A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » Australia
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Warning: H*lm*t content



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 22nd 05, 01:16 AM
Bleve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content


Gemma_k wrote:

Stackhats went out in, oh, 1980? Modern helmets are light, well
ventilated and comfortable.

You miss the point. It doesn't matter how good a helmet is to wear, or how
safe you feel in one, or how many vents there are or what kind of hairstyle
you have. It's all about the choice of whther you WANT to wear a helmet,
rather than mandating that you do....


Sure, I don't believe that helmets (or seatbelts) should be compulsory,
but if you choose not to wear one, you're an idiot.

History shows that there's rather more idiots in the world than
is ideal. A society that does its best to look after everyone (free
healthcare in particular) has a choice. Either make some level of
safety equipment compulsory - and hopefully reduce the bills we all
have to pay for healthcare through tax, or say "if you don't
wear this/use this etc, then you void your healthcare privs."

It's never an easy choice, it's always a "where do you
draw the line" issue. Such are the joys of living in the real world.

Ads
  #22  
Old August 22nd 05, 01:17 AM
EuanB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content


ritcho Wrote:
Dr Robinson is a well known anti-helmet law campaigner and does som
pretty good research. However, I'm concerned that her pre-determine
conclusions undermines her work

Euan had better make sure he falls off and hits his head in winte
only..

Ritch

You're implying that I'd break the law. I wouldn't

While it's law in this country to wear a helmet, I'll wear one.
Depending on the cricumstances of my cycling I may choose to wear
helmet if there was no compulsion, as I've said it's a handy place t
put lights. There'd certainly be occaisions when I'd choose not t
wear a helmet

--
EuanB

  #23  
Old August 22nd 05, 01:29 AM
Terry Collins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content

HellenWheels wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:41:54 +1000, (Peter
McCallum) wrote:


Bob wrote:

That article is a load of ****.

* start with some stats (uncited) and draw a reasonable correlation between
cyclist numbers and injuries "the more cyclists there are, the more
motorists are aware of them and the more carefully they drive"
* and then drive to a conclusion that helmet legislation is the cause
(shouldn't it be the motorists not being careful enough)

The only link is that mandatory wearing of helmets, at one point in time,
discouraged cyclists, reducing cyclist numbers. I think everyone is over
that by now - does it really discourage anyone anymore?


I've been wearing a helmet since about 1979 but I did notice a
considerable drop in cycling numbers in Mackay after the mandatory use
was enforced. Prior to enforcement of the law, around one in ten
cyclists here wore a helmet (initially in Queensland it was a legal
requirement to wear a helmet but there was no fine if you didn't). To
me, that indicates reluctance from most cyclists.

I still haven't seen the number of cyclists return to pre-helmet
proportions. The law has been enforced very strongly in Mackay, in fact
there is no traffic law that is more heavily enforced here.

One issue that has come up recently here is that schools are banning
kids from wearing caps under their helmets. Aparently they don't want
kids bringing caps to school. So under the North Qld sun (which is
intense), wearing a helmet rather than a shady hat can be very
uncomfortable.

P



What? Banning kids from wearing cycling caps at school? What's the purpose
of that.


Probably trying to enforce/force attitudes and keep out all those evil
influence from caps/video games/pin ball machines/snooker tables/bicycle
clubs/buggies/....

You can't ban an idea.


Yes, but educational authorites keep trying despite the centuries of
evidence to the contrary.

  #24  
Old August 22nd 05, 01:33 AM
Terry Collins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content

Peter McCallum wrote:

At my daughter's school there's a policy that students must wear the
correct coloured shoelaces, and it's strictly enforced. Obviously
shoelace colour has some bearing on educational outcomes.


Yes, Peter it does. {:-)

By enforcing conformity and brain numbing, your daughter is given the
best chance of being a counter bunny, or burger flipper at Maccas when
she finishes school. This increase the percentage of students that get
jobs after school, which increases the educational standing of her
educational institution (from reading the latest rating system results).


  #25  
Old August 22nd 05, 01:40 AM
Terry Collins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content

ritcho wrote:

Dr Robinson is a well known anti-helmet law campaigner and does some
pretty good research. However, I'm concerned that her pre-determined
conclusions undermines her work.


Umm, I thought that all scientific work was that; "I believe that this
causes this and now I will go out a find evidence that supports my theory"

  #26  
Old August 22nd 05, 01:47 AM
Gemma_k
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content


"till!" wrote in message
...

Gemma_k Wrote:

You miss the point....It's all about the choice of whther you WANT to
wear a helmet,
rather than mandating that you do....

