# Bicycle Helmets Kill



## Garpal Gumnut (15 March 2009)

As a lad I remember people of all shapes and sizes riding bicycles. It was a good cheap efficient way for us working class people to get about our trips to school, work or technical college.

Recent laws led by the New Class have deprived workers of this pleasant cheap means of transport.

Bicycle riding is now the domain of swarthy waxed gentlemen and executives of our major corporations. 

I believe this to be due to the introduction of the bicycle helmet by the meddling lefties of the eighties.

My favourite Sunday morning coffee shop has been taken over by these hairless wonders, and the girls are no better. They all bear those badges of affluence the lycra suit and the drreaded helmet. Some of the men have lumps in their necks so tight are the suits.

I have seen some fat people attempt to wear these helmets. They look ridiculous, like a fried egg on an over sized bun. Christ knows how they would protect them in an accident.

It thus discourages workers and particularly fat people from cycling, at great cost to their health.

Lets face it if a truck runs you over on a bicycle the egg on top ain't going to help you.

So I would ask all ASF posters to lobby their local members to remove this ridiculous law from the statute books.

A link for you to read 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet#Are_helmets_harmful.3F_Undesirable_effects_of_helmet_use

gg


----------



## Naked shorts (15 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

I was riding to uni once with out my helmet (I was late to my class). Mr policeman pulled me over and proceeded to ask me questions, he asked what degree I was doing, I told him engineering, he asked me what would the force be if my head hit the gutter, I told him it would be a big one, to which he told me was correct.

He let me off with a warning and I had to walk my bike the rest of the way 

So you see, we live in a cotton ball environment here in Australia, and I dont see that changing anytime soon.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Naked shorts said:


> I was riding to uni once with out my helmet (I was late to my class). Mr policeman pulled me over and proceeded to ask me questions, he asked what degree I was doing, I told him engineering, he asked me what would the force be if my head hit the gutter, I told him it would be a big one, to which he told me was correct.
> 
> He let me off with a warning and I had to walk my bike the rest of the way
> 
> So you see, we live in a cotton ball environment here in Australia, and I dont see that changing anytime soon.




NS we need to rise up and get rid of these silly laws. 

gg


----------



## Trembling Hand (15 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> NS we need to rise up and get rid of these silly laws.
> 
> gg




It would be better to get rid of the fools that think this has anything merit.

including the one starting this thread.

DUMB.


----------



## ColB (15 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



> Originally posted by *Trembling Hand*
> 
> "It would be better to get rid of the fools that think this has any merit.
> 
> ...




Here Here!  Couldn't agree more TH.  

Why not ban helmets for motorcyclists as well GG.  As one who regularly rides in bunches with cyclists at 40-55kph I wouldn't leave home without a helmet.

Perhaps a trip to a trauma ward where a cyclist has been hit and sustained head injuries might change your idea about the merit of protective gear.

You'll have to get off the red GG it's clouding your judgement


----------



## MrBurns (15 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

I think if you ride a bicycle on the roads these days, or even a motor bike for that matter, you have a death wish. Helmets will prevent serious head injury in a lot of cases, but if they're that worried about health why dont they ban cigarettes ?


----------



## Trevor_S (15 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



ColB said:


> You'll have to get off the red GG it's clouding your judgement




I am an avid cyclist and even race MTB... that aside, I don't think GG is advocating a law saying you must not  wear a helmet, just that the one that says you HAVE to, is repealed. I agree 100% with that sentiment.  

I would never not wear one but then I think it should be my choice.

Look to countries (see photos in the link below) where it is not compulsory (you can still wear them, it just a choice !) for an idea of the popularity of cycling as transport and not just a past time for boy racers (ie my carbon fiber Orbea   )

http://www.ski-epic.com/amsterdam_bicycles/index.html


----------



## JTLP (15 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



MrBurns said:


> I think if you ride a bicycle on the roads these days, or even a motor bike for that matter, you have a death wish. Helmets will prevent serious head injury in a lot of cases, but if they're that worried about health why dont they ban cigarettes ?




Cigarettes bring in zi tax $$$ for zi governmenttttt BURNS-O


----------



## Naked shorts (15 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Trevor_S said:


> I am an avid cyclist and even race MTB... that aside, I don't think GG is advocating a law saying you must not  wear a helmet, just that the one that says you HAVE to, is repealed. I agree 100% with that sentiment.




I agree too, I want to be wearing a helmet when riding in traffic, or at high speeds, but if its just at a gentle pace around lazy beach side suburbs, I dont want to be wearing one.


----------



## beerwm (15 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



JTLP said:


> Cigarettes bring in zi tax $$$ for zi governmenttttt BURNS-O




Im sure the benefits of tax would be outweighed by;

- the reduction on the health sector
- tax recieved from money saved-then-spent from not buying cigarettes
- money saved from government anti-advertising
- tax recieved from people who would of died of smoking

there are alot more,


----------



## tech/a (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

I do a lot of bike riding and if I had a choice Id wear the helmut.
Keeps my brains in.
You should try it GG.


----------



## Trembling Hand (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

Yeah guys the old choice gem 

We should get rid of that silly compulsory seat belt rule as well. At least when just driving slowly hey?


----------



## AQR (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

If some people think it should be their right to choose the level of pro active safety gear they wear, then perhaps that's why we need laws to take bad decisions out of their hand.

Geoff.


----------



## Agentm (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> As a lad I remember people of all shapes and sizes riding bicycles. It was a good cheap efficient way for us working class people to get about our trips to school, work or technical college.
> 
> Recent laws led by the New Class have deprived workers of this pleasant cheap means of transport.
> 
> ...




lol

i assume this really about BICYCLES??  WTF is a bicycycle??  is it a pair of cycyles ????   

biggest load of garbage posted on this subject i have seen if its about cycling

wrong on every level..

if anything prevails, common sense does,, but theres none in this quote what so ever!!

poor show and totally incorrect...


----------



## pointr (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

I bought my first bicycle helmet in 1975, long before you 'had to'. From my 26 year ambulance career I can assure you that there are few 'sillier' looking things than a person with a closed head injury lying on a CT table with stridorous breathing and abnormal muscular contractions. Helmets save lives, but I do respect peoples right not to wear them so long as they are also excluded from medical treatment, rehabilitation and long term care at the expense of the public.


----------



## 2BAD4U (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

Sorry GG but this is BS!

The facts are helmets save lives.  November last year I had a crash where I landed on top of a kerb and my head hit right on the peak of the kerb.  I have no doubt that the helmet stopped be getting a more serious injury.  As it was I fractured 2 ribs and consider myself lucky.

I have seen too many accidents on bikes where you can only wonder if the person would still be alive if they hadn't been wearing a helmet.  I would never support any push to change the law.  Sometimes we need to protect people from themselves.


----------



## truevalue (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

If you don't need a head you dont need a helmet.

Sorry are you saying cycling is now too expensive for the common man because helmets are so expensive? $50 is nothing compared to what most "common men" spend of petrol every week. What planet are you on GG?


----------



## noirua (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Naked shorts said:


> I agree too, I want to be wearing a helmet when riding in traffic, or at high speeds, but if its just at a gentle pace around lazy beach side suburbs, I dont want to be wearing one.



Perhaps you would like to tell that to the parents of a 12-year-old knocked off his bicycle by a passing motorcyclist.  Hit his head on the ground and was killed outright. Sadly wasn't wearing a helmet.
Every cyclist seen without a helmet should be fined $200 on the spot.


----------



## derty (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

While listening to Radio National a while age I heard an article about a German study into bicycle helmets. The results weren't too far off GG's topic here. Sorry couldn't find a link.

In the study they monitored the average distance that drivers would miss cyclists on a busy road. They found that the widest berth was given to women riding without an helmet. The smallest distance was for men wearing helmets. If I remember correctly a couple of the blokes were actually knocked off their bikes during the study. 

The rationale was that people perceived riders without a helmet to be more vulnerable so gave them more distance that helmeted riders. Also women in general were given wider berths as they were perceived to be less competent than male riders and more likely to erratically swerve.

I for one wouldn't be caught on the road on a bike without a helmet and the way some of these guys in V8's or high performance rice rockets belt up and down suburban streets the suburbs are anything but safer.


----------



## Naked shorts (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



noirua said:


> Perhaps you would like to tell that to the parents of a 12-year-old knocked off his bicycle by a passing motorcyclist.  Hit his head on the ground and was killed outright. Sadly wasn't wearing a helmet.
> Every cyclist seen without a helmet should be fined $200 on the spot.




Maybe you should wear a helmet to the shower, after all you could slip on the soap and kill yourself (yes it happens). Or how about wearing a helmet every time you go for a drive? Race car drivers do, why doesn't everyone else? You have that choice to wear a helmet while driving to protect yourself, but I'll assume you don't take it. 

Whats the difference between driving at high speeds in a dangerous environment and cruising down to the local shops in your convertible on a Sunday morning?

Don't get me wrong however, I wont be lobbying the local government to remove helmet laws, I've got better things to do.


----------



## gfresh (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

Well I'm quite sure a helmet saved my life a few years ago, or at least several months in hospital getting my skull held back together which I am sure wouldn't have been too fun. So I think they're probably a good thing. 

Mandating that riders *must* wear a helmet gets into personal freedom, however keeping somebody on life-support isn't too cheap..


----------



## JTLP (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

It was a well known story that a gentleman from my old high school (RIP), whose father was a Doctor, was made to wear a good ole Stackhat when he was sitting in the car. 

Cool as a Cucumber...


----------



## nunthewiser (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

can we at least lobby the guvvermint against lycra suits ?


----------



## nunthewiser (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



MrBurns said:


> I'l second that.....




 Geeeez Burnsy , you just killed my lunch

anyone got a link to where i can vote against this lycra wearing in public ?


----------



## MrBurns (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



nunthewiser said:


> Geeeez Burnsy , you just killed my lunch
> 
> anyone got a link to where i can vote against this lycra wearing in public ?




I just deleted it , it was just too hideous


----------



## MrBurns (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

This is a better example -


----------



## Trevor_S (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Trembling Hand said:


> We should get rid of that silly compulsory seat belt rule as well.




I am all for that and all for no helmets on motorcycles etc.

As an adult in a modern society I believe they should be my choices.  Governments should should be to present me the research (i.e education), without fear or favor, and then let me decide.

If it was really about saving lives, or keeping health costs down then helmets in cars would be compulsory.  Ask any neurosurgeon about the damages to the brain from side impacts in vehicles.  Saving lives is is bureaucrat speak for interference.

If they wanted to keep the health budget down, they should encourage people to overeat and to smoke. eg

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/05/healthscience/obese.php



> Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it does not save money, according to a new report.
> 
> It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that *counters the common perception* that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.


----------



## Trembling Hand (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Trevor_S said:


> I am all for that and all for no helmets on motorcycles etc.
> 
> As an adult in a modern society I believe they should be my choices.  Governments should should be to present me the research (i.e education), without fear or favor, and then let me decide.




BS. I don't want to pay any more tax to preventable injuries just because someone isn't smart enough to see the stupidity in there own action.

This is ridiculus. Go ahead don't wear a seat belt or a helmet if you thing that's your right. Just for warn the poor ambo's and doc's who have to scrap your brains off the windscreen/road that you have a "do not ably medico treatment" on you ar$e.


----------



## ice (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

Maybe Garpal has a point. It would certainly improve the gene pool.


ice


----------



## doogie_goes_off (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

Agreed that bicycle helmets should be required by law to save on 3rd party tax for car drivers, suffering ambos and not to mention the extra medicare levy we all pay. But the anti-choice lobby that is bearing down on us does stink, it has made me a cynical so and so, I no longer like the lefty policies I once applauded. For instance after the bushfires people are going to introduce legislation to stop houses being built in the bush, I've even heard a lunatic reciting that people and gum trees can't coexist. I suppose that's another thread but people are often over-zelous in reacting to events and enacting 'no choice' laws. For the record I was made to wear a bike helmet as a kid and when I bought a bike after several years absence from the saddle I went for the new helmet straight away, I'd prefer not to be a dribbling mess.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

Cracked me up there TH & Ice . There is good lycra & bad lycra, just like there's good nude & bad nude - there, play with that one 

Pro helmet, seat belt etc it's common sense to some, maybe that could be the problem with the nay sayers?


----------



## Bushman (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> I believe this to be due to the introduction of the bicycle helmet by the meddling lefties of the eighties.
> 
> 
> gg




Funny you say that. I always equate modern day biking (i.e. post the penny farthing) with fascism. Notice the following: 
1. a love of those lycra uniforms; 
2. a strange obsession with body hair; 
3, a love of conquering new cafes; and 
3. a boorish crowd mentality that means they violently flip you (a.k.a the motorist) the bird at the slightest perceived infringement of their rights. 

I was very perturbed to discover that my favourite cafe has been taken over by these lycra-wearing benuded two-wheeling valkyries. Now, and forever more, my morning soy chai latte will just not be the same. 

PS: a yes for helmets, or is that helmuts?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

Thank you all for the comments.

The main thrusts of my argument were:

1. Many people have been discouraged from cycling because of the need to buy and wear these pieces of fragile foam.

2. They are not comfortable to wear.

3. There is no proof they prevent death or spilling of brain matter, even on micro analysis (for you tech/a lol)

4. We would have a vibrant bicycle culture if these egg tops were made optional.

5. I've got no problem with folk who choose to wear a bicycle helmet, its a bit like having a financial adviser. if it makes you feel better and its not going to make any difference, and you can afford it, why not?

gg


----------



## Stan 101 (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Thank you all for the comments.
> 
> The main thrusts of my argument were:
> 
> Many people have been discouraged from cycling because of the need to buy and wear these pieces of fragile foam.




Utter tripe. Please state where you gleaned this data. hearsay doesn't cut it, nor talk back radio type data.



> 2. They are not comfortable to wear.





Maybe you have a weird head.



> 3. There is no proof they prevent death or spilling of brain matter, even on micro analysis (for you tech/a lol)




Please state where I can read the executive summary to correlate with your statement. I'd be most interested to peruse it. I've done quite a bit of research on motorcycle helmets and am always interested in learning more from the testing processes.



> We would have a vibrant bicycle culture if these egg tops were made optional.



We already do. You need to get out more. Maybe you can't see all the cyclists from your cafe vantage point due to all the lycra clad cyclists blocking your view 



Cheers,


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

You missed out on no. 5

gg


----------



## Trembling Hand (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> You missed out on no. 5
> 
> gg




GG we all know 5's are important to you.

You are obviously off your meds. First the thread of delusional grandeur now your thread of false "facts".


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Trembling Hand said:


> GG we all know 5's are important to you.
> 
> You are obviously off your meds. First the thread of delusional grandeur now your thread of false "facts".




as Pauline would say "Please explain"

Take your leathers and pixels off and give an opinion.

gg


----------



## Julia (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Trevor_S said:


> As an adult in a modern society I believe they should be my choices.  Governments should should be to present me the research (i.e education), without fear or favor, and then let me decide.



In principle that sounds sensible, but in practice you know very well that a great chunk of our population would not read the research, and/or be incapable of evaluating it in any worthwhile way.

So once again we fall back on the position of legislating for that cliche "the lowest common denominator" and the choice is removed from us.

Although I have little sympathy with this approach in general, in the case of helmets I think it makes absolute sense.

Re the Lycra, that is another whole story!   Especially on anyone even one kilo overweight.


----------



## Trembling Hand (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Julia said:


> In principle that sounds sensible, but in practice you know very well that a great chunk of our population would not read the research, and/or be incapable of evaluating it in any worthwhile way.
> 
> So once again we fall back on the position of legislating for that cliche "the lowest common denominator" and the choice is removed from us.
> 
> ...




Julia that study is severely flawed. It doesn't take into count the extra revenue of a healthy person working and paying tax v a sick unproductive person. And that study didn't take into count the quality of live of people that are obese and smoke. 

As for the lycra cycling cloths aren't made of that. haven't since about 86. mostly its a poly/cotton blend. yep fat middle age people don't look great in anything tight fitting. But stiff ****. I love it when I go for a ride and see beach road full of all sorts having a go. Its Australia not Afghanistan under the Taliban!!


----------



## Julia (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Trembling Hand said:


> Julia that study is severely flawed. It doesn't take into count the extra revenue of a healthy person working and paying tax v a sick unproductive person. And that study didn't take into count the quality of live of people that are obese and smoke.



I'm happy to accept that, TH.  I wasn't specifically referring to that study alone, but rather the general principle of governments making decisions on our behalf.



> As for the lycra cycling cloths aren't made of that. haven't since about 86. mostly its a poly/cotton blend. yep fat middle age people don't look great in anything tight fitting. But stiff ****. I love it when I go for a ride and see beach road full of all sorts having a go. Its Australia not Afghanistan under the Taliban!!



Hmm, I too love to see people having a go.  But please could they not wear tight fitting stuff that just accentuates the rolls of fat.  Just too gross!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Trembling Hand said:


> Julia that study is severely flawed. It doesn't take into count the extra revenue of a healthy person working and paying tax v a sick unproductive person. And that study didn't take into count the quality of live of people that are obese and smoke.
> 
> As for the lycra cycling cloths aren't made of that. haven't since about 86. mostly its a poly/cotton blend. yep fat middle age people don't look great in anything tight fitting. But stiff ****. I love it when I go for a ride and see beach road full of all sorts having a go. Its Australia not Afghanistan under the Taliban!!




Trembler, this elitist rubbish is just what I'm arguing against. The ordinary fat bloke or girl doesn't give a rats about your studies. In the past they cycled. Now they don't. and its because of bloody helmets.

