Pushbike helmets Part II

[flappist]

Well the pushbike helmet thread has shown a lot of varied opinions, some quite strong but has also made a few points about the poll.

It has been suggested that it was pointless and biased and well as skewed by possibly drawing on feelings about other subjects.

This one is about ADULTS riding PUSHBIKES only and is about what YOU would do personally.

No children (i.e. under 18)
No other forms of transport.
No effect whatsoever on any other laws.
No effect on your job or health of others.

So:

If the mandatory helmet laws for adults riding pushbikes were lifted what effect would it have on your personal pushbike riding?

[geckoGT]

Interested in your own response, if you would start riding and sometimes wear a helmet, why do yo not ride now when you choose to wear a helmet and not ride when you don't want to wear a helmet?

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Interested in your own response, if you would start riding and sometimes wear a helmet, why do yo not ride now when you choose to wear a helmet and not ride when you don't want to wear a helmet?

I voted I would start now and sometimes I would wear a helmet, but I was close to voting I would start riding now but never wear a helmet though.

Because, I would love to hop onto a bike and take a few back streets here and there (50 km limit now since I stopped riding) and onto a some of the great linear park bike tracks (that just did not exist when I was a kid) at a leisurely pace unrestricted by helmets (compulsory) or any other padded protection if I feel that it was safe to do so. I am at an age were just a stroll on a pushy would benefit more without the need to race others on roads up through gorges and other road racing environments etc. If I was into BMX I would wear the whole box and dice and also lf I was a 200 km endurance Sunday road warrior, (and especially with the attitudes of many drivers even on this forum) I would be well protected which would include a helmet etc.

But the reality is I just would like to hop onto bike and ride a k or 2 without fear of persecution from Mr Plod or even those on this forum. Hell I could even break an arm, or a leg and I know a head injury is much much worse but I could go through the same ordeal crossing the street. One poor fellow is aged 35 is now fighting for his life after being knocked down by a car in the Adelaide North East overnight. He has severe suspected head injuries, and he was just a pedestrian. Sometimes you need to be so so careful, and even helmets wont help those who are careless or even reckless anyway.

I respect your point of view Gecko GT and I knew from a very young age that I could not do what you do for a living. The world needs people like you. I just hope that your experience no matter how horrific dose not cloud you judgement to the point where in some cases, you think that some people are just not capable of making decisions based on their own safety.

Bud Bud

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Bud Bud

I voted I would start now and sometimes I would wear a helmet, but I was close to voting I would start riding now but never wear a helmet though.

Because, I would love to hop onto a bike and take a few back streets here and there (50 km limit now since I stopped riding) and onto a some of the great linear park bike tracks (that just did not exist when I was a kid) at a leisurely pace unrestricted by helmets (compulsory) or any other padded protection if I feel that it was safe to do so. I am at an age were just a stroll on a pushy would benefit more without the need to race others on roads up through gorges and other road racing environments etc. If I was into BMX I would wear the whole box and dice and also lf I was a 200 km endurance Sunday road warrior, (and especially with the attitudes of many drivers even on this forum) I would be well protected which would include a helmet etc.

But the reality is I just would like to hop onto bike and ride a k or 2 without fear of persecution from Mr Plod or even those on this forum. Hell I could even break an arm, or a leg and I know a head injury is much much worse but I could go through the same ordeal crossing the street. One poor fellow is aged 35 is now fighting for his life after being knocked down by a car in the Adelaide North East overnight. He has severe suspected head injuries, and he was just a pedestrian. Sometimes you need to be so so careful, and even helmets wont help those who are careless or even reckless anyway.

I respect your point of view Gecko GT and I knew from a very young age that I could not do what you do for a living. The world needs people like you. I just hope that your experience no matter how horrific dose not cloud you judgement to the point where in some cases, you think that some people are just not capable of making decisions based on their own safety.

Bud Bud

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.

[chris0]

I voted 'I ride now and always wear a helmet'
Hypothetically if the law was lifted, It would not affect me personally, I would still choose to wear a helmet. I have smashed 2 helmets in the past (to pieces) so I know the dangers of not weraing one. Besides, my helmet looks fugging cool!

[DBourne]

Originally Posted by chris0

I voted 'I ride now and always wear a helmet'
Hypothetically if the law was lifted, It would not affect me personally, I would still choose to wear a helmet.. Besides, my helmet looks fugging cool!

exactly this for me.

[Adamz Ghia]

Honestly, what's the big deal in wearing one? Is being too tight to spend $50 to $60 on a helmet worth a head injury if you come off? Or are we too pretty to mess up our hair...?

