Helmetless riders

Information

Helmetless riders

Sick of fools yelling "where's your helmet"? Can't understand why a safe mode of transport like cycling has been singled out for mandatory helmet wearing? Want to ride with the breeze in your hair? This is your group.

Members: 138
Latest Activity: Apr 10

Discussion Forum

Help run TV ads in Queensland

Started by Sir Neil d'Ardthelmon. Last reply by Kathy Francis Apr 10. 4 Replies

Repeal Day

Started by BikeSaint. Last reply by Sir Garrwain de Ruisseau Vallée Apr 1. 5 Replies

Many Helmetless riders?

Started by Seb. Last reply by Martyn P Aug 1, 2013. 27 Replies

Comment Wall

Comment by Paul Martin on July 27, 2012 at 9:00pm
It also doesn't say if he died from head injuries... He may well have broken his neck, ruptured his aorta, lacerated his spleen/liver, suffered a tension pneumothorax.

In the world of injuries that can kill you, a head injury is only one of many on a long, long list...
Comment by Tony Arnold on July 27, 2012 at 9:15pm

I am not suggesting that there should be helmet laws for skiers, or that these deaths could have been prevented by wearing helmets.  What I am saying is that a lot of activities involve risk, so there is no reason to single out cycling as an "extreme sport", especially considering that many journeys are just "trundling to the shops".

Comment by Omar@Go! Alliance on July 27, 2012 at 10:18pm
Tony, do you the data to backup that many journeys are in fact to the shops and that they are any "safer" for cyclist? I haven't seen those stats though I await insights from the Safer Cycling study.
Comment by Tony Arnold on July 27, 2012 at 10:32pm

I don't think we have good data on the types of trips OR the risk to cyclists for different types of trips given the drastic under-reporting of bicycle accidents.  The whole helmet issue is fraught with anecdotes and beliefs so I am certainly in favour of more data.  I'm just pointing out the inconsistency that bicycle use is seen as an extreme sport which requires helmets and heavy-handed policing of said laws, while skiing (which resulted in two deaths in the last 3 days) does not.  Seems strange to me.

Comment by Omar@Go! Alliance on July 27, 2012 at 11:50pm
I believe skiing in NSW resorts is primarily conducted on private land? You can also go cycling helmetless on private land in NSW.
Comment by St Etienne on July 28, 2012 at 12:05am
''Chances of a head injury increased threefold at speeds above 20km/h and fivefold at speeds above 30km/h."

Happy to be a plodder.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/unlit-cyclists-face-greater-injur...
Comment by Morgan Carpenter on July 28, 2012 at 12:06am
It's fairly obvious that utility and sports cycling have different levels of risk associated with them. The Dutch, for example, even use different words for each activity, and and wear helmets for the latter. See http://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2012/05/28/lycra-on-the-streets-o...

There's plenty of evidence that utility cycling via bike hire schemes is safe, in countries and states where bike hire schemes are actually popular (that is, where riders are not obliged to wear a helmet). Look at Dublin, for example, with a scheme that started about the same size as that in Melbourne.
Comment by Tom Nockolds on July 28, 2012 at 12:43am
Happy to be a plodder - definitely! Anecdotally, it seems like a lot more than a threefold increase from my point of view. I started riding my bike slowly some time ago and soon after stopped wearing a helmet. It's remarkable that I went from being a "huff 'n puff" cyclist who had *regular* near misses. But once I slowed down these incidents simply stopped happening. It's been over two years now and still nothing even close to an accident. It so clear to me now that wearing a helmet made me increase my risk-taking behaviour.
Comment by Alan Todd on July 28, 2012 at 10:13am

Etienne, thanks for the link.  What I gleaned from this latest epistle from Monash to the gullible was that the likelihood of receiving a head injury goes up three fold if you ride at over 20km an hour, and five fold above thirty.  On this basis, the authors say their findings reinforce the benefits of helmet wearing.  Total non sequitur.  The only valid conclusion that can be drawn is that you're safer if you ride slower.  Where is that message? 

And my taxes pay for the morons who write this presumptive drivel.

Watch out too, I have sensed the start of the "compulsory lights at all times" push. 

Comment by Paul Martin on July 28, 2012 at 11:24am
Tony, I understand where you're coming from and I agree. We've been taught to be so risk averse it is bordering on paranoia in this country. It's really quite mad and, as you say, some things are far riskier and yet are ignored (installing Christmas lights on the roof while drunk for example).

Comment

You need to be a member of Helmetless riders to add comments!

 

Members (138)

 
 
 

Community Ads

Sponsors






© 2014   Created by DamianM.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service