Answer no 5. if you dare.

gg


----------



## Trembling Hand (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Trembler, this elitist rubbish is just what I'm arguing against. The ordinary fat bloke or girl doesn't give a rats about your studies. In the past they cycled. Now they don't. and its because of bloody helmets.



Your full of it gg. it aint my study man. Read the frigin' post. its not my study and it's FOR your argument. LOL. 

I am elitist F me who was the tosser that started the 5 mil only thread??????????????????????????????????



Garpal Gumnut said:


> 5. I've got no problem with folk who choose to wear a bicycle helmet, its a bit like having a financial adviser. if it makes you feel better and its not going to make any difference, and you can afford it, why not?
> 
> gg




There is nothing to answer here! you are incorrectly assuming it doesn't make a diff. IT DOES.

You state people are not cycling. They are doing it MORE as a recreation less as transport not because of cost but because they are lazy. they are choosing something MORE expensive, a car. Your argument is completely flawed and lacking common sense.


----------



## prawn_86 (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

I think your giving him the reaction he is after TH...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Trembling Hand said:


> Your full of it gg. it aint my study man. Read the frigin' post. its not my study and it's FOR your argument. LOL.
> 
> I am elitist F me who was the tosser that started the 5 mil only thread??????????????????????????????????
> 
> ...





I am talking about ordinary people not the lycra mob who run over little old lady's in phalanges on a Sunday morning.

Ordinary people I speak to hate helmets. 

Most cases in the courts against folk caught cycling without helmets are against indigenous, poor and the youth. 

The fat and the poor hate helmets.

The bourgeois lycra clad sunday morning hordes love them, much as any crowd of elitists with a uniform would.

gg



prawn_86 said:


> I think your giving him the reaction he is after TH...


----------



## insider (17 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

Hello everybody... I haven't posted on this site for over a year now (got sick of the BS) and reading the dribble on this thread has inspired me to post again... GG you cannot be trading and making a profit if you think this is reasonable... I will tell you why people don't ride... They don't ride because they are insecure not because of their helmets, BUT because they are riding a bike... These fat people don't go to the gym for the same reasons... But more than that it is due to Drivers on the roads... They do not respect riders... I have been called wanker numerous times because they are weak in character... I'm doing nothing more than minding my own business and being as considerate to drivers as I can... I think that if you think the helmet looks bad on a person then you probably think the person is just ugly... Seriously... Helmets are fine... The point of Lycra is Aerodynamics... People in their cars don't understand this because they don't feel wind... If I wear lycra it adds 5 to 10 Kilometers per Hour to my average speed... (if you like doing 40Kph).

I have had sooooo many close calls with cars, not my fault, but if they had eventuated into an accident then I would be retarded I think... I'm still yet to collide with a motorized vehicle... Helmets save lives... They also say I'm smart...

You love being controversial


----------



## insider (17 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> I am talking about ordinary people not the lycra mob who run over little old lady's in phalanges on a Sunday morning.
> 
> gg




That's funny cars do this more often.... Hell nearly happened to me


----------



## orr (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

The Dutch are by enlarge fitter, more progressive in many aspects of their social structure,  are at least as well educated  as the Australian population, and use bicycles as a population exponentially  more than Australians and have the choice as to whether they to wear a helmet or not.
Personally I've worn out half a dozen Bicycles over the last forty years. On this topic I go Dutch. If I want to go and get the milk at ambilitory speed down a disused foot path surrounded by deserted roads at seven o'clock on a saturday morning and be fined, $200 dollars for that behavior, i'll know the nazi's have taken over. If I'm going to rocket down an arterial road in peak hour and not wear  a helmet, i'd be a bloody idiot, and deserve to end up under a cement truck. But treat people like children and they behave like them.
 Not only that hardly a day goes by, if you bother to look, that this law goes ignored and un-enforced, that by definition makes it a bad law.
A lot of people went along with the Vietnam war because the government decided it was good policy, until enough people (radicals, to start with) revolted, it will be a long while before the brain damage done to discerning  bicycle riders allowed  to make their own choice catches up with the damage done by that policy decision.
Happy being fat? Happy being lazy? Happy with compulsory helmet laws because it gives an excuse not to get on a bike, ever....


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



orr said:


> The Dutch are by enlarge fitter, more progressive in many aspects of their social structure,  are at least as well educated  as the Australian population, and use bicycles as a population exponentially  more than Australians and have the choice as to whether they to wear a helmet or not.
> Personally I've worn out half a dozen Bicycles over the last forty years. On this topic I go Dutch. If I want to go and get the milk at ambilitory speed down a disused foot path surrounded by deserted roads at seven o'clock on a saturday morning and be fined, $200 dollars for that behavior, i'll know the nazi's have taken over. If I'm going to rocket down an arterial road in peak hour and not wear  a helmet, i'd be a bloody idiot, and deserve to end up under a cement truck. But treat people like children and they behave like them.
> Not only that hardly a day goes by, if you bother to look, that this law goes ignored and un-enforced, that by definition makes it a bad law.
> A lot of people went along with the Vietnam war because the government decided it was good policy, until enough people (radicals, to start with) revolted, it will be a long while before the brain damage done to discerning  bicycle riders allowed  to make their own choice catches up with the damage done by that policy decision.
> Happy being fat? Happy being lazy? Happy with compulsory helmet laws because it gives an excuse not to get on a bike, ever....




excellent post mate, exactly my feelings.

and that is not to discount all those fat unhealthy people who would love to get on a bicycle without having to wear a fried egg on their head.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

There are 750,000 people in Amsterdam and 600,000 bicycles, you have to see it to believe it. 

They put us to shame. but Amsterdam is flat which helps I guess.

I've wondered just how less of a burdon on their health system they are than the bloated burger monsters that inhabit this country are on ours.


----------



## 2BAD4U (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> IThe bourgeois lycra clad sunday morning hordes love them, much as any crowd of elitists with a uniform would.




_"I'm not going to ride a bike anymore because I have to wear a helmet!"_

I think we all know which group is being elitists. But, I'm sure we can get a petition going so that all the people who choose not to wear a helmet will be given the right (read-no choice) to opt out of medicare and any other free medical service and compensation should they suffer in injury whilst riding a bike.

Perhaps the reason these people don't wear helmets is because their head is so far up their own a55es that they couldn't get one on anyway.


----------



## highonoctane (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

I normally wouldnt be swayed into participating in such an argument, but you've hit a sore point for me.

All you mutts who think helmets are a poor fashion statement have obviously never had a head injury.

I have cycled on almost a daily basis for the past 20 years, I currently do downhill, cross country and observed trials mountain biking, and commute on the road, and I would never dream of getting on a bike without a helmet.

I can list 5 people off the top of my head (including me) who's lives have been saved (or not as affected) because they were wearing a helmet.
I have 2 friends who incured brain damage (1 temp, the other permanent) who would almost definatelly have died had they not have been wearing one.

No, they wont help much if your run over by a car, however they will prevent substancial injury if you crash.

For you to sit there and say that people are no longer riding bikes because of the requirement for protective equipment is a display of your ignorance.

If you refuse to ride a bike because your required to ride a helmet, then pehaps you'd be better off driving your car hotted up car to mcdonalds for a cheeseburger and gain the street cred that a helmet so obviously prevents.

For the people who truely love cycling, as a hobby, a competitive sport, or an alternative to other types of comuting, a helmet is a valued part of our cycling lifestyle, and one that we embrace.

As far as elitists go, no one laughs harder at them than me when they spend mega $$$'s on bikes, and team replica kits etc, only to ride to the coffee shop, HOWEVER, they are supporting cycling as an industry by attending cycling events, spending their money at the local bikeshops etc etc, which can only help the entire cycling community as a whole.

If you wish to ride a bike without a helmet, then you deserve a head injury.

I challenge anyone who disagree's to come for a ride with me!


----------



## insider (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

Needlesss to say here is a quote which came from another thread on this very forum... This is why you wear helmets... I do believe they should lift the ban on riding on footpaths but people do abuse this... What they should have is a Dob in a bad Driver campaign" much like EPA's littering one... That is a huge encouragement... Let's face it Us Aussies are a very Aggressive people... Also increase penalties against drivers for serious injuries...

*"Out this morning on a bike ride through the hills of Perth and had someone deliberately try to hit me. I was riding along and heard a car coming past me real slowly, took no notice. But after he started to take a real long time to get past I thought something was up. When I looked over he was trying to get as close to me as possible with his wing mirror. My question is why?? What purpose does this serve? Why are people such mindless, arrogant A%^$#holes?

And don't come back with this crap with we shouldn't be on the road, pay taxes, ride on the footpath (which for your information is illegal), blah, blah, blah. I'm not interested in that ****.

My question is simply why do you (if you are one of these d!ckheads) deliberately put my life at risk for no obvious reason?"*


Here's the link
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14261


----------



## insider (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

I knew I shouldn't have started posting again... It's like an addiction... 

The Government must spend more on bike lanes... This Fiscal Year they have only spent a disapointing $800,000-


----------



## MrBurns (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

Bikes shouldn't be on public roads anymore, half the people out there cant drive and a fair percentage are arrogant aggressive dickheads.
Bike path or nothing.


----------



## Julia (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



insider said:


> I knew I shouldn't have started posting again... It's like an addiction...
> 
> The Government must spend more on bike lanes... This Fiscal Year they have only spent a disapointing $800,000-



Something that puzzles me is that even when there is a dedicated bike path, the cyclists still choose to ride on the road amongst the traffic.  Why would you cyclists not choose the safer option?
And I'd add that the bike path is better maintained than the roads.


----------



## insider (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



highonoctane said:


> As far as elitists go, no one laughs harder at them than me when they spend mega $$$'s on bikes, and team replica kits etc, only to ride to the coffee shop, HOWEVER, they are supporting cycling as an industry by attending cycling events, spending their money at the local bikeshops etc etc, which can only help the entire cycling community as a whole.
> 
> If you wish to ride a bike without a helmet, then you deserve a head injury.
> 
> I challenge anyone who disagree's to come for a ride with me!




These "POSERS" are what stoped me from buying a race bike... I think I'll stick with my $700 flat bar road bike... There is also a new kind of poser... "The Fixed Wheel poser" They all want to pretend they are Pushbike-Couriers... Turned me off a fixie...


----------



## insider (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Julia said:


> Something that puzzles me is that even when there is a dedicated bike path, the cyclists still choose to ride on the road amongst the traffic.  Why would you cyclists not choose the safer option?
> And I'd add that the bike path is better maintained than the roads.




Hello Julia long time no speak...  
Because it may not be necessarily the safer option in the first place... If your doing 40Km/h+ the road is usally safer... I had 2 falls on the bike tracks due to maintenence and none on the roads... I ride 99% of the time on the road... Above all it's legal... I can't stand it when drivers get annoyed about a cyclist up ahead, it's far better than a parked car...


----------



## nunthewiser (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



insider said:


> Hello Julia long time no speak...
> Because it may not be necessarily the safer option in the first place... If your doing 40Km/h+ the road is usally safer... I had 2 falls on the bike tracks due to maintenence and none on the roads... I ride 99% of the time on the road... Above all it's legal... I can't stand it when drivers get annoyed about a cyclist up ahead, it's far better than a parked car...




shame we not allowed to use the bike paths while all you lycra clad posers blockin up our roads 3 /.4 abreast instead of using YOUR own designated paths


NO offense intended to the non posers and the ones that use the roads without the feeling of grandeur


----------



## insider (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



MrBurns said:


> Bikes shouldn't be on public roads anymore, half the people out there cant drive and a fair percentage are arrogant aggressive dickheads.
> Bike path or nothing.



 This just reminded me of Brazil's laws which work very well actually... It is a little lopsided but in Brazil if you collide with a motor cyclist unless he hit you directly from behind or ran a red IT IS YOUR FAULT... Penalties are very harsh... It works well... But there is also a notion that most motor cyclists carry guns which I consider it to be true...


----------



## MrBurns (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

Sometimes I drive past parked cars and some idiot throws open his or her door to get out, not just open it but throw it fully open. 

If a bike hit that it could kill.

There is no way I would ride on the road, in years gone by it was different, less cars, less fools driving them.


----------



## insider (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



nunthewiser said:


> shame we not allowed to use the bike paths while all you lycra clad posers blockin up our roads 3 /.4 abreast instead of using YOUR own designated paths



That's funny becuase my second stack on the bike path was due to a car on the bike track (Council maintenece were working on a retaining wall)... It was parked around a blind corner and I was going 50k's plus... Ifell on to the grass but I counted blessing for not ending up in the river 2 meters away... 

 Don't be a whinger... You have just as much right to ride a bike on the road as I do... You just choose not to...


----------



## insider (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



MrBurns said:


> Sometimes I drive past parked cars and some idiot throws open his or her door to get out, not just open it but throw it fully open.
> 
> If a bike hit that it could kill.
> 
> There is no way I would ride on the road, in years gone by it was different, less cars, less fools driving them.



 It all comes down to observing... My brother was a push bike courier for a year and had a few stacks the whole time... You must look out for people in driver's seats... And mostly cars that are frequently moving avout like van driver's and taxi's


----------



## insider (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



nunthewiser said:


> shame we not allowed to use the bike paths while all you lycra clad posers blockin up our roads 3 /.4 abreast instead of using YOUR own designated paths




I don't like people riding abreast it's stupid... And very incosiderate... I'm a very considerate rider


----------



## Stormin_Norman (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Trembler, this elitist rubbish is just what I'm arguing against.




you? against elitism? 




Garpal Gumnut said:


> In the past they cycled. Now they don't. and its because of bloody helmets.




i thought people didnt cycle any more for fear of pedophiles/junkies/fraudsters/the latest diet/pauline hanson?


----------



## nunthewiser (18 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



insider said:


> I don't like people riding abreast it's stupid... And very incosiderate... I'm a very considerate rider




Thankyou . i have no probs with those that use the roads for there enjoyment/fitness when being responsible and considerate .

i ride a motorbike on occasion 2 abreast out on the highway .BUT if anyone can get to the point of being close enough to overtake ....... we move


----------



## MrBurns (19 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



insider said:


> It all comes down to observing... My brother was a push bike courier for a year and had a few stacks the whole time... You must look out for people in driver's seats... And mostly cars that are frequently moving avout like van driver's and taxi's




You can observe all you like but you cant see someone in the drivers seat at times because of the angle and even if you can you dont know if they will violently throw their door open.

To avoid that you have to venture very wide into the traffic, too wide.

I had my wing mirror on the car almost taken off once that way, if I'd been riding a bike they'd be feeding me soup through a straw now.

And again just a few days ago some drone just threw their door wide open as I passed, you can bet they weren't looking out for bikes.

I wonder what the real injury figures are, this must happen all the time.

If you were to hit the side of the door at 30k on a bike you'd be dead.


----------



## highonoctane (19 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Julia said:


> Something that puzzles me is that even when there is a dedicated bike path, the cyclists still choose to ride on the road amongst the traffic.  Why would you cyclists not choose the safer option?
> And I'd add that the bike path is better maintained than the roads.




Ah, for serious commuters, the bike lanes and breakdown lanes are generally too prone to causing punctures from motorists throwing crap out the window and nails etc falling off the back of utes blah. The actual road surface is alot cleaner so you have less chance of a flat.
Also, on alot of the cycle paths I use, both road workes and residents choose to use them as a parking lot, so I'm forever having to navigate around cars and trucks parked on the cycle path. 
I do disagree with hubards, who arent serious commuters from using the road instead of a dedicated cycleway.

Alot of the time, cyclists are just as fast as cars etc in urban areas. (I can easily keep up with traffic conditions in and around the city) So its just a case of cyclists taking more care when around traffic, and motorists giving us a little more room and patience.
We're getting fit and working hard remember while your sitting in your air conditioned box.

I commute 40km daily on a flatbar fixed gear (see comments below) and always take the cycle lanes where possible. I'll even ride the footbath on busy or dangerous sections of road despite pissing off pedestrians. 
Cant please everyone, and I choose life!



insider said:


> These "POSERS" are what stoped me from buying a race bike... I think I'll stick with my $700 flat bar road bike... There is also a new kind of poser... "The Fixed Wheel poser" They all want to pretend they are Pushbike-Couriers... Turned me off a fixie...




You cannot blame posers for any of your choices as a cyclist. If you dont want to look like one, simply ride with some respect for others, and dont go about wearing team replica kits, and dont ride on bikes which are truely well above your capabilities as a cyclist etc etc.

You've also raised another sore point for me about fixed gear riders...
I ride a flatbar fixed gear (one of 4 bikes I own), and no I'm not a courier.
Yes I agree there are a small percentage of riders who are only on them to be apart of the scene, but people like that dont last long. They'll be onto the next fad as soon as they have a scare on the bike.
Generally fixed gear riders are just as passionate about cycling as any other cyclist.

If you want to ride a fixed gear, then do it. Just dont use someone else's actions as an excuse for you not too.

I ride fixed purely because its better for your legs, and you do feel more 'at one' or connected with the bike.
I's a nice experience to be on one of the simplest forms of bycycle, which has been brought down to its bare essentials.
It works both sides of your leg muscles in both directions as you need to control your speed not only when accelerating, but when your decelerating aswell. You also cant stop for a rest every time you feel like which keeps your legs and joints warmed up for the entire ride.
I run a front brake for emergencies, and apart from the most experienced fixed gear riders, I believe if you dont, your asking for trouble.



