoping that seeing how your own thinking could just as easily be applied against you, helps you understand why some here are finding it difficult to comprehend how you can make such sweeping and damning statements about the actions or choices of others.

[auxr]

Flappist, another good poll with the usual wide ranging ambit of thoughts provided.

I still ride occasionally but always ride with a helmet due to a law that has been implemented. Before a rider had a choice, that choice was taken away due to a range of studies providing the evidence to legislate this law.

People may dis-agree with the further encroachment of the Nanny state - but in this instance, with the ever increasing population, this law certainly has decreased the risk to a bike rider.

If the law was lifted , it wouldn't have any effect for myself.

[Mad_Aussie]

That image of the blokes being mowed down by the car is being taken out of context for my comment that went with it - Those guys, helmets or not, are getting smashed hard.
The reason for that post was totally aside from the helmet debate - I was pointing out that in the end of the day, no matter what you do to protect yourself or how good a rider you consider yourself to be, its the person that smashes in to you that you need to worry about. Being in the mindset that "I won't crash so I won't wear a helmet" doesn't work when someone steers into you.

I'm also not trying to get on too high a horse here, but it is a little bit taller than the other guys horse. I've dealt with head trauma cases first hand, and been a patient myself. As said before by someone else, I wouldn't wish brain damage on anyone, it is horrific and the burden on your family and society if you're vegetable-ised is pretty severe.

After having to hold people down on the table while they have their skull glued together, I just can't fathom why people would knowingly put themselves in that kind of danger.
There is always a danger of being killed or maimed in pretty much any activity. But all common logic points to people taking steps to at least minimize injury.

I guess after all my long-winded posts that have seriously offended a few people here, what I'm trying to say is that I have stood by and watch people die from not wearing a helmet. At the end of the day, no matter what I say will change people's minds. However I at least try to emphasize the point as harshly as I can, because it is a harsh damn reality. And I personally believe with all my heart and soul that you are an idiot if you don't wear a helmet.

[HLC]

here is my opinion.

I ride a lot living near/inner city.

I always wear a helmet, but i dont like wearing it.

Its impossible to be cool and a hipster whilst wearing one.

However, my bike is a fixed gear. I dont run any brakes - actually thats a lie, i have a front brake but every time i ride it needs adjustment, its hopeless, so the only brakes i run are my legs.

Not wearing a helmet would be pure idiocy on this style of bike so i do it. If i converted my back to a single speed cruiser and put some brakes on it, then i'd negate the helmet.

[geckoGT]

You mentioned grass cutting at Lakeside. On that day you were wearing a helmet while driving your GT. Was that because you had to, because you wanted to reduce the risk or both?

Do you wear a helmet in your F6 when you are driving around town, out on the highway (where far more deaths and accidents happen than on a track)?

Were you wearing a helmet when you drove across NT in your XR8 faster than any speed you have done on a race track?

In all my occasions on the track, yes I would wear a helmet as the risk doing those speeds is higher than on the road, particularly at lakeside and warwick park where the concrete barrier can be pretty close in some places. I do not need the rules to make me aware of this but many people do. Just look at willowbank, how many roll up to the staging area without a helmet because they forgot, then have to be told to put one on. Not everyone is safety conscious enough to make the right decision.

No I do not wear a helmet in my F6 on public roads, the risk is not high enough because I am driving within the capabilities of myself, the car and the road. If I am in a crash it is highly likely to be within the capabilities of the integral safety mechanisms of the car. There are also other issues with the use of a helmet in a car in traffic such as restriction of vision and sound, these are not considerable issues on the race track.

I did not wear a helmet during the crossing of the NT in my XR8, reasons are the roads are in good condition, my car was in excellent condition, weather conditions were clear and the speed was within the manufacturer specified capabilities of the car in every way. There were no obstacles likely to cause a sudden stop and if it even looked like there were some coming up, speed was reduced accordingly. The fact that I survived the trip without even a near miss or a hint of one is a testament to that. I have since had more near misses than that on race tracks.

Or should football (all codes) skydiving, mountain climbing, rock fishing or what ever else be banned or restricted because you may get hurt.

Time to get things back into perspective a bit as you are modifying comments outside of the context intended by the authors.

