"Scrap bike helmet law" says health expert

[for those about to rock]

So I'l try again. Helmets are designed to stop linear acceleration forces from a square impact. Majority of brain trauma injuries are caused from a injury due to a rotational force and no bike helmet that I know of is designed to stop this force. If a cyclist is involved in a collision with a vehicle and suffers a severe brain injury the likely hood of that injury being caused by a square impact to the head would be very unlikely.

An injury from a lateral impact is still an injury that can be prevented. Any brain trauma is bad, not just severe brain trauma.

I, much like Dozer, will continue to wear a helmet. I was always under the impression, from this very site, that not wearing a helmet was frowned upon. Yet it seems not. I have, on many occasions, seen photos of people not wearing helmets posted here and several comments always arose regarding the lack of head protection.

I believe safety is vastly more important the the amount of people riding bikes. Sure, I would love to see more people riding, but if it comes at the sacrifice of an integral piece of safety equipment then I would almost be ashamed.

Like people have stated with the seatbelts, what about work sites? Why not say safety helmets aren't required so we get more construction workers.

The helmet never has been a fashion item and, as far as I'm concerned, probably never will be. If a helmet is what stops people from riding then it's not the helmets that have to change, it's the publics perception of a helmet.

 

[theMerryPrankster]

You all make it sound like as soon as the government stops making helmets compulsory, you'll stop wearing one. Why is that?

Hit the nail on the head here - repealing the law allows personal choice and responsibility to enter into helmet use. How is that a bad thing?

I don't have a anything else groundbreaking to add to this argument, but I would like to point out that there are plenty of cities internationally where biking is a massive part of daily life - and helmet wearing is not.

Even if someone can provide detailed statistics showing that preventable head trauma is higher in locations where helmet use is not mandatory, all you will have shown is that it's a good idea to where a helmet. Not that helmet use should be required by law.

 

[smeck]

......................Like people have stated with the seatbelts, what about work sites? Why not say safety helmets aren't required so we get more construction workers.

The helmet never has been a fashion item and, as far as I'm concerned, probably never will be. If a helmet is what stops people from riding then it's not the helmets that have to change, it's the publics perception of a helmet.

This is not a suggestion to increase the rate of Darwin award nominations, it's a response to research saying the wearing of helmets hasn't helped decrease the head injuries of cyclists since helmets became compulsory. Perception is a dangerous thing, but your argument doesn't address it. People perceive themselves to be safer whilst wearing a helmet, recorded historical data appears to be saying otherwise.

No one is saying don't wear a helmet, just that you don't have to. More cyclists means less cars, less cars means less chance of cyclists getting hit by cars, it also should mean more cyclists and less cars on the roads increases the awareness of drivers that they will encounter cyclist every time they get in their car, hopefully further increasing a cyclists safety margin. I can't see how this is a bad thing. You can wear your helmet because you want too, others don't want too and therefore don't have too, everyone can just enjoy riding.

 

[PINT of Stella. mate!]

I'm with toodles and the rest.

Now, I've had a couple of stacks where a helmet has saved me from very serious injury and I definitely won't stop wearing one for the majority of my riding but I fail to see why I have to risk a massive fine if I want to ride round the corner to the shops, or down the foreshore on a sunny afternoon without the hassle of a helmet (and yes, it can be a hassle - particularly finding them in amongst the carnage of my bedroom)

I'm just as likely to cop a serious head injury out walking as I am on my bike on these occasions (Actually, living in St Kilda I'm probably more likely to cop a head injury whilst on foot!)

Still, it'll never happen as the potential for litigation would go through the roof.

 

[adman]

Firstly, whilst the number of head injuries has remained constant, the number of people riding bikes has increased. This is just my own observation - but I've noticed more people getting into the sport, or riding on the road just in the 5 short years I've been riding bikes. So in actual fact, if you didn't have to wear a helmet, so many more people would get head injuries than before 1990.

As others have said, you are just as likely to cop a head injury from running fast - especially where you might run under something low and miss it.

Similarly, many deaths in car accidents are caused by damage to the head. FAR more deaths than would ever be possible through riding a bike. So should we have to wear a helmet? No - it would be a pain in the arse.

So apart from that, why wouldn't they implement helmets for driving a car? I'd say it'd be because most people understand the risks they take when they drive - there's nothing hiding the danger when you're in a 2 tonne vehicle at 100km/h.

So, could you say the same for bikes? Can you leave the responsibility to the rider, and if they receive a head injury, is it just a risk they must be willing to take?

