If Arnie can, what about everyone else?

[The Duckmeister]

We have a public health system and when dudes get vegged the public purse ends up paying. That's one of the arguments as to how not wearing a helmet can affect others.

So why aren't helmets mandated for car occupants, pedestrons, footbrawlers, skiers, pub-goers etc?

Because it's an effing stupid idea, just as it is for cyclists, so why single them out?

 

[moorey]

So why aren't helmets mandated for car occupants, pedestrons, footbrawlers, skiers, pub-goers etc?

Because it's an effing stupid idea, just as it is for cyclists, so why single them out?

Last time I checked, you weren't surrounded by a metal cage on a bike, let alone seat belts, air bags and crumple zones. Pedestrians don't really share the roads, and many sports advocate for, or already enforce wearing skid lids.

 

[The Duckmeister]

Despite the metal cage, airbags & all the other shit, car occupants still suffer a shitload of head injuries.

I'm not saying helmets shouldn't be worn, or banned or whatever, I just don't see any valid reason at all for a legal mandate, especially when other significantly more dangerous activities - including driving - have no such requirement.

 

[oriion]

Apologies to all, I'm completely desensitized to literally everything, so it didn't even click that the image would be an issue...

Though it *was* quite relevant to the discussion!
Won't happen again.

I've done vehicle roadside recovery for the past 10 years, as well as mountain rescue in backcountry BC. - Sadly that image Ezkaton posted i looked at with no shock or emotion at all. Not sure if that's a good or bad thing.

 

[JTmofo]

So why aren't helmets mandated for car occupants, pedestrons, footbrawlers, skiers, pub-goers etc?

Because it's an effing stupid idea, just as it is for cyclists, so why single them out?

By law, motorcyclists must wear a certified helmet on public roads so I would say poor cyclists are not singled out by any means. Cyclists are high risk road users where incidents of head injury are high.
There are also many sports (and not necessarily just in Australia) that helmets are mandatory and the rules say you cannot play without one.:noidea:

Helmets improve your chances of survival and reduce chances of serious head injury in an accident involving a head knock. That is a fact. This can happen on the commute to work, the quick spin to the shops or on a DH course.
You can whinge about people making their own choices all you want, but any law that helps people to help themselves is worthwhile.

 

[Art Vanderlay]

So why aren't helmets mandated for car occupants, pedestrons, footbrawlers, skiers, pub-goers etc?

Because it's an effing stupid idea, just as it is for cyclists, so why single them out?

Long ago, an old dude used to drive around town in his old beat up commodore. Would be lucky to ever drive over 40km/h and always had his orange rosebank stackhat on.
Always put a smile on my face!

 

[scblack]

Despite the metal cage, airbags & all the other shit, car occupants still suffer a shitload of head injuries.

I'm not saying helmets shouldn't be worn, or banned or whatever, I just don't see any valid reason at all for a legal mandate, especially when other significantly more dangerous activities - including driving - have no such requirement.

But drivers DO have mandated safety mechanisms and requirements:

• Door intrusion bars
• Airbags
• Crumple zones
• ABS brakes
• Annual vehicle safety/roadworthy inspections (in NSW)
• Electronic Stability Control
• Seat belts

Drivers do not have to wear helmets but they have a large number more mandated safety items than cyclists. They may be vehicle safety features, but they are designed to protect the human occupants. Same as a helmet for a cyclist.

 

[mxh]

You can whinge about people making their own choices all you want, but any law that helps people to help themselves is worthwhile.

But that's the point - it's not helping people to help themselves.

There is a lesser take-up of cycling amongst the general population in Australia than in other countries where there is no helmet law. So people sit in their cars, or take public transport etc instead of getting off their arses and onto a bike. The knock on effect being a less healthy population.

Just look at the failure of Australian hire bikes in comparison to the success of the 'Boris bikes' in London - In London you can make a spur of the moment decision to hop on a bike and ride somewhere. Easy. Where as here you have to fanny about trying to find / buy / hire a helmet, so people don't bother.

 

[JTmofo]

But that's the point - it's not helping people to help themselves.

There is a lesser take-up of cycling amongst the general population in Australia than in other countries where there is no helmet law. So people sit in their cars, or take public transport etc instead of getting off their arses and onto a bike. The knock on effect being a less healthy population.

Wearing a helmet is not a valid excuse for not taking up cycling as a means to get fit. If somebody is interested in becoming a regular cyclist, be that to commute to work or a weekend road warrior, a helmet is a minor expense and inconvenience in the grand scheme of it all.

