Warning: H*lm*t content

[Euan]

.... Dr Dorothy Robinson's concern, instead, is bicycle safety. She has
just published a study in the Health Promotion Journal of Australia that
is likely to send shock waves through Australian cycling communities
with its claim that mandatory bicycle helmet laws increase rather than
decrease the likelihood of injuries to cyclists.

http://melbourne.citysearch.com.au/profile?id=53571

Personally I'd still use a helmet in winter 'cause it's a handy place to
put lights Summer I'd leave the lid behind and wear a sun hat.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

 

[till!]

By the same genius stroke of logic, higher fuel prices will also result in safer cyclists BUT IN A TWOFOLD APPROACH. MORE +++ BETTER+++

1) less car on the road because people cant afford the fuel.

2) more cyclists, because people cant afford to drive.

I think we should all petition out local member for $2/l for unleaded, and $3/1 for premium. Should we crosspost this one to aus.cars to return the recent favours^H^H^Htrolls?

till

 

[Bob]

"Euan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ... Dr Dorothy Robinson's concern, instead, is bicycle safety. She has
> just published a study in the Health Promotion Journal of Australia that
> is likely to send shock waves through Australian cycling communities
> with its claim that mandatory bicycle helmet laws increase rather than
> decrease the likelihood of injuries to cyclists.
>
> http://melbourne.citysearch.com.au/profile?id=53571
>
> Personally I'd still use a helmet in winter 'cause it's a handy place to
> put lights Summer I'd leave the lid behind and wear a sun hat.
> --
> Cheers | ~~ __@
> Euan | ~~ _-\<,
> Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

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?

Wearing helmets, or not, has nothing to do directly with the actual
incidence of accidents, according to the research it is the number of
cyclists. But wearing helmets can impact outcomes. These however would not
be identifiable in statistics because the number of deaths, while being too
high already, is to low in Australia to draw real conclusions.

The follow up claim on helmet effectiveness is apparently not supported with
any particular research, it is only an opinion: "bike helmets are designed
for bicycle-ground and bicycle-bicycle collisions rather than motor vehicle
accidents, and are therefore ineffective in preventing serious brain
injuries in such cases". More effective than skin and bones alone.

Everyone do what they want, legally or otherwise, I will continue to wear a
helmet that may save my life.

 

[Peter McCallum]

Bob <[email protected]> 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

--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

 

[Euan]

>>>>> "Bob" == Bob <[email protected]> writes:

Bob> That article is a load of ****.

It's a magazine article, not an academic study. Take it for what it is.

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

A bit of a long bow. There's nothing new in this article and it can all
be traced to peer reviewed scientific papers if you're willing to expend
the effort.

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

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

Bob> Wearing helmets, or not, has nothing to do directly with the
Bob> actual incidence of accidents, according to the research it is
Bob> the number of cyclists.

And requiring helmets directly impacts on the number of cyclists out
there. Of do you think the 30% drop in cycling when helmet compulsion
came about is purely incidental?

Bob> But wearing helmets can impact outcomes. These however would
Bob> not be identifiable in statistics because the number of deaths,
Bob> while being too high already, is to low in Australia to draw
Bob> real conclusions.

There is no proof that helmets are beneficial. 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.

Bob> The follow up claim on helmet effectiveness is apparently not
Bob> supported with any particular research, it is only an opinion:
Bob> "bike helmets are designed for bicycle-ground and
Bob> bicycle-bicycle collisions rather than motor vehicle accidents,
Bob> and are therefore ineffective in preventing serious brain
Bob> injuries in such cases". More effective than skin and bones
Bob> alone.

No, that is the manufacturing standards that helmets have to comply
with. There are no helmet standards for vehicle / bicycle collisions.

Bob> Everyone do what they want, legally or otherwise, I will
Bob> continue to wear a helmet that may save my life.

That's a very big may. I prefer not to entrust my safety to what is
essentially a piece of polystyrene designed to absorb the kinetic energy
of a fall from head height. That's all it does.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

 

[HellenWheels]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 20:41:54 +1000, [email protected] (Peter
McCallum) wrote:

>Bob <[email protected]> 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. You can't ban an idea. If you start doing picky things like that
on the off chance it might lead to wearing a cap in school, that would only
increase the tension among the youngsters and promote even more civil
disobedience, imo. What about wearing a lycra skull cap? Are they gonna ban
those too? You can stuff 'em in your pocket. Hell they probably think that
a skull cap is even worse than a little cycling cap, which is more 'dork'
than 'outlaw', for most people's taste...

