woody 14
Eats Squid
Quoted for truth.`
I also would like to say that ]sometime]s the injury]s dont happen when you are doing ]something "extreme". I have had a few stacks just curzing down a bike path or on a footpath. So I say keep it.
"Scrap bike helmet law" says health expert
- Thread starter 3viltoast3r
- Start date
I also would like to say that ]sometime]s the injury]s dont happen when you are doing ]something "extreme". I have had a few stacks just curzing down a bike path or on a footpath. So I say keep it.
Dcrofty,
I think asbestos is a little different in this situation. Asbestos can be handled safely providing people follow some basic precautions like using protection suits and face masks when cutting the material or working in an environment where asbestos particles are present. I actually lost my uncle to asbestos, so i do understand how deadly this product can be when it is in its dust form. Fall arresters are a great idea but again personal choice and responsibility need to be taken into account, my friend who installs ausstar dishes will decide when he needs to use his safety harness and when he does not, if it rains or the roof is wet he simply does not attempt to even get onto the roof, harness or not as it would be to much of a risk. What I am trying to say is it is great to have all these safety recommendations and laws but really the people that would follow them would be the same people that would use them even if the laws did not exist and the people who choose to not follow the laws wont. Wouldn't it be better if funding for all these laws & policing was put into more safety training and lowering the price of safety equipment through subsidies. I know that a harness is not cheap, so if the money spent on creating and enforcing a law for harness's was spent on educating workers on safety matters and offering them a more affordable harness system do you not think more workers would use one? As someone else mentioned if the law is scrapped and helmets do become cheaper would more people wear them? I think education is the key over telling people what they must do in order to avoid a fine.
I am not saying 'we should not wear helmets' I am just saying it should be your choice, it is your body and your life. Ok, I am currently looking to buy a fullface helmet due to the nature of some of our rides (yes I am currently wearing a cycling foamy helmet). I can see the value in wearing a full face helmet over a foamy cycling helmet in those conditions whether there is a law or not. Maybe we should make it compulsory to wear a real helmet (proper shell made from polycarbonate, fiberglass or carbon) such as full face helmets instead of just flimsy foamies. Of course this would be crazy as road cyclists and xc riders would boil to death inside a fullface helmet. It really comes down to people taking responsibilities for their own actions.
I think asbestos is a little different in this situation. Asbestos can be handled safely providing people follow some basic precautions like using protection suits and face masks when cutting the material or working in an environment where asbestos particles are present. I actually lost my uncle to asbestos, so i do understand how deadly this product can be when it is in its dust form. Fall arresters are a great idea but again personal choice and responsibility need to be taken into account, my friend who installs ausstar dishes will decide when he needs to use his safety harness and when he does not, if it rains or the roof is wet he simply does not attempt to even get onto the roof, harness or not as it would be to much of a risk. What I am trying to say is it is great to have all these safety recommendations and laws but really the people that would follow them would be the same people that would use them even if the laws did not exist and the people who choose to not follow the laws wont. Wouldn't it be better if funding for all these laws & policing was put into more safety training and lowering the price of safety equipment through subsidies. I know that a harness is not cheap, so if the money spent on creating and enforcing a law for harness's was spent on educating workers on safety matters and offering them a more affordable harness system do you not think more workers would use one? As someone else mentioned if the law is scrapped and helmets do become cheaper would more people wear them? I think education is the key over telling people what they must do in order to avoid a fine.
I am not saying 'we should not wear helmets' I am just saying it should be your choice, it is your body and your life. Ok, I am currently looking to buy a fullface helmet due to the nature of some of our rides (yes I am currently wearing a cycling foamy helmet). I can see the value in wearing a full face helmet over a foamy cycling helmet in those conditions whether there is a law or not. Maybe we should make it compulsory to wear a real helmet (proper shell made from polycarbonate, fiberglass or carbon) such as full face helmets instead of just flimsy foamies. Of course this would be crazy as road cyclists and xc riders would boil to death inside a fullface helmet. It really comes down to people taking responsibilities for their own actions.
dcrofty
Eats Squid
Asbestos is a perfectly relevant example here. Its symbolic of the period where we didn't have as many 'nanny state' rules about workplace substances and OHS and some people have paid for that.
