Pushbike helmets

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Geez Louise

Less people cycling is not a result of people not wanting to wear helmets. There can not be that many "vain" people on the planet!

The nation is getting fatter because of lifestyle changes. We are working more, paying more and exercising less than previous generations.

Our lifestyles are faster and so is our food!

Sorry Flappist, I just don't see the point of your poll.

Simple answer to that.

If my poll had no point then everyone would vote for one of the options.

At the moment it is quite spread out with the majority AGAINST mandatory helmets for adults.

In addition helmets have been cited as a problem in several overseas situations as well as by our own Brisbane City Council "rent a bike" plan.

As far as the "life style changes", what has triggered that?

How do we fix it?

It is a fact that pushbike riding in my local area just turned off like a light switch when helmets came in so I suspect there may be some connection.

If helmets were no longer mandatory would the same people ride and just drop their helmets?
Surely all of the cyclists on here who are adamant the helmets save lives would still wear them.
And if the rest of us just don't want to ride then it will make no difference will it?

Or could possibly a few more people suddenly pull out their old pushy and occasionally ride to the shop or the park with their kids or along a bike track maybe getting a bit fitter?

How can this be a bad thing.......

Just to add a slight spin.

If GovCo decided that in the name of safety when traveling in a car that did not have airbags and ABS (e.g classic falcons) helmets must be worn I wonder what the threads would be like.........

[StealthAu]

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

I don't see any reason they shouldn't be mandatory, I put mine on without thinking.

I can't think of anything more interesting then the way most people think, "I do it this way so why shouldn't it be law?"

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

Also: I just notice your observation Flap that people stopped riding once they became mandatory. I think that point is null and void now as most kids (ie me at 23yrs old) have grown up with the idea that you HAVE to wear a helmet.

So that wouldn't be the reason for not riding.

I don't think this is right, your entire life it has been mandatory that you wear a helmet when riding, say you have never ridden a push bike without one, if you find it uncomfortable to wear a helmet, you really dislike having to put one on, you probably would associate this with riding in general, so you don't want to ride your bike.

[g220ba]

Originally Posted by flappist

The point here is being missed completely.

It is NOT are helmets safer?

The point is WILL NON MANDATORY HELMETS INCREASE THE NUMBER OF BIKE RIDERS?

The idea being maybe a few less people dying of being overweight and unfit.

Of course we could all not eat crap and exercise every day but then the road toll would drop if all people who lived near public transport were not allowed to own cars......or do you prefer to drive....

I wonder I we legislate for the lowest common denominator because we vote for the lowest common denominator?

fair enough. I really don't think that removing the law will make that great a difference to the amount of cyclists on the road. To say so seems a bit a cop out. I'm struggling to find the link between obesity and bike helmets. If people were serious about excercise they would'nt be worried about something as small as wearing a helmet.

[DBourne]

sorry stealth, I didn't mean it like that, I apologise, I was merley saying I put mine on without thinking, ie. same as with a seatbelt.

Sorry if it came across otherwise.

Originally Posted by 84ltd

... If people were serious about excercise they would'nt be worried about something as small as wearing a helmet.

Bingo! Said much better than I was able to say it

[StealthAu]

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

sorry stealth, I didn't mean it like that, I apologise, I was merley saying I put mine on without thinking, ie. same as with a seatbelt.

Sorry if it came across otherwise.



Bingo! Said much better than I was able to say it

Hey, wasn't having a crack directly at you, you may have worded things the wrong way but that is how so many people think, it is a joke. Anyway, I need to stop posting on this subject, no matter how much I rant on about the stupidity required for these laws to exist, it won’t change the way we as a nation think. All forms of media promote this type of insanity, I consider these laws to be a reflection of how stupid the general public must be, I mean anyone with half a brain should be able to realise the benefits of safety features without any aid of law enforcement.

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by flappist

Hardly anyone seems to ride to work (or school). Gone are the huge pushy armadas at 4pm & 5pm as the workers spewed out of the factory gates.
.....

Hardly any factory gates anymore either.

Something is a miss though, I passed my old primary school the other week and I remember we were proud to have the most bike racks in the region. 36 to be in fact and all chocker block every morning. Not 15 years later and their down to 6 racks and barely even full.