Back on topic. 
*Anyone who wants to ride a bicycle without a helmet, should not be riding a bicycle.*


----------



## highonoctane (19 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



insider said:


> I don't like people riding abreast it's stupid... And very incosiderate... I'm a very considerate rider




Its often safer to ride 2 abreast when your not quite doing traffic speed.

If you ride in single file, it leaves the opertunity for an impatient motorist to squeeze past, which is obviously very dangerous.

So on multi lane roads when I'm riding with someone, I will ride 2 abreast to take over that lane and prevent mr motorist from squeezing me into other parked cars or clipping my handlebars etc.

On single lane roads though, cycling 2 abreast is just arrogant, and disrespectfull to other road users.

It just takes a bit of respect from all road users, and a bit of patience from motorists. Generally, most motorists are quite good.


----------



## insider (19 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



highonoctane said:


> Ah, for serious commuters, the bike lanes and breakdown lanes are generally too prone to causing punctures from motorists throwing crap out the window and nails etc falling off the back of utes blah. The actual road surface is alot cleaner so you have less chance of a flat.
> Also, on alot of the cycle paths I use, both road workes and residents choose to use them as a parking lot, so I'm forever having to navigate around cars and trucks parked on the cycle path.
> I do disagree with hubards, who arent serious commuters from using the road instead of a dedicated cycleway.
> 
> ...






 You're right... I want to restore one and add my personal styling... They do look pretty sweet  I found some pretty cool products that would jazz up any bike... What do you reckon http://www.monkeylectric.com/


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Julia said:


> Something that puzzles me is that even when there is a dedicated bike path, the cyclists still choose to ride on the road amongst the traffic.  Why would you cyclists not choose the safer option?
> And I'd add that the bike path is better maintained than the roads.






insider said:


> Hello Julia long time no speak...
> Because it may not be necessarily the safer option in the first place... If your doing 40Km/h+ the road is usally safer... I had 2 falls on the bike tracks due to maintenence and none on the roads... I ride 99% of the time on the road... Above all it's legal... I can't stand it when drivers get annoyed about a cyclist up ahead, it's far better than a parked car...






Stormin_Norman said:


> you? against elitism?
> 
> 
> 
> ...






highonoctane said:


> Its often safer to ride 2 abreast when your not quite doing traffic speed.
> 
> If you ride in single file, it leaves the opertunity for an impatient motorist to squeeze past, which is obviously very dangerous.
> 
> ...





thank you for all your comments.

the thread was really to engender support for the average punter who in days gone by would have cycled instead of being carted about by do-gooders and taxi vouchers.

Even in our local hospital they have golf carts driven by men in too short shorts picking the obese punters up from the far ends of the car parks when they could just as well walk.

The average obese diabetic prone person would be better off cycling to the corner store, TAB, BWS, or their local weed dealer rather than being transported there..

In Townsville we have good bikeways thanks to Tony Mooney so we don't have to put up with drivers when we cycle.

But we do have to put up with those bloody bike helmets which are designed for throat balled lycra clad lunatics who speed about of a Sunday running over pensioners in mobs and drinking latte in my favourite cafe afterwards.

gg

Thats my only point in this thread


----------



## Uncle Festivus (20 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Thats my only point in this thread




Well, no, you haven't proved the thread title for the affirmative yet (whatever a bicycycle is ), other than they look stoopid? And the fact they have nothing in common with wearing lycra at the same time?


----------



## nunthewiser (20 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Uncle Festivus said:


> Well, no, you haven't proved the thread title for the affirmative yet (whatever a bicycycle is ), other than they look stoopid? And the fact they have nothing in common with wearing lycra at the same time?




Yes i have seen ppl wearing lycra suits without wearing helmets and vica-versa , there is no proven correlation and i would like have a referendum put to guvvermint that either lycra wearers pay a fee per year OR if we could bring in on the spot fines for unsuitable lycra users.


----------



## Trevor_S (20 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



MrBurns said:


> If you were to hit the side of the door at 30k on a bike you'd be dead.




Nonsense.  A friend of mine came around a blind corner on his bike and ran into the back of a Car that was double parked in the road, talking to his mate in the parked beside him, through open windows.  He was doing at least 30 and had lots of bruises and grazes, cycled home... sure you could die but then people die in the bath as well.

That aside it *is* all down to observation.  No one sees cyclists or motorcycle riders, you have to turn your dic_khead detector on full blast.

There is no way I would put myself in the situation where if I could not see (as you suggested), I would speed on past on my bike regardless.

Anyway, I am off to do a 40km ride up the the Dam and back


----------



## MrBurns (20 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Trevor_S said:


> Nonsense.  A friend of mine came around a blind corner on his bike and ran into the back of a Car that was double parked in the road, talking to his mate in the parked beside him, through open windows.  He was doing at least 30 and had lots of bruises and grazes, cycled home... sure you could die but then people die in the bath as well.
> 
> That aside it *is* all down to observation.  No one sees cyclists or motorcycle riders, you have to turn your dic_khead detector on full blast.
> 
> ...




The leading edge of an opening door was what I meant, try it sometime.


----------



## noirua (23 March 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Naked shorts said:


> Maybe you should wear a helmet to the shower, after all you could slip on the soap and kill yourself (yes it happens). Or how about wearing a helmet every time you go for a drive? Race car drivers do, why doesn't everyone else? You have that choice to wear a helmet while driving to protect yourself, but I'll assume you don't take it.




How about wearing a helmet on a ski practice slope?


----------



## Trembling Hand (6 April 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



> The research did find that most fatal injuries happened between 5am and 8am and between 5pm and 8pm,* and that wearing helmets reduced the risk of serious head injury*.





http://www.theage.com.au/national/cyclists-pay-heavy-toll-on-roads-20090405-9ta4.html


----------



## tech/a (6 April 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

I do around 150K a week on the Pushy.

I keep to tracks and only go on the road for around 4K a day.
Hate that 4K.
I wear a helmut but refuse to wear Lycra---not a good look!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 October 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

A mate of mine died recently.

He was 62 and hated bicycle helmets.

The coppers leant on him for not wearing one.

He stopped riding his bike, became cranky, his wife left him, he took to the drink and fell in with a bad crowd of women who were not after his looks.

He developed an inflammation of the liver and the heart muscle from the grog.

He died.

He was found beside his beloved Malvern Star

http://www.malvernstar.com.au/range/bike-2391.aspx

With a half drunk bottle of Evan Williams bourbon sour mash.

http://www.drinkhacker.com/2009/02/02/review-evan-williams-black-label-bourbon/

What a loss of a good bloke and all because of this stupid law about bicycle helmets.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 October 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> A mate of mine died recently.
> 
> He was 62 and hated bicycle helmets.
> 
> ...




Deadly silence,

All the peleton vaseline greased and lycra clad mob with their silly helmets must be out and about running little old folk down of a Sunday run.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (11 October 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Deadly silence,
> 
> All the peleton vaseline greased and lycra clad mob with their silly helmets must be out and about running little old folk down of a Sunday run.
> 
> gg




Saw one yesterday doing about 50kph on a track around bends if there were any kids coming the other the bastard would have killed them.


----------



## gav (11 October 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Deadly silence,
> 
> All the peleton vaseline greased and lycra clad mob with their silly helmets must be out and about running little old folk down of a Sunday run.
> 
> gg




And don't forget running red lights too, without being held accountable.

My condolences for the loss of your friend GG.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 October 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



gav said:


> And don't forget running red lights too, without being held accountable.
> 
> My condolences for the loss of your friend GG.




thanks Burnsie,

He was a lovely guy who cycled from the Bohle to the Strand every day. He never wore a helmet and was a real gentleman.

Its these peleton fascisti who travel at huge speeds in vaseline and lycra mobs who have brought this obscenity of bicycle helmets upon our populace.

Imagine how many ordinary aussies who would get on their bikes as they did long ago without a helmet to go to the local small shopping to buy milk and bread and other essentials like bundy and condoms, without a helmet, to enjoy a gentle cycle at 20 kmh in our beautiful country.

All stopped because of stupid legislators and the peleton.

gg


----------



## gav (11 October 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

My name is Gav, not Burnsie!  Not that old yet! :

62 is still too young to die...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 October 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



gav said:


> My name is Gav, not Burnsie!  Not that old yet! :
> 
> 62 is still too young to die...




My apologies Gav.

Make sure you see a proper doctor, not a bulk billing mob with a pink piano.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (11 October 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> My apologies Gav.
> 
> Make sure you see a proper doctor, not a bulk billing mob with a pink piano.
> 
> gg




On that note I'll throw in my condolences as well especially as I've already been thanked.

Didn't in the first place because someone dying "recently" could mean 6 months ago meaning condolences would be redundant by now.


----------



## MrBurns (11 October 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> .
> Imagine how many ordinary aussies who would get on their bikes as they did long ago without a helmet to go to the local small shopping to buy milk and bread and other essentials like bundy and condoms, without a helmet, to enjoy a gentle cycle at 20 kmh in our beautiful country.
> gg




Somethng along these lines. a gentlemans bike.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 October 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



MrBurns said:


> Saw one yesterday doing about 50kph on a track around bends if there were any kids coming the other the bastard would have killed them.






gav said:


> And don't forget running red lights too, without being held accountable.
> 
> My condolences for the loss of your friend GG.




thanks Burnsie and Gav,

and I don't think ever for the most teensie weensie moment that you are both a pain in the ****, never.

He was a lovely guy who cycled from the Bohle to the Strand every day. He never wore a helmet and was a real gentleman.

Its these peleton fascisti who travel at huge speeds in vaseline and lycra mobs who have brought this obscenity of bicycle helmets upon our populace.

Imagine how many ordinary aussies who would get on their bikes as they did long ago without a helmet to go to the local small shopping to buy milk and bread and other essentials like bundy and condoms, without a helmet, to enjoy a gentle cycle at 20 kmh in our beautiful country.

All stopped because of stupid legislators and the peleton.

gg


----------



## Agentm (11 October 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

imho, 

and speaking as a lycra addict..

helmet for all roadies and off roaders

man invented machine,  machine hurts man,

mechanics of cycling is thus easy to understand.. low speed minimal impact. high speed.. a bit more impact by factor of pye squared many times..

but these menacing metal propelled machines we call autos

they make mince meat of your mind

helmet is excellent for your health regardless of nostalga

all imho and dyo lycra research  dyolr


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 October 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Agentm said:


> imho,
> 
> and speaking as a lycra addict..
> 
> ...




I should rest my case as you've proven my point.

But just to make it perfectly clear.

1. Most cycling accidents occur on major highways and the victims are by and large lycra clad.

2. There is a hidden loss of life, amongst those who would cycle if bicycle helmets were not required. They would be fitter and happier.

3.  There is no evidence , anywhere that a population as a whole, ( not just the lycra mob ) are safer or healthier after the introduction of compulsory helmets for bicycle riders.

gg


----------



## Gordon Gekko (11 October 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*

I've had 2 big wipe outs and two big head injuries mountain biking plus loads of scraps and bruises. I feel that you should wear a helmet as a matter of personal responsibility. The last thing you would want to be is a burden on family or spouse as you are a vegetable.

If you do not and you get injured you should be completely responsible for the cost associated with the injury and not sponge off the tax payers.

I agree with GG. Riding to the store to get milk etc, no helmet but if you fall and smack you head your on your own as you should have known better. If you are side swiped by a 16 year old on her mobile texting her boyfriend then she  (regardless of her age) should be responsible for the costs.

If we could somehow get back to personal responsibilites and being held accountable for your own actions then maybe we could get back to a time that GG is talking about.
Its so sad we are going the way of the US with law suits against maccas for not putting the lid on the bloody coffee on tight enough. 

G


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 October 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Gordon Gekko said:


> I've had 2 big wipe outs and two big head injuries mountain biking plus loads of scraps and bruises. I feel that you should wear a helmet as a matter of personal responsibility. The last thing you would want to be is a burden on family or spouse as you are a vegetable.
> 
> If you do not and you get injured you should be completely responsible for the cost associated with the injury and not sponge off the tax payers.
> 
> ...




Thanks mate.

There are lots of folk like me who ride without a bicycle helmet as we hate the bloody things.

We don't go mountain bike riding or ride on highways. 

We ride on bike paths or backstreets.

And we hate bicycle helmets.

Australia would be a healthier place if there was no requirement to wear a helmet unless you were a mountain bike rider or a peleton member.

More people would ride bikes.

The cops ignore me now as I make them take me down to the station and I make sure I waste as much of their time as possible until someone shouts out from the back, "don't you know its ****ing Gumnut, send the bastard home.

gg


----------



## Bobby (11 October 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> The cops ignore me now as I make them take me down to the station and I make sure I waste as much of their time as possible until someone shouts out from the back, "don't you know its ****ing Gumnut, send the bastard home.
> 
> gg




Tell us more of that outcome GG    !!


----------



## wayneL (11 October 2009)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



tech/a said:


> I do around 150K a week on the Pushy.
> 
> I keep to tracks and only go on the road for around 4K a day.
> Hate that 4K.
> I wear a helmut but refuse to wear Lycra---not a good look!



Here in the UK, the land of the health and safety fascists, it is still not compulsory to wear a helmet.

I *choose* to wear one if I'm riding seriously, but don't if pottering down to the shop to buy the daily propaganda.

On lycra - there is a strict points system here for overtaking other riders. There are extra points for overtaking lycra-clad riders if wearing civies. They of course loose points.

(It also includes type of bike, tyres, whether the legs are shaven etc but helmets not considered)

It makes for permanent racing conditions on the roads here... and lots of knowing smiles lol.

I ride an MTB with slicks and "never" lycra. I get a lot of points.

I get passed a lot by the lycra-clad, shaven legged, logo wearing smart-@rses, but no points for passing me.  

Only those dressed like Fagan and bike shod with knobblies can score extra points for overtaking me... of there have been one or embarrassing occurrences, accompanied by the inevitable knowing smile.   LOL


----------



## Timmy (23 July 2010)

Now here is something weird.

Seems there is a free bike-swap scheme operational in Melbourne city (great for a bit of exercise while seeing the sights of the city, like, um, ... actually I will have to think about this) but no-one is riding the bikes due to the compulsory-helmet laws.

So, now the idea is to waive the compulsory helmet laws when you are on one of these bikes.  




Article: *Helmet law makes nonsense of bike hire scheme*
Link:    http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/h...e-hire-scheme-20100722-10my2.html?autostart=1


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 July 2010)

Timmy said:


> Now here is something weird.
> 
> Seems there is a free bike-swap scheme operational in Melbourne city (great for a bit of exercise while seeing the sights of the city, like, um, ... actually I will have to think about this) but no-one is riding the bikes due to the compulsory-helmet laws.
> 
> ...




There is certainly no evidence that one needs a helmet unless one is a lycra clad loon riding a bike with a mob of others in a peleton or some such, at speed.

Sacheting down to ones tobacconist or bottleshop of a morning on an old bike with one's dog running along beside, is one of the pleasures of life, which should not be spoiled by having to wear a styrofoam omelette on one's head.

It is also safe.

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 July 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Sacheting down to ones tobacconist or bottleshop of a morning on an old bike with one's dog running along beside, is one of the pleasures of life, which should not be spoiled by having to wear a styrofoam omelette on one's head.
> 
> gg




You should at least wear a cap on your way down to the tobacconists though gg. At least that way you could keep the sun out of your eyes and clearly see where you're going. To enhance the experience you could also pretend you were in a Ferrari and buy fashion that suits. But I wouldn't advise buying any of those cheap knockoffs made in the sweatshops. Only official merchandise.


----------



## Buckfont (23 July 2010)

Timmy, shouldn`t read bicycle hire scheme makes nonsense of helmet laws.

They still don`t have helmets for any form of two wheel transport in the USA, it`s an optional choice, and a lot of the bikies feel a bandana will do just fine.

Just another form of control by over protective govts where our choice is slowly being eroded by those in power. 

gg is right, who wants to go through the motions to nick down to the shops for a litre of milk.


----------



## Timmy (23 July 2010)

Buckfont said:


> Timmy, shouldn`t read bicycle hire scheme makes nonsense of helmet laws.




Hi Buckfont - my apologies if I have misunderstood what you have said here, those words are not mine, just the headline on the article:




See link: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/h...e-hire-scheme-20100722-10my2.html?autostart=1


----------



## orr (25 July 2010)

[







> > They still don`t have helmets for any form of two wheel transport in the USA, it`s an optional choice, and a lot of the bikies feel a bandana will do just fine.



It's only selected states with regard motorcycles, I can't talk to bicycles in the US.
 Compulsory Bicycle Helmet Laws in this country are a disingenous over-reactive political knee jerk response, that an aquiesent take it from behind population deserve to have inflicted on them, because, apparently that's the way we like it, THICK AND NANNY STATE


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 September 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> As a lad I remember people of all shapes and sizes riding bicycles. It was a good cheap efficient way for us working class people to get about our trips to school, work or technical college.
> 
> Recent laws led by the New Class have deprived workers of this pleasant cheap means of transport.
> 
> ...




I fail to be convinced that bicycle helmets are useful for the majority of working people. 

Its OK for our betters like CEO's and Premier Anna Bligh in their ridiculous chicken leg lycra.

A Dr. Rissel agrees with me.

