Helmet laws again - looks like there's now a legal precedent

[T-Rex]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/heady-fre...lmet-laws-are-unnecessary-20100827-13vz2.html

FWIW, I think repealing them for over 18s is a good idea if it increases cycling participation.

But there's no way I would ride without one. I've seen plenty of busted helmets, including my own, and every time the rider would have been worse off without it.

 

[Entropy]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/heady-fre...lmet-laws-are-unnecessary-20100827-13vz2.html

FWIW, I think repealing them for over 18s is a good idea if it increases cycling participation.

But there's no way I would ride without one. I've seen plenty of busted helmets, including my own, and every time the rider would have been worse off without it.

I am not so sure about the science behind her and the researcher's claims.

When driving I would feel uncomfortable with bike riders who weren't wearing helmets on the road.

 

[John U]

SUE ABBOTT told the court a helmet can ''increase angular acceleration which an oblique impulse imparts to the head, increasing the risk of damage to the brain, especially diffuse axonal injury''.

In other words, the helmet grips the road, twisting the head more quickly than if the skull were unprotected.

Evidence from Bill Curnow cited a report from the National Health and Medical Research Council that warns ''the wearing of helmets may result in greater rotational forces and increased diffuse brain injury''.

This is one of the reasons why helmets have shells. If the helmet was foam with out a shell they may have a point.

This sort of logic is up there with "Don't wear a seat belt because you're more likely to get whiplash"

 

[3viltoast3r]

SUE ABBOTT told the court a helmet can ''increase angular acceleration which an oblique impulse imparts to the head, increasing the risk of damage to the brain, especially diffuse axonal injury''.

In other words, the helmet grips the road, twisting the head more quickly than if the skull were unprotected.

Evidence from Bill Curnow cited a report from the National Health and Medical Research Council that warns ''the wearing of helmets may result in greater rotational forces and increased diffuse brain injury''.

This is one of the reasons why helmets have shells. If the helmet was foam with out a shell they may have a point.

This sort of logic is up there with "Don't wear a seat belt because you're more likely to get whiplash"

Most definitely agree with you there.

 

[floody]

I'd like to know the friction coefficient of moulded shell helmet on bitumen versus human face/scalp on bitumen.

 

[BUSHPIG]

State government won't like this, that $50 would have been essential to feed another burocrats mouth.

 

[wombat]

I've seen some recommendations from a helmet review that very strongly suggested that the exterior profile of helmets should be more concerned with eliminating potential catch points, and less concerned with aesthetics.

I can definately see their point but, for me at least, helmets have saved me by dispersing an axial impact; and they've saved me enough to stop me from going without on the premise of a single study, or two.

 

[flamin'trek]

Great... how long did it take her to come up with teh argument that wearing a helmet could be more dangerous. I'm guessing it was a long time after she decided not to wear a helmet so her hair wasn't messed up. For crying out loud just wear the damn helmet. I HATE lawyers who will do anything do save a client $50. Similar arguments can be used for seatbelts, and we know that's not getting repealed, and you probably aren't going to get off using it either.

the is no way a shiny helmet surface is going to grab on the road more than skin and hair.

Yes, helmets may have pro's and con's but after cracking mine today after landing on my head (no damage to brain I think) I'll be enforcing my own helmet laws on my children at least.

 

[muskimo]

i think she already has brain damage. silly woman. 12 odd months ago, i miss judged a drop in docklands and ended up doing a 2mt upside down face plant, onto the concrete, and KOing my self for a good 5mins apparently. i have very little recollection of the night. the helmet is all kinds of F#*Ked up, but im still very much alive and only have a couple small scars on my neck and chin. if i didnt have a helmet on, i believe i would have very very easily cracked my skull and been much worse off.

 

[Tomas]

I'd like to know the friction coefficient of moulded shell helmet on bitumen versus human face/scalp on bitumen.

Why? That'd give you a stupid, single minded statistic you could use to push an argument with no real basis. There are so many more important variables than the coefficient of (presumably static) friction you'd quote.

I've seen some recommendations from a helmet review that very strongly suggested that the exterior profile of helmets should be more concerned with eliminating potential catch points, and less concerned with aesthetics.