These are the type of people that use cycling to reduce health related issues due to a sedentary lifestyle.
Joe Bloggs, the dude who rides once in a blue moon to the shop to do the lottery, isnt riding for his health but for his convenience. Lazy people are lazy, and no helmet law is going to make them less lazy.

 

[thecat]

I rode a lot without a helmet before the mandatory laws came in. I crashed quiet a few times (A lot of times really), even went over the bonnet of a car. Not having a helmet didn't cause me to have a head injury.

Is that in any way proof that helmets are not relevant?

No.

And neither is the "I crashed and the helmet saved me" stories proof that they are because the plural of anecdote is not evidence

So what is the evidence?

Helmet laws came mid 80s (87? I should look it up but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) and 2 things happened.

1)The was a dramatic reduction in people cycling. Why. Helmets looked shit, and that's the lamest excuse ever. Turning up to work/school/uni with helmet hair sucked, Again lame but true. Extra cost, extra hassle what ever all pretty lame if the helmets actually reduced the effects of head trauma

2)The rates head traumas seen in cyclists dropped (minor trauma down a bit. medium trauma not so much, major trauma stayed about the same.) Yeah for helmets they work end of story....

Except you can't look at things in isolation

At the same time a similar trend occurred in the rates of head trauma in pedestrians.

So how did mandatory helmet laws for cyclists reduce head trauma in pedestrians? It couldn't have, could it? Maybe something else changed that caused the trend.

What else happened in the mid to late 80s that may have had an effect on both cyclist and pedestrian head trauma?

Well for one random breath testing came into force along with massive safe driving campaigns. Maybe less pissed idiots and more safety awareness on the roads had more effect on the reduction of cycling head trauma than mandatory helmet laws.

Are helmet laws bad.... Um well it does limit the viability of inner city shared/hire bike programs. In Europe those programs are pretty big. Every one rides around Paris sans helmet. Now I haven't had a look at their rates of head trauma but I'd guess it's comparable to ours (Not very scientific I know, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong).

Do I wear a helmet? 99% of the time. But occassionally when I'm cruzing around the event center/ car park popping wheelies and doing skids or cruzing down to the shops I dont always.

What if I have an accident? Well that is a risk but I judge it to be minimal. I'm just as likely to have that accident on foot and no one shouts me down for not wearing a helmet while walking.

What if I get hit by a car from behind? Again that could happen while I'm walking, though I might be more of a sitting duck on bike as I'm on the road traveling with the traffic. In the vast majority of incidents between a driver and a rider the car driver is found to be at fault and claims they didn't see the rider. Therefore wouldn't it make more sense to mandate hi-vis vests and flashing lights on your head to prevent the accident rather than just try to minimise the injury?

Will helmet laws ever be repelled? I highly doubt it. As soon as it is someone will get axed, cop a head trauma and their family will sue those responsible for allowing their family member the freedom to choice.

 

[Flow-Rider]

But that's the point - it's not helping people to help themselves.

There is a lesser take-up of cycling amongst the general population in Australia than in other countries where there is no helmet law. So people sit in their cars, or take public transport etc instead of getting off their arses and onto a bike. The knock on effect being a less healthy population.

Just look at the failure of Australian hire bikes in comparison to the success of the 'Boris bikes' in London - In London you can make a spur of the moment decision to hop on a bike and ride somewhere. Easy. Where as here you have to fanny about trying to find / buy / hire a helmet, so people don't bother.

I have seen many surveys on this issue but Europe is totally different to Australia, fuel in Europe is very expensive and everything like shops are more close to together to housing, distances are a lot shorter to travel. Housing is more dense meaning the roads around urban living are very small it would be impractical to have more cars. Some cyclists still choose to wear helmets even though it's not compulsory in Europe.

They used to supply helmets on hire bikes here in Brisbane but people would steal them or vandalise them. People like myself would even leave their old helmets on the bikes and same thing occurred, didn't see or notice anymore people using them with or without the free helmets.

I might also mention it would be cheaper to buy a crap bike for a week than hire a city bike here in Brisbane and then sell it for a $100 at the end of the week.

 

[wilso1]

Nice post cat. I agree with most of your arguments, but can I make two additions.

Every one rides around Paris sans helmet.

