No, quite wrong. In my lifetime I have been educated and made decisions where no law is required. For example, I won't need a law against smoking to decide not to do it. I wore a helmet for 10 years before the legislation came in - no law TAUGHT me that it was a sensible thing to do. Helmets make sense - I wear one. If the legislation was removed I would continue to wear one. However, if I was in Melbourne and needed a quick, cheap and environmentally sound way to get somewhere I would be breaking the law if I wasn't carrying a helmet 'just in case' I needed to use one of their City Bikes. So, as a visitor to Melbourne I am unable to make use of their city bike scheme. This is true for just about any tourist/visitor to Melbourne - what a waste of infrastructure!
"Scrap bike helmet law" says health expert
- Thread starter 3viltoast3r
- Start date
In a nutshell there is no absolute scientific evidence of the effectiveness of compulsory helmet laws. Asbestos is the complete opposite. It is stupid to use this as a comparison. You might as well say "how do you feel about laws preventing the use of guns in crowded shopping centres" - pointless and silly.
In fact it could be argued with far more (scientific) conviction that the health of the population has suffered because of the helmet laws. In the UK a major survey by the health authorities on whether or not to introduce helmet laws found that their introduction would cause a significant reduction in the overall health of the population - this was the major reason for compulsory helmet laws being rejected by the then and all subsequent governments.
We don't need the law, we get no benefit from it. We are one of only a handful of countries world wide with such a law.
Having said that, I were a helmet for 98% of all my cycle trips. I refuse to wear one to ride 900m to the shops on a bike path.
Give them an inch and they will take a yard!
The two main issues I see;
1) For a lot of these people who would ride short (apparently safe) trips they often choose not to wear a helmet for aesthetic reasons ( I am talking short trips to the shop, work, etc). That just shows the shallow nature of some people, if helmets were considered cool, you would wear one 500m to the shop (people will make sure they look good but dont worry about a helmet), I dont buy 'the its too hard to put one on my head and do it up story'. I f helmets were cool there would be no problem.
2) So you give people the option of not wearing them for 'short safe' trips, what classifys a short safe trip, then people decide for commuting longer distances they don't need one, then people decide for xc people dont need them, then people decide to dj they dont need them and it finally evolves to dh/freeride, etc they dont need one. Give people an inch an they will take a yard.
Based on personal experieinces and no studies so just my opinion!
The two main issues I see;
1) For a lot of these people who would ride short (apparently safe) trips they often choose not to wear a helmet for aesthetic reasons ( I am talking short trips to the shop, work, etc). That just shows the shallow nature of some people, if helmets were considered cool, you would wear one 500m to the shop (people will make sure they look good but dont worry about a helmet), I dont buy 'the its too hard to put one on my head and do it up story'. I f helmets were cool there would be no problem.
2) So you give people the option of not wearing them for 'short safe' trips, what classifys a short safe trip, then people decide for commuting longer distances they don't need one, then people decide for xc people dont need them, then people decide to dj they dont need them and it finally evolves to dh/freeride, etc they dont need one. Give people an inch an they will take a yard.
Based on personal experieinces and no studies so just my opinion!
floody
Wheel size expert
No offence frensham, but are you suggesting what amounts to a market survey by health authorities on helmet use is somehow a valid argument against laws to enforce it, whilst claiming there isn't conclusive scientific evidence on helmets reducing injury to persuade for laws?
Are you serious!?
Are you serious!?
No, I am saying that there is no absolute scientific evidence that compulsory laws have had any effect on the injury rate. However, all I read here regarding the efficacy of helmets is purely anecdotal and such 'evidence' is hardly scientific. I have had a couple of incidents where my helmet cracked. Did it save my life? I don't know. Did it prevent more serious injury? Perhaps, but once again, I don't really know. Would I have received muscular injury due to the helmet 'grabbing' the ground and wrenching my neck had I not been wearing one? Once again, I don't know. None of this is justification for compulsory helmet laws. As I have said in a previous post, far more head injuries occur in car accidents than bicycles - so why no law regarding head protection in cars? It was a political stunt at the time and remains so.
I reckon, if you are going to be riding on a bike path, you would only be going,10,15ks max, and with no obstacles on bike paths it makes very easy riding. I would like to know how many people have stacked on a bike path over the age of 16. But then if somebody was riding on the road, and smashes into a power pole, or even a parked car, thats when you need a helmet (not saying it will help a lot). But if the law is retracted, it would only have to be on bike paths, but i guess if they are council bike paths doesnt that leave the council liable? i think the idea for over 18s have the choice is a good idea, becaue at that age your able to make your own decisions about drinking and smoking etc, and these could affect your health, so why not be able to decide on wearing a helmet? and to add to the whole "how much differense does a helmet make" debate, it does. I know a guy that the police ask to analyse a bike crash, to determine who is at fault and what happened, and he said that a helmet is often the diference between a injured person sueing a driver, and a dead guys family that whats to know what happened
Copper's opinion or the fact as above helmets, are tested at 110 J/m and a 1400kg car hitting you at 50km/h imparts about 1944445 J/m. If such an accident occurs your helmet will absorb 0.0005% of the force. The likelihood of the helmet making a life or death difference is incredibly improbable in a car-bike crash.
However if you hit a patch of gravel and lose the front end at 30km/h it could mean the difference between a concussion and brain damage - realistically.
Ducky Punk
Banned
Wear helmets, it makes sense and protects your head /thread
Wow! After all the posts on this thread you manage to come up with this gem! Wow!
Not sure if anyone has pointed it out yet but we also really should make it illegal to drive without wearing a helmet. Would save more lives and more money than helmet laws for bikes.
Note also that asbestos and tobacco have no positive health effects unlike helmetless riding.
I admire your persistence frensham but you've got no hope. We all do what we're told these days.
dcrofty
Eats Squid
Mate, you need to take a little of your own advice and have a look at what I've written in this thread.
I've mentioned seatbelts, drink driving laws, fall arrest systems and asbestos whilst having a debate with Chopper on personal views on so called nanny state laws. I've not made any comments or comparisons with helmets in this thread.
I didn't need to resort to calling anyone silly or deriding their opinion either.
floody
Wheel size expert
Ah I see, you've been reading that crackpot yank helmet lobbyists nonsense website. Next you'll probably regurgitate how they suggest a $30 skate lid from Kmart is better than a $300 S-Works 2D because of the 2D's added venting and rear projection....
Well it all makes sense now.
I think the argument against helmet laws using head injury stats before and after is a bit weak. People would have worn helmets before the laws, so of course its quite probable with the laws in place only a minority will be scared into wearing them. If they save one life, heck even prevent one major injury, in my opinion the minor intrusion into our lives is worth it. But don't interpret that ad infinitum!
If you write pointless and silly comments, the least you can expect is some derision.
dcrofty
Eats Squid
This is verging on infantile. I don't mind you disagreeing with my comments but if all you can do is shout 'you're stupid' every time I say something then I think I'll just walk away from this.