[Bud Bud]

Hi geckoGT your post made compelling reading as usual so I thought I would respond to it, even if it was not aimed at me generally.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

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.

And there it is in a nut shell. Some people would like to take a short ride here and there and not even mess it up by sharing their experience with other road users such as cars and trucks. There are so many good bike paths available now that the average person could enjoy at their own pace within the capabilities of themselves and without the need for a helmet, much the same as you in your car.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

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.

Some of us feel the same about wearing a helmet when riding a pushie too. But if you were in an extreme environment such as racing etc. then of course you should were a helmet, even on a bike.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

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

I agree with you, you measured your risk and you assessed the need for any further necessary requirements concerning extra safety precautions and or devices. I just wish we could have the same considerations awarded to push bike riders as well.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

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.

And that is because it is an extreme sport in an extreme environment. I would never attempt any form of racing with a helmet either, but we are not talking about racing. I think that seems to be the misunderstanding here. I am not advocating the total non use of helmets in every circumstance, just a choice that could be made when and if it suits.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

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

Yes it is. The OP’s original question was, for those of you who don’t cycle anymore, would you begin to cycle again if the compulsory helmet laws were relaxed. And my answer is yes.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

No one that is an advocate of compulsory helmet use is suggesting limiting risk taking activities.

Except for the casual bike rider.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

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.

You are probably right, but this is only because of the continuing nanny state mentally that we all have gotten ourselves into. Weekend sports such as football rugby soccer etc. are played by thousands from ages 6 right through to people in their 50’s and even beyond right across this land. I would suggest that statistically the risk of permanent brain injury would be very to extremely very low. I am happy to be proved otherwise. The worst I have seen seems to be leg injuries. I saw an extremely badly broken leg on the field one day. It was that bad it took a couple of years for the poor fellow to get over it. He was in his early 30’s and he never played again. You could say it was a life changing moment for him too.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

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.

Absolutely spot on, Well said!

Originally Posted by geckoGT

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.

You know, I would actually agree with you if you also conceded that smokers, heavy drinkers and street drug users should also be treated in this manner too.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

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?

Mate if we all thought like that we would never get out of bed.

Originally Posted by geckoGT

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.

As this was not aimed at me I will not offer a rebuttal other than to say. Sometimes people need to challenge some laws if they feel they are unjust or imposing or just need to be reviewed and or even changed to suit the times and I am glad that we live in a country that allows us to do this, well at least for now anyway.

Bud Bud.