Not at all true, I mean there is no mandate that requires you ride a
bike.


Which is the whole point. A lot of people have been lost to cycling because
of this mandate, they would prefer not to ride at all because the system has
become more onerous. Many more drivers now do not know what it's like to
ride a bike. These same drivers see cyclists a lot less on the roads and do
not know what to do when they do see one. The fact the government makes you
wear a helmet makes cycling look inherently dangerous.

For those that do not understand Robinson's research, just think about what
would happen to cycling if, say, fluorescent and reflectorized vests and
flags were made mandatory at all times for cycling.

If people really wanted to save lives and injuries, then why don't they stop
dicking around with the 1%ers in road safety and look at the entire health
system, and then outlaw things like smoking.....


  #27  
Old August 22nd 05, 01:48 AM
Bleve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content


Euan wrote:
"Bleve" == Bleve writes:


Absolutely. It's a hot and smelly inconvenience which is
off-putting to the fashion conscious.


Bleve Stackhats went out in, oh, 1980? Modern helmets are light,
Bleve well ventilated and comfortable.

On a hot summer's day they most certainly aren't as comfortable as a
decent sun hat.


Agreed.

It's a bit of baggage that you need to lug around and there is no
proof that helmets provide any benefit whereas there is
substantial proof that helmets are detrimental.


Bleve "any" benefit? If I wasn't wearing mine a few months ago
Bleve when I crashed into an oncoming bike on a bikepath, I'd
Bleve probably be a vegetable (more than I am now!). I'd certanily
Bleve have done significan injury. As it is, I had to buy a new
Bleve helmet and was a bit dizzy for a couple of days.

At age five I rode head face in to a concrete lamp post (I sneezed,
opened my eyes, saw lamp post and grabbed the front brake with
predictable results.) I required two stitches but other than that,
fine.

At at age 12 I went sailing over the bonnet of my geography teacher's
car. Many bruises and abrasions but guess what? My skin and bone
healed up.

At fourteen my tennis racket holder (a clamp which fitted on the front
forks which could hold a tennis racket) worked loose and jammed in the
spokes with rather spectacular results. Again, battered and bruised but
I recovered.

I wasn't wearing a helmet. I hit my head. I'm here and not a
vegetable.


My crash had me land on the back of my head, from 2m, head first.
That's the sort of concussion that can lead to brain damage and
neck injury.

As a kid, I had loads of "offs", without a helmet. Yeah, I
got away with them. My head's a mess of scars from all sorts of
minor bingles. None of them were crashes where I landed head-first. I
think I was pretty lucky, as most kids are (or rather, not unlucky,
we get away with all sorts of stuff that if the dice rolled the
wrong numbers, would make us vegetables, as kids)

There is no proof that helmets are beneficial.


Bleve Heh, I refute this thus; I can still read.

I refute your refute, I can still read to after several cycling
accidents which resulted in a bump on the head. I fully suspect that if
you had not been wearing a helmet in your accident you'd still be able
to read as well.


Not given the nature of the crash and how I landed.

This is the thing about helmets, you have an accident and see the damage
done to the helmet. ``Oh thank goodness I was wearing a helmet, that
impact would have left me with brain damage.'' That's a very unlikely
scenario. People have been falling on their bonce since the beginning
of time and it is the minority of those cases which result in brain
injury.


It's not actually, it's only recently that humans have been
traveling at an elevated height along concrete surfaces. A fall onto
a natural surface (grass, dirt etc) is usually fine. A fall onto
an unyielding surface is not to kind to our relatively fragile
heads.



If you're convinced of the properties of cycling helmets then I hope you
wear one when walking and driving a car (I know you wear a motorcycle
helmet ;-) ).


As with all things of this nature, it's a "where do you draw the line"
game. I'm constanly aware of the head-injury disaster area that is the
inside of motor vehicles, and when I raced them, you bet I wore a
helmet.
and when we rolled, and the helmet got trashed from hitting the
rollcage,
I was mighty glad I was wearing it! The inside of cars (especially
older
ones) is trecherous.

But, as a pedestrian, the likelyhood of a fall where I land head-first
is pretty low.

Now, "convinced of the properties of cycling helmets", duh. They
reduce impact forces. That's *all* they do (cycling helmets don't
have to pass any intrusion test, unlike Snell etc, AFAIK?). But,
that's what they do. There's no convincing or otherwise. It's a fact.
Hearts pump blood. That's all they do too. I still want mine

Do helmets make riding safer? No, as they don't reduce the
likleyhood of an accident. Do they make some classes of
accident less likely to cause serious injury? Yes.