I heard a report on Fran Kelly's Pravda Report on the ABC this morning alluding to a study backing my belief. I believe this to be the one that her comradeship was quoting.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/call-to-repeal-law-on-bicycle-helmets-20100815-12573.html



> Dr Rissel said that although helmets protect heads, they also discourage casual cycling, where people use a bike to get milk or visit a friend.
> 
> Scrapping compulsory helmet use, he believes, would reverse that, improve health rates and reduce injury rates because getting more cyclists on the roads would make motorists better at avoiding them.
> 
> ...




gg


----------



## Mofra (17 September 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I believe this to be due to the introduction of the bicycle helmet by the meddling lefties of the eighties.



Pretty sure it was the reactionary-right, rather than the loopy left, that pushed for the introduction of the laws. 

In any case, many countries overseas seem to get along fine without the laws - although the tend to be countries with a higher population density that allows a mixture of cycles & PT to rule the streets far more than cars.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 September 2010)

Mofra said:


> Pretty sure it was the reactionary-right, rather than the loopy left, that pushed for the introduction of the laws.
> 
> In any case, many countries overseas seem to get along fine without the laws - although the tend to be countries with a higher population density that allows a mixture of cycles & PT to rule the streets far more than cars.




Laughable response, you don't remember the Politically Correct 80's.

This Leftie Lunacy was common then.

gg


----------



## orr (19 September 2010)

In NSW it happened under either Wran Or Griener as a ridiculous knee jerk over reaction, as to be seen to be doing something to address, wrong headily, a perceived increase in head injuries occurring through push bike related incidents. 
To start a right left argument, over what is just outright political expediency, over an asleep overly compliant public defeats the purpose of what really needs to be addressed with regards to this debate.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 September 2010)

After much travel through this pleasant land in the Arnage, I am back in the safety, comfort and familiarity of the Ross Island Hotel. 

Following a discussion last night, it was the unanimous decision of all bicycle riders present to have a Day of Defiance on November 11th this year.

On that day no bicycle rider who is a regular at the Ross Island Hotel will wear a bicycle helmet while riding a bicycle.

These laws are asinine. 

They discourage good folk from cycling.

It is time for the people of Australia to stand up and be counted.

I would ask any ASF members to spread the word, Nov 11th 2010 will be a  helmet free bicycle day. 

Spread the word. This is about freedom, having more people young and old riding bicycles and ridding our roads of cars such as the Toyota Pious.

gg


----------



## robusta (21 September 2010)

Nov 11, way to go Garpal do you think I could risk wearing thongs while riding without a helmet?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 September 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> After much travel through this pleasant land in the Arnage, I am back in the safety, comfort and familiarity of the Ross Island Hotel.
> 
> Following a discussion last night, it was the unanimous decision of all bicycle riders present to have a Day of Defiance on November 11th this year.
> 
> ...






robusta said:


> Nov 11, way to go Garpal do you think I could risk wearing thongs while riding without a helmet?




Thongs are in the dress code.

But NO HELMET.

Spread the word, all over Australia, on Nov 11th 2010 , Helmet Free Bicycle Day.

Its the only way to get more folk to ride bicycles.

gg


----------



## explod (21 September 2010)

Thanks for the jog along there gg, my family and I will be in.  Will report more in due course.

cheers explod.


----------



## Logique (22 September 2010)

Ok Garpal,

I'm in, and will observe the 'Day of Defiance' on 11 Nov, in sympathy with the Ross Island Hotel freedom fighters. No helmet, and thongs are ok.

Toyota 'Pious', very funny.
Cheers.


----------



## jonojpsg (22 September 2010)

Sorry for jumping in without prereading gg, but what is your argument for people being put off riding a bike because they must wear a helmet?  What evidence is there for this?  Do you have survey results etc?

Cheers


----------



## nunthewiser (22 September 2010)

I do not own a bicycle

I do however have a new shiny Harley.

So on that day i will roam the streets in my boxers and a flanno in support of this cause.


----------



## ags83 (24 September 2010)

I'm pretty sure after seatbelts were introduced there were more fatalaties due to drivers feeling more safe with them on and then speeds went up and focus on driving dropped. It really should be up to people to make their own damn decisions.  I got fined a couple of years ago for j walking, what a joke.


----------



## Logique (11 November 2010)

'Day of Defiance' -11 Nov. Went out in solidarity with the Ross Island Hotel freedom fighters today Garpal. 

Pausing only to observe a minutes silence for the Diggers, I went for two rides today, and I didn't wear a helmet *either time*.

Take that helmet fascists!


----------



## tech/a (11 November 2010)

Two weeks ago was on a training ride (you know with the two wheels at the side).
Mate got his front wheel caught in a tram line.
Fell on his head in front of me. He's 100k and an OX.
Knocked him out and destroyed helmet.
No helmet and he was in BIG trouble.

I wear a helmet and will continue to do so even though I'm likely to get hit by a P plated Girl of 16-18 texting her mates.


----------



## IFocus (11 November 2010)

tech/a said:


> I wear a helmet and will continue to do so even though I'm likely to get hit by a P plated Girl of 16-18 texting her mates.




Isnt that the truth

Recent holiday in Bali watched the Balinese texting as they rode (motorbikes)down the high way passing on the inside dodging trucks


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 November 2010)

tech/a said:


> Two weeks ago was on a training ride (you know with the two wheels at the side).
> Mate got his front wheel caught in a tram line.
> Fell on his head in front of me. He's 100k and an OX.
> Knocked him out and destroyed helmet.
> ...




Not very scientific tech, you disappoint me.

Next you'll be wearing a helmet everytime you visit Indonesia in case a Qantas engine part falls on your head.

gg


----------



## tech/a (11 November 2010)

(1)It ended in tears GG.
(2)A quick pick of Us boarding Qantus for FIJI last month


----------



## Gringotts Bank (12 November 2010)

Why do a lot of cyclists wear sponsor logos all over their lycra outfits when they're not actually sponsored?  :

And what's with the coffee shop thing?  On a Sunday morning they're everywhere!

Last one!....  Why do they take themselves so seriously?  

When I use my bike, I stick to bike paths so as not to annoy motorists by holding up traffic, I wear a daggy tracksuit or shorts and a helmet if i feel like it, and I have my coffee after I have returned home and cooled down!


----------



## Solly (12 November 2010)

Got this sent to me on the wires this morning and it may be beneficial to the discussion in this thread.

How about instead of a helmet, what about an Air Bag instead ?

This link gives all the details plus some good scientific evaluation. 
The HÃ¶vding krocktest video is very informative. 

*Helmet Is An Airbag For Your Head*

Who knows, maybe this is truly the way of the future.

Looks like it can be easily incorporated into the rider's clothing.

Maybe they could even incorporate it into GG's NQ Cowboys supporters Jersey, as a safety precaution when cycling back from the Ross Island.

I hear some of those European backpackers can do some crazy maneuvers in their Wicked Campers when attempting to negotiate that right turn over the crossing into Railway Ave.


----------



## breaker (12 November 2010)

Garpel,Etna Creek?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 November 2010)

breaker said:


> Garpel,Etna Creek?




A few minor misdemeanours, I'mnow actually in the Gorrie, due for release in 3.4 days. Have an important civil case next week down south and corrections kindly transferred me from the creek in townsville, to rocky and over the weekend with some big bastard via air to the Gorrie for release Monday arvie, then a quicks,s,s and r to appear on Tues or Wed.

I will not be wearinga helmet. Perhaps a wig.

gg


----------



## breaker (13 November 2010)

Hope it all works out for you we miss your wit and repartee


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 November 2010)

breaker said:


> Hope it all works out for you we miss your wit and repartee




Thanks mate, ASF and Australia in general have become victims of mousey thin soup mf poncey over regulation and lack of humour and joie de vive.

Once I'm out of Corrections I may very well move to Argentina or New Zealand where folk enjoy life and can cycle without those bloody bicycle helmets, which are shaped like sperm heads to fit the dickheads who wear em.

gg


----------



## Solly (13 November 2010)

GG,

I put the word out with some of my photog mates to see if they could track your whereabouts.

Got this unverified pic, apparently it's possibly you in transit, sans Arnage.

I can't be sure, my photog mate Lennie's not too reliable, rambles a bit, he's still living out of his Lada Niva since the bust up and still claims Jack Daniels is a brand of aftershave.

Hope it all works out mate.


----------



## Julia (13 November 2010)

gg, your infinite capacity to mock and have fun at the expense of the more credulous amongst us is a joy indeed.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 November 2010)

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wel...end-retailers-into-a-spin-20101118-17zeq.html

Apparently the existing helmets are dangerous.

So they make new ones, what a joke.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 November 2010)

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/helmet-law-hurting-shared-bike-scheme-20101128-18cf2.html

Even the Pravda of the Southern Hemisphere is not afraid to admit that Melbourne and Brisbane lag the world in providing free bicycles for inner city loan, but insist on the borrowers wearing those ridiculous helmets.



> Melbourne's scheme lags far behind those in overseas cities. About 140 cities have introduced shared bikes; only Melbourne and Brisbane have compulsory helmet laws.
> 
> Dublin City Council's bike share scheme also has 450 bicycles. Launched last September, it now averages 3020 trips a day. Dublin councillor Andrew Montague, interviewed recently on bicycle blog situp-cycle.com about the success of Dublin's scheme, said more than 1 million trips had been taken on Dublin's 450 existing bicycles without a fatality, despite helmets being optional.
> 
> ''So the chance of having an accident on these cycles is less than one in 1 million. The chances of you having a heart attack or having diabetes are very high,'' Cr Montague said. ''By encouraging people to cycle we are tackling the truly dangerous factors.''




When will Australia relinquish this Green-ALP-Left Liberal conspiracy to make people riding bicycles wear these ridiculous pancake/seagullturd head helmets which deter bicycle riding, do not prevent deaths and make the ordinary punter less fit than even I?

gg


----------



## Logique (3 January 2011)

Garpal's visionary approach would save the lives of children. Far from simply revoking the mandate on wearing them, perhaps now the actual availability of helmets ought to be restricted.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/playing-in-helmets-is-dangerous-20110102-19d2h.html
*Playing in helmets is dangerous* Amy Corderoy HEALTH 
January 3, 2011
BICYCLE helmets are potentially deadly if they are worn by children who are playing, not riding bikes, doctors have warned.
Three Australian children died after being strangled by their helmet between 2003 and 2009, a review of forensic records has found.
The deaths occurred while the children were doing things other than riding bikes or skateboards, four pathologists said.

Story continues below "Accidental hanging is still occurring among young children who wear bicycle helmets while engaging in activities other than bicycle riding," they write in The Medical Journal of Australia.
"Although such deaths are rare, it is important for parents and child carers to ensure that bicycle helmets are only worn by children for their intended purpose."

The first child, 2, died after being suspended by his helmet strap between a bunk bed and a wall. Another boy, 3, was caught in a similar manner as he tried to climb out of a window. The third child, who was five, was suspended from a clothes line while jumping on a trampoline.

Allan Cala, a co-author of the report and a forensic pathologist, said children were particularly at risk if the straps on their helmet were done up too loosely.
"No one could have foreseen problems with the straps like this but hopefully as a result of the article, parents, particularly of little kids, will recognise the dangers and check their children's helmets are on properly.
"You can never make anything zero risk but it is important to be aware of these types of hazards".

Young boys in particular tended to throw themselves into physical activities and could be oblivious to the dangers, he said.
In North America and Scandinavia, accidental deaths of children wearing helmets while on playground equipment had led to warnings being issued to parents.
Australian cases showed that such hangings could occur anywhere, and often by unusual mechanisms.

"*Our aim is to draw attention to this rare but entirely preventable cause of childhood death*," the authors wrote.


----------



## explod (3 January 2011)

Great thread.

And yes helmets are very bad.  Theyblock out the guardian angel, God and all the saints from protecting your child.

I am with GG


----------



## tothemax6 (4 January 2011)

Interesting this thread has come up. I have been thinking about this issue lately (got fined $100 quite a while ago for no helmet), so I thought I would contribute .

The idea that the government has the right to control what people can and cannot wear in certain circumstances under threat of force, is about as F~!Cked up as it gets, when one thinks about it, and please forgive me for the language. This is the sort of behavior one would attribute to officials in Saudi Arabia, not Australia. 

No one has ever killed anyone else as a result of riding without a helmet. Hence, this is purely a victim-less crime. It is merely violating peoples freedoms so politicians can feel powerful. It is based on the moral position that government officials need to control peoples behavior in their own private lives, even to the draconian extend of what they wear, for their own good. And they think they have the right! 

Now, I personally am pretty charged to get into politics (and have been for a while) because of this sort of stuff (and a few other things). 
I refuse to yell into the internet any longer about this stuff (although it has been good practice). I am going to join the fight.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (4 January 2011)

That's incorrect tothemax.

A rider who rides on the road and sustains severe head injuries costs the TAC (ie. drivers) literally millions of dollars just for the one person's rehab.  It also costs the person and his family dearly, as you might be able to imagine.

This is why cyclists should stick to bike paths.  No need for helmet there.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (4 January 2011)

Meant to say, in Denmark they do cycling in a civilized manner.

They ride on bike paths (instead of the road), the don't bother with helmets or lycra (are all Aussie cyclists training for Le Tour?), they are relaxed about cycling (as opposed to Melbournian cyclists who treat it oh-so-seriously), and they use normal bikes (instead of $10,000 bikes designed for professional cyclists).

As I say, civilized.


----------



## tothemax6 (4 January 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> That's incorrect tothemax.
> 
> A rider who rides on the road and sustains severe head injuries costs the TAC (ie. drivers) literally millions of dollars just for the one person's rehab.  It also costs the person and his family dearly, as you might be able to imagine.
> 
> This is why cyclists should stick to bike paths.  No need for helmet there.



This is not true. 

I was fined for riding my bike on the pavement without a helmet - at like walking pace. I never ride it on the road because I don't agree with doing that (few cyclists actually get anywhere near the speed limit, although some do, which makes them a danger on the road).
And any misappropriation of fault by the justice system is a vice of the justice system, not a mans freedom to wear what he wishes. The judiciary should recognize, that if men wish to use a bicycle on the road as their vehicle, but ride it dangerously slow, they should bear part responsibility for accidents caused.

And if we are going to go down the path of 'it would cost his family', then logically, he should have no freedom. Anything a man does can affect his family, you open the gates to bans on motorcycles, bans of risky sports, limits on alcohol purchases government control of all his actions - you create the nanny state. And he is better off dead than a slave.


----------



## Julia (4 January 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> Now, I personally am pretty charged to get into politics (and have been for a while) because of this sort of stuff (and a few other things).
> I refuse to yell into the internet any longer about this stuff (although it has been good practice). I am going to join the fight.



 Excellent, tothemax6.  May I ask where you plan to stand (what district), what party you wish to represent (or perhaps you prefer to be an independent?), the lower house or the Senate?
I'd be happy to vote for you.


----------



## tothemax6 (7 January 2011)

Julia said:


> Excellent, tothemax6.  May I ask where you plan to stand (what district), what party you wish to represent (or perhaps you prefer to be an independent?), the lower house or the Senate?
> I'd be happy to vote for you.



Well I don't plan to run for office just yet . Just getting involved is my current goal.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 January 2011)

I was today, on The Strand, in North Ward, Townsville, stopped by the Police and my details taken and expect a summons to appear soon in court , for not wearing a bicycle helmet. 

She said that I might have my drivers license taken off me.

Can the courts do this?

Are there any precedents in Queensland for "caught in company of a bicycle without a helmet"?

By the time she stopped me I was on the grass, I'm planning to use that in my defence.

gg


----------



## drsmith (29 January 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> By the time she stopped me *I was on the grass*, I'm planning to use that in my defence.



That might incur additional charges.


----------



## nunthewiser (29 January 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I was on the grass, I'm planning to use that in my defence.
> 
> gg






drsmith said:


> That might incur additional charges.




Totally agree 

Leave your puffing habits out of the courtroom drama that may unfold.

just pay the helmet fine and be thankful they did not raid the Garpulpad while you were discussing the legalities of riding stoned.

Happy to help.

yours sincerely

nun


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 January 2011)

Re: " on the grass "



drsmith said:


> That might incur additional charges.






nunthewiser said:


> Totally agree
> 
> Leave your puffing habits out of the courtroom drama that may unfold.
> 
> ...




Doc and nun, such a helpful duo, thanks. 

English is such a beautiful language, however North of the Tropic of Capricorn, "grass" is walked upon , and "Yarndi" is smoked. 

My point was that I was not on a public path, track, road, highway, street etc. when collared by a beautiful young lady police officer who out of uniform would have elicited quite a different response from me.

No I was not stoned, intoxicated, drunk, pissed or otherwise impaired by any substance except fresh sea air.

gg


----------



## Agentm (29 January 2011)

having both one of my closest friends helmet shatter after impact from those texting clowns in 4 wheel drives, and also my sons helmet shatter in a similar impact.. the love of being able to still talk walk and live on the same planet with both of these dear souls outdoes any other argument against the steel vs flesh on the bitumen.. 

i can see how any law enforcement officer whom has to endure the trauma the cars and trucks inflict on cyclists may want to change the odds once in a while

despite the impending certainty of a long and severe term on incarceration.. i am certain time to reflect and perhaps use the exercise bike in the yard may be the only place you can enjoy riding without a helmet.

with a family member with permanent disabilities including inability to speak and living a life in a condition that i know no one would want to live, all from  severe head trauma from an unrelated incident.. i can suggest that despite the ridicule and apathy that i as a cyclist endure on my daily rides, i know what head trauma is, what it bespeaks

i am all for freedoms, including the choice to text while driving.. who would want that to end??  but the freedom to be as you would want to be, without head trauma, is elevated by the presence of said foam plastic on cranium..

