Now i know it is smart to wear a helmet riding down Portrush Rd in heavy traffic, or tearing down from Mt Lofty on a race bike, but if i want to ride down to the local deli on my old school pushy or roll up and down Rundle St letting latte sipping hipsters admire my flowing locks, then i believe it should be ok to go sans helm. After riding all over Europe last summer i grew accustomed to riding with no helmet, and i never felt my life was in grave danger. If the roads of London became too scary i just got off and walked my bike till things calmed down or i could find another (quieter) route. I think minors should be made to wear helmets, but 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. This topic has probably surfaced quite a bit on these forums but it needs to be discussed again as a progression for change.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Plenty of areas with very few or no cars at all and yet very few people ride still.
Helmets laws do very little other then discouraging people from getting on the bike in the first place i think that is the point which he makes well.
Our roads and paths are good but with helmet laws in place it is not surprising we are barely using even the existing infrastructure.
Our government seem ignorant of the repressive effect of mandatory bike helmet laws on bike usage - even with the evidence right in front of them.!
The hard won partial exemption enjoyed in the NT is clear proof that repeal of this law will lead to greater numbers of people using bikes and bring about positive change.
This is a short documentary of the NT bike culture - Enjoy watching :-)
I get the impression our government ministers between them have lower IQ than the average primary school starter. Our government have spent literally years trying to bash a square shape into a round hole, the average 5yo would figure out it was not going to work in seconds. !
We need to trial a repeal of helmet laws in other states and regions - which state is going to lead. ?
Will repealing MHL's really get the other 90% back on bikes? I seriously doubt it. While the fear of looking dorky and the fear of getting helmet hair are often touted as excuses against cycling, I doubt that they are majority reasons. Fear of falling, fear of traffic, fear of lack of fitness showing up the newbie, fear of sore knees/joints ("My knees are too far gone to get back on a bike" is an excuse I've heard), fear of inhaling traffic fumes, fear of getting lost on unfamiliar tracks, fear of doing anything different in your life, fear of ridicule, fear of going too far etc stop far more potential cyclists that you would think.
By all means campaign against MHL's, just don't expect a resurgence of cycling numbers without addresing the other issues. I wish you luck for your run for parliament...(have you asked Nick X to help?)
Guys, can we please try to keep this debate about adult riders 17+ who are more capable decision makers than minors. I think we can all agree that minors need to wear helmets.
If its safe for adults to not wear helmets why is it unsafe for minors to ride without helmets?
"I think we can all agree that minors need to wear helmets."
What??? I think you just blew your entire argument out of the water
and you didnt answer the question, would you visit a family of (an adult) who has a serious head or brain injury and explain to them why not wearing a helmet was a great idea?
"Will repealing MHL's really get the other 90% back on bikes? I seriously doubt it."
Proof is in the pudding Jilden, just take a look at the NT helmet laws and the evidence it has produced to put your doubts to rest.
The following is taken from http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1114.html
• Helmet use is now low in NT, both off and on road, for adults and children. Estimates in 2004 suggested that 15% - 20% of cyclists continue to wear helmets, mostly 'serious' cyclists.
• For most road users, the Northern Territory has the worst injury rate in Australia. The sole exception is cyclists, for whom the serious injury rate is the same as the national average and better than several states where helmet use remains mandatory for all cycling. (Berry and Harrison, 2008)
• After the law was first introduced, a street survey in Darwin found that 20% of people had given up cycling as a result of the law and 42% cycled less (Mead, 1993).
• Following the law's amendment, cycling recovered. By 2004, 4.2% of people cycled to work in NT (compared with a national average of 1.3%) and 15.3% of people cycled for recreation and sport (national average 9.5%) In particular, more women now cycle. (ABC, 2004)
Yes, studies that are nearly a decade old are still relevant..........
btw some other interesting pieces of info in the ABC reports, I note you didn't include that in your argument
1: ACT had the largest amount of bike network in relation to road network
2: ACT and NT had the same proportion of recreational riders (15%)
3: Cycling to work is more popular in the NT (4.2%) , ACT is 2nd at 2.6%
4: Raw number of trips in NSW/Vic /Qld is roughly 6 times greater than the NT
5: There was a 33% increase in the # of cycles imported into AU between 1995 - 2003
6: The rate of cycling fatalities in the NT is double any of the other states.
I spoke to Nick briefly about it as he frequents Nano(cafe off rundle st), he is too busy to even consider giving it a thought.
Its a small group of people who want it changed anyhow, most folks especially ones with kids feel the helmet law is good as it sets a good example for one.
Nick is too busy fighting pokies!!!
Pretty sure if a helmet stops people from riding now then those peeps will find other excuses - rain and wind in winter, hot and windy in summer, magpies in spring, cars using roads 24/7, Lycra, nowhere to attach cable ties, head getting too hot because now the sun is beating directly down on it.
They never mention any peer reviewed statistical literature in any credible journal.
There is no logic in this argument.
Anybody who has been married any time soon realises you can't win an emotional augment with logic.
If there are thousands of people who don't cycle because of MHL why dont the people who are keen on having these laws repealed gater this group together and make their voices heard?
After all people who presently cycle presently accept these laws whatever they think of them.
The sooner this augment dies a natural death the better.
Or am I just bashing my head against a wall to hope for this?
Perhaps we should have a contest!!!
I will bash my head against a wall with a helmet on.
The helmet law deniers can bash their heads against a wall with out a helmet.
Whomever has the least injury's after 5 bashes wins.