People used to scream blue murder about the introduction of seatbelt laws and drink driving too but all these laws were brought in to protect the general public and if you look at the number of lives they have saved personally I think that its been a good thing.
Does it mean that when someone like your Austar mate doesn't use some fall arrest gear and get hurt do they go to a private hospital and pay full cost for the treatment? I doubt it, they front a normal hospital and pull out the medicare card and we all pay for their treatment.
Its great to talk about choice and responsibility but until people actually do as you say and take responsibility if they get hurt unnecessary then society has to pay for the results of their actions and therefore society has the right to impose rules to reduce the cost of these actions.
People used to scream blue murder about the introduction of seatbelt laws and drink driving too but all these laws were brought in to protect the general public and if you look at the number of lives they have saved personally I think that its been a good thing.
I keep hearing this bandied around but what does it actually mean?
Does it mean that when someone like your Austar mate doesn't use some fall arrest gear and get hurt do they go to a private hospital and pay full cost for the treatment? I doubt it, they front a normal hospital and pull out the medicare card and we all pay for their treatment.
Its great to talk about choice and responsibility but until people actually do as you say and take responsibility if they get hurt unnecessary then society has to pay for the results of their actions and therefore society has the right to impose rules to reduce the cost of these actions.
Last edited:
Rider_of_Fast
Likes Bikes
This is where the law is stooopid!!!
It has to be read subjectively IMO.
It should NOT apply to the "footpath" rider. You know the ones, riding at under 10km/hr and not wanting to muddle up their hair to get to their hot date.
Actually, on second thoughts, it shouldn't be compulsory full stop.
I remember (barely) being in Amsterdam wacked outta my brains and riding around the hire pushies there no problem without a helmet. Why shouldnt it be the same here? What sort of baby state do we live in anyway? Its only gonna get worse if Gillard gets back in!
Dcrofty,
Are you just taking the piss now?
I agree with you that we should all wear helmets. I am just saying I don't think we need the law to tell us that, its COMMON SENSE or are you saying we as community of riders are that stupid we need to be told by a law that wearing a helmet is necessary to avoid head injuries.
What if I died of heat exhaustion on a ride, should we make camelbak's compulsory?
Do you not think money spent on education and making safety equipment cheaper would be more beneficial than a law telling us it is stupid to ride without a helmet?
Are you just taking the piss now?
I agree with you that we should all wear helmets. I am just saying I don't think we need the law to tell us that, its COMMON SENSE or are you saying we as community of riders are that stupid we need to be told by a law that wearing a helmet is necessary to avoid head injuries.
What if I died of heat exhaustion on a ride, should we make camelbak's compulsory?
Do you not think money spent on education and making safety equipment cheaper would be more beneficial than a law telling us it is stupid to ride without a helmet?
dcrofty
Eats Squid
No I'm not taking the piss. I'm just giving my opinion that occasionally when there are enough issues with an activity then the government needs to step in and legislate. Part of the role of governments is to pass laws to protect people.
Not saying you'll ever totally prevent things with legislation but occasionally its needed. You can educate people till you are blue in the face, and by the way I like your idea of subsidies for safety equipment, but there comes a time when you need to back that up with laws otherwise people will take liberties.
floody
Wheel size expert
Be reasonable Choppa. You're pointlessly extending the concept. I can't take the civil libertarian or nanny state view on this, encouraging people to wear that one piece of safety gear which protects that one most fragile and vital organ is far from a major intrusion. The equipment is already cheap, and no amount of education will make your brain tarmac proof.
Carping on about 'flimsy foamies' also shows you have almost no idea about the safety and design of helmets themselves.
Carping on about 'flimsy foamies' also shows you have almost no idea about the safety and design of helmets themselves.
downhillar
Likes Dirt
i thought that was more to do with people not understanding the inherent dangers of asbestos at the time?
Stupid argument. Go have a look at what you have written. Stupid and silly argument.
Another silly point. Think about it. Using your argument we should make it illegal to smoke cigarettes. drink alcohol and even think about riding a bike.