No one that is an advocate of compulsory helmet use is suggesting limiting risk taking activities. Quite the opposite actually, most of the advocates are the ones that actually participate in the risk taking behaviour we are discussing. Interestingly many of the opposition to compulsory helmet use are the ones that do not participate in the activity. To say that football, skydiving etc should be banned is ridiculous. I have no problem with these activities as long as hazards are assessed and either reduced or control mechanisms are in place where possible. For example, skydiving is potentially dangerous but do you think the parachutist just stuffs the chute in any old way, chooses not to carry a reserve and refuses to have an altimeter? Of course not, he assesses each risk and then makes all preparations and checks to ensure the risks are reduced as much as possible. That way he gets to enjoy the activity safely and then do it again and again and again. Should the skydiver be allowed to delete these safety items and checks in the interest of "freedom of choice"? I am tipping you would say no because that would be insane, but how is riding a bike any different? there is actually a much greater chance of falling off a bike at sufficient speed to cause head injury than there is of a parachute failing to open, yet you suggest people should be able to choose not to wear a helmet, I guess parachutists should have the choice to jump without a reserve.

As for the footballers, I am a strong believer that they should be wearing head protection as are many other people and I do not see it as absurd to suggest that some day in the future the governing bodies of the sport will make such equipment mandatory.

There are also a large number of people who believe that if you do not follow their personal beliefs and ideals you should be "returned to sender". A few years ago a few of them flew some aircraft into some buildings.

You wonder why people get upset when yet again you have twisted comments of others way outside the context of what they said for your own benefit. He was not saying that those that do not agree with the beliefs of others should be actively "returned to sender" as you have implied. There is a large difference between allowing the consequences of a person’s action to take their natural course and the act of terrorism and mass murder to which you refer. There is an enormous difference between someone that obviously has Darwinist concepts and someone that has religious extremist attitudes that lead to terrorism.

To put this in an application similar to another thread going at the moment, would it be reasonable to allow those too ignorant to take reasonable measures to protect their own health, to die from the ensuing consequences? Perhaps we should give back the right of free will, let them ride without a helmet and if they sustain a serious head injury, let them contribute to the control of the world’s ever expanding population beyond the capacity of natural resources.

I mean how far does their "right to free will" go, why is it they get to choose the risk, but no one gets to choose to let them take the consequences? I know this is way outside the scope of normal conversation but at what point is free will reasonable and at what point is it a failure of the system to protect the individual from undue risk?

You tend to get upset when people challenge the right to free will and in many ways I guess you should, it is a right that requires protection when appropriate. The problem is how far we should take this concept. Do we follow the example set by many states in the US where it is not a legal requirement to wear a seatbelt, that is their right to choose a seat belt and they have protected it? They also have a much higher incidence of death from road trauma than we do. Should we follow the US in their right to carry arms for self protection, just to have a similar incidence of shooting related deaths? Should we abolish a licensing system for motor cars, surely the individual should have the right to deem their own competence in the operation of any vehicle without having their right to free will reduced by having to prove it? Should we abolish the licensing system for pilots, who are we to remove their right to fly? Like I said before, these are points that seem to be way outside of the scope of compulsory bike helmets, but when you think about it the concept is the same, the right to free will. All those systems of risk management have occurred out of a risk assessment and implementation of control methods, exactly the same way compulsory bike helmets came about.

[JamesR]

i ride BMX and i have a single speed road bike for cruising around.
i have been riding bikes for around 15years.
my personal preference is to not wear a helmet.
when on bmx i very rarely wear one, even though i have hit my head countless times. worst one was at a skatepark, i crashed and bike landed on me, cutting my head open. 3 stitches later i was fine.
iv had concussion 3/4 times, one time was wearing a helmet, but hit front of face, so didnt change anything.
the only reason i wear a helmet is so i dont get a ridiculous fine.
if the fines were abolished, i would most likely ride more. i just dont like the feel of helmets.

[Fireblade]

When I actually rode pushbikes in my teens and the laws were really just introduced I think I managed to get 9-10 fines for not wearing a helmet, my choice and I accepted the consequences, never had an accident that I needed a helmet to survive.

I chose "I would not ride a pushbike" due to the fact no helmet will save you from being cleaned up by a car/truck/bus with people that lack driving skills behind the wheel.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by Mad_Aussie

You have to remember also, its not about your skills - its about the other person's skills.

Oh man I must be a horrible horrible person, cause I couldn't help but laugh out loud when I saw that pic....


But yes, lack of bike infastructure here compared to Europe is an excellent point, and relates to my comment earlier about not wearing a helmet on a dedicated bike track. In Amsterdam and Copenhagen for example, your pretty much on a dedicated part of the road all the time so of course helmets arn't essential there like they are here.

[drew`SEVNT5]

I think people are getting confused between not wearing a helmet whilst just cruising around, and not wearing a helmet whilst bombing down a fire trail testing out every one of your 8" of travel, or getting air out the top of the vert ramp?

Me, I wore helmets when I did something I considered risky...(MTB'ing and BMX'ing.)

But not when I was just riding down to the shops/work/school.