There are significant number of journal articles that suggest the lack of aesthetic considerations in helmets (ugly as fuck) seriously damage cycling numbers. I think the whole category needs a look at.

 

[Tomas]

i think she already has brain damage. silly woman. 12 odd months ago, i miss judged a drop in docklands and ended up doing a 2mt upside down face plant, onto the concrete, and KOing my self for a good 5mins apparently. i have very little recollection of the night. the helmet is all kinds of F#*Ked up, but im still very much alive and only have a couple small scars on my neck and chin. if i didnt have a helmet on, i believe i would have very very easily cracked my skull and been much worse off.

Not particularly relevant to the discussion. In countries where helmets aren't mandatory, helmet usage is pretty high/similar to AUS when 'performance'/'extreme' cycling.

 

[T-Rex]

Not particularly relevant to the discussion. In countries where helmets aren't mandatory, helmet usage is pretty high/similar to AUS when 'performance'/'extreme' cycling.

Based on my observations of cycling in Europe, I would have to agree. Tootling around town, we were almost the only people wearing helmets. Doing XC and DH, we saw maybe one clown without a helmet, about the same as what you would occasionally see in Australia.

In Melbourne last week I saw this new public rental bike system, the same as they have in Paris. I just don't know how that is going to get off the ground if helmets are compulsory in Australia. Who carries a helmet if they don't have a bike?

People should be free to take risks with their health if they are adults and it's only affecting them. We let people contract lung cancer by allowing smoking, why not let them splatter their brains over the pavement by letting them ride without helmets?

 

[jasevr4]

People should be free to take risks with their health if they are adults and it's only affecting them. We let people contract lung cancer by allowing smoking, why not let them splatter their brains over the pavement by letting them ride without helmets?

100% agree. I'd never ride without a helmet, but I hate being told that I have to ride with a helmet.

 

[happy_heretic]

That awkward moment when a lawyer tries to use logic...

 

[floody]

People should be free to take risks with their health if they are adults and it's only affecting them. We let people contract lung cancer by allowing smoking, why not let them splatter their brains over the pavement by letting them ride without helmets?

You know what, I agree now. Let people choose; just if they choose not to wear a helmet they don't get any motor accident board cover.

 

[Ridenparadise]

The city bike systems would be fine if helmets and cooks' hairnets (more like paper) were also available with the bikes. That may even employ people to fit helmets etc so it won't happen I guess.

On the subject of personal freedoms though: Just when did it become fahionable for governments at all levels to take our freedom away for the greater good???....I mean apart from being able to tax and fine us for it and make a profit???

 

[UncleFeet]

...if the helmet laws were repealed, maybe we could get around in some of those sexy helmets that haven't been approved/not quite met Aust. standards...??

 

[Australia]

Stupid woman, I'll wouldnt let my mortal enemy ride without a helmet... it'd shit me when my taxes were funding their vegatitive state hospital bed

Helmets for any ride longer than 800m for me

 

[frensham]

Stupid woman, I'll wouldnt let my mortal enemy ride without a helmet... it'd shit me when my taxes were funding their vegatitive state hospital bed

Helmets for any ride longer than 800m for me

So, does it 'shit you' when your taxes fund the skin cancer costs of morons who don't think about sun safety? What about those people who choose to smoke? Drink to excess? Eat junk food and get heart disease/diabetes? What about those who choose not to exercise at all? Does it shit you to pay for their hospital costs too? None of the above are illegal but ALL of the above are far more stupid than not wearing a bicycle helmet to ride 900m to the shops on a bike path.

 

[frensham]

i think she already has brain damage. silly woman. 12 odd months ago, i miss judged a drop in docklands and ended up doing a 2mt upside down face plant, onto the concrete, and KOing my self for a good 5mins apparently. i have very little recollection of the night. the helmet is all kinds of F#*Ked up, but im still very much alive and only have a couple small scars on my neck and chin. if i didnt have a helmet on, i believe i would have very very easily cracked my skull and been much worse off.

So, did you choose to wear a helmet or did you only wear it because the law told you to? If the former is true then your point is completely invalid. Not having compulsory helmet laws does not prevent you from wearing a helmet IF YOU CHOOSE TO.