I've come off my bike in my own street, over the handlebars and landed on my head. Wonder what would have happened if I wasn't wearing a helmet...

[SteveJH]

I always wear a helmet. And to the person saying you don't need them on dedicated bike paths.

What happens if a dog or person or something moves out from behind a bush or tree in front of you? You'll be going over the handlebars, generally head first.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by Adamz Ghia

Honestly, what's the big deal in wearing one? Is being too tight to spend $50 to $60 on a helmet worth a head injury if you come off? Or are we too pretty to mess up our hair...?

Money is not the issue here, and neither is hat hair. Not everybody needs to race around on a pushy (and I do take your point geckoGT about head injuries from small collisions), unlike a car that needs to perform at or near the legal limits, hence seat belt laws etc., which I would never ignore. I am not anti-safety.

It is about personal choice. It is about circumstance. It is about freedoms. I have been an active participant in the quit smoking thread on this forum. I gave up over 20 years ago because even as a young man I could see the benefits to quitting. I did not have to, it was my preference, and it was my personal choice. The Gov did not make a law that made me quit.

I have read from people who are now trying to quit but who have smoked the whole time that I have quit and that was their personal choice. Now they are trying to quit, again their personal choice. All the while the Gov still makes it legal. Smoking or even quitting is not compulsory and yet just because you can't see the damage on the out side like a split head, dose not means it's any more dangerous or not. But what it is about though (and quite rightly so), is personal choice.

Originally Posted by Adamz Ghia

I've come off my bike in my own street, over the handlebars and landed on my head. Wonder what would have happened if I wasn't wearing a helmet...

Look so have I especially when I was a kid. I have broken an arm skateboarding etc. My brother at the age of nearly 6 was hit by a car in similar circumstance that killed a southern suburbs High school student this year after stepping out from behind a bus and being hit by a car. My brother smashed his pelvis and was in traction for 9 months. I witnessed it all. It was awful. Thankfully he made a full recovery. Unfortunately things happen, I can't explain why, they just do.

Yes we need to educate people especially kids on all sorts of matters of safety. Yes we do need many laws to help us from our selves, and yes unavoidable accidents do happen. But we also need to take responsibility for our own actions and I would like to think that we still live in a free democratic society with freedoms of choice. And equally even you should be made to feel lucky that in this country, even if helmets were suddenly made non compulsory (not likely), you would still have choice to wear one as well if you so choose to.

Bud Bud.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Adamz Ghia

Honestly, what's the big deal in wearing one? Is being too tight to spend $50 to $60 on a helmet worth a head injury if you come off? Or are we too pretty to mess up our hair...?

I've come off my bike in my own street, over the handlebars and landed on my head. Wonder what would have happened if I wasn't wearing a helmet...

Honestly what is the big deal with a GT Falcon must be a V8?

If you have to ask the question you will not understand the answer......

This poll is about personal choice NOT about what you think others should do.

It is interesting that the majority of respondents currently ride and would wear a helmet anyway so to them it would make no difference if it was law or not.

[Mad_Aussie]

Originally Posted by flappist

This poll is about personal choice NOT about what you think others should do.

The poll may be about personal choice, but the issue certainly isn't.

Do you want 'x' amount of your tax dollars keeping some knobhead alive on a ventilator for 40 years, because he was too cool for a helmet?
I certainly don't.

I ride almost every day, and compulsory or not, I will wear my helmet. I've been run down by a Saab, rear-ended a SS that pulled out in front of me, went over the handlebars at around 55k's through a funeral precession, and crashed into a sheep going god knows how fast down a gravel hill. If I wasn't wearing a helmet I'd be dead many times over.

Even if you're just casually riding to the shops, parked at the lights waiting to cross, and you go all retard-spastic and fall over while clipped in, that meter and a half your head falls to the pavement will be enough to fracture your skull and concuss the hell out of you.

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.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Interested in your own response, if you would start riding and sometimes wear a helmet, why do yo not ride now when you choose to wear a helmet and not ride when you don't want to wear a helmet?

Because I do not own a pushbike but I used to before the laws changed.
I bought a helmet back then but found that it was always hiding when I went for a quick ride to the shops.

I rode without the helmet and got a quiet work from a nice man in blue and basically just stopped riding. One day I went to go for a ride and found both tyres flat and perished and the frame and wheels all rusty so I took it to the dump.

I am not a mad keen cyclist and would not have ridden on a main road since I was 16.