[WMD351]

Oh Flappist, you sir are truly a Caddilac of men. Have you got a blog or something I can follow?
I have to wonder, if we are are denied the opportunity to make mistakes and learn from the consequences of our actions/decisions, how are we supposed to learn and grow? Do we learn simply by following the instructions of "the man"?

[jakkes]

i rode bmx in my teens and just getting back into now!! in fact i smashed my dam head today quit hard into some concrete LOL
I wear it because i have to down the street
i dont at wear I'm REALY riding, street/park. unless I'm trying something new or not confident at what i am trying to do i like it like that its my choice

i will add when i had no licence my bmx was my transport in my home town lakes entrance,vic, and i have to ride from one end of town to the other to get to the sk8park. now in summer the town is jam packed the whole front street gets gridlocked with cars and only the under i think 10yo can ride pushes on the foot path!! (there's good foot paths on both sides of the road!!) every one else (bicyclists) has to get in with the cars or be fined i would not ride with cars with out the helmet!!.

simply put Australia does not have good cycling infrastructure like other country's

I'm with flappist about the granny stat stuff strongly agree with him.

hope that made some kind of sense lol

jak

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by drew`SEVNT5

I think people are getting confused between not wearing a helmet whilst just cruising around, and not wearing a helmet whilst bombing down a fire trail testing out every one of your 8" of travel, or getting air out the top of the vert ramp?

Me, I wore helmets when I did something I considered risky...(MTB'ing and BMX'ing.)

But not when I was just riding down to the shops/work/school.

Maybe so, but you do realise the majority of bike crashes resulting in serious head injury occurred at normal recreational and commuting speeds?

[mik]

Originally Posted by jakkes

i rode bmx in my teens and just getting back into now!! in fact i smashed my dam head today quit hard into some concrete LOL
I wear it because i have to down the street
i dont at wear I'm REALY riding, street/park. unless I'm trying something new or not confident at what i am trying to do i like it like that its my choice

i will add when i had no licence my bmx was my transport in my home town lakes entrance,vic, and i have to ride from one end of town to the other to get to the sk8park. now in summer the town is jam packed the whole front street gets gridlocked with cars and only the under i think 10yo can ride pushes on the foot path!! (there's good foot paths on both sides of the road!!) every one else (bicyclists) has to get in with the cars or be fined i would not ride with cars with out the helmet!!.

simply put Australia does not have good cycling infrastructure like other country's

I'm with flappist about the granny stat stuff strongly agree with him.

hope that made some kind of sense lol

jak

melb suburbs is not bad, from northern burbs i can pretty much get to the city for 98 % of the way without seeing a road via bike tracks etc , we are well catered for imo, i`m fairly sure there are many other dedicated walking/bike tracks across melb and getting better all the time.

[Bud Bud]

Hi geckoGT your post made compelling reading as usual so I thought I would respond to it, even if it was not aimed at me generally.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

No I do not wear a helmet in my F6 on public roads, the risk is not high enough because I am driving within the capabilities of myself, the car and the road.

And there it is in a nut shell. Some people would like to take a short ride here and there and not even mess it up by sharing their experience with other road users such as cars and trucks. There are so many good bike paths available now that the average person could enjoy at their own pace within the capabilities of themselves and without the need for a helmet, much the same as you in your car.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

There are also other issues with the use of a helmet in a car in traffic such as restriction of vision and sound, these are not considerable issues on the race track.

Some of us feel the same about wearing a helmet when riding a pushie too. But if you were in an extreme environment such as racing etc. then of course you should were a helmet, even on a bike.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I did not wear a helmet during the crossing of the NT in my XR8, reasons are the roads are in good condition, my car was in excellent condition, weather conditions were clear and the speed was within the manufacturer specified capabilities of the car in every way. There were no obstacles likely to cause a sudden stop and if it even looked like there were some coming up, speed was reduced accordingly

I agree with you, you measured your risk and you assessed the need for any further necessary requirements concerning extra safety precautions and or devices. I just wish we could have the same considerations awarded to push bike riders as well.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The fact that I survived the trip without even a near miss or a hint of one is a testament to that. I have since had more near misses than that on race tracks.

And that is because it is an extreme sport in an extreme environment. I would never attempt any form of racing with a helmet either, but we are not talking about racing. I think that seems to be the misunderstanding here. I am not advocating the total non use of helmets in every circumstance, just a choice that could be made when and if it suits.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Time to get things back into perspective a bit as you are modifying comments outside of the context intended by the authors.

Yes it is. The OP’s original question was, for those of you who don’t cycle anymore, would you begin to cycle again if the compulsory helmet laws were relaxed. And my answer is yes.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

No one that is an advocate of compulsory helmet use is suggesting limiting risk taking activities.