C'est la vie


----------



## drsmith (29 January 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> My point was that I was not on a public path, track, road, highway, street etc. when collared by a beautiful young lady police officer who out of uniform would have elicited quite a different response from me.



I dunno GG, the defence looks a bit wobbly.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> I was today, on The Strand, in North Ward, Townsville, stopped by the Police and my details taken and expect a summons to appear soon in court , for not wearing a bicycle helmet.



Being stopped suggests that when you were collared, you were in motion.

English is indeed a beautiful language.


----------



## Logique (30 January 2011)

Legal technicalities determine many cases.  
GG, did, or could the officer have seen you riding elsewhere than on the grass. Can it be proven beyond doubt that you weren't riding at low velocity from one patch to the other. Are there any signs on the grass giving directions to cyclists - which would point to it being a public thoroughfare for cycling, or conversely, not.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 January 2011)

drsmith said:


> I dunno GG, the defence looks a bit wobbly.
> 
> 
> Being stopped suggests that when you were collared, you were in motion.
> ...






Logique said:


> Legal technicalities determine many cases.
> GG, did, or could the officer have seen you riding elsewhere than on the grass. Can it be proven beyond doubt that you weren't riding at low velocity from one patch to the other. Are there any signs on the grass giving directions to cyclists - which would point to it being a public thoroughfare for cycling, or conversely, not.




I was on the grass, as I saw the copper on the path, so I passed her, she on the path , me on the grass.  She ran after me and collared me. 

I used be a good batsman, so I made sure my foot rested on the grass even though she pulled me towards her breathless body (and the path), as I stopped.

There are no signs indicating not to ride on the grass. It is a combined walk and bike path.

gg


----------



## drsmith (30 January 2011)

I still think I'd rather be a lawyer for the prosecution than for the defence.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> I was on the grass, as I saw the copper on the path, so I passed her, she on the path , me on the grass.  She ran after me and collared me.




Your original comment though implies that you were not always on the grass.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> *By the time she stopped me *I was on the grass, I'm planning to use that in my defence.




Sorry GG, 
   I'm just trying to visualise how the lovely young lady in uniform might see it from the perspective of the prosecution.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 January 2011)

drsmith said:


> I still think I'd rather be a lawyer for the prosecution than for the defence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




She never saw me on the path, I was cycling behind her admiring the view... of Maggie Island and the sea, amongst other things.

gg


----------



## drsmith (30 January 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> She never saw me on the path, I was cycling behind her admiring the view... of Maggie Island and the sea, amongst other things.
> 
> gg



I suppose you had to go past at some point. 

Riding behind at walking pace admiring the view, she might have had you up for something else.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 April 2011)

There is now good evidence that wearing a bicycle helmet encourages motorists to drive closer to cyclists. 

Below, a compelling argument from the UK, against the wearing of helmets on bicycles.

Libertarians unite.

From the Graduain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/08/cycling-minister-refuses-bike-helmet?intcmp=239



> Norman Baker, the minister responsible for cycling, walking and local transport – and lifelong bike enthusiast – has reignited a debate that divides bike lovers. The Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes has declared it his "libertarian right" to put himself at risk on roads by not wearing a helmet, prompting claims from road safety groups that he is unfit for the job.
> 
> Baker said: "I don't wear a helmet when I cycle. The first reason is that I don't want to. I don't want to wear something on my head. For me the joy of cycling is to have the wind in your hair, such as I have left. It's free, it's unencumbered; I don't want to be loaded down.
> 
> ...





gg


----------



## jbocker (10 April 2011)

_"...He cited evidence that drivers take more care around hatless bikers than they do with those wearing helmets. "Wear a helmet and drivers feel they can drive closer than they can. I don't think the safety case for helmets is clear-cut," he said. ..."_

There are far more other factors than just a helmet that is taken into consideration when judging how much berth is given to riders when you are approaching them. In all cases it is the likelihood of hitting the person. So I think that argument is weak.
Of course the case for helmets is not clear cut, in that it there is no exact guarentee you will be protected, but I do believe you will be far better off coming off a bike wearing a helmet.
I am not sure about all you people, but I have never been hit by a car while riding a bike but I have still come off enough times to know it hurts.


----------



## medicowallet (10 April 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> There is now good evidence that wearing a bicycle helmet encourages motorists to drive closer to cyclists.
> 
> Below, a compelling argument from the UK, against the wearing of helmets on bicycles.
> 
> ...




Nice attitude from the person (Mr Baker) who doesn't have to pick pieces of road out of the scalp with forceps in the ED.

or the person who hit the rider, dealing with a fatality when the person may have only had concussion.

It is the responsibility of the rider to do so in a socially responsible way. That way they are protecting the public and person from unnecassary cost, both psychological and financial.

Helmets are a good idea.


----------



## medicowallet (10 April 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I was today, on The Strand, in North Ward, Townsville, stopped by the Police and my details taken and expect a summons to appear soon in court , for not wearing a bicycle helmet.
> 
> She said that I might have my drivers license taken off me.
> 
> ...




You should have said that you had rode up to Melton Terrace and that whilst up there, a desperate older, unemployed and unloved balding man chased after you, and knocked off your helmet to take to cash converters before he stormed off .

Weren't you merely going home after being mugged?


----------



## Glen48 (10 April 2011)

Why not make smokers wear a hell mut and keep the visor down that would save a few live's..

During the war a man was pulled over for speeding the police man told him he could have killed some one the man said I kill hiundreds if not  thousands every night ,the man was bomber Harris in charge of R A F  night time bombing.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 April 2011)

jbocker said:


> _"...He cited evidence that drivers take more care around hatless bikers than they do with those wearing helmets. "Wear a helmet and drivers feel they can drive closer than they can. I don't think the safety case for helmets is clear-cut," he said. ..."_
> 
> There are far more other factors than just a helmet that is taken into consideration when judging how much berth is given to riders when you are approaching them. In all cases it is the likelihood of hitting the person. So I think that argument is weak.
> Of course the case for helmets is not clear cut, in that it there is no exact guarentee you will be protected, but I do believe you will be far better off coming off a bike wearing a helmet.
> I am not sure about all you people, but I have never been hit by a car while riding a bike but I have still come off enough times to know it hurts.






medicowallet said:


> Nice attitude from the person (Mr Baker) who doesn't have to pick pieces of road out of the scalp with forceps in the ED.
> 
> or the person who hit the rider, dealing with a fatality when the person may have only had concussion.
> 
> ...




I must admit that I do drive closer to helmeted bicyclists when in the Arnage. 

The polystyrene seagull crap shaped helmet would slide effortlessly off the expensive finish, should a stiff breeze propel the rider in to my motor.

The helmet law is yet another fascist communique that citizens must endure, a la Marrickville Thought Police, who see only repression and punishment as a way towards their Big Brother nirvana.

I will never ever wear a bicycle helmet.

Viva, viva, Australia, freedom and the bicycle.

gg

gg


----------



## tech/a (10 April 2011)

Doing 200K a week on my pushy and having fallen many times--You gotta have a helmet.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 April 2011)

tech/a said:


> Doing 200K a week on my pushy and having fallen many times--You gotta have a helmet.




No mate, you have decided to wear a helmet, your opinion, it is unfair to impose your opinion on others.

Why not mandate wearing of F1 helmets in motor cars?

gg


----------



## tothemax6 (10 April 2011)

Or, howabout we just ban cyclists from the road altogether! After all, people don't have the right to put themselves in more danger than the average man!
Also, motorcycles should be outright banned, since what you prefer to do is irrelevant - the government shall tell you what you will be doing, for your own good.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 April 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> Or, howabout we just ban cyclists from the road altogether! After all, people don't have the right to put themselves in more danger than the average man!
> Also, motorcycles should be outright banned, since what you prefer to do is irrelevant - the government shall tell you what you will be doing, for your own good.




ttm6, we need to not talk of banning, or compulsion.

We are a civilised society, given to fascist outbursts against cyclists wishing to cycle slowly and free without helmets..

Sense will resume when fascism retreats.

As it will.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 April 2011)

At long last the UK Government plans to prosecute the Lycra Latte mob, who power ride and cause injury and mayhem on their $5000 bicycles.

They also give us ordinary cyclists, who prefer not to wear a helmet, a bad name.

From the UK Graudain

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/10/death-dangerous-cycling-law-government-support



> The government is looking at introducing a new offence of causing death by dangerous cycling  following concerns that there is no suitable legislation to deal with riders who are involved in incidents such as hitting pedestrians on pavements.
> 
> A transport minister has privately promised to support a bill presented to the House of Commons by Andrea Leadsom, the Conservative MP for South Northamptonshire, who is campaigning on behalf of a family whose teenage daughter was struck and killed by a reckless cyclist.
> 
> The move follows a significant increase in cycling in many parts of the UK over recent years and a parallel spate of alarmist media stories about "Lycra louts".





gg


----------



## Boggo (12 April 2011)

I do like your latest outfit though GG, I can see why motorists would stay clear of you


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 April 2011)

Boggo said:


> I do like your latest outfit though GG, I can see why motorists would stay clear of you




A reasonable likeness.

lol

Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare. 

gg


----------



## Glen48 (12 April 2011)

gg is your choice of headwear Akurba or White JBS Hertiage Stetson in the Royce Rolls?
Are you the Chauffer or the owner?

 I must warn you the 255/50R18 tyres could suffer damage if you by accident run over a cyclist riding a Carbon Composite bike while driving on the footpath.


EGO coegi a volvo royce


----------



## ice (12 April 2011)

Perhaps an optional IQ test would be the go. 
If your IQ was found to be below say 80 you wouldn't be required to wear a helmet on the reasonable assumption that there wasn't a lot up there to damage. 
Win-win solution.

ice


----------



## subasurf (12 April 2011)

I'm actually going to agree with GG.

I don't believe in laws such as the helmet law that take choices out of your hands that would ONLY affect yourself. It should be MY right as to whether or not I put a helmet on MY head before I ride.

Having said that, having seen first hand what happens to someone's skull when it hits the road hard (held the back of someone's brains into their skull (literally) waiting for the ambulance) I would never ride without a helmet in the first place.

Regardless, the government should not be allowed to take away certain freedoms that they deem is for our own good. It should be up to the individual to make the choice.


----------



## trainspotter (12 April 2011)

ice said:


> Perhaps an optional IQ test would be the go.
> If your IQ was found to be below say 80 you wouldn't be required to wear a helmet on the reasonable assumption that there wasn't a lot up there to damage.
> Win-win solution.
> 
> ice




Pure GOLD right here. Gonna get this one framed and hang in the den above the mantle. :freak3:

Is that a helmet and a shoe flying through the air? Yeppers ....... glad he was wearing a helmet.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 April 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Pure GOLD right here. Gonna get this one framed and hang in the den above the mantle. :freak3:
> 
> Is that a helmet and a shoe flying through the air? Yeppers ....... glad he was wearing a helmet.
> 
> View attachment 42379




I would never be in that situation.

Typical lycra luvvies, note how the bloody helmets come off in a proper prang, and all that skin showing.

I generally stick to bike paths, so don't need a helmet.

gg


----------



## starwars_guy456 (12 April 2011)

subasurf said:


> I'm actually going to agree with GG.
> 
> I don't believe in laws such as the helmet law that take choices out of your hands that would ONLY affect yourself. It should be MY right as to whether or not I put a helmet on MY head before I ride.
> 
> ...




But Suba, an accident victim will need rehabilitation, community services, etc if (worst case scenario) they end up a vegetable. I'm pretty sure the cost of this is borne by the taxpayer as a whole. 

Not to mention that these services could be provided to somebody else, say, someone who took all precautions necessary to avoid serious injury.

At the end of the day, the community pays for the results of accidents, and as a stakeholder, I think the government has a right to call for helmet laws.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 April 2011)

starwars_guy456 said:


> But Suba, an accident victim will need rehabilitation, community services, etc if (worst case scenario) they end up a vegetable. I'm pretty sure the cost of this is borne by the taxpayer as a whole.
> 
> Not to mention that these services could be provided to somebody else, say, someone who took all precautions necessary to avoid serious injury.
> 
> At the end of the day, the community pays for the results of accidents, and as a stakeholder, I think the government has a right to call for helmet laws.




Sw_g, you need to take a shower, and consider.
How many people's health is compromised because they do not cycle because of these odious helmets?
What is the breakdown on serious injuries between Lycra lilliputianos and ordinary bike riding drinkers at the Ross Island Hotel?

The small matter of civil liberties you Nahhh voir you.

A quote from Whiskers on the Fluoride thread.



> If you are so concerned about fluorosis then why don't you also turn your crusade against the companies that make fluoride toothpastes and fluoride tablets - history shows that these are the big contributors to fluorosis.
> Well... only yesterday you might recall I said;
> Stopped using it as a conscientious objection to their corrupt participation in the disposal of toxic fluoride contamination in the mid 1900's and continued sponsership of biased research and much unpublished data that they and their sponsered organisations don't want us to know... such as the Significant Caries index (SiC) data from ARCPOH.
> 
> ...




Now I must admit that my opinion of Fluoride protesters lies close to my opinions on Greens, godbotherers, warmists, carbonisifists and pacifiers, I must give it to Whiskers for his erudite defense of civil liberties.

So helmets are out, as a fascist imposition on the workers, the unfit, the suffering of this nation.

gg


----------



## Julia (17 April 2011)

gg It is my understanding that Nick Xenophon started out in politics because of his anger about poker machines.  He has subsequently become perhaps the Australian politician to whom most would ascribe a value of integrity.

Perhaps you could consider taking a similar path with the cause of bicycle helmets as your motivator?

Whiskers could join you.

I would support you both on the basis of potential freedom from the bloody Nanny State.


----------



## Aussiejeff (18 April 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> So helmets are out, as a fascist imposition on the workers, the unfit, the suffering of this nation.
> 
> gg




GG & other supporters of the Right To Bare Heads when cycling - are you aware of this Oz website? 

http://www.situp-cycle.com/

Go to the article posted 13 Jan 2011 for an expose on Melbourne's farcical enforced-helmets share bike scheme ( a near total failure).

Some enlightening stuff in that site's blogs....

Cheers,

aj


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 April 2011)

Julia said:


> gg It is my understanding that Nick Xenophon started out in politics because of his anger about poker machines.  He has subsequently become perhaps the Australian politician to whom most would ascribe a value of integrity.
> 
> Perhaps you could consider taking a similar path with the cause of bicycle helmets as your motivator?
> 
> ...




I shall contact Whiskers to start the "Free" Party.

Thanks Julia.

gg


----------



## Julia (18 April 2011)

Excellent.  I look forward to being a founding member.
You might consider challenging the membership of ASF to come up with an inspiring title for your new party.  Not sure "Free" will be evocative enough.


----------



## burglar (19 April 2011)




----------



## GumbyLearner (20 April 2011)

*Italian chocolate boss Pietro Ferrero dies in biking accident in South Africa *

    * From correspondents in Milan, Italy
    * From: AFP
    * April 19, 2011 8:18AM

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new.../story-e6frfku0-1226041333640?from=public_rss


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 April 2011)

GumbyLearner said:


> *Italian chocolate boss Pietro Ferrero dies in biking accident in South Africa *
> 
> * From correspondents in Milan, Italy
> * From: AFP
> ...




No indication that he was killed by not wearing a bicycle helmet?


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 April 2011)

Another interesting link in the ongoing bike helmet debate...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12333783

Lots of research / other links at bottom of article


aj


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 April 2011)

GumbyLearner said:


> *Italian chocolate boss Pietro Ferrero dies in biking accident in South Africa *
> 
> * From correspondents in Milan, Italy
> * From: AFP
> ...




Ummm... maybe heart attack?  Too much chocolate clogging the plumbing?? Nothing to do with the risk of cycling or not wearing a helmet??? 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/19/3196100.htm


----------



## GumbyLearner (20 April 2011)

Aussiejeff said:


> Ummm... maybe heart attack?  Too much chocolate clogging the plumbing?? Nothing to do with the risk of cycling or not wearing a helmet???
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/19/3196100.htm




You could be right Aussiejeff. He might have had a case of the Burt Baskin's. :dunno:


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (20 April 2011)

Aussiejeff said:


> Ummm... maybe heart attack?  Too much chocolate clogging the plumbing?? Nothing to do with the risk of cycling or not wearing a helmet???
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/19/3196100.htm






GumbyLearner said:


> You could be right Aussiejeff. He might have had a case of the Burt Baskin's. :dunno:




I see them on a Sunday morning in one of my cafes, sipping hot chocolate and latte, in their lycra and wearing those bloody helmets.

It's a lifestyle thing, people who wear bicycle helmets die earlier.

It is a well known fact.

When was the last time you saw an old bastard wearing lycra, and look at all the old bastards riding bicycles without helmets or lycra around North Ward.

gg


----------



## Glen48 (20 April 2011)

GG 
People in North Ward would have Carbon fiber composite push bikes equipped with 16 speeds and hand made Nike shoes with GPS, heart rate monitor, person to person intercom, Glow in the dark Lycra  suits  with an  Ambo following them incase some one in a Roller runs over then.
 The Strand could end up a scared site with Miden's made of Kevlar pushies.

