>“After applying a common sense approach we will introduce exemptions for those who want to cycle but for religious reasons, may not be able to wear a helmet,” the minister said.<

Ah, I see, it’s common sense. Well just for interest’s sake, let’s compare two different people who want to ride a bike, but don’t want to wear a helmet…

Person One is a white Caucasian with no religious beliefs. Here are her reasons for not (usually) wanting to wear a helmet:

“For the most part I only want to ride my bike on roads I know to be pretty safe, here in this quiet part of the country. I’ll be riding at modest speeds on roads I know very well, and I think I can intelligently assess the risk of serious accidents as being very low. Therefore a helmet is normally an unnecessary and unwelcome intrusion especially as they are very ugly and uncomfortable. If were to be riding on busier and less familiar roads, for more extended periods, I might well regard a helmet as being appropriate in those circumstances. I think it should be up to me to make these decisions on the basis of sensible estimations of everyday risk.”

Person Two is an Indian immigrant who regards himself as a devout Sikh:

“I want to ride my bike all over the place, but I don’t want to wear a helmet because I believe in a magic god-being in the sky called Waheguru, who tells me I must wrap my head in a towel at all times, come what may. For this reason I will never wear a helmet because it won’t fit over my magic towel.”

So, which of the above comes closer to a “common sense” basis for an exemption from helmet-wearing, assuming that “common sense” to the Queensland conservatives bears at least some superficial resemblance to defensibly rational thinking?

Surely someone can design a helmet that can fit over a turban.

Or better still, a turban that has all the head protection properties of a helmet.

I thought we were the clever country?

dv said:

Surely someone can design a helmet that can fit over a turban.

Or better still, a turban that has all the head protection properties of a helmet.

I thought we were the clever country?

I already suggested that.

maybe the headwear is as safe as a helmet?

http://www.sikh24.com/2012/06/comments-of-british-generals-regarding-sikh-soldiers/#.UXZ915a2Xyp

See? Even kii thought of it. That’s how obvious it is.

zOMG DaVo and PotatoKemp suggested the same thing!

dv said:

See? Even kii thought of it. That’s how obvious it is.

Fuck off…

kii said:

dv said:

See? Even kii thought of it. That’s how obvious it is.

Fuck off…

Wash your mouth out with soap.

OCDC said:

kii said:

dv said:

See? Even kii thought of it. That’s how obvious it is.

Fuck off…

Wash your mouth out with soap.

But really, what was wrong with what he said? My response, had he posted “See? Even OCDC thought of it. That’s how obvious it is.”, would have been something along the lines of “IK,R?” and we all would have laughed together.

No, Alex.

Well dv and I would’ve.

OCDC said:

But really, what was wrong with what he said? My response, had he posted “See? Even OCDC thought of it. That’s how obvious it is.”, would have been something along the lines of “IK,R?” and we all would have laughed together.

Sure…you two play that game and I’ll watch from the sidelines. Swearing.

This topic certainly seems to raise some strong feelings.

Since turbans are apparently about as effective as helmets it seems like a non-issue.

I don’t know what all the racial stuff is for, I mean if it was one of the main Christian churches that said people had to wear a towel all the time then the law would have accommodated that in the first place.

Fuck off…
—-

Okay then.

It’s okay, I know kii is kidding.

dv said:

It’s okay, I know kii is kidding.

Lab notified

dv said:

It’s okay, I know kii is kidding.

Yeah, you’re not that special that I actually mean it. It’s just a general form of greeting that covers all bases when people play these games.

ROFL.

Wait, there’s no Lab! We’re free, people!

FWIW, I agree with Car’s central point, that there should not be religious exemptions to public safety measures of this kind.

dv said:

ROFL.

Wait, there’s no Lab! We’re free, people!

FWIW, I agree with Car’s central point, that there should not be religious exemptions to public safety measures of this kind.

Same here, also I am just tired of all religions and all the crap that comes with it. I prefer common sense.

>>

FWIW, I agree with Car’s central point, that there should not be religious exemptions to public safety measures of this kind.
<<

Even when the exemption does not actually reduce the safety of those concerned?

dv said:

FWIW, I agree with Car’s central point, that there should not be religious exemptions to public safety measures of this kind.

I agree too. Religion should never be grounds for opting out of laws of the land. Just as a matter of principle.