-Wheels

 

[Bleve]

Euan wrote:
> >>>>> "Bob" == Bob <[email protected]> writes:
>

> Bob> The only link is that mandatory wearing of helmets, at one
> Bob> point in time, discouraged cyclists, reducing cyclist
> Bob> numbers. I think everyone is over that by now - does it really
> Bob> discourage anyone anymore?
>
> Absolutely. It's a hot and smelly inconvenience which is off-putting to
> the fashion conscious.

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


> 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.

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

> Bob> Wearing helmets, or not, has nothing to do directly with the
> Bob> actual incidence of accidents, according to the research it is
> Bob> the number of cyclists.
>
> And requiring helmets directly impacts on the number of cyclists out
> there. Of do you think the 30% drop in cycling when helmet compulsion
> came about is purely incidental?

20 years ago (or however long ago it was) it may have stopped some
adults riding - but all the kids at my school still rode. We hated
stackhats and those awful Bell puddingbowls, but we still rode our
bikes everywhere. As to how many people that grew up post-compulsory
rules that haven't ridden because they'd have to wear a helmet? How's
that going to be measured?

>
> Bob> But wearing helmets can impact outcomes. These however would
> Bob> not be identifiable in statistics because the number of deaths,
> Bob> while being too high already, is to low in Australia to draw
> Bob> real conclusions.
>
> There is no proof that helmets are beneficial.

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



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.

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

> Bob> The follow up claim on helmet effectiveness is apparently not
> Bob> supported with any particular research, it is only an opinion:
> Bob> "bike helmets are designed for bicycle-ground and
> Bob> bicycle-bicycle collisions rather than motor vehicle accidents,
> Bob> and are therefore ineffective in preventing serious brain
> Bob> injuries in such cases". More effective than skin and bones
> Bob> alone.
>
> No, that is the manufacturing standards that helmets have to comply
> with. There are no helmet standards for vehicle / bicycle collisions.
>
> Bob> Everyone do what they want, legally or otherwise, I will
> Bob> continue to wear a helmet that may save my life.
>
> That's a very big may. I prefer not to entrust my safety to what is
> essentially a piece of polystyrene designed to absorb the kinetic energy
> of a fall from head height. That's all it does.

"all" it does? "I refuse to breath because all it does is oxygenate my

blood". Mine without doubt saved me from significant head injury. I'm
mighty glad that polystyrene saved my bonce from a fall from
head-height. I landed head-first (back of head). Helmets work.

 

[Kathy]

Bleve wrote:
I prefer not to entrust my safety to what is
>>essentially a piece of polystyrene designed to absorb the kinetic energy
>>of a fall from head height. That's all it does.
>
>
> "all" it does? "I refuse to breath because all it does is oxygenate my
>
> blood". Mine without doubt saved me from significant head injury. I'm
> mighty glad that polystyrene saved my bonce from a fall from
> head-height. I landed head-first (back of head). Helmets work.
>
I second that - although Dave swears that my head only hit the concrete
path AFTER I'd stopped falling, I KNOW that I hit my head - and I for
one am VERY happy with the fact that the helmet absorbed the impact, not
my head - and so I had no bruise or scrape or anything - not even a
headache

 

[Gemma_k]

"Bleve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Euan wrote:
>> >>>>> "Bob" == Bob <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>
>> Bob> The only link is that mandatory wearing of helmets, at one
>> Bob> point in time, discouraged cyclists, reducing cyclist
>> Bob> numbers. I think everyone is over that by now - does it really
>> Bob> discourage anyone anymore?
>>
>> Absolutely. It's a hot and smelly inconvenience which is off-putting to
>> the fashion conscious.
>
> 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....
Gemma

 

[Bob]

> Bob> Everyone do what they want, legally or otherwise, I will
> Bob> continue to wear a helmet that may save my life.
>
> That's a very big may.

It's no loner a "may save", its a "won't " if you're not wearing one. And I
know it is a big may.

I prefer not to entrust my safety to what is
> essentially a piece of polystyrene designed to absorb the kinetic energy
> of a fall from head height. That's all it does.