Except for the casual bike rider.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

As for the footballers, I am a strong believer that they should be wearing head protection as are many other people and I do not see it as absurd to suggest that some day in the future the governing bodies of the sport will make such equipment mandatory.

You are probably right, but this is only because of the continuing nanny state mentally that we all have gotten ourselves into. Weekend sports such as football rugby soccer etc. are played by thousands from ages 6 right through to people in their 50’s and even beyond right across this land. I would suggest that statistically the risk of permanent brain injury would be very to extremely very low. I am happy to be proved otherwise. The worst I have seen seems to be leg injuries. I saw an extremely badly broken leg on the field one day. It was that bad it took a couple of years for the poor fellow to get over it. He was in his early 30’s and he never played again. You could say it was a life changing moment for him too.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

You wonder why people get upset when yet again you have twisted comments of others way outside the context of what they said for your own benefit. He was not saying that those that do not agree with the beliefs of others should be actively "returned to sender" as you have implied. There is a large difference between allowing the consequences of a person’s action to take their natural course and the act of terrorism and mass murder to which you refer. There is an enormous difference between someone that obviously has Darwinist concepts and someone that has religious extremist attitudes that lead to terrorism.

Absolutely spot on, Well said!

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Perhaps we should give back the right of free will, let them ride without a helmet and if they sustain a serious head injury, let them contribute to the control of the world’s ever expanding population beyond the capacity of natural resources.

You know, I would actually agree with you if you also conceded that smokers, heavy drinkers and street drug users should also be treated in this manner too.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I mean how far does their "right to free will" go, why is it they get to choose the risk, but no one gets to choose to let them take the consequences? I know this is way outside the scope of normal conversation but at what point is free will reasonable and at what point is it a failure of the system to protect the individual from undue risk?

Mate if we all thought like that we would never get out of bed.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

You tend to get upset when people challenge the right to free will and in many ways I guess you should, it is a right that requires protection when appropriate. The problem is how far we should take this concept. Do we follow the example set by many states in the US where it is not a legal requirement to wear a seatbelt, that is their right to choose a seat belt and they have protected it? They also have a much higher incidence of death from road trauma than we do. Should we follow the US in their right to carry arms for self protection, just to have a similar incidence of shooting related deaths? Should we abolish a licensing system for motor cars, surely the individual should have the right to deem their own competence in the operation of any vehicle without having their right to free will reduced by having to prove it? Should we abolish the licensing system for pilots, who are we to remove their right to fly? Like I said before, these are points that seem to be way outside of the scope of compulsory bike helmets, but when you think about it the concept is the same, the right to free will. All those systems of risk management have occurred out of a risk assessment and implementation of control methods, exactly the same way compulsory bike helmets came about.

As this was not aimed at me I will not offer a rebuttal other than to say. Sometimes people need to challenge some laws if they feel they are unjust or imposing or just need to be reviewed and or even changed to suit the times and I am glad that we live in a country that allows us to do this, well at least for now anyway.

Bud Bud.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by jakkes

i rode bmx in my teens and just getting back into now!! in fact i smashed my dam head today quit hard into some concrete LOL
I wear it because i have to down the street
i dont at wear I'm REALY riding, street/park. unless I'm trying something new or not confident at what i am trying to do i like it like that its my choice

i will add when i had no licence my bmx was my transport in my home town lakes entrance,vic, and i have to ride from one end of town to the other to get to the sk8park. now in summer the town is jam packed the whole front street gets gridlocked with cars and only the under i think 10yo can ride pushes on the foot path!! (there's good foot paths on both sides of the road!!) every one else (bicyclists) has to get in with the cars or be fined i would not ride with cars with out the helmet!!.

simply put Australia does not have good cycling infrastructure like other country's

I'm with flappist about the granny stat stuff strongly agree with him.

hope that made some kind of sense lol

jak

I hope this post is not the result of what happened in your first sentence, otherwise everything I have posted on this subject goes out the window!

Originally Posted by jakkes

I rode bmx in my teens and I am just getting back into now!! In fact I smashed my damn head today quite hard into some concrete LOL.
I wear a helmet because I have to when riding down the street, but
I don't wear one when I'm REALLY riding in the street or park, unless I'm trying something new or when I am not confident at what I am trying to do. I like it like that, its my choice.

I will add, when I had no licence, my bmx was my transport in my home town of lakes entrance, Vic. when I needed to ride from one end of town to the other to get to the skate park. Now in summer the town is jam packed and the whole front street becomes gridlocked with cars. Only the under 10 y.o. (I think) can ride pushies on the foot path!! (There's good foot paths on both sides of the road!!) everyone else (bicyclists) have to get in amongst the cars or be fined. I would not ride around cars with out the helmet!!.