>I don’t know what all the racial stuff is for

I suspect the Queensland government expected they’d get polite applause for exempting “ethnics” from regulations that they regard as being fair and sensible for whiteys, given that whiteys don’t believe in silly shit like wearing towels on their heads all the time.

i.e., the “racial stuff” here is the paternalistic racism one would expect from Queensland conservatives.

Bubblecar said:

>I don’t know what all the racial stuff is for

I suspect the Queensland government expected they’d get polite applause for exempting “ethnics” from regulations that they regard as being fair and sensible for whiteys, given that whiteys don’t believe in silly shit like wearing towels on their heads all the time.

i.e., the “racial stuff” here is the paternalistic racism one would expect from Queensland conservatives.

OK, I didn’t realise you were a Queensland conservative.

I’ll make allowances in future.

>OK, I didn’t realise you were a Queensland conservative.

Now you’re just being childish.

The minister involved said: “They just can’t wrap a towel around their heads go ride a bike and claim that’s exemption from wearing a helmet,” and by “they” he clearly meant: whiteys

The Rev Dodgson said:

>>

FWIW, I agree with Car’s central point, that there should not be religious exemptions to public safety measures of this kind.
<<

Even when the exemption does not actually reduce the safety of those concerned?

It will need to be proven that a turban can comply the relevant Australian standard as what applies to helmets. Then, IF that is proven, anyone who want to wear a turban instead of a regular helmet will need to do a course and obtain a certificate that they are able to tie the tuban in correct fashion.

party_pants said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

>>

FWIW, I agree with Car’s central point, that there should not be religious exemptions to public safety measures of this kind.
<<

Even when the exemption does not actually reduce the safety of those concerned?

It will need to be proven that a turban can comply the relevant Australian standard as what applies to helmets. Then, IF that is proven, anyone who want to wear a turban instead of a regular helmet will need to do a course and obtain a certificate that they are able to tie the tuban in correct fashion.

From what I understand it is not just the turban – it is the long hair of the Sikh that is wrapped in the material. I worked with a Sikh on the railways..well, a few of them.

kii said:

From what I understand it is not just the turban – it is the long hair of the Sikh that is wrapped in the material. I worked with a Sikh on the railways..well, a few of them.

Whatever it is, it will need to comply with the relevant Australian Standard :)

Having listened to what Mr Emerson said, I must disagree partly with Car’s analysis. I don’t think he meant white people can’t be exempt. He meant that you have to establish a long held belief.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/bike-helmet-laws-will-change-to-allow-religious-exemptions-20130423-2ibaq.html

“Just because someone is going to come out there and claim they don’t want to wear a helmet for religious reasons, they have to do more than that, they have to demonstrate there is a real, long standing religious belief there.”

i.e., “We want to make it clear that this exemption is purely for a handful of ethnics and for purely irrational reasons, which will make us seem admirably “multicultural” and pro-religion, while not seriously challenging the grip of the Nanny State on the everyday lives of the rest of you suckers.”

Having read the ‘Hitch-hiker’s Guide to…’ trilogy, I think wearing a towel wrapped around your head is almost infinitely more sensible than not.

There was a kerfufle a while back about the Sikhs wearing a ritual dagger at all times. Forget how that one panned out.

And anyway, we’ll soon be allowed to drive Segways in public places, so yah boo sucks to the rest of you. Have to stay under 12km/h and wear a helmet (or a turban).

It is not unreasonable to me to waive or modify a regulation where the operation of that regulation has a disproportionately onerous burden on a group of people. I understand that different people have different judgements about what is onerous.

I agree that the term “common sense” doesn’t mean a lot in the minister’s statement.

I also think the term “white caucasian” doesn’t mean much in car’s statement or at least not much of value. Apart from the points above there is also the fact that there are a few “white caucasian” sikhs, although it tends not to be a proseletysing religion.

Still doesn’t change the fact that since it has been mandatory to wear a helmet I’ve never ridden a bike.
I’d ridden bikes for over 40 years and never needed a helmet. I have difficulty wearing a hat let alone a helmet.

I do think that people who are silly enough to fall off a push-bike shouldn’t ride one if they are going to force others to wear helmets.

Do you wear a helmet in your car? It is far more likely that you’ll need one in a car than on a bike.

Still doesn’t change the fact that since it has been mandatory to wear a helmet I’ve never ridden a bike.

As discussed in chat yesterday, personally I am sceptical of mandatory helmet laws. There is no doubt that they reduce the rate of cycling, which in itself is a negative public health and amenity outcome.

MartinB said:

bq. Still doesn’t change the fact that since it has been mandatory to wear a helmet I’ve never ridden a bike.