I think maybe Brisbane (given Campbell's you beaut bike scheme is underway) should give it a try for a year to see if it works.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

Hardly any factory gates anymore either.

Something is a miss though, I passed my old primary school the other week and I remember we were proud to have the most bike racks in the region. 36 to be in fact and all chocker block every morning. Not 15 years later and their down to 6 racks and barely even full.

I think maybe Brisbane (given Campbell's you beaut bike scheme is underway) should give it a try for a year to see if it works.

Wander up to Maryborough and look at the front of Walkers LTD, ASEA or Ergon Searle St Workshop......definitely factory gates.

The possible link between pushbikes and obesity:

You work maybe 5km from home. You live in a place with little or no public transport. (i.e. anywhere in Australia that is not a capitol city).

It is too far to walk as it takes too long so you drive.
Instead of an "automatic" hour odd of excercise you increase your carbon footprint for 20 minutes and add to the parking space problems.

The helmet should make no difference? Well so far the evidence leans towards it making a difference.

You can't understand why? People should just accept it is the same but better for you?

Try to explain to a non car enthusiast or ricer why a GT Falcon must be a V8 and not a T6 which uses less fuel even if the T6 has the same or better performance without using emotion (I just want it, heritage, sound, feel etc.).

My OP was to start a discussion on the idea. Some agree, others do not. Some have posted with logic others with emotion and still others with a mixture.

It is not black and white, there is no absolute right and wrong.
If you had murdered Hitler as a child you would have gone to jail for a long time or even been executed but looking back would it really have been a bad thing?

We all have to get along as best we can but always remember if you believe you have the right to restrict what others do then they must have the right to restrict you and they may not agree with your ideas or beliefs.

[geckoGT]

I do not really see the point of the poll either to be honest. I have not yet seen the result of the poll as I have not voted yet but I soon will. The poll itself is seriously flawed and worthless as people have the option of the last choice. The opinion of people as to the rights of bikes to be on the road is completely irrelevant to the poll question and its presence only achieves two things, negates the legitimacy of the poll and incites discussion that has lead to the closure of threads and breaches in the site T&C previously.

Regarding the topic, yes they should be compulsory on any vehicle or mode of transport that does not have an enclosed structure protecting the occupants and safety restraints. Safety restraints are not practicable on motorbikes, push bikes, skate boards, roller blades etc so therefore helmets should be worn. In a convertible car there are restraints so therefore helmets are a personal choice matter (yes you can legally wear one if you wish).

After picking up many cyclists after crashes and seeing the damage to their helmets, plus having been the victim of a car v bike incident myself and narrowly escaping a serious head injury, I am a strong believer in helmets.

That show questioning the use of helmets was utter crap, the basis of their argument was that they don't like the look of them and they did not provide any quantifiable data or evidence suggesting that helmets have no positive effect on cyclist safety and crash survivability. There is however a lot of evidence that helmets that comply with AS do give a greater chance of surviving a crash, something that was not mentioned on that article. The article was yet another example of biased journalism.

Anyone that does not believe in the use of helmets should get down to the local brain injury unit and ask the families of brain injury victims that resulted in skate board, bicycle and motor cycle accidents where a helmet was not used. I suggest your point of view may change when you see the fit and healthy people in the prime of their life now eating through a whole in their stomach, dribbling on themselves and peeing through a tube in the old fella whilst living at a nursing home.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

Wander up to Maryborough and look at the front of Walkers LTD, ASEA or Ergon Searle St Workshop......definitely factory gates.

The possible link between pushbikes and obesity:

You work maybe 5km from home. You live in a place with little or no public transport. (i.e. anywhere in Australia that is not a capitol city).

It is too far to walk as it takes too long so you drive.
Instead of an "automatic" hour odd of excercise you increase your carbon footprint for 20 minutes and add to the parking space problems.

The helmet should make no difference? Well so far the evidence leans towards it making a difference.

You can't understand why? People should just accept it is the same but better for you?

Try to explain to a non car enthusiast or ricer why a GT Falcon must be a V8 and not a T6 which uses less fuel even if the T6 has the same or better performance without using emotion (I just want it, heritage, sound, feel etc.).