Simply put Australia does not have good cycling infrastructure like other countries.

I'm with flappist about the granny state stuff, I strongly agree with him.

Hope that made some kind of sense lol.

jak

There you go, it does now. Oh and now I can understand you, and I agree with totally.

Bud Bud.

[AussieAV]

Me thinks "Bud Bud" has a "bug bug" up his "a** a**" about spelling, grammar and punctuation. (Just kidding)

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

Me thinks "Bud Bud" has a "bug bug" up his "a** a**" about spelling, grammar and punctuation. (Just kidding)

No not really, I was just worried about the first sentence and what was seemingly a good post of which was not really helping our cause all! I just hope that the contact with his head and the concrete without wearing a helmet didn't effect his ability to coherently post, otherwise geckoGT is onto something.

Bud Bud.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Maybe so, but you do realise the majority of bike crashes resulting in serious head injury occurred at normal recreational and commuting speeds?

Congratulations geckoGT-HO

[jakkes]

haha i noticed the spelling in the first sentence but could not go back to edit it as time ran out. and i think our computer is on U.S spell check or something gets me some times I'm a bad speller i know that !!

jak

[jakkes]

No not really, I was just worried about the first sentence and what was seemingly a good post of which was not really helping our cause at all! I just hope that the contact with his head and the concrete without wearing a helmet didn't effect his ability to coherently post, otherwise geckoGT is onto something.

I'll help you since you helped me lol haha love this

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

Hi geckoGT your post made compelling reading as usual so I thought I would respond to it, even if it was not aimed at me generally.And there it is in a nut shell. Some people would like to take a short ride here and there and not even mess it up by sharing their experience with other road users such as cars and trucks. There are so many good bike paths available now that the average person could enjoy at their own pace within the capabilities of themselves and without the need for a helmet, much the same as you in your car.

Some of us feel the same about wearing a helmet when riding a pushie too. But if you were in an extreme environment such as racing etc. then of course you should were a helmet, even on a bike.

I agree with you, you measured your risk and you assessed the need for any further necessary requirements concerning extra safety precautions and or devices. I just wish we could have the same considerations awarded to push bike riders as well.

And that is because it is an extreme sport in an extreme environment. I would never attempt any form of racing with a helmet either, but we are not talking about racing. I think that seems to be the misunderstanding here. I am not advocating the total non use of helmets in every circumstance, just a choice that could be made when and if it suits.

Yes it is. The OP’s original question was, for those of you who don’t cycle anymore, would you begin to cycle again if the compulsory helmet laws were relaxed. And my answer is yes.

Except for the casual bike rider.

You are probably right, but this is only because of the continuing nanny state mentally that we all have gotten ourselves into. Weekend sports such as football rugby soccer etc. are played by thousands from ages 6 right through to people in their 50’s and even beyond right across this land. I would suggest that statistically the risk of permanent brain injury would be very to extremely very low. I am happy to be proved otherwise. The worst I have seen seems to be leg injuries. I saw an extremely badly broken leg on the field one day. It was that bad it took a couple of years for the poor fellow to get over it. He was in his early 30’s and he never played again. You could say it was a life changing moment for him too.

Absolutely spot on, Well said!

You know, I would actually agree with you if you also conceded that smokers, heavy drinkers and street drug users should also be treated in this manner too.

Mate if we all thought like that we would never get out of bed.

As this was not aimed at me I will not offer a rebuttal other than to say. Sometimes people need to challenge some laws if they feel they are unjust or imposing or just need to be reviewed and or even changed to suit the times and I am glad that we live in a country that allows us to do this, well at least for now anyway.

Bud Bud.

Thanks for a well structured rebuttal, a pleasure to read.

Some minor points though.

Be careful quoting sections of my paragraph, you lose context and/or change the meaning of my statement, example.

You quoted me as saying

No I do not wear a helmet in my F6 on public roads, the risk is not high enough because I am driving within the capabilities of myself, the car and the road.

What I actually said was

No I do not wear a helmet in my F6 on public roads, the risk is not high enough because I am driving within the capabilities of myself, the car and the road. If I am in a crash it is highly likely to be within the capabilities of the integral safety mechanisms of the car.

The one sentence you chose to leave out changed my whole statement to your advantage, what are the integral safety mechanism of a bike to prevent a head injury? A car has a roof, internal padding, safety restraints, airbags, DSC, ABS and head rests. See the difference?

In regards to the football point, there is compelling evidence that repeated knocks cause chronic brain injury that develops over the years, not just the more easily identified acute brain injury. Ever heard of the term a "punch drunk boxer"?


