Should helmet laws be relaxed?

[Martin318is]

BTW: everybody I know rides a bike, nobody I know died of it. I do know people who died on a motorcycle or in a car, although not everybody uses it. Priorities.

And yet I have known 4 cyclists who are now dead and one who needs care due to brain injury. Not all would have been saved by helmets, but...

In my own case, I can point to 2 instances where I believe I would have needed rehab at minimum to recover from the impact to the head if I wasn't wearing a helmet.

I have also been the first on the scene at a head on between 2 cyclists on a path where they actually clashed head on. The impact damage to their helmets was massive but they were left with only headaches

 

[Archibald]

Anyway, I think the Aus law could be relaxed a little bit. There is a difference between riding a bike on the road and more casually in say a park. Footpaths are not allowed anyway by law so they don't need to be covered by a rule change. But Perhaps if the law were relaxed to say that adults using the Melbourne bike hire bikes didnt need helmets if they stay in bike lanes and adults riding off roadways don't need to wear a helmet?

This just highlights the failure in infrastructure and thought by road safety departments. Just paint in a few bike lanes and she'll be right... Ignoring the thoughtless placement of them into dooring zones.

I've just moved to sydney from london - in one week I've had more incidents than in the entire time I lived in london - and I can't contain my disbelief that so many bike paths are simply a white line down the middle of a footpath to separate direction! Merging cyclists and pedestrians is a recipe for disaster as the first pram that gets hit will no doubt kick that storm off. But as long as the motorists aren't inconvenienced it's fine.

One thing I've noticed is that the road lanes are actually narrower in sydney than those in europe. There's no room for a bus or semi-trailer or even a 4WD to give a cyclist room should they be on the same stretch of road. I've been missed by only inches by two semi-trailers now, and wearing a helmet won't make a scrap of difference if they don't miss me (except to keep the remainants of my head in one place).

 

[usedtobefast]

as i have said before, wear a helmet for the rest of us.i don't need to see your smashed skull laying in the road. it makes for a bad day all around.

 

[Martin318is]

This just highlights the failure in infrastructure and thought by road safety departments. Just paint in a few bike lanes and she'll be right... Ignoring the thoughtless placement of them into dooring zones.

What part of London? Most of the places I rode when I lived there the streets were so small that two cars approaching each other head on took turns moving through the gaps in parked cars.

My comments are related to Melbourne which is marginally better than Sydney in terms of cycling safety.

 

[Quixote]

Good law...even though we don't have one for adults. Crazy thing, I frequently see parents, no helmets, pulling trailers with kids wearing helmets! So, if the parent lands head first on the pavement, the 3 year old will be able to call for help, administer first aid, and take control of the family's budget.

 

[Martin318is]

Good law...even though we don't have one for adults. Crazy thing, I frequently see parents, no helmets, pulling trailers with kids wearing helmets! So, if the parent lands head first on the pavement, ]the 3 year old will be able to call for help, administer first aid, and take control of the family's budget.

trust me, they already do that....

but that asside, you are right about that one. There is also the weird idea of the parent making a poor example for the kids. While they are younger and still growing they should always ride with a helmet. A few years after you see that kid they will be out on the paths/roads by themselves. Are they still going to wear a helmet when the parents aren't there after years of watching their parents avoid it?

 

[k_gibbo]

We are living in a nanny state! Do this... dont do that... bla bla bla!!! If the reason to take away my right to make my own decision regarding helmets, or seat belts for that matter are based on health care cost then we NEED to outlaw sugar, cigarettes, booze, and all fast food restaurants. My tax dollars are spent every day fixing lifestyle related illnesses, and I have to have some politician make my decisions for my personal safety for me? There are more and more laws getting passed every year and I for one worry about the future of these so called free societies.

PS, I always wear my helmet and seatbelt and would do so regardless of the law. It just pi$$e$ me off the gov thinks they have the right to tell me how to live my life!

Rant over....

 

[Parera]

It just pi$$e$ me off the gov thinks they have the right to tell me how to live my life!

Rant over....

Well, they also tell you not to have sex with a woman against her will, but you know, damn big government and whatnot...