As discussed in chat yesterday, personally I am sceptical of mandatory helmet laws. There is no doubt that they reduce the rate of cycling, which in itself is a negative public health and amenity outcome.

Yes. That is my point.

The fact that I’ll get fined for not wearing a helmet stops me from getting on the bike. I used to ride to work every day. I’d still be fit enough to do any work today if I hadn’t stopped riding the bike and many jobs these days don’t pay enough to afford running a car to go there.

party_pants said:

kii said:

From what I understand it is not just the turban – it is the long hair of the Sikh that is wrapped in the material. I worked with a Sikh on the railways..well, a few of them.

Whatever it is, it will need to comply with the relevant Australian Standard :)

There is nothing magical about Australian Standards. They are just a compromise between the current understanding of best practice and what can be reasonably expected as a minimum standard.

If we are talking about what is “sensible” then allowing Sikhs to wear a protective mechanism of long hair + towel, rather than a plastic helmet (the effectiveness of which is dubious anyway) is obviously the sensible thing to do.

roughbarked said:

Still doesn’t change the fact that since it has been mandatory to wear a helmet I’ve never ridden a bike.
I’d ridden bikes for over 40 years and never needed a helmet. I have difficulty wearing a hat let alone a helmet.

I do think that people who are silly enough to fall off a push-bike shouldn’t ride one if they are going to force others to wear helmets.

Do you wear a helmet in your car? It is far more likely that you’ll need one in a car than on a bike.

Well, no, it isn’t.

roughbarked said:

Still doesn’t change the fact that since it has been mandatory to wear a helmet I’ve never ridden a bike.

That’s up to you, but it’s not very sensible.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Still doesn’t change the fact that since it has been mandatory to wear a helmet I’ve never ridden a bike.

That’s up to you, but it’s not very sensible.

Judgement cannot be made without all the facts.

Bubblecar said:

>OK, I didn’t realise you were a Queensland conservative.

Now you’re just being childish.

The minister involved said: “They just can’t wrap a towel around their heads go ride a bike and claim that’s exemption from wearing a helmet,” and by “they” he clearly meant: whiteys

I can agree that there is a large element of childishness in this discussion.

Think I’ll leave it there.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

Still doesn’t change the fact that since it has been mandatory to wear a helmet I’ve never ridden a bike.

That’s up to you, but it’s not very sensible.

Judgement cannot be made without all the facts.

The facts are that helmets interfere with your flowing locks, right?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That’s up to you, but it’s not very sensible.

Judgement cannot be made without all the facts.

The facts are that helmets interfere with your flowing locks, right?

That’s one of them.

roughbarked said:

Do you wear a helmet in your car? It is far more likely that you’ll need one in a car than on a bike.

I often wonder how compulsory helmets in cars would affect casualty rates.
There’s got to be a good reason why race and rally drivers wear them.

pommiejohn said:

roughbarked said:

Do you wear a helmet in your car? It is far more likely that you’ll need one in a car than on a bike.

I often wonder how compulsory helmets in cars would affect casualty rates.
There’s got to be a good reason why race and rally drivers wear them.

Yes. We must remember that racing drivers actually also have better seat belts. Yet they still need a helmet.

I can see where this is going.
It wont be long before we start talking about circumcision, helmet protection and AIDS.
Circumcision has proved a good protection against AIDS, it’s a no brainer, but I have no objection to people who still want to wear a helmet on religious grounds.

What also should be considered is that I’ve ridden pushbikes for most of my life and have often spent most of the day on a pushbike. I’ve done journeys that have spanned three states and never had any incidents where I’d need a helmet. Yet I’ve made scant few trips on a motorbike and to this day am indebted to those who lent me a helmet for the trip. Some of which lasted less than 1 Km before the helmet saved my life.

Having come off a pushbike without a helmet. I can thoroughly recommend wearing one. There’s no way I’d even think about even riding down to the shops without one. They’re hot, they’re uncomfortable and I suppose if you’re the sort of person who thinks that everybody has nothing better to do than look at you on your bike, they could be considered ugly.

I’d rather be hot, uncomfortable and ugly than concussed, unconscious or dead. That is common sense. Just like any other PPE, it only needs to save your noggin once to have been worth it.

By the same logic, Sikhs should be exempt from motorcycle helmets. Once they’re exempt, then the Rastas should be too as you can’t fit a helmet over the dreadlocks. There will be more and more reasons not to wear a helmet.

That’s bad.