I'm not sure, but I'll always ride with a helmet, maybe not round the corner but always on the road or on trail.

 

[wespelarno]

My concern isn't for the rides involved in an accident, it is for the drivers.

Not wearing a helmet is a risk individuals can choose to take, aware of the consequences. However, the choice of the cyclist effects other people aswell.

If a bike on the road is hit by a car, the rider is now dead, and the driver has to live with the assosciated guilt, even if it wasn't their fault. No matter how you justify that the cyclist was an idiot, shouldn't have ridden out infront of you etc, you still did kill somebody. While driving I have had plenty of very close situations with cyclists where the cyclist has been at fault, especially near uni or the CBD when people are late for lectures or work. In one case, had the ABS been less effective, the cyclist would have been hit, and without a helmet killed. So the rider would have ended their life and screwed mine.

Maybe a variation that requires cyclists to wear a helmet while on roads but they are given the choice while on bike paths?

 

[akashra]

My view on the helmet law merely mirrors this:

[video=youtube;H0jNxgkNwcw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0jNxgkNwcw[/video]

That we're trying to protect the heads of people so stupid that a little inconvenience is more important to them than their own safety is pretty appalling.

 

[houli77]

whatever happened to natural selection

 

[Dozer]

whatever happened to natural selection

Unless you've done a postal vote you need to choose a prime minister this weekend...........

 

[houli77]

Unless you've done a postal vote you need to choose a prime minister this weekend...........

maybe, seeing as all our prime ministerial candidates grew up before mandatory helmet laws, they all had bike related head trauma as children!

might explain all the dribble...

 

[Joy]

I think it should be a bit more relaxed. It's been the way it is for so long now that I think a majority of people would still wear one out of habit/common sense.

On a lighter note....

[video=youtube;H0jNxgkNwcw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0jNxgkNwcw[/video]

 

[frensham]

Law, or no law, just wear a damn helmet.

It's a hell of a lot better then an acquired brain injury, and having to be spoon fed for the rest if your life.

Do you wear a helmet in a car??? Far more head injuries occur in cars than on bikes - so why don't you wear a helmet in a car? The answer is BECAUSE you could if you wanted to but you have weighed up the risks and choose not too. The same applies to cycling. If I am riding my MTB, YES I wear a helmet. A quick 2 km pootle to the shops - NOT NEEDED. If you race or rally a car you wear a helmet don't you?? Why??

 

[frensham]

my mates bike - car @ 100km/h, he's OK



I'll stop wearing a helmet when cars stop running into bikes

And cars don't run into cars? or pedestrians? Do you still drive, and walk along the pavement? Fatuous argument.

 

[harmonix1234]

I'm with toodles and the rest.

Now, I've had a couple of stacks where a helmet has saved me from very serious injury and I definitely won't stop wearing one for the majority of my riding but I fail to see why I have to risk a massive fine if I want to ride round the corner to the shops, or down the foreshore on a sunny afternoon without the hassle of a helmet (and yes, it can be a hassle - particularly finding them in amongst the carnage of my bedroom)

I'm just as likely to cop a serious head injury out walking as I am on my bike on these occasions (Actually, living in St Kilda I'm probably more likely to cop a head injury whilst on foot!)

Still, it'll never happen as the potential for litigation would go through the roof.

I see your point regarding the quick spin to the shops, but a close friend of mine got hit by a car on his pushie at a roundabout and lost the hearing in his right side permanently on a 'quick spin to the shops'.
This happened not more than 500 metres from his house. Super unlucky.
Apparently the helmet saved him from doing a lot more damage to his noggin.

The reason it applies regardless of distance is that even if you get hit on your bike whilst you are 100 kms from your own home on a road ride, I guarantee there will be someone saying "It happened right outside my house".
Proximity to where you live should not dictate a safe or approved helmet-less zone.

You may not get hit riding to your local shop, I can almost bet you won't because you probably know every crack and piece of chewing gum on that road, but another non-local rider may get hit outside that very same store. Should he be fined and not you if he dosn't wear a helmet?

I am guessing it's the same reason you have to wear your seatbelt even if your'e just turning the car around. Overkill maybe?