 If the Cluden bar is still open there should be photo's decking the walls in  memory of old Charles Hood-Winkle or Francis Symthe -Jones  riding their retirement toy.
All ex -bankesters


----------



## GumbyLearner (21 April 2011)

Glen48 said:


> GG
> People in North Ward would have Carbon fiber composite push bikes equipped with 16 speeds and hand made Nike shoes with GPS, heart rate monitor, person to person intercom, Glow in the dark Lycra  suits  with an  Ambo following them incase some one in a Roller runs over then.
> The Strand could end up a scared site with Miden's made of Kevlar pushies.
> 
> ...




Great post Glen48. 

The parody version


The un-ripoffed US republican party version


----------



## Glen48 (21 April 2011)

Catchy tune... maybe bankers should have a classification for their mental status like Bi Polar or OCD's eg wearing Bike hell muts, desire to see people suffer, over blown ego's 
or a phobia like fear of Rollers driving on the foot path.
They could suffer from Agrophobia and claustrophobia  at the same time and get stuck in a doorwayThere motto:

 I feel the need to breed


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 April 2011)

Studies show that the more cyclists there are, the less the mortality rate.

Thus there is safety in numbers. 

A recent article from the Guardian UK, an anti-libertarian socialist organ, caught my eye. Even the elites now see the need for cyclists to be protected by increasing their numbers.

A major cause of unwillingness to cycle as evidenced by the failure of free bikes in Melbourne and Brisbane, is these bloody omellete helmets, which add little to safety and detract from comfort and aesthetics.

In Amsterdam, one is more likely to be run over by a cyclist sans helmet, than with.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/nov/06/cycle-casualties-deaths-statistics



> Groups like the CTC are hopeful that the latest casualty figures will be just a blip. There is a well-accepted notion for cycling, known as safety in numbers, which decrees that in general, as the number of cyclists on the roads increases, each rider's chance of being hurt reduces. For example, the average cyclist in Denmark rides over 10 times further than his or her British peer every year but runs only 20% of the risk of being killed.




Comrades,

Easter is a time of renewal, let us ride forth sans these bloody stupid helmets.

gg


----------



## Judd (22 April 2011)

I have followed this thread for a bit and understand that, as usual, there are many facets to the debate.  I have one issue which the more knowledgeable may be able to clarify for me.

Why is it a blanket edict for bicycle helmets?  I can appreciate that if one were a member of the "lycra heart monitor beat the personal best set", traveling at speed a helmet has the potential to avoid serious head injury.  Fair enough.  But if peddling along at walking pace or a couple of k above that, why is a helmet essential?  I would have thought that you would be in more danger of getting grazed knees through falling off than a fractured skull.   Come to that why aren't the lycra mob required to wear leathers instead to protect against serious body injuries.  Having an off at 40k plus can carve a fair amount of flesh from the body and all those skin graphs are very costly to the public purse.  As usual I :dunno:


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 April 2011)

I took a Joycean trip today on my bicycle from the hotel, along Ross Creek, and out to the airport, and down the Bruce Highway to Nathan St. The wind was in my hair and finding the Ross River I cycled back down to Bowen Rd., and thence by a perambulation back to the hotel.

And I didn't have a bicycle helmet on my head.

And I didn't see one copper.

Glorious and safe.

gg


----------



## tothemax6 (28 April 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I took a Joycean trip today on my bicycle from the hotel, along Ross Creek, and out to the airport, and down the Bruce Highway to Nathan St. The wind was in my hair and finding the Ross River I cycled back down to Bowen Rd., and thence by a perambulation back to the hotel.
> 
> And I didn't have a bicycle helmet on my head.
> 
> ...



Feels nice to pretend you are free to enjoy yourself as you feel fit, doesn't it . And what is a perambulation? Maybe its my age, but I have never used this word .


Judd said:


> I have followed this thread for a bit and understand that, as usual, there are many facets to the debate.  I have one issue which the more knowledgeable may be able to clarify for me.
> 
> Why is it a blanket edict for bicycle helmets?  I can appreciate that if one were a member of the "lycra heart monitor beat the personal best set", traveling at speed a helmet has the potential to avoid serious head injury.  Fair enough.  But if peddling along at walking pace or a couple of k above that, why is a helmet essential?



Well really its all beside the point. What right does a cop have to say what you must wear during the activities you engage in? He has none, nor does any politician. We need cops for the cops.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 May 2011)

Any folk with small brains that need a protecting might click on this bicycling helmet link, 

$415 for a bicycle helmet.

If it weren't so tragic it would be sad.

http://www.bicyclestore.com.au/fox-v3r-carbon-helmet.html

The Gumnut Family Trust plans to commence negotiation with this company to progress their "vision".

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 July 2011)

Another good website on the evils of bicycle helmets.



> This website provides a compendium of reports and studies into cyclist injuries and cycling participation rates in a mandatory rather than voluntary bicycle helmet jurisdiction, and compensates for the Australian media's lack of interest in public health and safety.
> 
> The legislation has been enforced in Western Australia for 18 years - a timescale providing abundant data to analyse the effect of an all-age mandatory bicycle helmet law.
> 
> Government data shows an increase in cyclist hospital admissions and total injuries despite also showing fewer people cycling on West Australian roads during most of the 1990s - a downturn in public recreational exercise with further negative consequences for community health and safety.




http://www.cycle-helmets.com/

And another quote. From JPS



> Fascism is not defined by the number of its victims, but by the way it kills them.
> Jean-Paul Sartre




Bicycle helmets gnaw at a free society.

gg


----------



## Aussiejeff (4 July 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Another good website on the evils of bicycle helmets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Blanket _mandatory_ wearing of bike helmets at all times is

(a) Un-Australian
(b) Un-democratic

The post enforcement data which shows the in-effectiveness of helmets in significantly reducing cyclist head & total injuries whilst cyclist numbers plummeted & motor vehicle crashes mysteriously soared at the same time is damning evidence IMO. 

You have to wonder why there is so little official, recent and up-to-date data coming out? Perhaps the authorities don't want to know how badly they have screwed us over since 1992?

Will I ever see a back down in this insane policy in my remaining lifetime? I figure I've got at best 20 years cycling left in me, so I don't like the odds, given the stubborn intransigence of your typical Oz polly when it comes to admitting a serious mistake in social engineering has been made.

Bastards.

:angry:


----------



## Glen48 (4 July 2011)

Why is it a blanket edict for bicycle helmets? I can appreciate that if one were a member of the "lycra heart monitor beat the personal best set", traveling at speed a helmet has the potential to avoid_ serious head injury_ sounds lie the horse has bolted but the ego s intact


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 July 2011)

Aussiejeff said:


> Blanket _mandatory_ wearing of bike helmets at all times is
> 
> (a) Un-Australian
> (b) Un-democratic
> ...




Well I am cycling to the Townsville Show.

I will leave the Ross Island Hotel in ten minutes and will go directly via Boundary St. and Ingham Rd, sans helmet, on my Malvern Star.

Should any Townsville coppers be reading this, I will be wearing a black hoodie.

Sometimes one needs to take a stand against unjust laws. 

gg


----------



## Gringotts Bank (4 July 2011)

Wear a helmet GG.  It's the lycra that kills, especially the lycra suits emblazoned with make believe sponsor logos.  One needs to appear as if ready for _Le Tour_.  

Cyclists are currently among the most serious individuals on the planet.  Without "sponsor" logos on their lycra, they would lose precious seconds on their ride to a and from work.  Serious.

May I suggest a plain head-shaped helmet, as opposed to the brightly coloured alien space craft style of helmet.  You will lose another second off your trip time due to wind resistance, but you'll feel happier about it.


----------



## Aussiejeff (4 July 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Wear a helmet GG.  It's the lycra that kills, especially the lycra suits emblazoned with make believe sponsor logos.  One needs to appear as if ready for _Le Tour_.
> 
> Cyclists are currently among the most serious individuals on the planet.  Without "sponsor" logos on their lycra, they would lose precious seconds on their ride to a and from work.  Serious.
> 
> *May I suggest a plain head-shaped helmet*, as opposed to the brightly coloured alien space craft style of helmet.  You will lose another second off your trip time due to wind resistance, but you'll feel happier about it.




That's a bit passe, old chap..... this would suit GG more, methinks!

_"Charrrrrggggge!!"_

LOL


----------



## tothemax6 (4 July 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Well I am cycling to the Townsville Show.
> 
> I will leave the Ross Island Hotel in ten minutes and will go directly via Boundary St. and Ingham Rd, sans helmet, on my Malvern Star.
> 
> ...



:jump:
Good stuff! I hope they arrest you and you take it to court 'The Castle' style .
I do, and will be, doing the same. 
I am a free man, and I have rights. The law is there to protect peoples rights from violation by others. It is not there to actively engage in violation: such an act is not law - it is crime.


----------



## nioka (4 July 2011)

On the news today a motorbike rider taking place in a ride to protest about the laws requiring helmets crashed his bike, landed on his head and was killed. So careful GG we'd miss your posts.

Died from a fractured skull!


----------



## Slipperz (4 July 2011)

I like those German helmets the bikies wear. Completely impractical yet totally badass :viking::viking::viking::viking::viking:


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 July 2011)

Coppers are like buses, they are never there when you need them, and then they arrive in threes.

I saw not one copper today.

gg


----------



## drsmith (11 July 2011)

Sometimes a helmet is not enough.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 July 2011)

A helmet saved a close relative's life a few years back; this thread is a joke.

If you don't like the government right telling you what to do because you're not smart enough to figure it out for yourself, perhaps you should move to Somalia.


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> A helmet saved a close relative's life a few years back; this thread is a joke.
> 
> If you don't like the government right telling you what to do because you're not smart enough to figure it out for yourself, perhaps you should move to Somalia.




WayneL was right. You are a barrel of laughs in real life aren't you.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 July 2011)

drsmith said:


> Sometimes a helmet is not enough.






Starcraftmazter said:


> A helmet saved a close relative's life a few years back; this thread is a joke.
> 
> If you don't like the government right telling you what to do because you're not smart enough to figure it out for yourself, perhaps you should move to Somalia.




StarCraftMaz,

I'm unsure from that photograph of you, above, whether you are trying to mount the pailing, or it is trying to mount you.

Either way it should improve your choleric nature.

Were you breastfed, by the way, and if so for how long?

gg


----------



## breaker (12 July 2011)

how long? still is on tit


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 July 2011)

You people are weird


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> You people are weird




LOL ........ that's the spirit SCM. Just drink the Kool Aid dude. It's all good.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> LOL ........ that's the spirit SCM. Just drink the Kool Aid dude. It's all good.




Cool aid is unhealthy. :cwm10:


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Cool aid is unhealthy. :cwm10:




ROFL. Google Jonestown and you will understand ....... or maybe you do?


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> ROFL. Google Jonestown and you will understand ....... or maybe you do?




Too much effort, all the information about it is heaps big.


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Too much effort, all the information about it is heaps big.




Ermmmmmmm for my tiny brain can you please solidify your statement of position on this one please. I am failing to understand "heaps big". My 14 year old son does not even use this terminology anymore?

"What we have here is a failure to communicate"  hand Luke to the rescue.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> A helmet saved a close relative's life a few years back; this thread is a joke.
> 
> If you don't like the government right telling you what to do because you're not smart enough to figure it out for yourself, perhaps you should move to Somalia.




SCM,

Leave the poor Somalis out of this, they have enough problems with godbotherers, wars and corruption, without being forced to wear bicycle helmets. Next you'll ask them to pay a carbon tax.


gg


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Ermmmmmmm for my tiny brain can you please solidify your statement of position on this one please. I am failing to understand "heaps big". My 14 year old son does not even use this terminology anymore?
> 
> "What we have here is a failure to communicate"  hand Luke to the rescue.




Mass suicide of a small community, some sort of cult. Everything else will take valuable time to read, which I am unable to offer to this endeavor.


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Mass suicide of a small community, some sort of cult. Everything else will take valuable time to read, which I am unable to offer to this endeavor.




WOW ...... a pin prick of information and you are an expert with no time to spare. A bit more to it than that my chronologically challenged fellow. Oh well ..... youth is wasted on the young. 

I was wearing my bicycle helmet the other day as I rode the treadly to the local shops. I was passed by several people breaking the law by not wearing their protective melon caps. The constabulary drove passed at a rapid rate of knots and did not blink. Must have been a bank job somewhere.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> I was wearing my bicycle helmet the other day as I rode the treadly to the local shops. I was passed by several people breaking the law by not wearing their protective melon caps. The constabulary drove passed at a rapid rate of knots and did not blink. Must have been a bank job somewhere.




Were they wearing fedoras, the cyclists that is, not the coppers?

Go fedora power.

gg


----------



## Julia (12 July 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> SCM,
> Leave the poor Somalis out of this, they have enough problems with godbotherers, wars and corruption, without being forced to wear bicycle helmets. Next you'll ask them to pay a carbon tax.
> gg


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> WOW ...... a pin prick of information and you are an expert




Never claimed to be any sort of an expert, I explicitly stated I had no time to dedicate further research, which implies the opposite of your claim.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Never claimed to be any sort of an expert, I explicitly stated I had no time to dedicate further research, which implies the opposite of your claim.




Fee fi fo fum, I can smell a 2020.

gg


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Fee fi fo fum, I can smell a 2020.
> 
> gg




You are on your best behaviour of late. Duly noted.


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Never claimed to be any sort of an expert, I explicitly stated I had no time to dedicate further research, which implies the opposite of your claim.




Perhaps if you did the research you would understand then.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Perhaps if you did the research you would understand then.




Yes Captain obvious. Please provide a good reason to research this ahead of other more important things.


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Yes Captain obvious. Please provide a good reason to research this ahead of other more important things.




Thank you for pointing this out my Roger the Cabin Boy. Define "more important things" and the training can begin.

You do not see the Jonestown massacre as a relevant piece of information to withold in ones hippocampus? 



> Jones told everyone to hurry. Large kettles filled with grape flavored Flavor-Aid (not Kool-Aid), cyanide, and Valium were placed in the open-sided pavilion.
> 
> Babies and children were brought up first. Syringes were used to pour the poisoned juice into their mouths. Mothers then drank some of the poisoned punch.




And you rate this as not important? A careful person looks on both sides of the fence before jumping.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> And you rate this as not important? A careful person looks on both sides of the fence before jumping.




Again, you put words into my mouth. It is not at all unimportant, I simply believe there are things of more importance. And to answer that question of yours, I am increasingly trying to figure out what the future holds in many aspects of economy and consequently life 

Although history is important, and I do love history, I feel other things are more pressing at the moment. A lot of bad things have happened, what makes this particular event so special? What does it have to it more than regular cult nonsense? I am not as stubborn as you might have imagined, just give me a good reason.

I'm also waiting for you to point out that it would take less time to look into it than carry on this debate


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Again, you put words into my mouth. It is not at all unimportant, I simply believe there are things of more importance. And to answer that question of yours, I am increasingly trying to figure out what the future holds in many aspects of economy and consequently life
> 
> Although history is important, and I do love history, I feel other things are more pressing at the moment. A lot of bad things have happened, what makes this particular event so special? What does it have to it more than regular cult nonsense? I am not as stubborn as you might have imagined, just give me a good reason.
> 
> I'm also waiting for you to point out that it would take less time to look into it than carry on this debate




Dude .... by the time you researched it and understood where I was coming from we would have saved about 20 gigatons of CO2 to produce the electricity to run our laptops.

The comment in relation to "Just drink the Kool Aid" was a piss poor attempt on my behalf for you to stop acting like a cactus and rubbing the punters up the kybher so that we can all get along in here. We are allowed our opinions. You are allowed yours.  This does not mean we are going to burn in hell for the damnation for the rest of our natural lives. I truly admire a bit of spunk in character. It suits the wearer well when used in full plume.

I tried to pour oil on the sullied waters earlier on in the piece to stop the "young against old thing" to no avail. I polluted the thread with humour to attempt a more measurable response to no avail. In your world it is black and white. This is not your fault.

Joenstown was bit more than a "bit of cult nonsene". But once you have finished with all those "more important" things then you can decide for yourself.

I am riding to the shop with no helmet as a sign of protestation !


----------



## Starcraftmazter (13 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Dude .... by the time you researched it and understood where I was coming from we would have saved about 20 gigatons of CO2 to produce the electricity to run our laptops.




I feel a tad guilty now, I actually run a pretty powerful desktop computer (but I don't watch any TV, does that even it out a bit? ).



trainspotter said:


> I tried to pour oil on the sullied waters earlier on in the piece to stop the "young against old thing" to no avail. I polluted the thread with humour to attempt a more measurable response to no avail. In your world it is black and white. This is not your fault.




To be honest, I largely prefer serious discussion. If I wanted humour, I would likely not go to an investment related forum to obtain it...



trainspotter said:


> I am riding to the shop with no helmet as a sign of protestation !




Alright then, be safe


----------



## Julia (13 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I
> To be honest, I largely prefer serious discussion. If I wanted humour, I would likely not go to an investment related forum to obtain it...



You are in the "General Chat" forum.
Most of us have a sense of humour.
Good luck getting through life without such a characteristic.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (19 July 2011)

Julia said:


> You are in the "General Chat" forum.
> Most of us have a sense of humour.
> Good luck getting through life without such a characteristic.




I do have a sense of humour - for instance, I find your characterising me as quite funny. Nothing funny about not wearing bicycle helmets however...


----------



## wayneL (19 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I do have a sense of humour




Arguable.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I do have a sense of humour - for instance, I find your characterising me as quite funny. Nothing funny about not wearing bicycle helmets however...






wayneL said:


> Arguable.




I do wish your mum had not stopped breastfeeding.