I know that if I did buy a new bike and helmet I would not ride the bike and eventually it would join my old one.

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?

If not why not? The safety equipment in both is the same.

Or do you feel a helmet is only necessary when you are involved in higher risk situations and you use your freedom of choice to determine when that is.

The poll is about personal choice. The results are quite interesting so far.....

[Mad_Aussie]

Originally Posted by flappist

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)?

Somewhat different to a bike...
Also with some of the cars I've owned, I would have worn a helmet in daily driving if it wasn't illegal to do so.

Its odd that most of the safety mods you can do to a car are deemed illegal...

[tranquilized]

I voted "I ride now and would always wear a helmet"

90% of my trips are done on the bike - one of the benefits of living in the inner city. I always wear a helmet, although that wasn't the case in the past. I never wore one until I got caught and fined. Now its just second nature, habit - just like not wearing one was a habit I needed a fine to break.

But, I think helmets are only really necessary in traffic. If I was riding on a dedicated bike track, I'd rather not wear one. If the rule was lifted I'd have the freedom to decide for myself when a helmet was required and when it wasn't.

[Neeek]

Originally Posted by tranquilized

But, I think helmets are only really necessary in traffic. If I was riding on a dedicated bike track, I'd rather not wear one.

I assume you're talking about a dedicated bike track like the ones you get along the side of creeks and so forth? To be honest, I reckon they're almost as dangerous as riding on the road - dogs running around on and off leads, kids all over the place, and Mr I-want-to-Lance-Armstrong on his carbon road bike trying to break the land speed record. At least that's what my local bike "track" is like!

Fact is you can fall off a bike anywhere and bump your head. The road, a bike path, your drive, inside your kitchen trying to perfect your track-stands... Whether the law changes or not, I'll still be wearing my lid when I take the bike out, regardless of where I'm riding. Why?

Exhibit A - I went OTB rather spectacularly on a mountain bike ride in the UK several years ago. A case of too much speed, the wrong line and a drop-off that I wasn't expecting. I walked away from it quite sore, bit of a headache and a big dent in my helmet.

Exhibit B - some years later I was riding with my wife, again off-road, and we descended a fire trail at Warp 6. I was in front, picking my line, and my wife tried to follow me but got caught out by a tiny rut. She went flying, used the top part of her head as a brake and suffered only superficial injuries such as gravel rash, cuts, bruises, a scratched cornea, torn eyelid... nothing was broken apart from her lid which was split open on the outer shell whilst valiantly trying to hold the three pieces of the insides together. She won't necessarily like me mentioning it here, but she's also got a small depression on her head (yes, her actual skull) at the point of impact. At A&E, everyone and I mean absolutely everyone who treated her or saw her also saw the helmet and reckoned it saved her life. And MET replaced it for free when I sent it back to them, thanking them for their product.

Ultimately the choice is down to the rider. If you don't wear a helmet, that's your choice entirely - I won't tell you what to do; I'm not your mother. All you'll get from me is the sort of puzzled look I also give to idiots who ride motorcycles in shorts and thongs, perhaps muttering "organ donor" under my breath...

[Mad_Aussie]

Its not about intolerance, and the relation between a car and a bike is just unfathomable.

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.

"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."

Its not a personal belief or opinion, it's quite widely accepted that one should preserve them-self. People who make themselves martyrs don't fall into this category at all.

Would you cross a freeway on the ground as opposed to walking over an overpass if it wasn't illegal to walk on a freeway?

Would you stand in front of a train on the tracks instead of walking under the pedestrian underpass if it wasn't illegal?

Self preservation is something that should be, and is widely considered to be, common sense. If you don't have the common sense to protect yourself from danger, then yes, you are flawed. In most medical terms, if you don't have the ability to consciously seek to protect yourself, you would be considered to have a mental/personality disorder.

Go ask a motocross rider if they would ride without body armour in a race if they didn't have to.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Mad_Aussie

Its not about intolerance, and the relation between a car and a bike is just unfathomable.

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.

"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."

Its not a personal belief or opinion, it's quite widely accepted that one should preserve them-self. People who make themselves martyrs don't fall into this category at all.

Would you cross a freeway on the ground as opposed to walking over an overpass if it wasn't illegal to walk on a freeway?

Would you stand in front of a train on the tracks instead of walking under the pedestrian underpass if it wasn't illegal?

Self preservation is something that should be, and is widely considered to be, common sense. If you don't have the common sense to protect yourself from danger, then yes, you are flawed. In most medical terms, if you don't have the ability to consciously seek to protect yourself, you would be considered to have a mental/personality disorder.