The stupidest thing about this is that I actually got fined for riding without a helmet only a city block from where my mate got hit. Idiot!
I have worn my helmet religiously since then. (Since my mate got hit, not since I got fined)

 

[Kezza dawG]

to me personally i find it would make little difference as i only really wear a helmet wen downhilling or xc racing or such.
i rarely wear my helmet to go down the shops.
rarely wear it to the skate park.

but i do think it should be a persons choice.
i choose not to wear one unless i think im putting myself in a risky situation such as riding dh.
i have had enough crashes on the downhill bike to warrant it and it just feels natural to wear it for dh.
on the other hand i find that i rarely crash at the skate park or on the streets so rather run the beanie or hat.

now i know that my reasoning doesnt really make sense but its just the way ive always done it.

i live not far from a fairly extensive housing commission area so i think the cops have pretty much given up on the helmet battle.
i have been given a warning once about not wearing a helmet but the police that was giving the warning was driving like an idiot and was more worried about the fact that he almost hit me due to not looking let alone stopping before he pulled out of a stop sign than telling me off.

 

[harmonix1234]

Do you wear a helmet in a car??? Far more head injuries occur in cars than on bikes - so why don't you wear a helmet in a car? The answer is BECAUSE you could if you wanted to but you have weighed up the risks and choose not too. The same applies to cycling. If I am riding my MTB, YES I wear a helmet. A quick 2 km pootle to the shops - NOT NEEDED. If you race or rally a car you wear a helmet don't you?? Why??

I agree. If someone wants to take an educated risk based on weighing up the risks then they should not be fined for risking their own brain. It's their choice. Except if they are children.

I would like to know, if the worst happened and a rider becomes hospitalised for injuries that were specifically related to not wearing a helmet, what is the cost in $ to the community?
Will the funds from these fines go towards these expenses?

*edit*
Just had to add, if I was driving a car and hit a kid who wasn't wearing a helmet and he was brain damaged because of it I would have to live with that image and guilt for the rest of my life, and so would his family, so in affect his choice has affected other people.
It also affects the lives of all the people required to care for him for the rest of his life. So potentially his choice has affected possibly dozens of people. Long term.
Also, role modelling. If my little girl saw me riding without a helmet then she would think it was OK too, and I could not live with myself knowing she ended up a vegetable because she was just doing "What Dad does".

 

[skwiz05]

Statistics DO NOT manage risks. Risk assessments, analysis of each individual situation is what manages risk.

As far as stats go.......look at all the deaths on bikes. And the injuries to go with it. A far greater percentage of those would be dead anyway, regardless of wearing a helmet.

But, there are activities when it might be appropriate to reduce the risk (noting you cant necessarily remove the main Hazard -cars- if riding on the road.) Bike racing, possible should remain as helmet compulsory.

But many interesting points raised in this thread. Im happy for it to no longer be compulsory, but id probably still chose to wear one, for MOST of my cycling activities.

 

[a.davis12]

i'm all for it!









as long as the cost of cleaning brain off the side of the road is posthumously by the said brain splattered rider. same for all costs if the person doesn't die.

I agree. If someone wants to take an educated risk based on weighing up the risks then they should not be fined for risking their own brain.

you say it later in your post. their own brain isnt all that is at risk. the family suffers. the ambo who is first on scene suffers. the cops suffer. the tax payer suffers. it's like smoking. "its my choice" is just a fucking stupid thing to say.

 

[D_Nine]

Here is a test for you, smack yourself in the head with your knuckles,which hurts the most head or knuckles? Now smack the road or sandstone or a tree or a car with the same knuckles, which hurt your knuckles the most ? Imagine having your beloved family wipe your arse for the rest of your life and spoon feed you. A bit harsh I know but shouldn't we take every reasonable precaution in the persuite of our sport.I always wear a helmet for the same reason I check my brakes and service my bike regularly,to minimise risk.Minimum of $40 for a helmet for cheap protection.We can argue if and when but it's always the "first time" it happens that may be the last.

 

[frenchman]

you say it later in your post. their own brain isnt all that is at risk. the family suffers. the ambo who is first on scene suffers. the cops suffer. the tax payer suffers. it's like smoking. "its my choice" is just a fucking stupid thing to say.

And I suppose when walking you are wearing a helmet, high visibility leather jacket coupled with a padded jumpsuit just incase of the slight chance you trip over the crack in the concrete?

Let's also make it mandatory to wear helmets in cars, on trains, riding a scooter, skateboards and whilst we are at it, when you're taking a shit incase the floor is slippery.

People who are going to be riding / commuting with traffic would no doubt be experienced cyclists. If the helmet law wasn't mandatory most of them would still use a helmet just as I would also due to experience with traffic and busy roads.

The chance of sustaining a traumatic brain injury in a slow speed crash or even on a cycleway is so minute.

As mentioned several times before, separating cyclists from traffic is going to be the most efficient way to reduce accidents and injury.