Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tim on May 3, 2012 at 19:42

Yeah public health and social safety nets are a complete and utter waste of money. I reckon we should just nip the inevitable decline and health related problems in the bud. Uh oh - better start running here comes a Sandman. Welcome to the Dystopia.

(Just wondering, are you suggesting that all these people should evolve through random mutation?)

Permalink Reply by hozozco on April 18, 2012 at 10:47

Same arguement applies to seatbelts.  People drive all around the USA without them and don't feel in danger.  Your perception of acceptable risk may or may not be accurate.

I guess the question is of course a person's right to decide for themselves what acceptable risk is.  There is also society's right to impose laws to protect someone (eg seatbelts) which are often done because society needs to pick up the tab for the injuries etc.

Part of the problem is, no one really knows if the laws have improved things and if Australia has a better situation than other countries - it comes down to statistics.

As for the statistics, well my job is statistics.  The are lies, damn lies, statistics and then graphs.  They need to be very, very carefully analysed before proceeding.

I haven't done this, so I'm not sure.  'Common sense' tells me helmets should save lives, but common sense doesn't always work.

Good luck in your quest to get this changed, I suspect it is a quest that will keep you occupied for some years.

Simon

Permalink Reply by Baron Von Thierry on April 19, 2012 at 17:07

Everyone really needs to get out of their heads that helmets 'save' lives. No helmet manufacturer or politician will tell you this. They are designed to 'reduce' injury in certain circumstances... thats all....  and at this task, they work well.

So yes, where the calculated risk is slight (eg in the park, on the beach etc) you shouldn't be forced to wear one..  no more so than if you were walking, running, etc....

The other thing people need to get out of their heads, is the thought that a politician will repeal such a law.....

Permalink Reply by john mills on April 18, 2012 at 12:08

Easy answer for you would be not to wear your helmet and gamble on the chance of not being hit with a fine. With the relatively low number of police cars on the roads your chances are pretty good. And when you do get hit with the fine you can think of it as a deposit for if ever you find yourself in hospital at the tax payer's expense!

Personally I think it is a good law. People have the choice to break the law if they want, at their own risk - financially or otherwise. And some do. I did it recently after driving all the way out to Kapunda and leaving my helmet at home. So instead of doing a road trip around the 75km triangle I had planned, I did about 5km on the road, and then took my MTB up dirt roads to improve my chances of not being 'pinged'. 

But also a good law for the safety reasons. It develops a good habit in kids that will hopefully stay with them for life. And if they think the feel of fresh air through their hair is worth the risk of brain damage/death later in life, then that's their choice.

Permalink Reply by Michael Murray on April 18, 2012 at 12:17

Last time we discussed it was here

New helmet freedom Advertisment.

The issue I have with your comment

as a adult member of a free society i am quite capable of deciding when and when not to take my helmet on a ride.

is the old adage that no man is an island.  If you make the wrong decision then society as a whole bears the cost of your rehabilitation.  So society as a whole,  in my opinion, has some right to have input to your decision to ride without a helmet.

There are other issues you will see in that link above such as the vexed question of whether, overall helmets save lives and whether relaxing MHLs (mandatory helmet laws) would increase cyclist participation.

Michael

Permalink Reply by stephen on May 2, 2012 at 3:30

Hi Michael 
What has been demonstrated in the NT is that helmet laws can be repealed or exemptions added with beneficial effects. A trial repeal needs to be run in other states for at least a few years.

http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1214.html

The NT has no issues with safety and for australia very high use of bike transport by many people.

There is a big difference between this style of riding.

http://www.copenhagencyclechic.com/

And sports cycling where one commits ones self to take additional risks to save a few seconds - the interesting thing is that when you don't have the helmet on you will tend to ride more conservatively. While someone believing themselves safe with a helmet on will feel at liberty to take greater risks. Some will assert a helmet  saved them after their falls but unfortunately there are also times it does nothing but deceive the rider.

Permalink Reply by Not an electronic mouse on April 18, 2012 at 12:23

Ah, I love the smell of helmet debates in the morning!
1) obey the law
2) if you don't like the law, change it (lobby your MP, stand for parlaiment or post on cycling forums - although I suspect none of these will actually work but no harm in trying the first two) or go somewhere that the law doesn't apply, (China or Germany are two lcoations that spring to mind. You can also ride on the footpath in those countries which is an added bonus)
3) see step 1

Permalink Reply by Will Matthews on May 12, 2012 at 3:09

http://www.indaily.com.au/ipad/#folio=2

Permalink Reply by Michael G on April 18, 2012 at 13:50

What I always think about when this debate comes around is where do you stop with these types of laws. So helmet laws are there to improve safety and reduce chance of injury / death. Think of how many other laws could be created along the same lines. Perhaps if all pedestrians (and probably cyclists) were made to wear fluro yellow clothing we could reduce a bit of injury and death. There are countless other examples but I believe as a society we need to decide if we are going down the 'protect everybody from themselves' path or not. And if we are going down that path, how far do we go and by what criteria do we assess the value of these laws.

Its all about risk assesment. What would be a better thing to do rather than create laws is provide people with accurate statistics and information so they can make there own assesments of the risk.

Permalink Reply by Will Matthews on April 18, 2012 at 14:53

Great point Michael. When these helmet laws were introduced back in 1992 as a blanket solution to protect the general population from hurting themselves, Adelaide and especially the city area was a different place. Moving forward we need to find a balance between encouraging people to ride bikes and their safety. Dedicated bicycle lanes, slowing down motor vehicles, and revised helmet laws within certain areas such as the city, it's parklands, and along certain corridors such as the river Torrens linear bike path, would go a long way to encourage more people to get on two wheels and move their legs in a circular motion propelling them forward into the future!!

Permalink Reply by Don (Who's lost?) Nairn on April 18, 2012 at 14:57

What about workplace safety laws?

Don't people always have the choice not to work?

Permalink Reply by Jilden on April 18, 2012 at 14:39

I had two decent prangs as a helmetless kid, once I was 50m from home and I hit a gravel patch, put me in hospital with concussion. The second time I was on my brand new 3 speed xmas present bike and didn't notice the road had turned a bit while I hadn't. In both incidents the outcome would have been better if I had been forced to wear a helmet. Lucky I have a thick skull. The low speed spills I have had as a helmeted adult make me grateful for a good helmet on my noggin. It really doesn't take much you know, if you fall on your head at 10 km/h you would be glad to wear a hard hat. Bike paths especially feature sharp gravelly corners to trap the unwary. I've seen it happen to others often enough!

Now if the SA government had an army of 10,000 retirees with brooms and batons and phones to help rigorously police the standard of the state's cycle infrastructure, you may have a case for no helmets, perhaps.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 12
• Next ›
• Page