OTOH, all the countries in which bicycle use is many, many times higher than Australia are happy to leave it up to the rider to choose whether or not they’re going to wear a helmet. Which seems sensible enough to me. For the most part, riding a bicycle is a very safe form of transport.

Person One is a white Caucasian with no religious beliefs. Here are her reasons for not (usually) wanting to wear a helmet:
—————————————————-

Really if person One had the conviction in thier beliefs… they would grow a pair.

A) The chances of being seen infrequently cycling on quiet counrty backroads is next to nil.
B) The chances of a copper caring, after having seen you, not much more.
C) The chances of a copper that cares, doing anymore than saying “Wear a helmut next time lassie” extremly high.
D) In the event of a fine… Don’t pay it.
E) In the unlikly event of several notifications in ‘The Mail’… Ignor.
F) In the highly unlikly request of a court apperance… Claim the moral high ground.
G) In the almost impossobile liklyhood of being convicted and ordered to pay charges… Don’t pay.
E) In the ifinitely small chance that you will be incarserated and sent to a penal colony… don’t worry it will be the best country on Earth.

I don’t know if you noticed, but we’re talking “principles”.

Yes, when you’re lying on the side of the road with a cracked skull, knowing you maintained your principles would be comforting indeed.

Neophyte said:

Yes, when you’re lying on the side of the road with a cracked skull, knowing you maintained your principles would be comforting indeed.

We’re talking about choice, not one particular choice in favour of another.

I don’t know if you noticed, but we’re talking “principles”.
—————————————————————————
I think thats where laws come from…

People, with conviction, change them.

>People, with conviction, change them.

Yes, that’s why I bother publicly debating these things.

Nothing quite like a young person having to live in high level aged care for the rest of their life because of the acquired brain injury from a minimisable injury. Especially when said young person has a spouse and young children.

(Had a patient just like that the other day. 20 years later and he still cries if he has to explain it – too physically disabled to live anywhere but high care, and just mentally disabled enough to still know the life he has missed out on.)

Yes, that’s why I bother publicly debating these things.
———————————————————————-

For the record, i now seldom ride… but mostly without a helmut.

I mean seriously, WTF are they going to do?

Nothing quite like a young person having to live in high level aged care for the rest of their life because of the acquired brain injury from a minimisable injury. Especially when said young person has a spouse and young children.
——————————————————

Thats just emotional black mail.

Do you also sell insurance…

One of the notable campaigners against Australia’s compulsory helmet laws is Chris Rissel, professor of public health at Sydney University:

Ditching bike helmets laws better for health

you don’t wear a helmet and have an accident then you may get alex looking after you in hospital….

Boris said:

you don’t wear a helmet and have an accident then you may get alex looking after you in hospital….

And that should be more than enough reason to convince anyone!

Bubblecar said:

One of the notable campaigners against Australia’s compulsory helmet laws is Chris Rissel, professor of public health at Sydney University:

Ditching bike helmets laws better for health

Well, I agree with him. The state of my health could easily have been much degraded if it wasn’t for the fact that I continuously rode bicycles everywhere. Motorcycle and car accidents were more likely to have caused me more serious harm than not wearing a helmet while riding the bike. In fact they did.

Bubblecar said:

>People, with conviction, change them.

Yes, that’s why I bother publicly debating these things.

You are involved in a cycling advocacy group? Write letters to MPs and attend meetings and such?

Honestly, what’s the bfd? Just wear a helmet.

I’d rather be hot, uncomfortable and ugly than concussed, unconscious or dead. That is common sense. Just like any other PPE, it only needs to save your noggin once to have been worth it.
——————————————-
Well thats nice.

But what of the many people who fall off not?

But what of the many people who fall off not?

—-

Nothing significantly bad will have happened to them.

They aren’t being tortured. They are just wearing a helmet.

Nothing significantly bad will have happened to them.

They aren’t being tortured. They are just wearing a helmet.
=====================
Fail.

That is the misinterpertation of data.

FMD.

Great irony.

Bubbles do you own a bike helmet? I find it is a bit like wearing a seatbelt, that is I don’t even notice it after a short while.

Initially I was all-for the helmet laws but I am starting to swing the other way after reading about the pros-cons and articles like Chris Rissel’s (linked above). Maybe we could have a trial of optional helmet wearing for over 18’s? Getting more people on their bikes is definitely a good thing and getting better bike paths would be great too (I don’t ride much because of the traffic).

