Helmet debate.

The Planning and Infrastructure Department of Perth, Western Australia, says that a survey of 41
bike paths in the city shows that the number of cyclists using them jumped from 2686 in 1999 to
5286 this year. Any argument that says mandatory wearing of helmets deters people from cycling is
clearly wrong!

Marty

 

Marty wrote:
>
> The Planning and Infrastructure Department of Perth, Western Australia, says that a survey of 41
> bike paths in the city shows that the number of cyclists using them jumped from 2686 in 1999 to
> 5286 this year. Any argument that says mandatory wearing of helmets deters people from cycling is
> clearly wrong!

Troll? Everyone who has ever worn underwear has died, therefore wearing underwear must kill you.
{ On the other hand, Errol Flynn not wearing a singlet probably accounts for the baby boom {.

When was helmet legislation introduced? How many of the people counted in each survey were
wearing a helmet?

--
Terry Collins {}}} email: terryc at woa.com.au www: http://www.woa.com.au Wombat Outdoor
Adventures <Bicycles, Computers, GIS, Printing,
Publishing>

"People without trees are like fish without clean water"

 

"Marty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> The Planning and Infrastructure Department of Perth, Western Australia, says that a survey of 41
> bike paths in the city shows that the number of cyclists using them jumped from 2686 in 1999 to
> 5286 this year. Any argument that says mandatory wearing of helmets deters people from cycling is
> clearly wrong!
>
> Marty

Which survey are you referring to? When was the survey conducted (you mention "this year")?

--
Alan Erskine alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au GWB the Ghengis Khan of the 21st Century

 

On 26 May 2003 20:01:08 -0700, Marty <[email protected]> gushed forth:
>The Planning and Infrastructure Department of Perth, Western Australia, says that a survey of 41
>bike paths in the city shows that

Got a URL pointing to the survey ??

--
Ooroo Mark F...

Another Optus Cable Traffic Monitor. http://www.members.optushome.com.au/forsythm/traff/

Today is Boomtime, the 1st day of Confusion in the YOLD 3169

 

"Marty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> The Planning and Infrastructure Department of Perth, Western Australia, says that a survey of 41
> bike paths in the city shows that the number of cyclists using them jumped from 2686 in 1999 to
> 5286 this year. Any argument that says mandatory wearing of helmets deters people from cycling is
> clearly wrong!

All part of the fear mentality associated with this need to wear helmets "waah, if I don't I will
surely die"

Perceived danger or simple fear of traffic has driven recreational cyclists off the good roads where
they have rights as a vehicle, onto the poorly designed, circuitous bike paths where they have few
rights and must contend with skaters, dogs, mobs of walkers, kids on BMX, kids on MX, motorised
skateboards and BBQ powered frisbees. They think they are safer.

Yuk, yuk. yuk!

Or maybe WA really has provide state of the art bike paths and *everyone* is riding them. Well I
guess there's only about 5500 cyclists in Perth.

Cheers Peter

 

"Marty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> The Planning and Infrastructure Department of Perth, Western Australia, says that a survey of 41
> bike paths in the city shows that the number of cyclists using them jumped from 2686 in 1999 to
> 5286 this year. Any argument that says mandatory wearing of helmets deters people from cycling is
> clearly wrong!

I thought only sad old men and joggers used bike paths. The rest of us (being understandably fearful
of the sad old men and joggers) ride on the road, where we're much less likely to puncture, and much
less likely to have an accident.

If you like, I can save up the gross sweat from the foam pads on my helmet, and post it to you as a
reminder of the principle reason that helmets suck.

Cheers,

Suzy

--
---
Suzy Jackson [email protected] http://www.suzyj.net

 

"Suzy Jackson" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

<snip>

> If you like, I can save up the gross sweat from the foam pads on my helmet, and post it to you as
> a reminder of the principle reason that helmets suck.

I don't think they suck but I also don't think they should be compolsory for anyone > 18

but then I think the same of helmet laws for M/C, seat belt laws for cars an a plethora of other "I
feel the need to mother you" type laws.

Trevor S

 

On 27 May 2003 10:21:22 GMT, Trevor S <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Suzy Jackson" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
><snip>
>
>> If you like, I can save up the gross sweat from the foam pads on my helmet, and post it to you as
>> a reminder of the principle reason that helmets suck.
>
>I don't think they suck but I also don't think they should be compolsory for anyone > 18
>
>but then I think the same of helmet laws for M/C, seat belt laws for cars an a plethora of other "I
>feel the need to mother you" type laws.