My OP was to start a discussion on the idea. Some agree, others do not. Some have posted with logic others with emotion and still others with a mixture.

It is not black and white, there is no absolute right and wrong.
If you had murdered Hitler as a child you would have gone to jail for a long time or even been executed but looking back would it really have been a bad thing?

We all have to get along as best we can but always remember if you believe you have the right to restrict what others do then they must have the right to restrict you and they may not agree with your ideas or beliefs.

Point taken, some may not ride a bike any more because they find a helmet uncool, uncomfortable, inconvenient or a breach of their civil liberties etc. That is their right and some will exercise that right of choice of either wear the helmet or not ride a bike. Personally I will not lose any sleep over them choosing not to ride a bike.

If helmets were not compulsory and the individual had the right to put their health at a considerable risk due to greater chance of brain injury, would the health system have the right to also refuse treatment? Would I as a paramedic have the policy covering me to say "you were not wearing a helmet, that head injury is your problem", could the emergency department say the same thing? Of course not.

Yes you could argue that it is the right of the individual to decide as to the risk they take, but why do the general taxpayers have to pay for that increased risk. One brain injured patient can cost the health system $100,000's each year for their care for the remainder of their life (up to 60 years from time of injury). Why should our health dollars cover their costs, that they chose to risk incurring. Making helmets compulsory is a much more cost effective way of reducing the financial cost of this type of injury and therefore provide funding for better public health services in other areas.

[irlewy86]

Originally Posted by flappist

Wander up to Maryborough and look at the front of Walkers LTD, ASEA or Ergon Searle St Workshop......definitely factory gates.

The possible link between pushbikes and obesity:

.

Yeah, use to source hydraulic parts from Maryborough, top class engineering.

Plenty of evidence to support

http://www.yale.edu/transportationop...ucherchart.doc

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by irlewy86

Yeah, use to source hydraulic parts from Maryborough, top class engineering.

Plenty of evidence to support

http://www.yale.edu/transportationop...ucherchart.doc

Good information there and rep points to you.

The problem is what is the cause of the lack of use of bikes? Is it because helmets are compulsory, is it because we are more sedentary now, is it because of a lack of safe cycling lanes etc?

Without evidence, to say it is because of helmets is purely anecdotal and of little real value to any worthwhile discussion regarding this topic.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

is it because of a lack of safe cycling lanes etc?

There's a whole heap of cycling lanes that have popped up in my area only thing lacking are the cyclists.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by vztrt

There's a whole heap of cycling lanes that have popped up in my area only thing lacking are the cyclists.

My point is the reduction in the number of cyclists is more complex than purely the introduction of compulsory helmet laws.

An interesting example is Royal Brisbane Hospital. This hospital and the surrounding businesses have seen a huge increase in the number of people riding bicycles to work. This occurred after the building of the busway which has a bicycle centre attached to it. This centre has secure bicycle lockers, change lockers and showers etc that people pay an annual membership fee for and have easy access. Now that they can ride to work, secure their bike and have somewhere to change and get ready for work, many are using it and saving money as membership to the facility costs much less than city parking. This increase in the number cycling to work is despite the fact that helmet use is still compulsory.

Perhaps compulsory helmet use has reduced the number of people riding bikes, as has a lack of safe cycling lanes, lack of bicycle security, lack of change facilities etc.

Motor cyclists went from not having to wear helmets to compulsory helmet use, did that also reduce the number of motor cyclists during that change?

[AussieAV]

We're assuming that the only correlation between compulsory helmets and declining cyclist numbers, is that people don't want to mess up their hair, or some equally vain reason. What if the link is a little more distant.

What if the problem is that faced with an unacceptable amount of trauma to cyclists, the various state governments introduced helmet laws and then just went, right job done, don't need to do anything more for cycle safety.

I think that helmet laws gave the governments an easy out, and they took it. They could say the problem was addressed, when what was also needed was some serious development of a safe travel infrastructure for both pedestrians and cyclists. They should have gone further, but used the helmet laws as an excuse to say they'd addressed the issue.

I don't think cyclists should be kept off the road to stop annoying drivers, I think they should be kept off to make travel safer for them. They should have an alternative to roads, particularly in heavy traffic areas near major cities. Cycle-ways need to be provided to reduce the amount of time bicycles, cars and pedestrians interact, otherwise it will remain a recipe for disaster.