 

[k_gibbo]

Well, they also tell you not to have sex with a woman against her will, but you know, damn big government and whatnot...

WTF? If you equate not wearing a helmet to rape you might want to get some perspective. Laws are ment to protect society from people who might do things to harm them. If I fall of my bike and bump my head it will be me who suffers the injury.....

 

[Avoriaz]

For my part, I always wear a helmet. I have friends who don't because they don't want to mess up their hair. I have a brother in law who cycles into London and doesn't wear a helmet - though he is bald. Arguably, were he to crash it would be to fall under a bus, so perhaps the helmet wouldn't help.

What seriously winds me up though is when I see parents and children wearing helmets incorrectly - just plopped on the back of the head like a skullcap.

 

[Parera]

The point is government exists to limit rights. Furthermore, you still have a responsibility to your friends and family as well as anyone else involved in a potentially fatal accident; safety issues don't exist in bubbles. I would rather not kill someone in an auto collision; that's not something I want on my conscience regardless whether I'm at fault. Even if compulsory helmet/belt laws saved one life per year it would be well worth it. Human life is cheap enough as it is. And as far as the other things you ranted about, well, they have good lobbyists and banning things like alcohol didnt exactly improve things.

 

[Kiara is a rational girl]

Furthermore, you still have a responsibility to your friends and family as well as anyone else involved in a potentially fatal accident; safety issues don't exist in bubbles.

I'd like to discuss this. I was wondering, could you describe to me the mechanism by which such a responsibility exists? It's not a legal responsibility, at least.

 

[Big GMaC]

I'd like to discuss this. I was wondering, could you describe to me the mechanism by which such a responsibility exists? It's not a legal responsibility, at least.

A moral responsibility perhaps?

'legal' responsibility is a rules of rules

 

[Luke Schmid]

For my twelth birthday I got a new bike and helmet, which I fortunately wore a few days later. I went for a ride with my grandfather and when going downhill I suddenly overtook him, between the gutter and him, went up a driveway entrance and head first into a tree trunk. I have no memory of what happened, or how fast I was going but apparently my parents were told that I might have died without the helmet. As it was I escaped with no lasting damage.
I have absolutely no problem with the laws making wearing helmets compulsory, it saves lives to wear a helmet.

 

[oldborn]

I am for mandatory helmet wear all the time, it will not kill you.
Here helmets are mandatory for under 16 while on open road? Is that are going to tell us that when over 16 we do not hit the deck anymore.
I will not going into statistics, but think that helmet did not kill anyone

 

[Quixote]

It took far too long for someone to reference Orwell. We're not on our game today.

I'm usually not impressed until Nietzsche, Descartes, or Alfred E. Newman make a thread appearance...we cyclists have too much "thinking time" on those solo rides.
Anyway, more regarding no-helmet parent cyclists riding with helmeted children. This is the rare social observation that can elicit an open remark from me...I usually compliment the kid's cool looking helmet then congratulate the parent for "keeping the brains of the family safe". The ones that get the point, I hope, will think about obtaining a helmet for themselves.

 

[Fus087]

What seriously winds me up though is when I see parents and children wearing helmets incorrectly - just plopped on the back of the head like a skullcap.

I agree. Or with the straps so loose you can strip off the helmet without opening them.

These people think they are protected (how much protection a helmet gives) when in reality they're not.

 

[max_powers]

Perhaps we can clear up some Cycling Etiquette here

Helmetless Racer type riding solo encounters slower but spirited tourist group ride and decides to pass em all, no flash just a pass. There is no helmet law


Invariably, a male voice from the group bellows "where's your helmet" and others may chime in.

The racer type is likely aware of his helmet status.

Is the straight riding racer type considered a loose cannon ready to crash the entire group? not likely.

Please Keep the opinions on the internet and off the road, lest you jinx the rider, he needs the luck

 

[The Gnome]

ack...been wearing a helmet for twenty years...because of this thread...taking it off and riding skull naked...the hell with you all!

 

[Kiara is a rational girl]

A moral responsibility perhaps?

That was implied. I want him to prove that it exists. If he can't, then I'll have to dismiss his argument as, well, rubbish.