I think bicycle helmets are hilarious.

gg


----------



## Starcraftmazter (19 July 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I do wish your mum had not stopped breastfeeding.
> 
> I think bicycle helmets are hilarious.
> 
> gg




More of these assumptions, wow. Are they meant to be insults too 

Let me try...erm...I think your face is hilarious? Your stupidity? Your inadequacy as a human being? Not sure how well I did, pick one.


----------



## wayneL (19 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> More of these assumptions, wow. Are they meant to be insults too
> 
> Let me try...erm...I think your face is hilarious? Your stupidity? Your inadequacy as a human being? Not sure how well I did, pick one.




There is a difference between the obtuse and the direct. The difference is often subtle, but is quantum in potential reactions from moderators.

You've been cut a fair amount of slack because of the subject matter... but just saying.. use pejorative  a bit more subtley()


----------



## Starcraftmazter (19 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> There is a difference between the obtuse and the direct. The difference is often subtle, but is quantum in potential reactions from moderators.




So what you're saying is moderation is biased. That's ok, not a new phenomena.


----------



## wayneL (19 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> So what you're saying is moderation is biased. .




Yes! You have been cut a bit more slack than usual.

Use this wisely.


----------



## IFocus (19 July 2011)

Haven't read the thread (apologies GG's) but have been watching the http://www.letour.fr/us/index.html Evans still 2 minutes plus out from the front oh and lots of helmets.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 July 2011)

IFocus said:


> Haven't read the thread (apologies GG's) but have been watching the http://www.letour.fr/us/index.html Evans still 2 minutes plus out from the front oh and lots of helmets.




Ah Letour, gauloise, gitane, wenches, vin ordinaire and lycra.

At those speeds, I would allow a helmet, as long as it was voluntary.

But for the ordinary French head of he IMF type, only while abed, to protect the wallpaper.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 July 2011)

From the Graudian, a left wing in your face population controlling rag.





These three thespians are setting off on a tour of Lavender Hill in London, July 2011.

Note the absence of lycra and foam head gear.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/video/2011/jul/27/lavender-hill-mob-cycle-tour-video

Cannot Australia's controlling and mothering luvvies, not follow suit.  

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 October 2011)

There is a poll on ABC The Drum as to whether bicycle helmets should be worn on National Ride to Work Day.

The logical bike riders who abhor helmets are ahead 52% to 48% after 3290 votes.

Vote now.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/

It is in the lower right hand area surrounded by leftist propaganda.

gg


----------



## Julia (12 October 2011)

I've just voted and note that, although it's two hours on from your post, gg, the % is still 52% to 48%.  Seems a bit odd.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 October 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> There is a poll on ABC The Drum as to whether bicycle helmets should be worn on National Ride to Work Day.
> 
> The logical bike riders who abhor helmets are ahead 52% to 48% after 3290 votes.
> 
> ...






Julia said:


> I've just voted and note that, although it's two hours on from your post, gg, the % is still 52% to 48%.  Seems a bit odd.





It is a bit odd. The ABC wouldn't stack a poll that proposed freedom of thought, so it may just be co-incidence.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 December 2011)

The Brisbane experiment with free bicycles has foundered.

They know not what why.

It is because people have to wear helmets.

They should look to Europe.

Bicycle helmets kill by discouraging folk from riding bicycles.



> BRISBANE'S beleaguered bike hire scheme is still struggling to attract subscribers, despite dropping its prices in August.
> 
> CityCycle patronage figures were released by Brisbane City Council Tuesday night, revealing the scheme had 2562 annual subscribers in October.
> 
> ...




http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/.../story-e6freoof-1226216562595?from=public_rss

gg


----------



## Agentm (23 April 2012)

round the bay in a day is selling fast, so the lycra speeding foam heads will be strutting their stuff for charity yet again.  helmet are good for mounting cameras, this youtube clip of a cyclist in melbourne bears testament on how useful the helmet is in a crash scenario, as any cyclist knows, cars are the natural enemy of the cyclist and drivers will get, even if your the only one out there like the youtube clip demonstrates..!!  i would never ride without one, i have seen too many cars crunch cyclists myself, the last one was a chick that this guy took out, she ended up in hospital, and she was unconscious when we looked after her until the ambulance arrived, i ended up taking the drivers coat off him and wrapped her in it as it was a freezing morning, the good thing was it kept her warm, and her blood stained the coat so much it was something he never would be wearing again.. the cops nailed him bigtime for running her down.  without her helmet she would have had more severe head trauma than she sustained, but she regained consciousness just as the medics arrived..  ride safe and keep those helmets on out there!!


----------



## Boggo (23 April 2012)

The piccy below was taken during the period when the bike lane was operational.
We do have more than our quota of special needs drivers in SA though.

Cars are not the problem, the clowns that get a licence when they are sixteen and then spend the rest of their lives endangering others with their ignorance are the problem.

(and a pic of a pic of me with my helmet on   )


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 April 2012)

I still reckon bicycle helmets are killers.

How many folk don't ride their bikes anymore because of them. They get fat and then die from thrombosis.

The lycra mob are just loonies, speeding around, pissing everyone off with their antics at speed. 

People should be allowed ride bicycles in a relaxed manner without bicycle helmets as they can in Amsterdam, Paris and London.

gg


----------



## dutchie (23 April 2012)

Boggo said:


> (and a pic of a pic of me with my helmet on   )




Should it not have a strap?


----------



## breaker (23 April 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I do wish your mum had not stopped breastfeeding.
> 
> I think bicycle helmets are hilarious.
> 
> gg




+100


----------



## craft (3 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I still reckon bicycle helmets are killers.
> 
> How many folk don't ride their bikes anymore because of them. They get fat and then die from thrombosis.





I have sympathy for the point GG is making.

However yesterday I managed to have my second helmet breaking accident after a driver didn't see me. 

There's many sides to the argument, but after a bit of experience helmets are not optional for me or my family even if they were optional by law. 


I can recall helmets becoming compulsory when I was a kid and not being overly impressed, so I guess if helmets were optional there would have at least been a time in my life when I would have not worn one. I'm glad somebody forced me into the habit of wearing a helmet. 

I suspect there is many other aspects bigger then compulsory wearing of helmets that impact on developing a more generalist bike culture in Aus.


----------



## numbercruncher (3 June 2012)

The main reason for helmets is because of the cars that can hit people rendering them dead or worse.

If we drop the city roadspeed to 30klm an hour or have dedicated cycling roadway we could relatively safely drop helmet laws - outside of these safer areas helmets certainly save lifes ...

I also find it amusing that people dont ride bikes because of helmets - are we saying because of vanity ? They dont like the look?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 June 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> The main reason for helmets is because of the cars that can hit people rendering them dead or worse.
> 
> If we drop the city roadspeed to 30klm an hour or have dedicated cycling roadway we could relatively safely drop helmet laws - outside of these safer areas helmets certainly save lifes ...
> 
> I also find it amusing that people dont ride bikes because of helmets - are we saying because of vanity ? They dont like the look?




There are 3 reasons I don't wear a bicycle helmet.

1. they are uncomfortable.
2. they are unnecessary, as I cycle and don't race in lycra.
3. bystanders cannot admire my flowing locks.

gg


----------



## ColB (3 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> There are 3 reasons I don't wear a bicycle helmet.
> 
> 1. they are uncomfortable.
> 2. they are unnecessary, as I cycle and don't race in lycra.
> ...




GG

1.  Are you sure you are not putting the helmet on back to front?
2.  You don't have to be racing or wearing lycra to crash.  You could just as easily fall off your bike slipping on a Cane Toad
3.  Hope they're 'thick flowing locks' when you do bang your scone on the ground


----------



## gav (30 September 2012)

I saw this article and immediately thought of our good friend Garpul Gumnut.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/s...-forget-about-helmets.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

Although I must say I am surprised to see an article an article promoting helmet-free riding in the NYT.


----------



## Logique (1 October 2012)

Good find Gav, full of quotable quotes, "helmet-lax" Dublin with more than three times the take up of Melbourne. Cycling in Australia like "riding with the bulls". Garpal would love it.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (1 October 2012)

I'm surprised that this ridiculous thread is still going.

The thread topic _still_ has not been proven yet. Bicycle helmets have yet to kill anyone.......


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 December 2012)

The helmet wearing and lycra clad cycling ideologues are now pursuing Shane Warne, a Cricketing Hero and safe driver for his road safety campaign.

When will this all end?

I myself am confined to my house for unpaid fines for not wearing a bloody helmet when I have never ever fallen off a sedately ridden bike.

These lycra jokers need to be banned from our roads and confined to skate parks.

From the SMH.

A paper not friendly to sedate bike riders with many metrosexual lycra clad and helmet wearing readers.

http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/cyclists-in-spin-over-warnes-tac-role-20121219-2bmph.html

gg


----------



## Crows (21 December 2012)

Maybe I am just really lucky.. But I have never hit my head when I come off my bike. Ever since I was a kid, I have always had the reflex of doing everything possible to keep my head up when I come off. I've even managed to be sitting on top of my bike whilst it's falling to the side and when I hit the ground, I was literally sitting on the side of my bike. Don't ask me how I did it though, it happened so fast I was a little confused and more worried about the bike! Generally I take the skin off of my shoulder/arm/hand to avoid my head hitting the ground. Oh and yes, the majority of these weren't slow paced rides either, generally around the 30 - 40km/hr speeds.

Now I've said that, I would also like to say I think the helmets do help you more than not when you crash and happen to hit your head. I mean you might look odd with one, but hey, protection is protection. Maybe helmets should be a choice thing, but if you chose not to wear a helmet and you injure your head without one, Medicare shouldn't cover a thing when it comes to the doctors bill. Also, children under the age of 18 should be forced to wear a helmet, after that age then I guess they're old enough to make their own decisions. People over the age of 18 have the right to become drunks and kill themselves over the years through alcohol poisoning, so I can see the no helmet discussion having some merit to the argument.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 December 2012)

Uncle Festivus said:


> I'm surprised that this ridiculous thread is still going.
> 
> The thread topic _still_ has not been proven yet. Bicycle helmets have yet to kill anyone.......




Surprise is good for you Uncle, it clears out the cobwebs.

The central tenet of my argument is, and this is proven, that less people are riding bicycles than in the 50's and 60's.

This has contributed to a sedentary life style for the majority.

There has been a co-incidental rise in Australia, of fast and furious bicycle riders travelling in packs wearing lycra and helmets. They need both, for safety and self esteem. The former because of the speeds they reach and the latter because all groups of self-righteous people need a uniform for identity. Many of these jokers mow down pedestrians on shared recreational paths. Perhaps you believe that as a result walkers should be obliged to wear armour when they share these paths.

On the other hand, slow riders on traditional bicycles such as I, are hounded by the constabulary for refusing to wear a helmet. 

More worryingly many people of my ilk find a helmet a bother, uncomfortable to wear and are dissuaded from riding by fascist laws.

Thus bicycle helmets kill by discouraging the Australian population from availing of a safe, clean and enjoyable mode of transport. they become fat and lazy, drive Camry's and die early either from cholesterol or the shame of having to drive such a ridiculous motor car.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 January 2013)

Thankfully another bikeshop chain is in trouble.

They need to cater for people who want just to ride a bike, not break 90kph in a peleton, if they want to make a quid.

http://www.smh.com.au/small-business/managing/hard-to-brake-even-as-another-bike-store-struggles-20130104-2c8bd.html

Once this silly law about helmets is removed there will be a resurgence in bike riding, for the relaxed, those who like to sachet with a Winfield in their mouth, riding to buy a battered fish with a half scoop of chips, comfortable and happy with the world.

Now it is confined to aggressive peleton riders with challenged balls and monthly visits to their doctors for injections.

gg


----------



## Julia (5 January 2013)

+1.


----------



## Logique (6 January 2013)

At a favourite holiday haunt last week, I noticed they're building a cycleway via public subscription, using embedded sponsorship tiles. With his sponsorship, GG appears to have stolen a march on the helmet overlords, and his message is clearly resonating with the cycling public.


----------



## Ijustnewit (6 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Surprise is good for you Uncle, it clears out the cobwebs.
> 
> The central tenet of my argument is, and this is proven, that less people are riding bicycles than in the 50's and 60's.
> 
> ...




GG , It's the addiction to everything carbon fibre and your wife's lady gillette that gets them. Shaving of some hair whilst shaving off some seconds on that run to the Coffee Club for an expresso soy chino latte with 2 equals.
I prefer steel and hairy legs combined with fuax leather panniers whilst I glide down to Salamanca to purchase my organic twice planted cabbages.
I can't believe your Camry comment , I have been wondering about this phenomenon for many years . Why do all old people drive Gold Camry's ? The Silver ones are no better , it now signals to me as a warning sign to steer well clear of these gutter hugging wrinklies. Perhaps MythBusters could investigate the reason why they buy them.
Perhaps another thread could be started ? "Gold Camry sightings and driving stunts".


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 January 2013)

Ijustnewit said:


> GG , It's the addiction to everything carbon fibre and your wife's lady gillette that gets them. Shaving of some hair whilst shaving off some seconds on that run to the Coffee Club for an expresso soy chino latte with 2 equals.
> I prefer steel and hairy legs combined with fuax leather panniers whilst I glide down to Salamanca to purchase my organic twice planted cabbages.
> I can't believe your Camry comment , I have been wondering about this phenomenon for many years . Why do all old people drive Gold Camry's ? The Silver ones are no better , it now signals to me as a warning sign to steer well clear of these gutter hugging wrinklies. Perhaps MythBusters could investigate the reason why they buy them.
> Perhaps another thread could be started ? "Gold Camry sightings and driving stunts".




While generally agreeing with you, I should make some statements.

1. I never comment on Mrs Gumnut's fifty shades of blonde.

2. Camry's are a sign of cognitive deficit, a much better marker than any IQ test. If someone seeks a Camry, their license should be immediately removed.

3. If the fascist rule on bike helmets were removed one would meet a less aggressive cyclist than at present. Cycling now is a haven for frustrated Greens who do not have the availability of, or the capacity to root.

gg


----------



## Logique (13 January 2013)

Apropos the _Lycra Larrikins_, I found this article amusing.

Beware the lone wolf in Lycra  - 13 Jan 2013
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/beware-the-lone-wolf-in-lycra-20130112-2cmbt.html



> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/beware-the-lone-wolf-in-lycra-20130112-2cmbt.html
> 
> "..The first thing we have noted is that any cyclist wearing their own - ordinary - clothes is the pedestrian's friend, particularly women who cycle in wide skirts (Mad Men style), sitting bolt upright behind the basket on their handlebars.."
> 
> ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 January 2013)

Logique said:


> At a favourite holiday haunt last week, I noticed they're building a cycleway via public subscription, using embedded sponsorship tiles. With his sponsorship, GG appears to have stolen a march on the helmet overlords, and his message is clearly resonating with the cycling public.
> View attachment 50291
> View attachment 50292






Logique said:


> Apropos the _Lycra Larrikins_, I found this article amusing.
> 
> Beware the lone wolf in Lycra  - 13 Jan 2013
> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/beware-the-lone-wolf-in-lycra-20130112-2cmbt.html




Thanks logique,

Keep up with the excellent quotes against this lycra madness

As a public service may I ask you to indicate to your local council that I am available for any ceremonies to make any path, street, road, brothel or other public space, where bicycle helmets are now mandated, helmet free.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 January 2013)

This joker Armstrong is one of the main proponents of killing by bicycle helmets.

He dopes himself up to the eyeballs and popularises a passtime where idiots with small balls and large wheels, whisk about the countryside and walking paths terrorising others at speed.

The government, as is it's wont, then knee jerks and mandates bicycle helmets for all cyclists.

This discriminates against cyclists like I who sachay with a Winfield twixt my lips to my local newsagent for my copy of the Australian Financial Review of a morning.

I have even had ladies upon my bar without helmets and all enjoyed the experience.

Let us put an end to this silly law, and mandate helmets only for the lycra crew, and druggies like Armstrong.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 January 2013)

Why are there more cyclists in Amsterdam than Brisbane?

Answer me that, you lycra clad doped up 85kph indigents.

The answer is that in Amsterdam there is no fascist law to wear a silly smegma helmet, and people cycle, and do not emulate psychopaths like Lance Armstrong.

Let us change this silly law.

gg


----------



## burglar (26 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Why are there more cyclists in Amsterdam than Brisbane? ...




9. Nobody wears helmets or neon vests

http://www.theurbancountry.com/2012/03/10-observations-about-bicycling-in.html


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 January 2013)

burglar said:


> 9. Nobody wears helmets or neon vests
> 
> http://www.theurbancountry.com/2012/03/10-observations-about-bicycling-in.html




Thanks for the support, burglar.

The coppers in Townsville, I have been told, are now instructed not to stop me when I ride my sedate bicycle without a helmet.

The Creek Prison is overflowing.

Helmets may be necessary for the lycra clad, 85kph nuts, but I see no reason to wear fluoro or other obscenities such as a helmet.

More folk would buy bicycles and ride them if this stupid law were removed.

Bicycle helmets kill by impacting on the fitness of folk such as I, who are put off riding bicycles by these stupid helmets.

gg


----------



## bellenuit (27 January 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> More folk would buy bicycles and ride them if this stupid law were removed.
> 
> Bicycle helmets kill by impacting on the fitness of folk such as I, who are put off riding bicycles by these stupid helmets.
> 
> gg




+1  I feel exactly the same.


