The CycleChat Helmet Debate Thread

[ufkacbln]

Where has that happened? In Australia it's been in force for the entire population for nearly 30 years, despite a few exceptions in court.

Google "Sue Abbott"

She is the Australian who appealed her fine for not wearing and the Judge upheld her appeal

''Having read all the material, I think I would fall down on your side of the ledger,'' the judge told Ms Abbott after she had spelt out her case against the laws that exist in few countries other than Australia and New Zealand.

''I frankly don't think there is anything advantageous and there may well be a disadvantage in situations to have a helmet - and it seems to me that it's one of those areas where it ought to be a matter of choice.''

He found Ms Abbott had ''an honestly held and not unreasonable belief as to the danger associated with the use of a helmet by cyclists'', and quashed her conviction, although he still found her offence proven.

Now Scone police ignore Ms Abbott as she cycles to town, although one yelled at her ''you're not in Paris now'' - a remark which prompted her to send police a photograph of herself bareheaded on a bike on the Champs-Elysees marked ''Greetings from Paris''.

 

[ufkacbln]

I can't prove that shoving your hand in a food blender and turning it on is a bad idea, there's no scientific data, no proof, no studies, no numbers that prove that it's a bad idea. However, I personally think that doing so would be a bad move.

Splendid analogy!

We could use a reasoned approach, educate people about the dangers of food processors, not putting their hands in them, or .......

You could ignore the common sense approach and rather than reduce the possibility, make EN420 5/5, EN381-7 Type A Class gloves compulsory

 

[Profpointy]

I can't prove that shoving your hand in a food blender and turning it on is a bad idea, there's no scientific data, no proof, no studies, no numbers that prove that it's a bad idea. However, I personally think that doing so would be a bad move.

Well you don't need a load of numbers and studies to convince that a tin-foil hat will stop alpha particles, but doesn't make it worth wearing one.

it's simple geometry that a helmetted head is twice as big so it's common sense that you don't want to hit your head twice as often. You don't need a load of of statistics. Would you rather hit your head or miss?

Turning off the sarcasm, we actually do have good numbers that suggest that helmets on average do little or no good, perhaps even some harm. This is why policy should be fact based rather than "it's obvious innit?" . Many things are "obvious" or "common sense" yet wrong

And this quite appart from compulsory helmets putting people off cycling so that they get fat and die of heart attacks etc

 

[Sharky]

Back to the French law - compulsory for under 12's?

For the moment ignore the fact that it may be benefial or non beneficial. As an adult, i have life experiences and can make an informed decision and decide whether or not to wear one.

But can a child? The child will probably do what ever the parent influences and they will have no say in the matter.

Now suppose that your child is in an accident and suffers a head injury whilst not wearing a helmet. Again ignore the fact that a helmet had no benefit and it would have not changed the outcome if worn.

Now consider how the non cycling relatives of the injured child will interpret events. Regardless of the effectiveness of a helmet they will probably blame you for not insisting the child wears a helmet. Like wise as the cycling parent, you will feel some kind of guilt, even if you know there is no proven reason for compulsory helmet wearing.

I think this is justification for the U12 law. It removes all responsibility from the parents and is a clear rule to be followed.

When the child is older they can make their own decision.

 

[Shut Up Legs]

Back to the French law - compulsory for under 12's?

For the moment ignore the fact that it may be benefial or non beneficial. As an adult, i have life experiences and can make an informed decision and decide whether or not to wear one.

But can a child? The child will probably do what ever the parent influences and they will have no say in the matter.

Now suppose that your child is in an accident and suffers a head injury whilst not wearing a helmet. Again ignore the fact that a helmet had no benefit and it would have not changed the outcome if worn.

Now consider how the non cycling relatives of the injured child will interpret events. Regardless of the effectiveness of a helmet they will probably blame you for not insisting the child wears a helmet. Like wise as the cycling parent, you will feel some kind of guilt, even if you know there is no proven reason for compulsory helmet wearing.

I think this is justification for the U12 law. It removes all responsibility from the parents and is a clear rule to be followed.

When the child is older they can make their own decision.

Ever heard the phrase "the thin edge of the wedge"?

 

[jefmcg]

Google "Sue Abbott"

She is the Australian who appealed her fine for not wearing and the Judge upheld her appeal

A test case is one that changes the law by setting a new precedent. The laws, however, are still very much in place and people are still being fined, including Ms Abbott.

In a seven-year battle against bike helmets Sue Abbott has had her driver’s licence suspended, bikes confiscated and four criminal convictions recorded.

 

[ufkacbln]

Back to the French law - compulsory for under 12's?

For the moment ignore the fact that it may be benefial or non beneficial. As an adult, i have life experiences and can make an informed decision and decide whether or not to wear one.

But can a child? The child will probably do what ever the parent influences and they will have no say in the matter.

Now suppose that your child is in an accident and suffers a head injury whilst not wearing a helmet. Again ignore the fact that a helmet had no benefit and it would have not changed the outcome if worn.

Now consider how the non cycling relatives of the injured child will interpret events. Regardless of the effectiveness of a helmet they will probably blame you for not insisting the child wears a helmet. Like wise as the cycling parent, you will feel some kind of guilt, even if you know there is no proven reason for compulsory helmet wearing.

I think this is justification for the U12 law. It removes all responsibility from the parents and is a clear rule to be followed.