I have absolutely no problem with the laws making wearing helmets compulsory, it saves lives to wear a helmet.

Ah. But it would save far more lives (and far more tax dollars, for that other argument) to simply ban riding outside. Don't scoff, there's no reason why we shouldn't. The vast, vast majority of fatalities (and injuries, and the concomitant drain on the public purse) occur as a direct result of riders being placed in situations only found outside. Meanwhile, riding outside is in no way integral to cycling; you can turn the pedals just as well on a trainer. If you want scenery, get the Discovery Channel. There's no excuse for selfishly risking your life (and the taxes paid by others) by riding outside: look at the data, it just isn't worth it.

Obviously I'm being sarcastic, but my argument is the same as yours and those of similarly-minded others. The only difference, in fact, is that I draw the line further along than you (being arbitrary, there's no way to say one location is superior to the other; only that you would prefer one over the other. If you did that here, you would risk the charge of being a hypocrite - you obviously wouldn't care much about saving lives).

Here helmets are mandatory for under 16 while on open road? Is that are going to tell us that when over 16 we do not hit the deck anymore.

Actually I think the idea is that we have by then gained the presence of mind to know what we want.

 

[Parera]

I'd like to discuss this. I was wondering, could you describe to me the mechanism by which such a responsibility exists? It's not a legal responsibility, at least.

Do you have a drug addict/alcoholic in your family? If so, you know the type of heartache that causes for a family. Yes, you can simply say "not my problem" but the truth is it doesn't really work like that.

Sebastian Junger had a terrific interview about coming to terms with what your responsibility is to your friends/family if you engage in high risk activities (he is a filmmaker/journalist that was embedded with US troops in Afghanistan). After his colleague Tim Hetherington died in Libya, he realized the devastation it caused him personally as well as Tim's family and fiancee.

Let me pose this question: if you decide to go sans helmet on a ride to the cafe, and you suffer a brain injury which leaves severely disabled, who will bear the burden of taking care of you for the rest of your life?

You seem to want to drag this out to the extreme and say "well we just shouldn't do anything then!" which is an absolutely absurd stance to even consider. It comes down to a simple matter of preaching and practicing safety first, whether it's behind the wheel of a car, walking down the street, or riding a bicycle. Bad things will happen, but you can and should stack the deck in your favor.

And as far as proving a mechanism, whatever, I've taken enough philosophy at university to understand I can't prove anything to someone with your kind of attitude. But by all means, lawyer me to death. I find it amusing.

 

[Parera]

As an aside, I always find it amusing people riding bicycles on the road create so much drama over safety equipment. In the mountain biking world, no one seems to care if you want to wear knee/shin pads, a full face helmet, body armor, wrist protection, hard knuckle gloves, ankle support, whatever, really. So long as it helps you shred, it's all good. But heaven forbid we can't discuss safe cycling practices without acting like wearing a helmet is the dorkiest thing a person can while riding a bike.

 

[Le breton]

If us Dutchies can ride a bike without hitting the deck, why can't the Ozzies do the same? It's not that hard...

Have you tried riding on the LEFT in the SOUTHERN hemisphere? Blame it on Coriolis if you wish, but even walking is difficult down under

 

[Le breton]

Somebody else has to foot the medical costs and the brain damage costs. Those people have a right to democratically decide how people ride on their roads.

.

Agreed, also, smokers should be shot to reduce medical expenses.

Of course car drivers should also wear a helmet as the medical cost savings would be considerably larger than that just incurred from cyclists ( same goes for skiers, rollerbladers, fast joggers, people going down stairways).

It goes without saying that skydiving, paragliding, rafting, canyioning, swimming without lifesaver - among other activities - should be prohibited.

Overweight people should be jailed until they return to a normal weight.

 

[Boeing]

I can't find a single reason why someone would not wear a helmet. However I gave up trying to tell people how to live their lives long ago.

I will say that our club team struggles with this question. We have a few guy with fine hair lines who love to stroll PCH in so called recovery mode with out them. It is problematic because as a group that gives back to the community with modest sponsors, some feel we have a responsibility to represent safety etc.