This is an interesting read. An absolutely unconventional idea. They say that the bike culture in Sydney can only grow like European cities if ...
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/safety-expert ... -q9of.html
Helmets shouldn't be compulsory - Says experts!
-
Michael Chidgey
- Posts: 289
- Joined: 07 Jan 2009, 08:58
after having seen what happened to peoples helmets after crashes i will never leave the house on a bike with out one.
-
shrubb face
- Posts: 1010
- Joined: 09 Sep 2008, 01:43
- Location: Marrickville
This could be a good time to bring out the photos of my helmet after crashing at the track.
I have no problems if they sign a waiver on Medicare benefits for any treatments associated with head injuries. At the end of the day, the community pays for it through general taxation. And yes, brain damaged patients are very expensive to care for.If people want to go without, why not. I'm still going to wear one.
-
mikesbytes
- Posts: 6991
- Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
- Location: Tempe
- Contact:
When I crashed in Jan 09, the doctors said that if I wasn't wearing my helmet, I would of suffered brain damage.
I never hear people saying that they don't ride a bike because they have to wear a helmet, I do hear people saying they don't ride a bike because the roads are dangerous.
I never hear people saying that they don't ride a bike because they have to wear a helmet, I do hear people saying they don't ride a bike because the roads are dangerous.
The article points to the evidence that European cities where helmet laws are relaxed show less accidents, despite more people on bikes!I have no problems if they sign a waiver on Medicare benefits for any treatments associated with head injuries. At the end of the day, the community pays for it through general taxation. And yes, brain damaged patients are very expensive to care for.
I think the point most of us race head cyclists miss is that a large proportion of cyclists in European cities would have nothing to do with track or crit racing where it gets rough and dangerous.
The problem is that the results are so bad, thatits not worth the risk of any one getting them :SThe article points to the evidence that European cities where helmet laws are relaxed show less accidents, despite more people on bikes!
I think the point most of us race head cyclists miss is that a large proportion of cyclists in European cities would have nothing to do with track or crit racing where it gets rough and dangerous.
The problem is that the results are so bad, thatits not worth the risk of any one getting them :S
I agree,... I would normally wear a helmet. It has saved my coconut twice! but I wouldn't normally ride a cruiser bike on the footpath to go just 2km to see my witch doctor. I don't think you really need a helmet for that kind of low risk commutes?! Such kind of commutes are not any more dangerous than running on the foot path, and I never run with a helmet (except when in triathlon transition area).
Can such bike commutes reduce cars? O ye ye!
We are in Australia and the culture, environment and facilities are completely different b/n the two places. Otherwise we can also claim that the use of platform pedals is also associated with the same outcome. Should we bin our clipless?The article points to the evidence that European cities where helmet laws are relaxed show less accidents, despite more people on bikes!
you mean the platform pedals are more dangerous than clipon?We are in Australia and the culture, environment and facilities are completely different b/n the two places. Otherwise we can also claim that the use of platform pedals is also associated with the same outcome. Should we bin our clipless?
-
mikesbytes
- Posts: 6991
- Joined: 13 Nov 2006, 13:48
- Location: Tempe
- Contact:
The accident and death rate between different countries closely resembles the interaction with motor vehicles.
What one needs to look at is statistics between helmeted riders and riders without helmets in the same country. In Australia 20% of riders wearing helmets that were killed were deemed to have died from head injurys, where 40% of riders not wearing helmets were deemed to have died from head injurys.
What one needs to look at is statistics between helmeted riders and riders without helmets in the same country. In Australia 20% of riders wearing helmets that were killed were deemed to have died from head injurys, where 40% of riders not wearing helmets were deemed to have died from head injurys.
No. Here's the scenario.you mean the platform pedals are more dangerous than clipon?
European city with no helmet law
--------------------------------------
No helmet
Mostly use platform pedals
Aust with helmet law
-----------------------
Helmet
Mostly use clipless pedals
Given the "fewer" accidents in European cities, it's also possible to conclude that it's not the lack of helmets but the use of platform pedals that imparts the lower accident rate.
So which are you going to believe? Does it make intuitive sense?
I'm with G on this.
For some time there is plenty of debate and evidence that helmets significantly restrict 'mainstreaming' of cylcing, particularly short trips, which is where we can most benefit.
The more the cyclists on the road, the safer it is to cycle.
Its proven that cars steer much clearer of people without helmets (in UK study).
So the argument is that more people will have injuries without helmets but critical mass will reduce accidents per capita on a bicycle, as it becomes mainstream, which includes significant infrastructure (all dependencies on each other).
City bike hire schemes such as Velub in Paris rely on random last minute decisions to jump on a bike to get from A to B (usually within 2kms), such as people in suits, people doing shopping, or just visiting a friend. These bikes are heavy, upright and slow. Similar schemes are about to be launched in Melb and Brissie, and Sydney is out to tender. Such schemes will not be that successful here, because its much less inducive to 'jump' on a bike, and bring your own helmet, or rent a sweaty public one.
Now having said that, all of us agree we wouldn't ride without helmets in our much riskier riding. Our speeds, the racing, and bunched riding all put us at significantly higher risks - just read the examples of our members above. Clearly, even if Australian laws were relaxed, Cycling Aust would make all club and official riding, mandatory to wear helmets - and so it should
For some time there is plenty of debate and evidence that helmets significantly restrict 'mainstreaming' of cylcing, particularly short trips, which is where we can most benefit.
The more the cyclists on the road, the safer it is to cycle.
Its proven that cars steer much clearer of people without helmets (in UK study).
So the argument is that more people will have injuries without helmets but critical mass will reduce accidents per capita on a bicycle, as it becomes mainstream, which includes significant infrastructure (all dependencies on each other).
City bike hire schemes such as Velub in Paris rely on random last minute decisions to jump on a bike to get from A to B (usually within 2kms), such as people in suits, people doing shopping, or just visiting a friend. These bikes are heavy, upright and slow. Similar schemes are about to be launched in Melb and Brissie, and Sydney is out to tender. Such schemes will not be that successful here, because its much less inducive to 'jump' on a bike, and bring your own helmet, or rent a sweaty public one.
Now having said that, all of us agree we wouldn't ride without helmets in our much riskier riding. Our speeds, the racing, and bunched riding all put us at significantly higher risks - just read the examples of our members above. Clearly, even if Australian laws were relaxed, Cycling Aust would make all club and official riding, mandatory to wear helmets - and so it should
I might add that I've struggle to come to terms with this thinking over the years, but I now think its the right approach. Yes - less helmets can actually result in greater safety. Its counter-intuitive.
Similar argument that giving heavy drugs to drug users actually significantly reduces drug dependency, rather than 'prohibition'.
Similar argument that giving heavy drugs to drug users actually significantly reduces drug dependency, rather than 'prohibition'.
Given the hilly Sydney topography, it's easy to freewheel and hit 50km/h on a downhill run... Helmet or no helmet? Sydney is not pan cake Amsterdam.Now having said that, all of us agree we wouldn't ride without helmets in our much riskier riding. Our speeds, the racing, and bunched riding all put us at significantly higher risks...
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 69 guests