NO! But I don't need a LAW to make me do it. This is the whole point of the discussion!
dcrofty
Eats Squid
Feel free to explain why you feel the way you do.
flamin'trek
Likes Bikes and Dirt
you don't need a law to make you wear a seatbelt now because you have learnt over your lifetime that seatbelts are good things and not at all difficult to cope with. Only reason you did LEARN this is because you HAD to wear one while you were learning. I'm the same, and thankful that we do have to wear them.
If we didn't have laws to make us, we wouldn't get past the awkward/silly looking/uncomfortable/etc learning phase, and we most likely wouldn't do the safer thing. When you're a kid its a pain to stop and look both ways before you cross the road, but you learn - then you live.
When I was growing up (without a helmet or laws) there was one kid on the block who wore a helmet. His parents made him because he had some mild disabilities. He copped a hiding (verbally)from all the 'normal' kids whose parents didn't have to make them wear helmets and yet he was doing the 'right' thing. Now all kids have to they all appear equal, and are equally safe.
Yes it leads to a nanny state, but it makes us all better off in the long run.
So what your saying is if there are issues with an activity we require laws to rectify those issues to protect us. But then you say that even legislation will not resolve those issues.
I'm sorry if my questions or opinion were unreasonable to you and I respect your point of view but if everyone now knows to wear a helmet do we still require the law? Couldn't the money used to enforce the law now (that we know its dangerous to not wear a helmet) be better spent to keep us educated instead of forced to do what's right?
Again sorry about the foamy title for a cycling helmet, you are right I don't know much about those helmets but I have been around motorcycle helmets all my life so I understand the basics. If there is a correct name for this type of helmet please let me know and I will refer to them as their correct name. I understand that these lighter helmets are designed to protect to a certain level and do their job well, but as speeds increase so does the need for better protection (you dont see DH guys wearing light helmets).
rstwosix
Likes Dirt
Agree. Ah the good ol' nanny state free days when we were young and rode our bikes anywhere and everywhere without helmets, played with spud guns, built forts in our favourite trees (that we could have fallen out of!), and even indulged in the dangerous activity of walking or riding to school instead of the current trend of being driven everywhere in the family 4 wheel drive.
Scrap nanny state laws and use some money on education about the personal responsibility that goes with freedom. Also use some RTA money to educate drivers about their responsibility to SHARE THE ROAD with cyclists and pedestions. Education is the answer - not more and more laws.
floody
Wheel size expert
If everyone knew to wear a helmet we wouldn't need this thread either, but there appears to be plenty championing going nude nut on the basis of varying degrees of danger and discretionary choices; which of itself is a concept as fraught with problems as nanny state legislation is.
You do see DH guys wearing light helmets, I'd suggest that once simple impact absorbtion and frontal/facial protection is out of the way, lightness then venting would be considerable factors in the design of EVERY DH helmet.
The 'lighter' helmets you speak of are designed exactly around the range of impacts that one reasonably expects in common usage. Theres no particular term, they're just bicycle helmets; then there are specific variants for specific impact protection needs.
You speak of motorcycle helmets, the relation between a road/trail helmet and a full face DH helmet is very much akin to that of a trials helmet and an MX one, or an open face cafe-racer style lid to Arai's latest MotoGP spec wonderbucket.
I think this is obfuscating the point and choosing the correct helmet application is rather less important than choosing to use one or not.
Also you keep sounding off on "all this money being spent"? Where is it being spent? I'd suggest, from my limited observation, the bulk of helmet law related money is actually used for education rather than enforcement.
The helmet laws aren't really a blunt object. Its rare that they are brought to bear forcefully, but their feeble yet ever present influence is enough for many to reconsider going out without their lid.
I am against the logical extension arguments here, basically. Yes, if infinitely logically extended, such laws suggesting people must submit to the rule of state for their own good are a disturbing thought. But this isn't really symptomatic of a nanny state at all. Its not laden with heavy enforcement and overbearing safeguards, its a footnote in the annals of road law stipulating that you wear a safety hat so your brains don't come out, and only likely to be invoked with conviction by a copper who has had a bad day (if at all).
I respect the right to choose, but I simply do not feel helmet law is such an odious intrusion into our lives that it would prevent people putting wheels to pavement.
Josh Seksy
Likes Bikes and Dirt
Don't know if someone has said this before, sorry if it's been covered.