I wish Mr Bubblecar could try on some of the hats on google images: “steampunk bike helmet”. They look very dapper :)

I do own a bike helmet (the largest one in a bike shop full of hundreds of bike helmets, but it’s still a tight and uncomfortable fit on account of I have such a large head) and I always wear it, as I’m a law-abiding citizen.

I’d imagine few if any of the “steampunk” style helmets would meet Australian standards (which means that wearing them would not satisfy the compulsory helmet laws).

>and I always wear it

….when I’m riding a bike, that is :)

>and I always wear it

Like this guy:

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/4b4cfdb75d/crank-yankers-special-ed-wants-to-see-a-movie-s02e03-from-vertex

http://www.yakkay.com/Webshop/

Here are some more “real” bike helmets. Tres cool…

>http://www.yakkay.com/Webshop/

Pretty sure they don’t meet Australian helmet standards.

Been nine years since I rode a bicycle in Aust but I always wore the helmet back when I did.

Seriously … I don’t understand what the problem is. Like the other guy said, it’s like putting your seatbelt on. You just do it without thinking.

The Rev Dodgson said:

>>

FWIW, I agree with Car’s central point, that there should not be religious exemptions to public safety measures of this kind.
<<

Even when the exemption does not actually reduce the safety of those concerned?

Why give exemptions based on superstition?

>Seriously … I don’t understand what the problem is.

a) They can be uncomfortable
b) They’re ugly. Ruins any look except lycra, which is also ugly. Which accounts for the demographic change in Oz bike riders since the laws were introduced – fewer female & teenage riders etc, more “sporty’ men looking ridiculous in lycra.
c) They make riding a bike seem a lot more dangerous than it really is. Which is why governments in countries like Holland and Denmark don’t even advise riders to wear helmets, let alone force them to. They don’t want to scare people away from cycling.

I suppose the fact that I am not very “image conscious” made it an easier pill to swallow, like a bitcoin.

Dropbear said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

>>

FWIW, I agree with Car’s central point, that there should not be religious exemptions to public safety measures of this kind.
<<

Even when the exemption does not actually reduce the safety of those concerned?

Why give exemptions based on superstition?

Dunno. Ask the Taxation office why they do it.

>Dunno. Ask the Taxation office why they do it.

Good point.

captain_spalding said:

Dropbear said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

>>

FWIW, I agree with Car’s central point, that there should not be religious exemptions to public safety measures of this kind.
<<

Even when the exemption does not actually reduce the safety of those concerned?

Why give exemptions based on superstition?

Dunno. Ask the Taxation office why they do it.

The idea is that the provision of charitable work is more valuable than taxing them.

Having seen the amounts of money AOG churches rack in, and the luxury sports cars their ministers drive, the idea seems ripe for revisiting IMO

Dropbear said:

captain_spalding said:

Dropbear said:

Why give exemptions based on superstition?

Dunno. Ask the Taxation office why they do it.

I think it dates from the days when the idea of currying favour with the Big Guy in the Sky was more widespread than it is now.
The idea is that the provision of charitable work is more valuable than taxing them.

Having seen the amounts of money AOG churches rack in, and the luxury sports cars their ministers drive, the idea seems ripe for revisiting IMO

Yes the original exemption from taxation is over 400 years old

Bike helmet laws came about because safety nazis pointed to statistics showing lots of head injuries to cyclists.

What the nazis weren’t pointing out was that a lot of those head injuries were sustained by young people (mostly male) who were trying to descend one side of a half-pipe at maximum achievable speed, rocket up the other side, shoot as high into the air as they could, and then descend into the same cement half-pipe.

Not a risk run by the average ‘travelling’ cyclist.

Dropbear said:

Yes the original exemption from taxation is over 400 years old

My point, and yours, precisely

Head injuries are pretty much bad news. Wear a helmet or don’t ride a bike.

Superstitious nonsense exceptions have no place in 21st century first world societies

How about in Qld?

Dropbear said:

Head injuries are pretty much bad news. Wear a helmet or don’t ride a bike.

Superstitious nonsense exceptions have no place in 21st century first world societies

I’m not denying the safety aspects of helmets for cyclists.

I just don’t like the half-truths that were employed to get the laws in place. Not a healthy precedent. Remember the Jesuit motto…

>Wear a helmet or don’t ride a bike.

The vast majority of the world’s cyclists don’t wear helemts, so your rule would put hundreds of millions of bikes out of action overnight.