Go ask a motocross rider if they would ride without body armour in a race if they didn't have to.

Would I cross a railway line and the main highway on foot where there was no bridge?

I did so every day for 10 years while going too and from school along with most of the other students.

You are getting wound up over this and should not be.

You do what you want and should let others do what they want. It is their life and their choice. You have as much right to tell others what to do and they have to tell you.

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

It is, however, somewhat revealing that you state that anyone who does not think the way you do on risk or personal safety has a mental disorder.

[Mad_Aussie]

Originally Posted by flappist

Would I cross a railway line and the main highway on foot where there was no bridge?

I did so every day for 10 years while going too and from school along with most of the other students.

You are getting wound up over this and should not be.

You do what you want and should let others do what they want. It is their life and their choice. You have as much right to tell others what to do and they have to tell you.

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

It is, however, somewhat revealing that you state that anyone who does not think they way you do on risk or personal safety has a mental disorder.

I'm not getting worked up mate, just writing a rebuttal. Better than me just saying 'omg ur wrong'. Writing a few paragraphs is just how I like to respond to people. My line of work allows me to have periods of time where the computer is busy crunching away a render or two, so I can sit down and formulate a bit of an argument.

There is definite reason to be getting up-in-arms about all the current nanny-state regulations around the place that are getting past the point of extreme. One, for instance, is a local council here in Perth moving to fine kids for digging "big holes" on the beach because someone might walk into it.

However, wearing a helmet while riding a pushbike being mandatory is quite sensible. Before I changed into my current field, I was working in theater at a local hospital for a few years. The amount of serious head injuries we saw from people not wearing helmets, even on 'quick dashes to the shops' is just astounding.
90% of bicycle head trauma cases would have been avoidable if they were wearing helmets. There is one gentleman in particular sitting in Hollywood right now has been there for around 5 years, since he was 16, when he fell off one evening riding to his mates place and came off on some honkeynuts. He smashed his skull, neck, and gave himself permanent brain damage. If he had a helmet on, he certainly would have come out better off.

To say that its 'revealing' about me from one comment regarding people lacking the self preservation instinct is quite sub-par too. Sure, I made an off-hand generalization about people, but it sure wasn't a directed attack on anyone. By most 'normal' standards (of course someones view of 'normal' can vary quite a lot from person to person), if you're willingly putting yourself in harms way, then you may not have all your screws done up tightly enough. It doesn't mean that you have down syndrome or bipolar disorder, but to an extent you might have a slight case of narcissism or are overly apathetic towards life.

Sure, you're pretty likely to be injured sky diving, playing footy, or doing a variety of other activities. The thing is, however, that when you jump out the door of a plane at 40,000 feet, you are usually quite aware of the risks involved.

The problem is that people become far too blaze' (sp?) about riding bikes, (as they do with driving cars). Anyone who has properly come a cropper will forever after wear the safety equipment. Unfortunately, some people don't get that second chance to learn from. Its why they need the direction. No one I know doesn't wear a helmet when we go downhill mountain biking. There's no cops out there to pull you up for not wearing a helmet. But as i've said before, its a widely accepted piece of common sense to do so.

My only question is, considering you don't ride a bike, would be why you're so interested in the topic? Not trying to have a dig at you, but is it just due to being pulled over by constable care? I don't know anyone who rides bikes daily that wouldn't wear a helmet.

[TRUBLU4DS]

I didn't care when the law was introduced & wouldn't care if it was dropped.
For those who stopped riding just because the law was introduced to wear a helmet, deal with it & buy one.

I wouldn't wear one at all if the law said i didn't have too. I do however have to wear one around the BMX track.

[Adamz Ghia]

So let me get this straight, and please correct me if I'm wrong. You stopped riding because you had to wear a helmet...? Because you didn't like being told what to do...? You want to have choice...?

I'm thankful you have stopped because I don't wish head trauma or worse on anyone.

We can't compare us to other countries without helmet laws, have you seen the cycling infrastructure in Europe? My brother flew over here a while back and he said he would never ride a bike here.

[|||]

as much as i'd love to live in libertarian land where everything is user pays and everyone is responsible for their own actions it will never happen. humans are flawed.

it's not logical that you need a helmet to ride a bike but can legally smoke cigarettes until you endure a long drawn out death funded by the taxpayer. it's not logical that a p plater cannot drive a V8 while grandpa is allowed to tow a giant caravan with his clapped out VT commodore.

everything in society is a compromise & looking for logic will just drive you crazy. in the case of helmets the compromise is that more people will be saved from head injury than those lost from heart disease due to lack of exercise.

for the cynics like myself its a compromise that the total cost to the taxpayer is less if a few fatties die from quick heart attacks than if heathly cyclists with brain damage require decades of care.

