[geckoGT]

You mentioned grass cutting at Lakeside. On that day you were wearing a helmet while driving your GT. Was that because you had to, because you wanted to reduce the risk or both?

Do you wear a helmet in your F6 when you are driving around town, out on the highway (where far more deaths and accidents happen than on a track)?

Were you wearing a helmet when you drove across NT in your XR8 faster than any speed you have done on a race track?

In all my occasions on the track, yes I would wear a helmet as the risk doing those speeds is higher than on the road, particularly at lakeside and warwick park where the concrete barrier can be pretty close in some places. I do not need the rules to make me aware of this but many people do. Just look at willowbank, how many roll up to the staging area without a helmet because they forgot, then have to be told to put one on. Not everyone is safety conscious enough to make the right decision.

No I do not wear a helmet in my F6 on public roads, the risk is not high enough because I am driving within the capabilities of myself, the car and the road. If I am in a crash it is highly likely to be within the capabilities of the integral safety mechanisms of the car. There are also other issues with the use of a helmet in a car in traffic such as restriction of vision and sound, these are not considerable issues on the race track.

I did not wear a helmet during the crossing of the NT in my XR8, reasons are the roads are in good condition, my car was in excellent condition, weather conditions were clear and the speed was within the manufacturer specified capabilities of the car in every way. There were no obstacles likely to cause a sudden stop and if it even looked like there were some coming up, speed was reduced accordingly. The fact that I survived the trip without even a near miss or a hint of one is a testament to that. I have since had more near misses than that on race tracks.

Or should football (all codes) skydiving, mountain climbing, rock fishing or what ever else be banned or restricted because you may get hurt.

Time to get things back into perspective a bit as you are modifying comments outside of the context intended by the authors.

No one that is an advocate of compulsory helmet use is suggesting limiting risk taking activities. Quite the opposite actually, most of the advocates are the ones that actually participate in the risk taking behaviour we are discussing. Interestingly many of the opposition to compulsory helmet use are the ones that do not participate in the activity. To say that football, skydiving etc should be banned is ridiculous. I have no problem with these activities as long as hazards are assessed and either reduced or control mechanisms are in place where possible. For example, skydiving is potentially dangerous but do you think the parachutist just stuffs the chute in any old way, chooses not to carry a reserve and refuses to have an altimeter? Of course not, he assesses each risk and then makes all preparations and checks to ensure the risks are reduced as much as possible. That way he gets to enjoy the activity safely and then do it again and again and again. Should the skydiver be allowed to delete these safety items and checks in the interest of "freedom of choice"? I am tipping you would say no because that would be insane, but how is riding a bike any different? there is actually a much greater chance of falling off a bike at sufficient speed to cause head injury than there is of a parachute failing to open, yet you suggest people should be able to choose not to wear a helmet, I guess parachutists should have the choice to jump without a reserve.

As for the footballers, I am a strong believer that they should be wearing head protection as are many other people and I do not see it as absurd to suggest that some day in the future the governing bodies of the sport will make such equipment mandatory.

There are also a large number of people who believe that if you do not follow their personal beliefs and ideals you should be "returned to sender". A few years ago a few of them flew some aircraft into some buildings.

You wonder why people get upset when yet again you have twisted comments of others way outside the context of what they said for your own benefit. He was not saying that those that do not agree with the beliefs of others should be actively "returned to sender" as you have implied. There is a large difference between allowing the consequences of a person’s action to take their natural course and the act of terrorism and mass murder to which you refer. There is an enormous difference between someone that obviously has Darwinist concepts and someone that has religious extremist attitudes that lead to terrorism.

To put this in an application similar to another thread going at the moment, would it be reasonable to allow those too ignorant to take reasonable measures to protect their own health, to die from the ensuing consequences? Perhaps we should give back the right of free will, let them ride without a helmet and if they sustain a serious head injury, let them contribute to the control of the world’s ever expanding population beyond the capacity of natural resources.

I mean how far does their "right to free will" go, why is it they get to choose the risk, but no one gets to choose to let them take the consequences? I know this is way outside the scope of normal conversation but at what point is free will reasonable and at what point is it a failure of the system to protect the individual from undue risk?

You tend to get upset when people challenge the right to free will and in many ways I guess you should, it is a right that requires protection when appropriate. The problem is how far we should take this concept. Do we follow the example set by many states in the US where it is not a legal requirement to wear a seatbelt, that is their right to choose a seat belt and they have protected it? They also have a much higher incidence of death from road trauma than we do. Should we follow the US in their right to carry arms for self protection, just to have a similar incidence of shooting related deaths? Should we abolish a licensing system for motor cars, surely the individual should have the right to deem their own competence in the operation of any vehicle without having their right to free will reduced by having to prove it? Should we abolish the licensing system for pilots, who are we to remove their right to fly? Like I said before, these are points that seem to be way outside of the scope of compulsory bike helmets, but when you think about it the concept is the same, the right to free will. All those systems of risk management have occurred out of a risk assessment and implementation of control methods, exactly the same way compulsory bike helmets came about.