The vast majority of the world’s cyclists don’t wear helemts, so your rule would put hundreds of millions of bikes out of action overnight.
—

Or result in the sale of hundreds of millions of helmets.

dv said:

How about in Qld?

It’s a long way down from our penny farthings

>Or result in the sale of hundreds of millions of helmets.

There would inevitably be a huge drop in the number of cyclists, and an accompanying increase in the number of serious bike accidents.

Dropbear said:

Head injuries are pretty much bad news. Wear a helmet or don’t ride a bike.

Superstitious nonsense exceptions have no place in 21st century first world societies

Mr Bear I think your statement should read:- “Superstitious nonsense has no place in any societies”!

Bubblecar said:

>Wear a helmet or don’t ride a bike.

The vast majority of the world’s cyclists don’t wear helemts, so your rule would put hundreds of millions of bikes out of action overnight.

The vast majority of people don’t live in civilised societies and place very little value on human life

Just like seatbelts, really. I mean, we don’t need to wear one because we all know we are a better than average driver, so of course we won’t be in an accident. And even if we were, no-one has the right to tell us to wear a seatbelt, because it might mess up our nicely ironed shirts, or look silly, or stop us from reaching around to the back seat to whack the misbehaving child in the back seat…

Bubblecar said:

>Or result in the sale of hundreds of millions of helmets.

There would inevitably be a huge drop in the number of cyclists, and an accompanying increase in the number of serious bike accidents.

No.

Dropbear said:

Bubblecar said:

>Wear a helmet or don’t ride a bike.

The vast majority of the world’s cyclists don’t wear helemts, so your rule would put hundreds of millions of bikes out of action overnight.

The vast majority of people don’t live in civilised societies and place very little value on human life

What!!

People in BACs don’t value human life.

Well, I never!

>The vast majority of people don’t live in civilised societies and place very little value on human life

AFAIA, Australia & New Zealand (neither of which are big bicycling countries) are the only countries in the world that have nation-wide mandatory bike helmet laws. Do you regard all the nations of Europe as “uncivilised”?

Bubblecar said:

>The vast majority of people don’t live in civilised societies and place very little value on human life

AFAIA, Australia & New Zealand (neither of which are big bicycling countries) are the only countries in the world that have nation-wide mandatory bike helmet laws. Do you regard all the nations of Europe as “uncivilised”?

Is that a trick question?

But regardless, you’ll find a lot of sensible Europeans wear bike helmets.

I’m afraid helmet hair isn’t that valid an excuse

sibeen said:

Dropbear said:

Bubblecar said:

>Wear a helmet or don’t ride a bike.

The vast majority of the world’s cyclists don’t wear helemts, so your rule would put hundreds of millions of bikes out of action overnight.

The vast majority of people don’t live in civilised societies and place very little value on human life

What!!

People in BACs don’t value human life.

Well, I never!

In comparison, and m sorry to hear it

>No.

Yes. The rate of serious accidents per cyclist tends to increase, the fewer the cyclists. Traffic becomes less accustomed to having to accommodate cyclists and there are fewer general road provisions for them. It’s a well attested effect of safety-in-numbers.

And when compulsory helmet laws are introduced, there is seen to be a significant drop in the number of cyclists. Even if the initial fall starts reversing, the demographic tends to be changed, with more adult males and fewer women & kids.

>But regardless, you’ll find a lot of sensible Europeans wear bike helmets.

Verey few, in the biggest bicycling nations.

“…sensible Europeans…”

A sniff of the oxymoron there?

Bubblecar said:

>No.

Yes. The rate of serious accidents per cyclist tends to increase, the fewer the cyclists.

No. You initially said numbers, not rate per cyclist.

>No. You initially said numbers, not rate per cyclist.

Obviously with more cyclists there will be more cycling accidents, but it’s the rate of accidents per cyclist that matters.

Do a Google Image Search of cyclists Amsterdam – and count the helmets :)

Bubblecar said:

Do a Google Image Search of cyclists Amsterdam – and count the helmets :)

Do a Google search of Chinese cigarette smokers, count them…:)

>>b) They’re ugly. Ruins any look except lycra, which is also ugly.

By your own admission, you’re 53 and fat…..think a helmet’s going to detract from anything?

There are 6 bike related deaths in Amsterdam, a city of a 1.2 million people, per year.

There are 4 bike related deaths in Victoria, a state of 5.5 million people, per year.

http://www.bakfiets-en-meer.nl/2008/10/16/bicycle-death-statistics-in-amsterdam-and-the-netherlands/
http://btawa.org.au/2010/03/12/cyclist-deaths-last-12-months/

So the death rate for cyclists in Amsterdam is 3.6 times higher than in Victoria.