Why is it we think that small, harder to see bicycles that only do around 20km/h can safely travel in the same piece of real estate as large, wide vehicles doing at least three times the speed, just because they have a bit of foam strapped to their heads.

As for the whole "unfair burden on the health system" debate, as I said before, where do you draw the line. 50 pedestrian deaths in Vic in 2009 versus 6 cyclists, suggests that pedestrians are involved in far more accidents than cyclists. Should we all have to wear helmets to cross the road? Maybe being overweight should be made illegal too, not to mention making alcohol illegal to prevent drink-drivers (sarcasm just in case anyone is not sure).

Vilifying people for questioning where the line between public good and personal freedoms are drawn is just plain wrong. Without debate we will very quickly end up with no freedoms or choice in the way we live. If you attack someone for drawing their line higher than you, you risk losing the right to defend yourself from others who draw their's even lower.

I'm sure that seatbelt laws were also heatedly debated way back when, but now are pretty much accepted by everyone as just common sense(including me). Good laws will prevail and survive debate and criticism, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't go through the process, otherwise how will the bad ones be weeded out.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by AussieAV

Now by your reasoning we should be immediately making helmets compulsory for pedestrians. Everyone should wear one as soon as they step out of the house or car. Is this actually what you want???

What kind of reasoning is that? Who is talking about pedestrians? This is about cyclists, not pedestrians. There is no way to protect pedestrians as they don't shoot down footpaths and roads at 30km/h. Cyclists do. Hence they should wear safety devices. Don't just look at the fatalities, alot more than 6 cyclists would have been seriously injured.

[AussieAV]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

What kind of reasoning is that? Who is talking about pedestrians? This is about cyclists, not pedestrians. There is no way to protect pedestrians as they don't shoot down footpaths and roads at 30km/h. Cyclists do. Hence they should wear safety devices. Don't just look at the fatalities, alot more than 6 cyclists would have been seriously injured.

Yes, but its a fair bet if there are 8 times the fatalities, then there are probably 8 times the number of pedestrians injured on the road as well.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Adrenaline

What kind of reasoning is that? Who is talking about pedestrians? This is about cyclists, not pedestrians. There is no way to protect pedestrians as they don't shoot down footpaths and roads at 30km/h. Cyclists do. Hence they should wear safety devices. Don't just look at the fatalities, alot more than 6 cyclists would have been seriously injured.

Very good points there.

I have been to more head injuries as a result of people walking around their house and slipping/tripping, falling off ladders, kids out of trees etc than pedestrian v bike/car, cyclist accidents etc There is no way we could suggest that it should be compulsory for everyone to wear a helmet at all times.

The point of the law is that cyclists are at a greatly increased risk of head injury during an accident and therefore the laws were viewed and a necessary intervention. Lets not get the wrong idea, bikes are not limited to 20km/h, for example my average speed on a training ride is 35-40 km/h, on a flat road sprint I can exceed 6o km/h and on long steep descents I have exceeded 100 km/h. I am not superhuman, many cyclists are much faster than me, my point is that cycling is not necessarily a low speed form of transport.

I do agree with Aussie AV in his point that helmet laws were not necessarily the holy grail of bicycle safety and that attention should have been paid to other areas of safety. Rather than just implementing the one law and then washing their law making hands of it and declaring it job done.

I think we need to realise that although helmet laws were introduced to improve cyclist safety, no individual or government is truly suggesting that a bit of foam on the head makes life absolutely safe for cyclists. Everyone knows this is a much deeper problem than such a simple fix can adequately address.

[XlR8TED]

Originally Posted by flappist

It is a fact that pushbike riding in my local area just turned off like a light switch when helmets came in so I suspect there may be some connection.

Is this opinion based on anything other than your own observation?

The stats tell a different story.

Bicycle sales in Australia averaged 795,000 per year for the four years 1998 - 2001. In the four years since they have averaged 1,133,000 per year and been over one million in each of those four years. By comparison car sales have never reached one million in a year.

Seems to be fairly encouraging.

They're not just all kids bikes either.