I don't think people acknowledge how much slower the cars are travelling in those major urban centres where people are riding sans helmet. In London, I reckon most of the city traffic is doing 15mph at best, because traffic is so heavy and the lights are much closer together than in Australia, so the traffic here can get up to a higher speed.
From my time living in London, I reckon at least 50% of the cyclists were wearing helmets even though it wasn't compulsory. Based on bike type and clothing, I'll guess they had ridden from home, so their helmet was close at hand when they got on their bike. Those who weren't wearing helmets were on Boris bikes (where the bike was only part of their commute) or on Bromptons (again, the bike was only part of their commute). So helmet wearing is partly driven by convenience.

Will helmet laws ever be repelled? I highly doubt it.

I agree. But I'd suggest a slight modifaction on Australia's helmet laws.
Make it mandatory for those under the age of 25, but optional for those who are older. For younger riders, wearing a helmet will become a habit, and by giving them more kms on the bike, they are more likely to see or have a crash that makes them believe in wearing a helmet more regularly from then on. Those who are older than 25 can make the risk assessment themselves (although as others have said, society bears the medical costs for those who suffer major trauma).

I think skin cancer and wearing hats/sunscreen is an interesting parallel to the helmet argument. No one legislates that you have to wear sunscreen or a hat to protect against skin cancer, but it has now become readily accceptable to wear one or the other. Probably because the impact of skin cancer has been widely publicised. Our kids' school has a 'no hat, no play' policy, and as a result, wearing a hat has become a habit for our kids. I'm sure they'll digress as they go through their impressionable teens, but at least they are aware of the dangers and a simple prevention. Make the simple prevention measure a habit in people's younger years and there will be less resistance to it when they are older.

 

[frenchman]

Is that supposed to be 'seldomly' as I hardly ever see people wearing helmets in Darwin unless they're the rare commuters who ride on the road. Also I'm not sure if wearing nowt but boardies and a singlet can be described as 'solemn'

Yes. Autocorrect doesn't always work in your favour when you have dicks for fingers.

 

[Mywifesirrational]

Despite the metal cage, airbags & all the other shit, car occupants still suffer a shitload of head injuries.

There is a prominant Sydney neurosurgeon who indeed wears a helmet for driving in his and others cars, guess he's seen more than enough brain trauma in his work day.

 

[The Duckmeister]

In the vast majority of incidents between a driver and a rider the car driver is found to be at fault and claims they didn't see the rider. Therefore wouldn't it make more sense to mandate hi-vis vests and flashing lights on your head to prevent the accident rather than just try to minimise the injury?

No!! As you state, the figures clearly show the motorist to be at fault the vast majority of the time (I think from memory the official police figure is 87%). Therefore, actions to be implemented by The Authorities need to address the cause of the problem - the drivers. Mandating hi-vis, lights and for that matter helmets is a blame the victim approach that essentially removes liability from the true culprit, and also opens up a dangerous loophole for clearly incompetent drivers to escape through.... "Sorry officer, I didn't see him because he wasn't in fluoro & lit up like a Christmas tree, even though it's broad daylight". Well sorry, if you (not you specifically Mr Cat) can't see something as big as an adult human square in front of you, regardless of what they're wearing, you should not be on the bloody road.

In fact, there is already a precedent for this kind of moronic victim-blaming from a few years ago. A cyclist was hit from behind, yet the idiot magistrate threw the charge against the driver out because the rider's front light wasn't working. Last time I checked, the function or not of a front light did not affect how well you're seen by those approaching from behind......

As for helmets discouraging the uptake of cycling, it's not so much an inconvenience or "it'll stuff my hairdo" thing, it's the insidious implication that cycling is so horribly dangerous that you have to wear a magic car-repelling foam hat. The perceived risk factor is what puts people off, when seriously, it's minimal. Yes there are some dangerously incompetent drivers out there, but seriously, if you're unfortunate enough to find them on the same square metre of road as you, a helmet isn't going to do all that much for you. Thankfully, that doesn't happen all that much.

 

[jrewing]

The man can kiss me on the other helmet. I ride how I want to.

I don't wear a seatbelt occasionally.

I cross roads illegally occasionally

Don't wear my bicycle helmet sometimes.

I judge my risk and I'm pretty good at it.

Most likely I'm gonna get fucked at the hand of some safetyconscioushelmetwearingsubarudrivingbubblelivingcuntfuckhole.