When the child is older they can make their own decision.

Children are different from adults

However the crux is with this statement:

Now suppose that your child is in an accident and suffers a head injury whilst not wearing a helmet. Again ignore the fact that a helmet had no benefit and it would have not changed the outcome if worn.

This also applies to playing games, running, being in a playground, and a thousand other activities

... and raises the question as to why a child in the playground, on a swing suffering a head injury is not judged by the same standard

 

[ufkacbln]

A test case is one that changes the law by setting a new precedent. The laws, however, are still very much in place and people are still being fined, including Ms Abbott.

Bringing it up to date, there is apparently a pattern of not appearing in court....

If it is so clear cut, why are the Officers so afraid of appearing?

My Adelaide court date last week was vacated because the 'informant' (policeman) was otherwise engaged.
Hmmm, you know I've noticed a bit of a recurring theme with 'informants' over the last couple of years; they're pretty keen to book me but when it comes to turning up at court they'd rather just hand over their statements and leave me to it.
But I figure if they're eager-beaver enough to book me for riding a bicycle without wearing a helmet then they ought to give me the common courtesy of turning up to court to see this dastardly matter through ... or is it not criminally cool enough?
Anyhoo new Adelaide date is now Monday 27 February 2017, unless of course the policeman can't make it!!!! Then in which case don't you think it might be an idea for the prosecution to consider dropping the case!!!!!
I mean it's so incredibly inconvenient for all of us!

 

[ufkacbln]

Apparently the Police are also willing to organise "exemptions" from the law:

A helmet exemption has been arranged with the police for all participants on this ride (could it be that wearing a helmet is not that serious an issue after all … who knew!) and as with the other two helmet optional rides, there is a likelihood that there will be a mounted-bike police escort for the cycle trip.

After the ride, it will be possible to catch a train from Grange station back to the city. In previous years it has also been possible to ride back to the city with the police officers along linear park. Anyone riding by themself after the ride concludes will no longer be exempt from wearing a helmet, so you will need to bring one with you if you plan to make your own way home.

There will be some volunteer speakers at the start to talk on the issue of helmet laws and other recent developments.

This will be a relaxed ride at a gentle pace, on off-road bike paths and shared pathways the whole way. The route has been chosen to be extremely safe, however all participants take part at their own risk, and will be expected to follow any instructions from the police on the day.

 

[Profpointy]

Back to the French law - compulsory for under 12's?

For the moment ignore the fact that it may be benefial or non beneficial. As an adult, i have life experiences and can make an informed decision and decide whether or not to wear one.

But can a child? The child will probably do what ever the parent influences and they will have no say in the matter.

Now suppose that your child is in an accident and suffers a head injury whilst not wearing a helmet. Again ignore the fact that a helmet had no benefit and it would have not changed the outcome if worn.

Now consider how the non cycling relatives of the injured child will interpret events. Regardless of the effectiveness of a helmet they will probably blame you for not insisting the child wears a helmet. Like wise as the cycling parent, you will feel some kind of guilt, even if you know there is no proven reason for compulsory helmet wearing.

I think this is justification for the U12 law. It removes all responsibility from the parents and is a clear rule to be followed.

When the child is older they can make their own decision.

And yet we pretty much know they do little or no good, or even harm. How does it makes any sense for the state make them compulsory

 

[growingvegetables]

.... I think this is justification for the U12 law. It removes all responsibility from the parents and is a clear rule to be followed.

No. A 1000 times no.

That's a NO!

I do NOT want responsibility removed from the (usually car-owning) parents. You know them well - the ones who let their kids out on the streets with terrifyingly-worse-than-zero road-sense. No operative brakes. And as for lights at night - forget it.

 

[mjr]

Yes, especially as helmetless parents will get grief from their kids for being inconsistent.

Alternatively, it might be that cycling normally becomes seen as a sign of adulthood and some people who wouldn't do it otherwise start doing it underage to demonstrate how adult they are. You know, like we did with alcohol.

 

[hatler]

Back to the French law - compulsory for under 12's?
Now consider how the non cycling relatives of the injured child will interpret events. Regardless of the effectiveness of a helmet they will probably blame you for not insisting the child wears a helmet. Like wise as the cycling parent, you will feel some kind of guilt, even if you know there is no proven reason for compulsory helmet wearing.

They are more likely to blame you because they are more inclined to think that helmets are effective because they must be if the gov makes it law. Self-fulfilling nonsense and all that.

 

[CanucksTraveller]

Apropos of nothing, one theme I've noticed having viewed this debate over a few years is that the helmet wearers always seem to be tolerant of both camps, wheareas the anti-helmet guys appear to be more militant and confrontational. Sneering references to "plastic hat wearers" are very common, but the opposite (I'm guessing a comparably sneering opposite might be "bareheads", or "bandana wearers", "cap fans" or whatever, it's hard to find an example) seem to be entirely absent.
Just an observation. I'm genuinely pro choice, for everyone.

 

[User32269]

I can't prove that shoving your hand in a food blender and turning it on is a bad idea, there's no scientific data, no proof, no studies, no numbers that prove that it's a bad idea. However, I personally think that doing so would be a bad move.

Now that's just alarmist. I've stuck my head in a blender loads of times and switched it on. Never done me any harm. In fact it's been a positive thing. How much do you spend at the barbers eh? Of course, this is just anecdotal, but I think facts are boring.