In Year 10 (2years ago) I actually did a major assessment on the helmet laws, I covered a variety of different arguments on the topic, both for and against and I actually uncovered some pretty scary stuff.
Apparently, and yes, there is statistics that support this, an incident on a bicycle that involves a head hitting the pavement can actually cause a serious head trama known as Diffuse axonal injury (DAI) due to the increase in torsional forces as the distance between spine and scalp is increased by the helmet shell.
A study conducted in 2003 suggested the above, also indicating the effectiveness of fullface helmets is infact inferior to standard helmets in preventing the above.
Follow this link to read the relivant pages of the report
''It has been suggested that the major causes of permanent intellectual disablement and death after head injury may be torsional forces leading to diffuse axonal injury (DAI), a form of injury which usual helmets cannot mitigate and may make worse''
DAI is a serious condition and statistics have shown that 3 / 4 bicycle incident hospital admissions are dignosed with DAI. DAI is a major cause of unconsciousness and persistant vegitative state, often leading to coma, 90% of DAI patients never regain consciousness.
Along with the above I incovered information relating to the alternative attitudes drivers have toward cyclists with and without helmets.
In a UK study it was found that helmet clad cyclists are given a very small berth when passed by cars, 8.5cm on average as drives see them as 'experienced'. In comparrison, cyclists not wearing helmets were given on average a 1.2-1.3m berth when being passed as drivers saw them as 'inexperienced'.
''The relationship between rider position and overtaking proximity was the opposite to that generally believed, such that the further the rider was from the edge of the road, the closer vehicles passed. Additionally, wearing a bicycle helmet led to traffic getting significantly closer when overtaking. Professional drivers of large vehicles were particularly likely to leave narrow safety margins. Finally, when the (male) experimenter wore a long wig, so that he appeared female from behind, drivers left more space when passing. Overall, the results demonstrate that motorists exhibit behavioural sensitivity to aspects of a bicyclist's appearance during an encounter. In the light of previous research on drivers' attitudes to bicyclists, we suggest drivers approaching a bicyclist use physical appearance to judge the specific likelihood of the rider behaving predictably and alter their overtaking accordingly.''
Abstract from 'Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender. Ian Walker. Accident Analysis & Prevention Volume 39, Issue 2, March 2007'
Just my points to the arguement.
-Josh
In Year 10 (2years ago) I actually did a major assessment on the helmet laws, I covered a variety of different arguments on the topic, both for and against and I actually uncovered some pretty scary stuff.
Apparently, and yes, there is statistics that support this, an incident on a bicycle that involves a head hitting the pavement can actually cause a serious head trama known as Diffuse axonal injury (DAI) due to the increase in torsional forces as the distance between spine and scalp is increased by the helmet shell.
A study conducted in 2003 suggested the above, also indicating the effectiveness of fullface helmets is infact inferior to standard helmets in preventing the above.
Follow this link to read the relivant pages of the report
''It has been suggested that the major causes of permanent intellectual disablement and death after head injury may be torsional forces leading to diffuse axonal injury (DAI), a form of injury which usual helmets cannot mitigate and may make worse''
DAI is a serious condition and statistics have shown that 3 / 4 bicycle incident hospital admissions are dignosed with DAI. DAI is a major cause of unconsciousness and persistant vegitative state, often leading to coma, 90% of DAI patients never regain consciousness.
Along with the above I incovered information relating to the alternative attitudes drivers have toward cyclists with and without helmets.
In a UK study it was found that helmet clad cyclists are given a very small berth when passed by cars, 8.5cm on average as drives see them as 'experienced'. In comparrison, cyclists not wearing helmets were given on average a 1.2-1.3m berth when being passed as drivers saw them as 'inexperienced'.
''The relationship between rider position and overtaking proximity was the opposite to that generally believed, such that the further the rider was from the edge of the road, the closer vehicles passed. Additionally, wearing a bicycle helmet led to traffic getting significantly closer when overtaking. Professional drivers of large vehicles were particularly likely to leave narrow safety margins. Finally, when the (male) experimenter wore a long wig, so that he appeared female from behind, drivers left more space when passing. Overall, the results demonstrate that motorists exhibit behavioural sensitivity to aspects of a bicyclist's appearance during an encounter. In the light of previous research on drivers' attitudes to bicyclists, we suggest drivers approaching a bicyclist use physical appearance to judge the specific likelihood of the rider behaving predictably and alter their overtaking accordingly.''