Then how about we lobby our legislators to introduce a waiver of society's obligations to us if we
fall off and hit our heads and have to be cared for for the rest of our lives? Our offspring and
dependants will also be covered in this waiver -- no support for them if we do ourselves a mischief.

Moosh

 

Suzy Jackson <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Marty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> > The Planning and Infrastructure Department of Perth, Western Australia, says that a survey of 41
> > bike paths in the city shows that the number of cyclists using them jumped from 2686 in 1999 to
> > 5286 this year. Any argument that says mandatory wearing of helmets deters people from cycling
> > is clearly wrong!
>
> I thought only sad old men and joggers used bike paths. The rest of us (being understandably
> fearful of the sad old men and joggers) ride on the road, where we're much less likely to
> puncture, and much less likely to
have
> an accident.
>
> If you like, I can save up the gross sweat from the foam pads on my
helmet,
> and post it to you as a reminder of the principle reason that helmets
suck.

Well Suzy,

I hope you never ride fast enough to fall and bang your head hard on the road. Then you will
discover why helmets are useful. Just take a visit to a spinal/head injury ward and see why one less
injury is worth a little inconvenience.

Sure, I like the wind through the hair, but having been involved in a peleton smash where I hit the
tar at 40+km/hr, thank God I am able to type this with my fingers and not a stick from my mouth.

Maybe the higher use is due to people now being used to the helmet idea. Remember when people didn't
wear seatbelts??

It's a pity that governments have to come down on all of us with these laws, but I choose to wear a
helmet for my own safety. I had trouble getting my kids to comply, but it now 2nd nature for them.
Even my 70+ mother who initially left her bike in the shed now is cycling again as the benefits
outweigh this slight inconvenience.

Yes the sweat sucks, but so does life in a wheelchair.

Paul

>
> Cheers,
>
> Suzy
>
> --
> ---
> Suzy Jackson [email protected] http://www.suzyj.net

 

"Moosh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Then how about we lobby our legislators to introduce a waiver of society's obligations to us

Interesting idea - how about we apply it to drink drivers, and those who run red lights to become
vegetables choking up our nursing homes. But of course must retain our obligations to all the Toorak
health card holders.

Cheers Peter

 

"Marty" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> The Planning and Infrastructure Department of Perth, Western Australia, says that a survey of 41
> bike paths in the city shows that the number of cyclists using them jumped from 2686 in 1999 to
> 5286 this year. Any argument that says mandatory wearing of helmets deters people from cycling is
> clearly wrong!
>
> Marty

It might also have a lot to do with helmetless people getting used to riding past cops and no action
is taken. Take a ride around Perth and you'll see a huge amount of helmets dangling on handlebars,
helmetless people and so-on, with no discernible action from the police. It would be interesting to
see how many people on the bike paths surveyed were actually wearing helmets. Just speculating, but
the point is that there are other factors to be taken into consideration when interpreting data.
Without the other data it's invalid to jump to a conclusion that an argument is 'clearly wrong'.
Perhaps the argument is just less clearly right...

Looking at the state of many bikes, perhaps the police inaction is an expression of a mentality thet
thinks bikes are not *really* vehicles; they're just toys. That means you don't have to worry too
much about details like brakes, decent tyres, lights or other safety items.

I'm keeping out of the debate on pros and cons. In my experience a good helmet is comfortable; a
crap one is bloody awful to wear. I chose to wear a helmet when MTBing and now I wear one on the odd
occasion I wrestle with cars because I don't feel right without. A little like not feeling right
without a seatbelt in a car.

I advocate mandatory helmets for kids less than 17 (driver's licence age) and enforcement of the
roadworthiness of bikes largely because the laxity in enforcement at a younger age, regarding bikes
as toys (and the laxity of maintaining equipment) seems to transfer that laxity when it comes to
getting a car, along with a lax regard to road safety and other road users.

Realistically, fewer kids will be cyclists than drivers when they grow up. By instilling respect for
laws and equipment as kids, perhaps the kids will be more respectful of cyclists when they grow up
and drive cars, and less likey to clobber me or you when we're cycling.

My two cent's worth...

Frank

 

"Peter Signorini" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> "Moosh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > Then how about we lobby our legislators to introduce a waiver of society's obligations to us
>
> Interesting idea - how about we apply it to drink drivers, and those who
run
> red lights to become vegetables choking up our nursing homes. But of
course
> must retain our obligations to all the Toorak health card holders.
>

Different. In Vic, motorists pay TAC insurance that covers them for such at fault accidents.