As for your point about smokers, heavy drinkers and drug users. In many ways the medical system does select to allow that person to suffer the consequences of their action. Can a smoker with emphysema get a lung transplant? No he can't, he is not considered eligible. Can a alcoholic in liver failure get a liver transplant? Again, not eligible. The only time a person with organ failure is considered eligible for transplant is if they can prove abstinence from the behavior that caused the issue. Consider the story of the girl who was drug user and caused liver failure. She gave up drugs so they gave her a new liver. She then went back on the drugs and trashed her new liver. They then refused to give her another one so she went overseas (and ended up dying anyway). So selective treatment due to bad choices on behalf of the victim does happen. Pity you can't get a head transplant.

I am going to leave it there, I have made my point.

I will close in saying that in all honesty, there is not a fat chance in hell the law will be lifted. The law was brought in due to a risk assessment and public pressure 20 years ago, nothing has changed to alter that risk assessment and the simple fact is the majority of the public probably agree with the law. Part of being in a democracy, majority rules.

But hey, give it a go, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Congratulations geckoGT-HO

Thanks, didn't even notice until I read this.

[geckoGT]

Sorry forgot one final point.

Originally Posted by geckoGT
There are also other issues with the use of a helmet in a car in traffic such as restriction of vision and sound, these are not considerable issues on the race track.

Some of us feel the same about wearing a helmet when riding a pushie too. But if you were in an extreme environment such as racing etc. then of course you should were a helmet, even on a bike.

It needs to be pointed out the modern bike helmet has evolved, we are not talking about the Stackhat that was around when the compulsory laws were introduced. A quality helmet now is so light you can hardly sense the weight, has so much ventilation and air channels that due to venturi effect they are actually cooler than no helmet (mine has 25 air vents in a wind tunnel designed entry/exit arrangement), do not cover the ears at all and offer no more restriction to peripheral vision than the rim and frame of your sunglasses.

Of course the more you spend, the better you get but I don't have a $20 head, mine is worth the $300 I spent on my helmet (and more). Also some of the high end helmets have a crash replacement programme, take in your crashed helmet and they will replace it at a greatly discounted price.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by jakkes

No not really, I was just worried about the first sentence and what was seemingly a good post of which was not really helping our cause at all! I just hope that the contact with his head and the concrete without wearing a helmet didn't effect his ability to coherently post, otherwise geckoGT is onto something.

I'll help you since you helped me lol haha love this

No worries, it was all in jest as I know you can appreciate! BTW, how far are you into your build in your avatar?

Bud Bud

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Be careful quoting sections of my paragraph, you lose context and/or change the meaning of my statement

Yeh I was aware that with such a big post to respond to such as yours that I could easily come across as just pulling text to suit my argument, but rest assured that was not my intention. I was trying to keep it as condensed as possible, but I do take your point and I will try to be more aware of the exact context of any text that I respond to in the future, no problem.

The rest of your post I do sort of agree with any way, and that is what open discussion is all about however it probably dose not really matter now as you quite rightly point out while also taking into account the results of this poll, the majority do indeed rule!

Oh well I guess I will not need to worry buying a push bike in the future so I will just stick to riding my skate board instead!

BTW also congrats on your rating as well. Cheers

Bud Bud

[geckoGT]

Yeh I was aware that with such a big post to respond to such as yours that I could easily come across as just pulling text to suit my argument, but rest assured that was not my intention. I was trying to keep it as condensed as possible, but I do take your point and I will try to be more aware of the exact context of any text that I respond to in the future, no problem.

No worries at all. I did not think it was something you intentionally did, I always thought it was more like detail lost in the aim to condense. It seems to happen a lot around here (I have done it myself) and it seems to be one of the reasons threads fall apart.

Personally I do not think the law will ever be changed, it is too much of a risky decision for any government to make and leaves them too open to public criticism at the first instance of a death from head trauma that the coroner will inevitably say "could have been prevented by helmet use". We all know that before the law was introduced, the coroner would have made that statement on a numerous occasions, it was probably the key catalyst for the introduction of that law.

Having said that I do not care if it stays or goes and I don't care if people wear a helmet or not. I will be there for some of them when their decision does not work for them and I will pick up the pieces, if they are conscious I might give them a bit of cheek regarding their decision but I will always do my best to help them out. But will I lose any sleep over it? No not really, I lose sleep over innocent victims, not those that choose to be in that situation. Do I lose sleep over the asthmatic that smokes 60 a day and ends up dying, do I lose sleep over the hoon that hits a tree at 180 and dies? No to both of those, they chose it. Will I be upset for the cyclist with a depressed skull fracture after hitting the kerb with is head at 30 km/h and no helmet on? I will think his accident was a shame but the head injury was something he could have prevented if he made the right choice. I might think about it on the way home but won't lose any sleep. If he was wearing a helmet in the same situation, I would think more of it. I used to have the aim of trying to save the world when I started this job, but that dies off with experience. Sometimes people can not be saved, nor can they be educated no matter how much good advice they receive. Without belittling anyones opinion here (absolutely not my intention, just pointing out an observation), when you look at some of the posts here, this thread is the perfect example of this.