Bleve It is a fact that in
every country that has helmet compulsion cycling has decreased
significantly which has a far greater impact on cyclist safety.


Bleve It may have temporarily reduced numbers, but is there any
Bleve evidence to suggest that the change lasted a generation?

If the numbers hadn't reduced it's quite possible we'd have a lot more
cyclists today.


Maybe. That happened a generation ago though. Kids still ride
bikes, they want independant transport. I think more
people drive these days because they live further from work and
cars are too affordable, but with the rising cost of petrol,
that is changing. When I was a kid, people rode bikes because
cars were expensive - most families I knew had one car, not two (or
more!). Nowdays, Joe Average lives 20km+ from work and wants to
get home in time to watch the dodgey tradesman getting busted on
Ch 7. He'd rather sit in a comfortable, air conditioned car with
a stereo (in a traffic jam!) than ride a bike into a headwind or
catch a train to a station that's miles from home and is crowded,
full of drunks and loonies (or at least, perceived to be) and doesn't
let him stop at the stupormarket to go shopping on the way home.

And then, I have to ask, are there actually less cyclists today than
there was 20 years ago? In terms of percentages or base numbers?
The bike shop industry is thriving.

Helmets may work in very limited scenarios, they do not make a
significant contribution to cyclist safety that warrants compulsion.


That's your opinion. It's what counts as a significant contribution
that is where the argument lies here. For me, wearing a helmet
made a significant contribution to *my* safety.

Compulsion is a barrier to cycling, a barrier to cycling reduces cycling
numbers and increases the risk per cyclists. It's not a good trade off.


Maybe, but I doubt it makes a significant difference these days.

Wear a helmet or don't, I just don't agree with compulsion.


Noted. I don't like compulsion either. But, here we are in
that real-world thing where we all have to make compromises.

  #28  
Old August 22nd 05, 01:55 AM
Peter McCallum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content

flyingdutch wrote:

Peter McCallum Wrote:

At my daughter's school there's a policy that students must wear the
correct coloured shoelaces, and it's strictly enforced. Obviously
shoelace colour has some bearing on educational outcomes.

P
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA


bwahahahah. opened up The Age today to discover my eldests' proposed
highschool is introducing tie and Blazer.
Daughter's response...
"Can i burn it?"


well it is called a blazer after all. of course ties are useful for
joining together to escape over the razor wire.

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA
  #29  
Old August 22nd 05, 01:55 AM
Peter McCallum
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content

Terry Collins wrote:

Peter McCallum wrote:

At my daughter's school there's a policy that students must wear the
correct coloured shoelaces, and it's strictly enforced. Obviously
shoelace colour has some bearing on educational outcomes.


Yes, Peter it does. {:-)

By enforcing conformity and brain numbing, your daughter is given the
best chance of being a counter bunny, or burger flipper at Maccas when
she finishes school. This increase the percentage of students that get
jobs after school, which increases the educational standing of her
educational institution (from reading the latest rating system results).


ROFLMAO

Thankyou for your enlightened insight. I must ask her to obtain a
principal's report on her uniform standard so that she can be assured a
place at the University of Hamburgerology (even if I have to buy her
one).
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA
  #30  
Old August 22nd 05, 01:55 AM
EuanB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Warning: H*lm*t content


Bleve Wrote:

Sure, I don't believe that helmets (or seatbelts) should be compulsory
but if you choose not to wear one, you're an idiot

I disagree. It means they've come to a different conclusion than yo
have. That doesn't make them an idiot

Who are you to say otherwise? Show me the data that head injuries hav
decreased per kilometer cycled as a result of compulsion and you ma
have a point. Current data points to the opposite trend

So who's the idiot? The ones demanding helmet compulsion thereb
slashing cycling numbers and increasing the risk per kilometer cycle
or the ones who leave it to the individual o make the choice

Noting that you're not for compulsion which is a different argumen
from whether one should or not

--
EuanB

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RR: On The Road (Warning: GRS Content) Ride-A-Lot Mountain Biking 0 June 6th 05 02:29 AM
severe weather warning joemarshall Unicycling 15 January 14th 05 06:41 AM
Weather warning ... elyob UK 11 January 5th 05 12:54 AM
Warning! OT Political Content!!! Steven Bornfeld Racing 15 November 1st 04 12:06 AM
Today (warning: on topic content) Just zis Guy, you know? UK 3 April 25th 04 12:40 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.