For every four bikes sold to children or youths in Australia there are seven bikes sold to adults. The public perception that all kids and just a few adults ride bikes is clearly wrong. The Australian market is dominated by sales to adults both in numbers of bikes and in value. The average BMX bike sold in 2004/200 had a recommended retail price of just $252 and smaller juvenile bikes even less. By comparison the average road bike sold for over $2,200.

$2200 is some fairly serious coin for a bike.

I have a tough time believing that people stopped riding bikes because they were made to wear helmets. Who is that vain? Does it mess your hair or something?

I'm fine with making them optional though. If you're worried about looking like an idiot with one on your head, think how stupid you would feel with a cracked skull in ED, which was mostly preventable. (mostly because a helmet isn't always going to save your skin)

[flappist]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Good information there and rep points to you.

The problem is what is the cause of the lack of use of bikes? Is it because helmets are compulsory, is it because we are more sedentary now, is it because of a lack of safe cycling lanes etc?

Without evidence, to say it is because of helmets is purely anecdotal and of little real value to any worthwhile discussion regarding this topic.

I had wondered what happened to you. Yes there are injuries but what is the ration of pushbike injuries to heart attacks and other "unfit" conditions.

The evidence swings both ways, as the helmets have been mandatory there is nothing to show whether they have reduced riding or not (sort of like speed cameras really).

To dismiss this as not worth discussing purely because you do not agree with it is exactly how we got into this whole nanny state in the first place.

As a paramedic and former LCF you see part of the problem that many don't.

You would also see lots of, for example, motorcycle injuries that could be reduced by mandating boots and track quality protective clothing or even banning motorcycles outright. Or should there be some happy medium as a suburban scooter rider is not a weekend warrior squid.

While anyone refuses to discuss and review anything we will always head towards a pseudo-democratic dictatorship.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by XRSex

Is this opinion based on anything other than your own observation?

The stats tell a different story.



Seems to be fairly encouraging.

They're not just all kids bikes either.



$2200 is some fairly serious coin for a bike.

I have a tough time believing that people stopped riding bikes because they were made to wear helmets. Who is that vain? Does it mess your hair or something?

I'm fine with making them optional though. If you're worried about looking like an idiot with one on your head, think how stupid you would feel with a cracked skull in ED, which was mostly preventable. (mostly because a helmet isn't always going to save your skin)

I also know for a fact that new gun sales and the number of licensed shooters in Australia in the highest that it has ever been while hunting and target shooting are at an all time low.

Maybe people are buying bikes and then not riding them like people seem to be buying guns and not shooting them.

The Maryborough decline was personal observation of the bike racks outside the factories being empty and there no longer being traffic jams in Kent St (main drag) at 4PM.

You were at kindergarten 20 years ago. Ask some older people who you trust if there are as many pushies on the road as there used to be......

P.S. I love the comparison of pushies sold to cars sold..... why not compare dollar value or does that not support your position.

Or maybe compare shoes sold to bikes sold.....

[The Yeti]

having been smacked by a car as a 6year old on a dragster (how coool were they) I wont let my kids past the front gate with out one on and yes when I go riding I also wear one weather or not I'm with the kids makes no difference

[Tribal]

Off all the times I've come off a bike, my head has never copped a blow - even after somersaulting over the rear of a car that has pulled out in front of me.

The most recent was being cutoff on a roundabout - my cheek and shoulder hit the curb bloody hard - and yes I had a helmet on, but it did sweet FA.

Kids should wear them, let natural laws of selection deal with the rest.

[flappist]

Actually after reading all these horror stories I think pushbikes should be banned outright. They are just too bloody dangerous......

[3vXT]

If fatties don't want to get helmet hair they can still go for a walk, its not a valid excuse to avoid exercise. People need to be responsible for themselves, helmet laws creating fatties is just another example of people making excuses for negative behaviour instead of changing it to positive behaviour. This is the same thing most of you argue about when whinging about becoming a 'nanny state'.

If the laws were the only reason we are fatter now then it would be different but only an idiot would be that naive. I'd bet money that the percentage of fat people created by helmet laws is completely insignificant in comparison to all the other reasons people are bigger now. I'd also be willing to bet that helmets have saved lives or lessened the injury to more people than they have harmed which is the whole point.