My end result is that I will always wear a helmet whenever I am on the bike. That is not a result of the law, I was wearing one before it was law. That is a result of my surviving a serious accident on a bike involving a car. The only thing that saved me was I had a back pack of clothes on my back that as I went over the bonnet, roof and slid off the boot of the car landing on the back of my head, the pack slipped up and cushioned my head. Seriously that is as close as I want to come to dying, had that back pack not been there, it would have been a serious head injury for me. I never used to wear a helmet before that, I always did after, I learnt the hard way. The law was put in place so people did not have to learn the hard way like I did.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Completely see your view point and respect it. Just understand that some of the worse head injuries I have been to were a result of perceived "low risk" incidents. I have seen some spectacular helmet damage at speeds less than 30 km/h, which is not hard for even a casual rider to achieve on a moderate down hill section on any pathway. Sometimes it is not an inadequacy in ability to make up your own mind on the risk, it is a misperception of the risk.

By the way, I probably have greater understanding of peoples ability to make their own decisions, that is why when they put themselves at risk and hurt themselves, I do not lose any sleep over it, hell I even sometimes put my own safety at risk (ask Flappist about Hungry Corner at Lakeside Raceway). What I do though is when taking a risk by choice, I do reduce the possible consequences.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I did not wear a helmet during the crossing of the NT in my XR8, reasons are the roads are in good condition, my car was in excellent condition, weather conditions were clear and the speed was within the manufacturer specified capabilities of the car in every way. There were no obstacles likely to cause a sudden stop and if it even looked like there were some coming up, speed was reduced accordingly. The fact that I survived the trip without even a near miss or a hint of one is a testament to that. I have since had more near misses than that on race tracks.

It's unlikely, but a sudden failure of a single of many systems on the car could have resulted in a very high speed roll-over event. Steering rack failure as an example, as seen at one fordforums drag racing event a few years back. A front tyre blowout, at NT speeds, would pose a significant problem I'd imagine.

Not having a go here at all, but pointing out that a misperception of risk can be had by anyone. It's always fine, until something goes wrong that wasn't expected.

Originally Posted by Mad Aussie

Falling off a push bike with no helmet at 50kph can result in serious paralysis, and in some cases death.

Crashing into the back of another car with your car at 50kph barely gives you whiplash.

How does a helmet stop you from breaking your neck (or your back if we're out high speed downhill riding)? There's not a whole lot of cushioning in the inch or so of hard foam between your skull and the road.
Have you crashed into someone at 50km/h? I think you'll find there's a lot more damage resulting from it than you expect. Hell I'll buy you a car so you can try it out. Which car do you want? a 1970 Escort or a 2003 Barina?


How many tax dollars does it cost to rehabilitate someone with a smashed hip and a broken back? It's not just head injuries that can cause long term suffering and cost. Shall we tell them to suck it up because they werent wearing full body armour?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by MAD

It's unlikely, but a sudden failure of a single of many systems on the car could have resulted in a very high speed roll-over event. Steering rack failure as an example, as seen at one fordforums drag racing event a few years back. A front tyre blowout, at NT speeds, would pose a significant problem I'd imagine.

Not having a go here at all, but pointing out that a misperception of risk can be had by anyone. It's always fine, until something goes wrong that wasn't expected.

The vehicle is engineered by the manufacturer to have that speed as its capability, that is why the manufacturer limited its speed to a level higher than I was going, because the car was engineered to be capable of it. A one year old car, well maintained with brand new correctly speed rated tyres. I considered the risk to be small enough.

How does a helmet stop you from breaking your neck (or your back if we're out high speed downhill riding)? There's not a whole lot of cushioning in the inch or so of hard foam between your skull and the road.

A lot more than you think, there is enough foam and energy absorption to take enough force out of an impact in the average riding accident, which is the type of accident that many here say do not require a helmet. It is not the extreme riding situations (100 km/h decent on a road bike or MTB downhill racing etc) that the average helmet is designed for, it is designed for the average crash for the average rider (unless you get into really high end competition helmets like mine). That absorption of impact not only reduces direct injury (head) but reduces indirect injury (neck).

Have you crashed into someone at 50km/h? I think you'll find there's a lot more damage resulting from it than you expect. Hell I'll buy you a car so you can try it out. Which car do you want? a 1970 Escort or a 2003 Barina?