[flappist]

Adamz and Mad. Read the first post in the other thread as to where this idea started.

It is a bit worrying how so many just assume that if we did not wear helmet on pushies there would be dead people everywhere.

Other parts of the world do not enforce helmets and they don't have dead people everywhere.
Prior to Australia enforcing helmets the only helmets I had ever seen were at a velodrome. There were not dead people everywhere.

Australia is really becoming a nanny state and it is becoming more and more obvious how it is happening.

It appears that many here are very uncomfortable with the concept of free will, making their own decissions and not being told what to do.

It is no business of any of you what I do with my life as it is not my business what you do.

There is a lot of anger that I am questioning something with quite a few rather nasty responses.

When you are out riding your pushy do you wear heavy protective armour and boots like that worn by most motorcyclists?

Or does your helmet protect your entire body?

Is that your choice? Or do you only wear what you are told to by law?

[Adamz Ghia]

Mate I'm not trying to have a go at you, but like I said, other parts of the world have better cycling intergration than we do. I refuse to ride my bike to work because I have no doubt I will be hit as I often see. When I do ride, we usually either go at night with bugger all traffic or throw the bikes in the ute and go bush.

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by Adamz Ghia

Mate I'm not trying to have a go at you, but like I said, other parts of the world have better cycling intergration than we do. I refuse to ride my bike to work because I have no doubt I will be hit as I often see. When I do ride, we usually either go at night with bugger all traffic or throw the bikes in the ute and go bush.

Not really, when I rode pushies everywhere when I was a kid the speed limit was 35 mph and then later 60 kph. There were no dedicated bike lanes along main roads and there were no bike tracks along linear parks etc. either. Now they are everywhere and we have dedicated this and dedicated that for bikes. On suburban streets it is now 50 kph and in some places even 40 kph. Push bikers have never had it so good in this country imho. I still do not know for the life of me how I survived life in Australia before it all became a nanny state!!!

Bud Bud.

[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.

[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.

[xbgs351]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

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.

Fatalities per million hours
0.027 fatalities per million hours of living at home
0.15 fatalities per million hours of flying
0.26 fatalities per million hours of cycling
0.47 fatalities per million hours of passenger car use
1.07 fatalities per million hours of swimming
1.53 fatalities per million hours of living (all causes of death)
8.8 fatalities per million hours of on-road motorcycling
128.71 fatalities per million hours of sky diving

[BENT_8]

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.

Im a keen follower of both yours and Flappists posts, you add a wealth of knowledge to this site, however, you have got to be joking here right?

So your trying to say that because YOU feel safe driving at those speeds and managed to stay alive its a testiment to your ability.
Fact is any number of things could have gone wrong, a puncture which deflates rapidly, a pot hole which the roads dept you put full faith in was missed, a fox or rabbit runs out from a hole any number of 'unexpected' things could have happened.
Lets face it, if you (or Flappist) could poll the dozens of people you've scraped from fatal accidents in your career, how many of them would say they were well within their/the cars capabilities too?

Im just blown away that someone who advocates road safety would write such a claim on a public forum.

[flappist]

The thread is going a bit off topic.

The poll and thread is about YOU would do personally IF the laws were abolished not whether or not they should be abolished or what others should do if they were abolished.

I started it just to clarify any possible confusion over the first poll.

As I have already stated above those who ride overwhelmingly would still wear helmets with very few others even interestd enought to say anything at all.

Edit: and then there were more entries....

[|||]

flappist:

you seem very passionate about the concept of free will & personal responsibilty. i understand that this thread is more about those two topics than it is about bike helmets.

in light of that i would like to know your opinion on two points:

1) do you believe that some people need protecting from themselves? can the benefits of stopping someone dying a painful death ever outweigh the burden of a restriction on them? (eg is the freedom to smoke more valuable than the pain a smoker may suffer as a consequence of that freedom?)

2) do you beleive society needs protecting from members within it? is the benefit of stopping one individual from harming society worth the burden of imposing restrictions on all? (eg is the burden of restricting people from driving with a blood alcohol level greater than 0.05 worth the benefit of less "innocent" motorists killed by these drunk drivers?)

there are of course no right or wrong answers i'd just like to hear your thoughts.