(shrugs) Maybe being stoned out of your gourd makes you value human life less.

Neophyte said:

>>b) They’re ugly. Ruins any look except lycra, which is also ugly.

By your own admission, you’re 53 and fat…..think a helmet’s going to detract from anything?

I know I’m a mouldy old piece of stinking shit, but it’s not all about me.

dv said:

There are 6 bike related deaths in Amsterdam, a city of a 1.2 million people, per year.

There are 4 bike related deaths in Victoria, a state of 5.5 million people, per year.

Now compare the number of cyclists.

As far as I understand it, Aussie bicycle helmet laws are about maintaining a safety culture for kids. If everyone isn’t wearing them many kids would do anything to avoid easing their parents minds. Peer pressure’s a bitch!

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

There are 6 bike related deaths in Amsterdam, a city of a 1.2 million people, per year.

There are 4 bike related deaths in Victoria, a state of 5.5 million people, per year.

Now compare the number of cyclists.

Yes, I think that I’d want to see a rate for either per cyclist-hour or per cyclist-kilometer

I reckon I look pretty silly in the tropics with my long beard, boots, jeans and jacket on my motor scooter. I’d rather look silly than sore. Same applies on a pushie. I wear protective gear on a motor scooter that I ride at the same speeds that I can attain on a pushbike (admittedly downhill) while wearing shorts and a t shirt.

Bubblecar said:

Do a Google Image Search of cyclists Amsterdam – and count the helmets :)

FFS!

Do a google scholar search using the terms “bicycle helmet injury rate”. There’s plenty to keep you reading late into the night – and that’s just the abstracts.

It may not be rocket science, but it IS science. The SCIENCE overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that helmet use reduces head injury.

Interestingly, the commonly quoted Robinson paper supporting the premise that mandatory helmet laws have reduced numbers of cyclists resulting in a net loss of healthy physical activity also has the disclaimer “There are no figures or tables for this document.”

At the end of the day, It’s your head. Make your own choice.

Teleost said:

At the end of the day, It’s your head. Make your own choice.

And don’t expect the public health system to look after you…

In any case, the question of whether it is sensible at an individual level to wear a helmet, or whether it is good policy at a population level to make it mandatory to wear a helmet are analytically distinct. There are any number of behaviors that we can all agree are stupid that nonetheless most people would be outraged to have banned.

OCDC said:

Teleost said:

At the end of the day, It’s your head. Make your own choice.

And don’t expect the public health system to look after you…

Err, why not?

And don’t expect the public health system to look after you…

Well that’s just ridiculous. I don’t expect public health practitioners to tart making moral judgements about who they treat. Get into the catholic system if you want that kind of privilege.

There are any number of behaviors that we can all agree are stupid that nonetheless most people would be outraged to have banned.
—-

This boundary is not fixed. Legislation plays a role in moving them, as do discussions such as this.

sibeen said:

OCDC said:

Teleost said:

At the end of the day, It’s your head. Make your own choice.

And don’t expect the public health system to look after you…

Err, why not?

If you’re not acting responsibly in mitigating damage, why should everyone else’s tax pay to fix you up?

MartinB said:

And don’t expect the public health system to look after you…

Well that’s just ridiculous. I don’t expect public health practitioners to tart making moral judgements about who they treat. Get into the catholic system if you want that kind of privilege.

done

I don’t expect public health practitioners to tart
=—

Best typo today

Obviously that is true. It still remains the case that showing something to be stupid is not sufficient to justify banning it. We need to consider other things, like evidence.

MartinB said:

In any case, the question of whether it is sensible at an individual level to wear a helmet, or whether it is good policy at a population level to make it mandatory to wear a helmet are analytically distinct. There are any number of behaviors that we can all agree are stupid that nonetheless most people would be outraged to have banned.

Very true.

It’d Be “UnAustralian” to ban binge drinking and jumping from heights into shallow water or even combining the two or any of the other stupid thing one sees on an average weekend.

We need to consider other things, like evidence.
—-

Well we are agreed that evidence-based legislation is a good thing.

Although I would not express myself as OCDC did, I would turn it around and say that because the public health system takes all comers, there is added responsibility for everyone to take reasonable steps to protect their own health and safety. No one in Australia can say, “Screw you, it’s my health” but it is, in a sense, also the public’s health to manage.