Been to hundreds, if not thousands of this type of accident, most walk out with little injury, rarely an injury requiring hospital admission. By the way, I'll take the barina if that is all that is on offer but I would prefer my Mini.

How many tax dollars does it cost to rehabilitate someone with a smashed hip and a broken back? It's not just head injuries that can cause long term suffering and cost. Shall we tell them to suck it up because they werent wearing full body armour?

A lot less than a brain injured person requiring mobile ventilatory support and 24 hr care for the 60 remaining years of their life. No hip reconstruction cost that much.

No, you are absolutely right. Because we can not remove all possible injuries with simple protective measures, lets not remove any of them. Thats like a cop going into a siege without a ballistic vest and helmet. Thinking I might cop a bullet in my femoral artery (thigh) or the face, neither of which the armour will protect me from so why bother?

[MAD]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Been to hundreds, if not thousands of this type of accident, most walk out with little injury, rarely an injury requiring hospital admission. By the way, I'll take the barina if that is all that is on offer but I would prefer my Mini.

Sorry, I was referring to the damage to the car. The way it was written was like "it's only a little bit of whiplash".

Originally Posted by geckoGT

A lot more than you think, there is enough foam and energy absorption to take enough force out of an impact in the average riding accident, which is the type of accident that many here say do not require a helmet. It is not the extreme riding situations (100 km/h decent on a road bike or MTB downhill racing etc) that the average helmet is designed for, it is designed for the average crash for the average rider (unless you get into really high end competition helmets like mine). That absorption of impact not only reduces direct injury (head) but reduces indirect injury (neck).

Are you referring to a straight on impact (compression)? Are compression fractures, in the neck, common for an unhelmeted victim?
I was thinking more along the lines of an incident that places the head in a position where it applies significant leverage to the neck. Not a straight on impact.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by MAD

Sorry, I was referring to the damage to the car. The way it was written was like "it's only a little bit of whiplash".




Are you referring to a straight on impact (compression)? Are compression fractures, in the neck, common for an unhelmeted victim?
I was thinking more along the lines of an incident that places the head in a position where it applies significant leverage to the neck. Not a straight on impact.

I was referring to to both. Direct force trauma is injury at the point of the body that has struck something else (eg skull fracture at the point of impact), indirect force trauma is injury at an area remote as a result of transfer of forces (such as neck fracture from trauma to the head). By reducing the force applied to the head (through absorption and increasing the duration of the force) you reduce both the severity of direct force trauma and the severity of indirect force trauma.

Compression (or blow out) fractures of the neck are common in any incident that applies significant force to the top of the head in line with the longitudinal plane of the vertebrae. Although prevalent in bike accidents, particularly in over the handlebars accidents, it is more common in diving accidents and contact sport spear tackles. This injury mechanism is less likely to cause spinal cord damage in the initial injury event, further movement can cause injury though. It is hyperflexion (bending head down) hyperextesnion (bending head up) or hyperrotation (turning head beyond normal range) that tend to cause neck fractures with spinal cord damage. These injury patterns occur when force is applied to the head/neck in a plane perpendicular or offset to the plane of the spinal column, in other words a side shearing force. This type of injury can occur in head trauma resulting from car accidents (e.g head into B pillar on side impact), bike accidents (fall sideways, forwards or backwards and side, front or rear of head on ground) or assaults (e.g hit to front, rear or side of the head with a baseball bat). Severe whiplash (hyperflexion followed by hyperextension) in car accidents etc will also cause this type of injury but this has been pretty much made a thing of the past by the widespread use of head rests (stops the hyperextension).

Welcome to severe head/spinal trauma 101, the important point to take away from it is that any shock absorption will reduce the energy applied and therefore the risk and severity of injury. That is simple physics and can not be disputed. How much energy is required to cause serious injury, any fall or force directly to the head that equates to more than a fall from standing level is of great risk (in some such as infants and elderly less force than that is required). So a fall from a bike traveling at just 15 km/h (that is absolutely snail pace) resulting in a direct blow to the head is sufficient to cause significant and life threatening head and spinal trauma.

I hope that helps dispel the myth that falls from bikes at low speed without helmets are unlikely to cause serious injury. The truth of the matter is sometimes low speed can make you more prone to crash because of the lack of perceived risk and therefore a lack of concentration. Ask any competitive cyclist what speed most of their falls happen at and they will probably say low speeds when they aren't paying attention. Most of the bike crashes I go to at work happen at low speed intersections, crossings and high pedestrian areas etc. The more speed you have at the time, the more you think about what you are doing because of the higher perceived risk, it is human nature.