 

"Moosh" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

<snip>

> Then how about we lobby our legislators to introduce a waiver of society's obligations to us if we
> fall off and hit our heads and have

Why, do you want them euthanasied ?

> to be cared for for the rest of our lives? Our offspring and dependants will also be covered in
> this waiver -- no support for them if we do ourselves a mischief.

and when you hit a little bit harder and the helment does not save you and you need continual care..
and ... so it goes on..

The answer for me is that the choice (mine) comes back to me as an adult, after being fully informed
of the consequences (the Governmwnts role). Minors are a different matter.

The number of brain injuries caused by accidents in cars from side impacts from 4-Wd's is staggering
and could easily be substantially diminished by ensuring people in cars wear helmets.

Mothering type laws are a political debate, similar to the speeding debate, if they can have you
thinking it has some relevance to safety and distract from the real problem... shrug...

Here we sit bickering about wearing helmets, that is not what the debate is about for me, should I
have the right as an adult to choose !! YES
!!!!!!!!! Like censorship, the removal of that right to choose is the by
far the greatest "evil".

Trevor S

 

"Frank Palermo" <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

<snip>

> It might also have a lot to do with helmetless people getting used to riding past cops and no
> action is taken. Take a ride around Perth and you'll see a huge amount of helmets dangling on
> handlebars,

What's the story here ? I see more and more of that locally, helments hanging on bars . Is it a
fashion accessory to have it on the bar and not your head ? If not, why carry it on the bar ? The
police used to pull people up all the time here but now they just drive past as well, more money to
be made in nabbing a speeding motorist doing 65 in a 60 zone I guess

Trevor S

 

Trevor S <[email protected]> wrote:

>What's the story here ? I see more and more of that locally, helments hanging on bars . Is it a
>fashion accessory to have it on the bar and not your head ? If not, why carry it on the bar ? The
>police used to pull people up all the time here but now they just drive past as well, more

Since there hasn't exactly been an epidemic in cyclist head injuries from such behaviour they may be
justified in thinking it's not worth their while.

TM

 

Paulie <[email protected]> wrote:

>I hope you never ride fast enough to fall and bang your head hard on the road. Then you will
>discover why helmets are useful. Just take a visit to a spinal/head injury ward and see why one
>less injury is worth a little inconvenience.

The most logical lesson one would take from the typical head injury ward is that you should never
step into a car without protective headgear. Most of the occupants will have got their injury as a
car driver or passenger.

>Sure, I like the wind through the hair, but having been involved in a peleton smash where I hit the
>tar at 40+km/hr, thank God I am able to type this with my fingers and not a stick from my mouth.

Fortunately, incidents like this only happen to a minority of cyclists. It's worth your while
wearing a helmet if you're in the habit of taking excessive risks, but possibly not if you're a
day-to-day commuter. Just as racing drivers wear helmets but run-of-the-mill motorists don't.

TM

 

Ray Peace <[email protected]> wrote:

>Helmets certainly suck, but they're better than the alternative, which is head injuries. And it's
>not the falling off that kills you, it's the 1.5 tonnes of metal driven by inattentive idiots that
>hits you at 100 k/mh that does that.

If you think a foam helmet will protect your head from a 100kph collision with a car then you're
putting faith in miracles.

Most head injuries result from car crashes, not from cycling, yet we don't require car occupants to
wear helmets.

TM

 

My opinion:

Every since my mate was hit by a car, knocked over and spent 6 weeks in hospital with a broken leg,
I have worn a helmet. His was split into 16 pieces and definetly saved his life. It doesn't matter
have safe you are, its also the other people out there that can cause damage.

Jeff

 

[email protected] (Anthony Morton) wrote in news:[email protected]:

<Snip>

> Since there hasn't exactly been an epidemic in cyclist head injuries from such behaviour they may
> be justified in thinking it's not worth their while.

Yeah but the same logic can be applied to many laws, I didn't realise the Police were at liberty to
choose the laws they enforce

Trevor S

--
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." -Albert Einstein

 

Trevor S <[email protected]> wrote:

>Yeah but the same logic can be applied to many laws, I didn't realise the Police were at liberty to
>choose the laws they enforce

Of course they are. Police resources are limited and so police at many levels have discretion to
decide where enforcement should be concentrated. From time to time we get 'police blitzes' when
enforcement efforts are concentrated in one particular area; at other times that area gets less
attention while resources are focussed elsewhere.

There are also certain laws that police have a policy of not enforcing. Before Victoria abolished
the law banning witchcraft last month, it went for decades without police enforcement.

TM