Abstract from 'Drivers overtaking bicyclists: Objective data on the effects of riding position, helmet use, vehicle type and apparent gender. Ian Walker. Accident Analysis & Prevention Volume 39, Issue 2, March 2007'
Just my points to the arguement.
-Josh
dcrofty
Eats Squid
Pretty much -Yes I am. I'll try and explain what I mean using seatbelts as an example.
When cars were first invented they didn't have seatbelts. Few people had cars and accidents were rare. Over time more and more people got cars and started having accidents and death and injury rates increased. So governments introduced seatbelt laws to protect people and they were very effective in reducing overall injury and mortality rates. The laws didn't completely resolve the issue, as some people didn't wear their seatbelts but overall they had a positive effect.
Laws are never the be all and end all of a solution. People always look at rules and regulations and decide whether they want to follow them or not. I know I do and I suspect its the same for most people. Education always needs to go hand in hand to let people know what the laws are and why they exist. It seems plain obvious to most of us these days to put a seatbelt on when we get in a car or not to drink drive because we have been educated about the dangers associated with these activities but this wasn't always the case. And as a backstop for this there are laws to force people to wear seatbelts and not to drink drive, not only for their protection but for others on the road. and yes, I am pragmatic enough to know that these laws don't totally prevent these events from happening but I know that they have had a positive effect on society and am happy to comply with them as I realise why they were introduced and even though them probably slightly erode my freedom to make the decision myself I can live with that.
Alrighty some facts
- The threshold for brain injury from direct impact lies between 10-50g's. http://www.braininjury.com/injured.html Edit: this is what your lawyer would say. A Professor of neurology would say 103 +/- 30g's http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/JBENDY-ft/vol_126/iss_2/226_1.html
- Snell testing is the most rigorous testing of helmets with a drop from 2.2m onto a flat hard surface and a drop of 1.3m onto a hemispherical surface, and a right angle kerbstone.
- All impacts must register a force of 110 Joules
- A 5kg human analogous headform inside the helmet during the drop must register less than 300g at impact.
That should give an indication for what a bicycle helmet does and doesn't protect you from.
- The threshold for brain injury from direct impact lies between 10-50g's. http://www.braininjury.com/injured.html Edit: this is what your lawyer would say. A Professor of neurology would say 103 +/- 30g's http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/JBENDY-ft/vol_126/iss_2/226_1.html
- Snell testing is the most rigorous testing of helmets with a drop from 2.2m onto a flat hard surface and a drop of 1.3m onto a hemispherical surface, and a right angle kerbstone.
- All impacts must register a force of 110 Joules
- A 5kg human analogous headform inside the helmet during the drop must register less than 300g at impact.
That should give an indication for what a bicycle helmet does and doesn't protect you from.
Last edited:
blakemuller
Likes Bikes
As much as I try, I can see very few (if any) instances where a helmet would save your life, so I don't see people's desire to sensationalize it as such. If an accident is bad enough to kill you, it will. Shitty helmets (don't kid yourself, the majority of riders wont have the Bell's/Shoei's) will not save you from death. Injury? No doubt.
The key to this discussion is simple - forcing a person to do something is quite possibly the worst way to go about it. Allowing them to think freely will only bring about a more "evolved" society. What should be on the agenda is WHY kids at the skate park don't wear helmets, not make it illegal not to. Our culture has a fascination with cure as apposed to prevention.
Smoking is the perfect example. More dangerous than a roll down to the shops with no lid, yet you can spark up freely (so to speak). Stupid, deadly, moronic...... but a choice made freely by the individual, that is the key.
The key to this discussion is simple - forcing a person to do something is quite possibly the worst way to go about it. Allowing them to think freely will only bring about a more "evolved" society. What should be on the agenda is WHY kids at the skate park don't wear helmets, not make it illegal not to. Our culture has a fascination with cure as apposed to prevention.
Smoking is the perfect example. More dangerous than a roll down to the shops with no lid, yet you can spark up freely (so to speak). Stupid, deadly, moronic...... but a choice made freely by the individual, that is the key.