The man can fuck off... So can all the wowsers on here. Ooohhhh think of the kids and the insurance payouts. Bloody hell how much money is pissed away, injustices done, rorting etc

Australia stop protecting me from myself.... I'm doing really well ON MY OWN. Protect me from specimens of absurdly under-skilled human ability by bringing in sterilization.

 

[John U]

Most likely I'm gonna get fucked at the hand of some safetyconscioushelmetwearingsubarudrivingbubblelivingcuntfuckhole.

Most likely you'll die of old age.

 

[stirk]

How many times must a man crack his head before you can call him a man?






Helmets laws are good for kids, for adults, let Darwin's Law sort em out.

 

[thecat]

. Mandating hi-vis, lights

For the record I wasn't suggesting the mandating of hi vis just saying that would make more sense than mandating helmets and if don't mandate 1 why mandate the other.

But enough man dating. As homer said. I'm flattered, maybe even a little curious but I don't go for those back door shenanigans.


I also don't want to be seen blaming the victim (Not sure how hi vis is victim blaming but helmets aren't) but if being more visible might help prevent the accident in the first place isn't it a wise thing to do. I have to wear hi vis at work, maybe that is victim blaming maybe if the loader driver doesn't see me and runs me down it's really not going to do me much good to blame his lack of attention rather than my lack of bright clothing.

Besides we've all seen the selective attention vid haven't we?

If not see how good your attention is and count how many times the players wearing white pass the basketball. I bet you get it wrong because you can't pay attention for that long.

If you have seen it dont give the answer away

[video=youtube;Ahg6qcgoay4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qcgoay4[/video]

 

[Ridenparadise]

There is a prominant Sydney neurosurgeon who indeed wears a helmet for driving in his and others cars, guess he's seen more than enough brain trauma in his work day.

And the majority of Qld dermatologists are Vitamin D deficient and some people cannot leave home without checking they locked the door 10 times.

Car safety mods often benefit everyone as much as the driver. Crumple zones, ABS, stability control, etc save other people too. Comparing a car to a bike is not reasonable. Comparing a motorcycle to a bike is also unreasonable as is comparing the helmets used.

Cycling helmets provide limited protection from less serious injury. I am not aware of any convincing evidence they prevent serious injury and there is no evidence they protect the public from cyclists. Children are different. Less mature skeletons and brains cannot be compared to adults. Having said that, a helmet is going to do nothing for a child hit by a passing car as they ride out of their own driveway.

The more cyclists and the more legal support for cyclists in accidents, the better for cyclists' safety. In Holland, a driver involved in a vehicle/cyclist incident is at fault unless proven otherwise. I've posted this on RB before and been told it is wrong and promotes cyclists being stupid. No, it promotes drivers being attentive and it promotes a pro-cycling attitude.

Someone said that people only travel short distances in Europe. I am trying to understand how everyone is that lucky in many cities as large or larger than Sydney. It costs about 50% more per litre of petrol in Paris. If you use 2l (say 20km with a small car) per day, then you spend about $8 more per week than here. 2 coffees per week is hardly a reason to ditch the car. Truth is Australia is car-centric, lacking alternatives acceptable to the public and it is not about cost.

I've read many stories of heads saved by helmets and personally found plenty of scratches and minor dings on my own helmets - bike, moto and road motorcycles. However, I have ended up in hospital and off work for many months after an accident that happened on a cycle path when I was riding at less than 15kph with my toddler on a baby seat behind me. We were cleaned up by a high speed cyclist coming the other direction and hidden by trees overgrowing the path in a place with no escape. There you go, multiple fractures and brain injury and not a mark on the helmet. Kid was OK, but covered in mossie bites after I managed tho crawl onto the nearby road and attract attention some 20 min later. The other rider was still unconscious. He also had a helmet. Kid did say he hit his head, but I guess the helmet helped there and as I have said, all kids should use them.

Personal experience is a reason for personal choices. Regulation for the sake of it makes no sense and in fact creates rebellion and avoidance. Cycling needs public support and that means increasing uptake. On this forum we want to wear our helmets, but that does not speak for everyone. Last weekend I caught up to 4 young guys riding and looking for downhill trails. Never been to the area and had no real idea where they were. 2 had helmets, 2 did not. It's hard to know what to say, recommend or do when you know you are helping people taking risks, but I showed them the way out of the park (I think getting lost was the biggest risk) and gave detailed instructions regarding the trail down and how to be safe on it. They were having a ball and to be honest, that stands for a lot more than being under the thumb of "the man".