I don't entrust my safety to anyone or anything but myself. I am no more or
less paranoid about cars and trucks around me on the roads with or without a
helmet. I just hope it may make a difference if - even for just a minor off
on the bike path. Just like I value air bags in a car but don't expect them
to save me if I drive face-long into a Mack track hood ornament, hopefully a
helmet can make a bit of a difference. Don't underestimate the effect of
kinetic energy on your brain - every bit absorbed helps.

I think the statement "the more cyclists there are, the more motorists are
aware of them and the more carefully they drive" is the conclusion that
needs addressing in a more positive way.

I do not want to see my kids riding on the footpath or roads without
helmets. That would be difficult to encourage if there were no helmet laws
("look at that bad man without a helmet, I wonder if the police will catch
him" :-o). And kids tend to have many more falls (and softer skulls) where
the helmet can make a big difference.

cheers
"paternal softening in progress"

 

[till!]

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.

 

[Resound]

"Gemma_k" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bleve" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Euan wrote:
>>> >>>>> "Bob" == Bob <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>
>>> Bob> The only link is that mandatory wearing of helmets, at one
>>> Bob> point in time, discouraged cyclists, reducing cyclist
>>> Bob> numbers. I think everyone is over that by now - does it really
>>> Bob> discourage anyone anymore?
>>>
>>> Absolutely. It's a hot and smelly inconvenience which is off-putting to
>>> the fashion conscious.
>>
>> 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....
> Gemma
>

I'm still undecided about whether the law should mandate helmet use for
adults. However, children don't have the sort of decision making abilities
that adults do, that's why they're considered children. In the same way that
it's illegal for children to smoke tobacco, drink alcohol etc it should be
illegal for them to partake of risk taking behaviour like riding without a
helmet. Once they're an adult they should perhaps be allowed to make up
their own minds. Then there's the issue of the public health system
subsidising people's voluntary risk taking behaviour. But that's another
rant.

 

[Euan]

>>>>> "Bleve" == Bleve <[email protected]> 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.

>> 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.

Bleve> 20 years ago (or however long ago it was) it may have stopped
Bleve> some adults riding - but all the kids at my school still
Bleve> rode. We hated stackhats and those awful Bell puddingbowls,
Bleve> but we still rode our bikes everywhere. As to how many
Bleve> people that grew up post-compulsory rules that haven't ridden
Bleve> because they'd have to wear a helmet? How's that going to be
Bleve> measured?

It's pretty hard to measure, agreed. However the requirement to wear a
helmet is a barrier on two fronts.

One, cycling must be dangerous. It must be dangerous otherwise why
would you have to wear a helmet? You don't have to wear a helmet if
something's not dangerous.

Two, it's just inconvenient. Bicycles are much more convenient when you
don't have to lug around a helmet once you've parked the bike. These
things matter to people.

Bob> But wearing helmets can impact outcomes. These however would
Bob> not be identifiable in statistics because the number of deaths,
Bob> while being too high already, is to low in Australia to draw
Bob> real conclusions.
>> 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.

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.

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 ;-) ).

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.

>> That's a very big may. I prefer not to entrust my safety to what
>> is essentially a piece of polystyrene designed to absorb the
>> kinetic energy of a fall from head height. That's all it does.

Bleve> "all" it does? "I refuse to breath because all it does is
Bleve> oxygenate blood". Mine without doubt saved me from significant head
Bleve> injury. I'm mighty glad that polystyrene saved my bonce from
Bleve> a fall from head-height. I landed head-first (back of head).
Bleve> Helmets work.

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

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.

Wear a helmet or don't, I just don't agree with compulsion.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

 

[flyingdutch]

After having 2 serious spills recently, one racing and one commuting, Im darned glad i was wearing a helmet.

I'd love to be able to get away with not wearing one but the penalty for something happening is just too high

http://thehippy.net/gallery/displayimage.php?album=98&pos=14

 

[Flying Echidna]

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 09:06:37 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote
in aus.bicycle:

>... Dr Dorothy Robinson's concern, instead, is bicycle safety. She has
>just published a study in the Health Promotion Journal of Australia that
>is likely to send shock waves through Australian cycling communities
>with its claim that mandatory bicycle helmet laws increase rather than
>decrease the likelihood of injuries to cyclists.
>
>http://melbourne.citysearch.com.au/profile?id=53571
>
>Personally I'd still use a helmet in winter 'cause it's a handy place to
>put lights Summer I'd leave the lid behind and wear a sun hat.