As a side note, I know of a guy that makes his children wear bike helmets in the family car. He may be crazy or he may not but he's no idiot (actually, he earns a living the same way Gecko does, hint hint). I'm not sure if the benefits (potentially less head trauma in an accident) outweigh the negatives (emotion trauma every time the kid's friends see them getting driven around town with bike helmets on )

[tweeked]

The biggest issue i see with pushbikes is that the are allowed to move to the front at every set of lights.

The biggest danger is passing the things, but in the inner city you pass the same bike 10 times. They should have to wait in the queue like every other vehicle, then you could conceiveably halve the accidents, because you only pass them once.

The only difficulty with this is that would have to follow another road rule.......

[Bud Bud]

Originally Posted by wrongwaynorris

I ride every day and would'nt dream of going without a helmet . Something to do with if your dumb enough not to wear a helmet there's probably no need to because there's nothing between your ears to protect . Like the "rebellious freedom loving " XXXXwits who ride a certain brand of American motorcycle with a bandana wrapped around their empty heads . I really dont give a rats if you kill yourselves but it's the ones who survive and become a burden on the taxpayers for the rest of their miserable lives all because they have " Rights " and are " Free Spirits " that give me the irrits .

After reading through this thread and with so many writing hysterical posts like this, I am still amazed that I made it through the 60's and 70's still alive!

The op asks wether it should be made mandatory to wear a helmet while riding a push bike or would it be best left to a voluntary decision. I see nowhere where the OP asks would it be safe or more unsafe to wear a helmet when riding a push bike. I would have thought that this comparison of safe vs. non-safe would have been a given, but apparently not!

Even wrongwaynorris in this post you suggest that "I ride every day and would'nt (sic) dream of going without a helmet" But which is it? Is it because you feel safer because of this or is it to avoid the fine if you do not wear one, or both? If it was voluntary would you still wear one? This is what the op question was, or am I missing something here as well???

My younger brother was into BMX and he wore (along with all the other safety pads etc.) a helmet but that style of riding requires it imho. If I was one of those cross city/country LCF’s that reach speeds of over 60 kph plus then I would wear one, (you would not even have to make it law). If I was climbing rock faces then I would wear one. If I was jumping out of planes, then I would wear one, no questions asked! I am not anti helmet use. If some people feel better about wearing one while they cycle then that is great, but it should be their call.

I am with you Flappist on this one. I pretty much gave up bike riding when helmets became compulsory as well. I grew up in an era when we did not wear helmets on skate boards push bikes and even ice skating when it was in Hindley Street (for those that can remember) and later at Paynham before it moved to Thebby in Adelaide. I played footy and hockey without one, but I never rode a motor bike without one.

I too would begin to cycle on a leisurely basis if I was not restricted to having to use a helmet, but I can see merit on making it compulsory for kids to wear one so I voted yes to kids but no for adults.

Bud Bud.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by ken2903

If fatties don't want to get helmet hair they can still go for a walk, its not a valid excuse to avoid exercise. People need to be responsible for themselves, helmet laws creating fatties is just another example of people making excuses for negative behaviour instead of changing it to positive behaviour. This is the same thing most of you argue about when whinging about becoming a 'nanny state'.

If the laws were the only reason we are fatter now then it would be different but only an idiot would be that naive. I'd bet money that the percentage of fat people created by helmet laws is completely insignificant in comparison to all the other reasons people are bigger now. I'd also be willing to bet that helmets have saved lives or lessened the injury to more people than they have harmed which is the whole point.

As a side note, I know of a guy that makes his children wear bike helmets in the family car. He may be crazy or he may not but he's no idiot (actually, he earns a living the same way Gecko does, hint hint). I'm not sure if the benefits (potentially less head trauma in an accident) outweigh the negatives (emotion trauma every time the kid's friends see them getting driven around town with bike helmets on )

I see your point. Things that are potentially bad for us should be prevented.

Ok......

No cigarettes anymore.
No alcohol other than wine and light beer.
No motor vehicles that do not have ABS, airbags and DSC.
No motorbikes.
No computer games.
No mobile phones (or at least make them not operate when moving)
etc etc etc........