I mean are there really people who gave up cycling rather than put on a helmet? And say so? Pissweak.

dv said:

I mean are there really people who gave up cycling rather than put on a helmet? And say so? Pissweak.

They were just looking for a way out anyway. Cop outs!

dv said:

We need to consider other things, like evidence.
—- No one in Australia can say, “Screw you, it’s my health”

Except for the smokers……

And the drinkers……

Except for the smokers……

And the drinkers……
—

Well they can say that.

But they shouldn’t.

Meanwhile, my BMI is like 28.5…

still, it’s not Aust’s problem at the moment.

It is unquestionable from the evidence that helmet laws reduce the rate of cycling, yes, whatever you may think of such individuals or their presumed motivations.

MartinB said:

It is unquestionable from the evidence that helmet laws reduce the rate of cycling, yes, whatever you may think of such individuals or their presumed motivations.

Any chance it could be proved that the percentage of lycra-warrior-coffee-stop bikers rose with the helmet laws and they are responsible for turning folks away from cycling?

Having said all of this, I would think that the best thing for improving both cycling rates and improving rider safety would be to build more and better cycle-only infrastructure…

dv said:

Having said all of this, I would think that the best thing for improving both cycling rates and improving rider safety would be to build more and better cycle-only infrastructure…

you mean the national bikeway network?

Riff-in-Thyme said:

Any chance it could be proved that the percentage of lycra-warrior-coffee-stop bikers rose with the helmet laws and they are responsible for turning folks away from cycling?

LOL!

why won’t they leave Brittney alone??!!!!

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

Having said all of this, I would think that the best thing for improving both cycling rates and improving rider safety would be to build more and better cycle-only infrastructure…

you mean the national bikeway network?

There shouldn’t be any reason not to create bicycle lanes everywhere.

dv said:

Having said all of this, I would think that the best thing for improving both cycling rates and improving rider safety would be to build more and better cycle-only infrastructure…

Our city council recently dug up a section of bike path put in place by the previous council….

To build a car park.

roughbarked said:

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

Having said all of this, I would think that the best thing for improving both cycling rates and improving rider safety would be to build more and better cycle-only infrastructure…

you mean the national bikeway network?

There shouldn’t be any reason not to create bicycle lanes everywhere.

I was kind of joking NBN

tough crowd here tonight

I saw what you did there, wookie.

So did I.

Nice ride…

Hands self red card.

dv said:

I saw what you did there, wookie.

yeah it seems to take a fair amount of time to load the image so most people if they actually click on the post will see darkness

I should say that my position on helmet laws is somewhat ambivalent. I am not strongly against, but I do recognize that here I a reasonable argument against that turns on evidence (which, no, we probably don’t have in sufficient quality) and that the picture seen by trauma surgeons – no matter how significant in its own right – is not the only part of he picture.

Personally I’ll wear a helmet whenever available but I won’t necessarily not ride in the occasional situation that a helmet is not available.

wookiemeister said:

dv said:

I saw what you did there, wookie.

yeah it seems to take a fair amount of time to load the image so most people if they actually click on the post will see darkness

Here in South Brisbane the new cable network is providing almost instant access to all gratuitously posted chicks butts. Thanks so much Telstra.

>At the end of the day, It’s your head. Make your own choice.

This is the point you seem to be missing. Australians are not allowed to “make their own choice”, while the inhabitants of nearly all other First World countries are.

Take another look at those Amsterdam bike riders. These are not stupid or dare-devilish people. Why are they happy to ride without helmets? Because they’ve been cycling everywhere their entire lives and they know it’s a safe form of transport. There are some accidents, of course, and some of them are serious or fatal, but they are very few in number compared with vast numbers of cyclists and the many hours they spend cycling each year. The statistics don’t support the practise of wearing a helmet every time you sit on a bike.

I’m sure the surgeons can show you many grisly pictures of pedestrians who’ve scored serious head injurious while walking down the street. In fact the incidence of serious injuries amongst pedestrians is only marginally lower than that of cyclists. But we don’t demand that walkers wear helmets – yet. But I wouldn’t put it past an Aussie government to decide that pedestrian helmet laws are a good idea, and I wouldn’t put it past most Aussies to agree. After all, “if it can save one life, then it’s worth a little inconvenience and a small loss of personal liberty”…..which would soon become “only an idiot would walk down the street without a helmet on! Why should the public health system subsidise such irresponsible behaviour?” etc etc etc

here you go neo.