Dr Robinson still cycling in her satin flaired trousers , platform
shoes and floral paisley top must be a sight to behold. I wouldn't
admit to still owning the clothes I wore in 1971 let alone claim to
wear them


Regards
Prickles

 

[sinus]

I'm still undecided about whether the law should mandate helmet use for
adults. However, children don't have the sort of decision making abilities
that adults do, that's why they're considered children. In the same way that
it's illegal for children to smoke tobacco, drink alcohol etc it should be
illegal for them to partake of risk taking behaviour like riding without a
helmet. Once they're an adult they should perhaps be allowed to make up
their own minds. Then there's the issue of the public health system
subsidising people's voluntary risk taking behaviour. But that's another
rant.

How hard would it be to encourage children to wear a helmet if adults don't. Not to mention any enforcement when they are teenagers. You cannot effectively get kids to adopt a behaviour when it is highly obvious that their role-models, adults, are doing something different.

I always shake my head when I see people on bike paths with helmets on the handlebars, particularly when it is Dad with the kids. I want one of those magic helmets with accident detector and auto-install capability. You wonder what logic Dad used to get kids to put their helmet on.

I have had my share of accidents on a bike in the past. Last count was two on the road involving cars, one on the road caused by faulty equipment (tyre, bang), one on trails (note: check front wheel quick release before going over ANY size bump) and two on the Yarra bike path. The only two times I hit my head was on the bike path at reasonably slow speeds. And both would have been bad headaches without a helmet. That's good enough for me.

 

[ritcho]

.... Dr Dorothy Robinson's concern, instead, is bicycle safety. She has
just published a study in the Health Promotion Journal of Australia that
is likely to send shock waves through Australian cycling communities
with its claim that mandatory bicycle helmet laws increase rather than
decrease the likelihood of injuries to cyclists.

http://melbourne.citysearch.com.au/profile?id=53571

Personally I'd still use a helmet in winter 'cause it's a handy place to
put lights Summer I'd leave the lid behind and wear a sun hat.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)

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.

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

Ritch

 

[Ray Peace]

Flying Echidna wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 09:06:37 GMT, Euan <[email protected]> wrote
> in aus.bicycle:
>
>
>>... Dr Dorothy Robinson's concern, instead, is bicycle safety. She has
>>just published a study in the Health Promotion Journal of Australia that
>>is likely to send shock waves through Australian cycling communities
>>with its claim that mandatory bicycle helmet laws increase rather than
>>decrease the likelihood of injuries to cyclists.
>>
>>http://melbourne.citysearch.com.au/profile?id=53571
>>
>>Personally I'd still use a helmet in winter 'cause it's a handy place to
>>put lights Summer I'd leave the lid behind and wear a sun hat.
>
>
>
> Dr Robinson still cycling in her satin flaired trousers , platform
> shoes and floral paisley top must be a sight to behold. I wouldn't
> admit to still owning the clothes I wore in 1971 let alone claim to
> wear them
>
>
> Regards
> Prickles
Greetings,
I was wearing a helmet long before they became mandatory, and have
wrecked several in crashes, I prefer to wreck the helmet rather than my
skull. But the helmet is merely a last line of defence, not something
that prevents accidents, and if 1.5 tonnes of metal collects you at 100
k/mh, you are dead whichever way you cut it.
The number of cars of world roads has doubled in the past 20 years, from
500 million to one billion, and is still increasing. Given that the
roads are at best marginally better, accidents are almost inevitable.
Cyclists tend to get the attention as they are more directly vulnerable
to impact.
I drive a car as well as ride a bike, but I do not drive like some of
the arrogant, aggro morons I regularly see on the roads in this area.
Attitudes are as much a part of the problem as anything else, and
changing them is an uphill battle. Helmets are certainly improved in the
past 20 years, unfortunately, the situation on the roads has gone in the
opposite direction.
Regards,
Ray.

 

[Peter McCallum]

HellenWheels <[email protected]> wrote:
> What? Banning kids from wearing cycling caps at school? What's the purpose
> of that. You can't ban an idea. If you start doing picky things like that
> on the off chance it might lead to wearing a cap in school, that would only
> increase the tension among the youngsters and promote even more civil
> disobedience, imo. What about wearing a lycra skull cap? Are they gonna ban
> those too? You can stuff 'em in your pocket. Hell they probably think that
> a skull cap is even worse than a little cycling cap, which is more 'dork'
> than 'outlaw', for most people's taste...
>
> -Wheels

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

 

[flyingdutch]

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?"