Sure it will cost a lot of money and upset a few and cause a bit of inconvenience but think how healthy and safe we will all be........

After all so far 34 people have voted that "safety is paramount".......

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by flappist

I had wondered what happened to you. Yes there are injuries but what is the ration of pushbike injuries to heart attacks and other "unfit" conditions.

I have no idea what the ratio is and I have no intention of trying to find out. This is not an easy answer because even if you found more public health budget was spent on conditions due to "unfit" reasons, how do you quantify how much of that is from a lack of exercise and how much is due to changes in work habits, dietary habits and a whole plethora of other reasons? My point here is it is too complex for me to give any informed opinion on and nor do I have any intention to find out.

The evidence swings both ways, as the helmets have been mandatory there is nothing to show whether they have reduced riding or not (sort of like speed cameras really).

Evidence in bike sales actually suggests there have been an increase in bike use, unless there are a lot of adults spending $2200 on garage decorations.

To dismiss this as not worth discussing purely because you do not agree with it is exactly how we got into this whole nanny state in the first place.

Never said it is not worth discussing it because I do not agree with it. I just said it is pointless if the discussion is based purely on anecdote and opinion without any evidence to back up statements. There is a big difference there and if such evidence is provided I would gladly change my opinion. I am actually not a supporter of "nanny state" concepts at all, I am however an avid supporter of worthwhile changes that support public health and safety. Those here that truly know me will agree with that.

As a paramedic and former LCF you see part of the problem that many don't.

I see the term of "LCF" as a derorogatorry term and would appreciate it not be used. Just like I am sure you would appreciate me not referring to you as a beer swilling, fat old man in a midlife crisis who thinks he is a sports car owner. By the way, I still ride and have a $9000 road bike as well as a mountain bike (admittedly I ride the MTB more than the road bike now).

You would also see lots of, for example, motorcycle injuries that could be reduced by mandating boots and track quality protective clothing or even banning motorcycles outright. Or should there be some happy medium as a suburban scooter rider is not a weekend warrior squid.

I have no problem in the mandatory use of protective motorcycle gear, which I used to use when I had my bike (Honda CBR900RR Fireblade).

While anyone refuses to discuss and review anything we will always head towards a pseudo-democratic dictatorship.

No one had suggested it should not be discussed, just that it should be done with a bit more meaning than opinion only, lets actually look at some facts.

Whilst opinion and anecdote are so popular here, let me put forward mine.

At work I have dealt with many cyclist crashes (been in a few of my own as well). I have seen many cyclists with significant damage to their helmet yet I have never dealt with a rider that has damage on the helmet and a brain injury. I have dealt with a rider with a brain injury that was not wearing a helmet. Helmets work.

I have been involved in cycling of variously levels up to and including state and national competition since I was 13, I am now 38. In that time I have seen a massive increase in the number of serious recreational and competitive cyclists out there. When I first started, cycling was highly unusual for anything other than casual recreation and commuting. Now there are group rides and clubs that number in the hundreds everywhere.

The presence of large, well stocked bike shops has at least doubled in the last 20 years, they must be making a living somehow. Therefore if someone is buying the bikes supporting these businesses, someone must be riding them.

By the way, my observations are based on my experience which is not formed by casual observations whilst sipping latte's at a cafe.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by ken2903

.

As a side note, I know of a guy that makes his children wear bike helmets in the family car. He may be crazy or he may not but he's no idiot (actually, he earns a living the same way Gecko does, hint hint). I'm not sure if the benefits (potentially less head trauma in an accident) outweigh the negatives (emotion trauma every time the kid's friends see them getting driven around town with bike helmets on )

While I am not scarred and traumatised enough to put my family through that due to my fears, I can understand it. Seeing what we see and the pain and suffering that we see due to stupid actions of normal people, makes it difficult to not end up just a little bit paranoid.

I know I go nuts if I catch my family driving around with unsecured items in the car rather than the boot, because I have seen too many injuries resulting from this situation in a crash.

[XlR8TED]

Originally Posted by flappist

P.S. I love the comparison of pushies sold to cars sold..... why not compare dollar value or does that not support your position.

Or maybe compare shoes sold to bikes sold.....

What's my position?

That was simply a quote out of the article I found. Don't read into it too much.