----------



## Logique (27 January 2013)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/s...ties-forget-about-helmets.html?pagewanted=all
*To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets*
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL  - Published: 29 September 2012





> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/s...ties-forget-about-helmets.html?pagewanted=all
> ...In their short lives, Europe’s bike-sharing systems have delivered myriad benefits, notably reducing traffic and its *carbon emissions*.....One common denominator of successful bike programs around the world ”” from Paris to Barcelona to Guangzhou ”” is that almost no one wears a helmet, and there is no pressure to do so...
> 
> ....On the other hand, many researchers say, if you force or pressure people to wear helmets, you discourage them from riding bicycles. *That means more obesity, heart disease and diabetes*....... The safest biking cities are places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, where middle-aged commuters are mainstay riders and the fraction of adults in helmets is minuscule....
> ...


----------



## aquilarealestate (28 January 2013)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



MrBurns said:


> I think if you ride a bicycle on the roads these days, or even a motor bike for that matter, you have a death wish. Helmets will prevent serious head injury in a lot of cases, but if they're that worried about health why dont they ban cigarettes ?




I agree with Mr Burns yeah why they don't ban cigarettes or alcohol ? Ridding drunk can also be a cause of death


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 January 2013)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Logique said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/s...ties-forget-about-helmets.html?pagewanted=all
> *To Encourage Biking, Cities Lose the Helmets*
> By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL  - Published: 29 September 2012
> View attachment 50615






> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/su...pagewanted=all
> ...In their short lives, Europe’s bike-sharing systems have delivered myriad benefits, notably reducing traffic and its carbon emissions.....One common denominator of successful bike programs around the world ”” from Paris to Barcelona to Guangzhou ”” is that almost no one wears a helmet, and there is no pressure to do so...
> 
> ....On the other hand, many researchers say, if you force or pressure people to wear helmets, you discourage them from riding bicycles. That means more obesity, heart disease and diabetes....... The safest biking cities are places like Amsterdam and Copenhagen, where middle-aged commuters are mainstay riders and the fraction of adults in helmets is minuscule....
> ...






aquilarealestate said:


> I agree with Mr Burns yeah why they don't ban cigarettes or alcohol ? Ridding drunk can also be a cause of death




Thanks everyone for supporting riding bikes without bicycle helmets.

gg


----------



## shermerhorn (31 January 2013)

*Re: Bicycycle Helmets Kill*



Naked shorts said:


> I was riding to uni once with out my helmet (I was late to my class). Mr policeman pulled me over and proceeded to ask me questions, he asked what degree I was doing, I told him engineering, he asked me what would the force be if my head hit the gutter, I told him it would be a big one, to which he told me was correct.
> 
> He let me off with a warning and I had to walk my bike the rest of the way
> 
> So you see, we live in a cotton ball environment here in Australia, and I dont see that changing anytime soon.




Been their done that! Yeah, but you can't lament the law-makers coming up with wimp-laws to have people protect their heads. Blame the idiots who sue at the drop of a hat when things go wrong. Even if you're the only one who would could possibly suffer, you can't decided on your own risks and take them. But we can't blame the pollies for that one, that's strictly with the personal injury lawyers and the delicate petals who do something stupid, then want to blame someone else. 

I'm sure you'd have been happy with (or at least accepting of) your fate if you flew off your bike and cracked your skull. Many might be in the same boat. But a good many more will be ready to blame someone else and too gutless to own their bad luck and admit fault. That's the problem right there.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 February 2013)

The interests of gentle bicycle riders such as I have been severely damaged by increasing reports of " Lycra Boys " abusing and pursuing motorists.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/motorist-claims-he-was-threatened-by-group-of-cyclists-during-road-rage-incident-in-west-end/story-e6freoof-1226577414306



> Mr Hull said the group, which he called the "Lycra boys", stopped across the road from his workshop and started making threats against him and his business. Ignoring the group's calls to come across the road, Mr Hull remained in his repair shop.






> A PEACEFUL commute to work took a turn for the worse in Brisbane's West End, with a motorist claiming he was threatened and abused by a group of cyclists after going head-to-head for control of the roads.
> 
> West End business owner Mervyn Hull claims a group of irate cyclists turned up at his Montague Rd business making threats and yelling obscenities after a traffic dispute on a suburban road minutes earlier.




The only way to manage roid addled Lycra cyclists is to remove the quasi-fascist law on bicycle helmets and encourage the masses to ride bicycles, as is done in most European countries.

gg


----------



## dutchie (15 February 2013)

MOTORISTS watched in amazement as a woman held a baby while dinking on a bicycle in peak-hour traffic. 



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/vi...ts-shocking-ride/story-e6frf7kx-1226578248716








Thank god the baby was safe - he/she was not wearing a helmet!!!   

Obviously caring parents protecting their child!


----------



## Julia (25 February 2013)

gg, maybe a further impost on cyclists to upset you:   poll in Qld suggests 53% think cyclists should have to be licensed.


----------



## Boggo (25 February 2013)

Julia said:


> gg, maybe a further impost on cyclists to upset you:   poll in Qld suggests 53% think cyclists should have to be licensed.




Great idea I think. As a cyclist and driver of a 4WD I will be able to drive or ride my bike in any lane at any speed for an annual cost of about $10 based on the formula for calculating rego fees.

I suppose that I may need to get a boat licence for my wave board too while we are going down that path.


----------



## MrBurns (25 February 2013)

Boggo said:


> Great idea I think. As a cyclist and driver of a 4WD I will be able to drive or ride my bike in any lane at any speed for an annual cost of about $10 based on the formula for calculating rego fees.
> 
> .



Yes it even includes a funeral plan which will come in handy


----------



## Maxamud (25 February 2013)

I think the law is silly.

Maybe kids should have to wear helmets, but Adults should be able to make their own choice whether to wear a helmet or not.


----------



## Boggo (25 February 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Yes it even includes a funeral plan which will come in handy




Probably a good inclusion actually.

"Me an Shazza wus drivin in the ute an havin a coupla tinnys of beam an coke while I was yakkin to Bazza on the phone then nekminnit ****in goose on a bike wus in our way an bang!"


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 February 2013)

Buy this book.

An excellent critique of paternalism and the nanny state.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/mar/07/its-your-own-good/?pagination=false

A quote from John Stuart Mill's " On Liberty "



> the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or mental, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.




gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2013)

I have again been targetted by the law, for not wearing a bicycle helmet whilst sachaying along Bundock St. in Townsville to an important soiree.

It may come before the courts.

I note that even the Guardian UK, a left wing union and public service rag is now coming out against the usefulness of bicycle helmets.

Helmets kill.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/15/cycling-helmet-law-bmj-study-hospitals?CMP=twt_gu



> Researchers said that while helmets reduce head injuries and should be encouraged, the decrease in hospital admissions in Canada, where the law is in place in some regions, seems to have been "minimal".
> 
> The authors examined data concerning all 66,000 cycling-related injuries in Canada between 1994 and 2008 – 30% of which were head injuries.
> 
> ...




gg


----------



## FlyingFox (15 May 2013)

Whether it is law or not, you would be pretty stupid not to wear a helmet. A close friend and colleague of mine has suffered through traumatic brain injury due to a hockey incident and it is not something you want to go through.

I think the law is in place to try and reduce the incidences of head injuries and the associated cost. Cost of helmet $25-$250, cost of traumatic brain injury to medicare 20-250K (just my back of envelope figures), cost to nation would be much higher.

So if the law is repelled, I would suggest that any one who is injured not wearing a helmet should then have to look after themselves.

Open question to any of the posters. Anyone ride road/racer cycles with toe clips/ clipless pedals?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Whether it is law or not, you would be pretty stupid not to wear a helmet. A close friend and colleague of mine has suffered through traumatic brain injury due to a hockey incident and it is not something you want to go through.
> 
> I think the law is in place to try and reduce the incidences of head injuries and the associated cost. Cost of helmet $25-$250, cost of traumatic brain injury to medicare 20-250K (just my back of envelope figures), cost to nation would be much higher.
> 
> ...




There is no evidence, and I repeat no evidence that wearing a bicycle helmet improves the health of a population, rather it dimishes the health by discouraging cycling.

I know less about hockey than I do about ludo, so cannot comment.

To get back to your point.

You are extrapolating an individual experience to the general. 

A mate of yours was injured and tragically suffered a brain injury playing hockey. This does not necessarily mean that wearing helmets improves the prevalence of brain injury playing hockey.

gg


----------



## FlyingFox (15 May 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> There is no evidence, and I repeat no evidence that wearing a bicycle helmet improves the health of a population, rather it dimishes the health by discouraging cycling.
> 
> I know less about hockey than I do about ludo, so cannot comment.
> 
> ...





I was providing an example of someone I knew who has suffered a TBI which was similar to what a cyclist might suffer if they hit the pavement head first. I was not extrapolating from that.

The articles you point to are biased in that there is no absolute baseline. You can't assume everyone wasn't wearing a helmet before and everyone wore a helmet after the law came into force. Also they were looking at incidence of head injury and not severity. 

There is ample evidence showing that a helmet that is fit for purpose reduces your chances of severe brain injury. Most of these are mechanical analysis of impact etc and therefore will be challenged. 

I therefore provide a link to an article ( and in it to a scientific article in the medical journal of Australia) looking at the severity of head injuries in cyclists and motor cyclists presenting to the emergency department at a hospital in Sydney. They found a 5 times increased likelihood of severe brain injuries in cyclists without helmets with each new case of TBI costing Australia $4.5 million.

http://theconversation.com/bike-helmets-an-emergency-doctors-perspective-13935


----------



## bellenuit (15 May 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> There is no evidence, and I repeat no evidence that wearing a bicycle helmet improves the health of a population, rather it dimishes the health by discouraging cycling.




This seems to me to be a situation where both of you are right. At a population level there is no improvement in overall health as it discourages some if not many being more active. At an individual level it reduces the risk of serious injury to that person. 

But then as an individual who likes cycling, wouldn't you be better off wearing a helmet, if wearing a helmet is not in your case going to discourage you from cycling. You get the increased activity and reduce your risk of injury at the same time.  

BTW, I am against helmets being compulsory, but I rarely cycle.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> I was providing an example of someone I knew who has suffered a TBI which was similar to what a cyclist might suffer if they hit the pavement head first. I was not extrapolating from that.
> 
> The articles you point to are biased in that there is no absolute baseline. You can't assume everyone wasn't wearing a helmet before and everyone wore a helmet after the law came into force. Also they were looking at incidence of head injury and not severity.
> 
> ...




Recent evidence based article make yours redundant. 

That study is so full of holes, it is recognised as being redundant.

I could as well argue that if everyone from birth to old age on waking wore a helmet that the incidence of head injuries would decrease.

And for the fecund, that the wearing of a helmet on retiring for a naughtie would obviate that rare bedhead knock leading to an ABI. ( Acquired brain injury )

The study you quote is a point in time and lacks validity and any likelihood ratios.

I prefer the wind in my hair on a bicycle and the scent of a Marlboro.

gg


----------



## FlyingFox (15 May 2013)

bellenuit said:


> This seems to me to be a situation where both of you are right. At a population level there is no improvement in overall health as it discourages some if not many being more active. At an individual level it reduces the risk of serious injury to that person.
> 
> But then as an individual who likes cycling, wouldn't you be better off wearing a helmet, if wearing a helmet is not in your case going to discourage you from cycling. You get the increased activity and reduce your risk of injury at the same time.
> 
> BTW, I am against helmets being compulsory, but I rarely cycle.




Personally, helmets discouraging cycling is a mute point. There should be no reason to be discouraged from cycling just because you have to wear a helmet. As pointed out in the article, general safety, lack of bike paths are more of a disincentive. 

I stopped riding for a long time due to the later reasons.


----------



## FlyingFox (15 May 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Recent evidence based article make yours redundant.
> 
> That study is so full of holes, it is recognised as being redundant.
> 
> ...




What exactly is redundant? There are many more case-control studies that replicate the findings. Look at case-control studies under en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet. Plenty of odds ratios there...

P.S I am digging up the MJA article and will post ratios on this later ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Personally, helmets discouraging cycling is a mute point. There should be no reason to be discouraged from cycling just because you have to wear a helmet. As pointed out in the article, general safety, lack of bike paths are more of a disincentive.
> 
> I stopped riding for a long time due to the later reasons.




Go to Europe mate.

Heaps of cyclists.

No helmets.

It's a happy place.

Australia is a risk averse place, with totalitarian laws on safety.

The lycra mob have made cycling in to a blood sport requiring helmets, rather than a pleasant morning activity, with a Marlboro between one's lips, on the way to the newsagent to pick up one's paper.

Show me one evidence based study proving that bicycle helmets improve the health of a population and i'll shout you a carton of Marlboro.







gg


----------



## Bort (15 May 2013)

Definitely a subject for freakonomics three. More people die in the us from walking home drunk that by drink driving. No more working around drunk? More people die each year from grid iron head injuries that shark attacks. No more grid iron? 

Causality assumptions in research ate their finest.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2013)

Bort said:


> Definitely a subject for freakonomics three. More people die in the us from walking home drunk that by drink driving. No more working around drunk? More people die each year from grid iron head injuries that shark attacks. No more grid iron?
> 
> Causality assumptions in research ate their finest.




Thanks for the support Bort.

I sometimes feel like the one eyed man in the land of the blind.

Evidence:

Free bicycles Paris, London, Dusseldorf, Berlin, Amsterdam, Stockholm  a huge suuccess........ no helmets required.

Free bicycles Brisbane  a dismal failure ......helmets required.

And the number of people dying from heart attacks because they don't ride bicycles is enormous.

The Totalitarian Lycra mob control, with no evidence.

And they have government support.

Typical nanny state.

gg


----------



## FlyingFox (15 May 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Go to Europe mate.
> 
> Heaps of cyclists.
> 
> ...




And also very different road conditions including car free zones and culture.



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Australia is a risk averse place, with totalitarian laws on safety.
> 
> The lycra mob have made cycling in to a blood sport requiring helmets, rather than a pleasant morning activity, with a Marlboro between one's lips, on the way to the newsagent to pick up one's paper.




I don't see cyclist campaigning for mandatory helmets. They do however regularly campaign for better paths and increased awareness.  



Garpal Gumnut said:


> Show me one evidence based study proving that bicycle helmets improve the health of a population and i'll shout you a carton of Marlboro.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What do you mean by evidence based study?  All previous studies provide evidence. A randomized control trail? You know that is not possible...

BTW extract from the paper ...



> Trauma registry data on such patients admitted to seven tertiary level hospitals in Sydney, New South Wales (Liverpool, St George, Royal Prince Alfred, Westmead, Royal North Shore, St Vincent’s and Prince of Wales hospitals) between July 2008 and June 2009 were obtained. Patients were included if they were aged 15 years or over with an incident occurring on a public road. The Abbreviated Injury Scale and Injury Severity Score were used to classify body regions and severity of injury, respectively. Helmet use, incident and other injury details were routinely collected by trained data and case managers from standard ambulance and trauma clinical case notes. Inhospital costs were calculated using standardised cost weights (NSW Program and Product Data Collection, 2008–09). Primary outcomes were any head injury and severe head injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale severity score ﰀ 3), including significant intracranial haemorrhages, and diffuse axonal injury. Logistic regression was used to determine odds ratios for head injury and severe head injury, adjusting for age (as a continuous variable) and location of incident (based on incident postcode) as a-priori confounders based on previous work.2
> There were 398 cases identified. Of these, 50 patients (13%) had missing helmet information, leaving 348 cases analysed. Baseline characteristics stratified by helmet use are shown in the Box. For any head injury associated with helmet non-use, the adjusted odds ratio was 5.6 (95% CI, 2.1–14.9; P < 0.001) for pedal cyclists and 2.2 (95% CI, 0.9–5.0; P = 0.06) for motorcyclists, compared with helmeted patients in each group. For severe head injury associated with helmet non-use, the adjusted odds ratio was 5.5 (95% CI, 1.5–20.6; P =
> 0.01) for pedal cyclists and 3.5 (95% CI, 1.3–8.9; P = 0.01) for motorcyclists, compared with helmeted patients in each group. For the 50 patients with severe head injury, inhospital costs (AUD) were around three times higher in non-helmeted patients (median, $72 000; interquartile range, $33 000–$140 000) compared with helmeted patients (median, $24 000; interquartile range, $15 000–$60 000) (P = 0.02).


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2013)

The p is suss.

gg


----------



## FlyingFox (15 May 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Free bicycles Brisbane  a dismal failure ......helmets required.




And this can't be for any other reason right? When I lived in Brisbane, I used to ride to work. Bike paths the majority of the way except that the last 500m was on Adelaide street. 

After being abused regularly and possibly injured on a few occasion due to cars passing too close or drivers opening doors without looking, I stopped ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> And this can't be for any other reason right? When I lived in Brisbane, I used to ride to work. Bike paths the majority of the way except that the last 500m was on Adelaide street.
> 
> After being abused regularly and possibly injured on a few occasion due to cars passing too close or drivers opening doors without looking, I stopped ...




I would if I were in that situation walk my bike down Adelaide St., for the last 500m of my trip. It's only 500m for gawds sake.

It has some of the most beautiful women and men, of a morning, depending on your preference, on which you could gaze, without having a lycra induced kerfuffle with motorists.

Bike paths are for muppets intent on flaying pedestrians and slow , Marlboro puffing cyclists, such as I with their sweat, horrible calves and small arses.

You have still not addressed the very suss p values on the dodgy study you posted above.

You are a bounder sir.

gg


----------



## FlyingFox (15 May 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I would if I were in that situation walk my bike down Adelaide St., for the last 500m of my trip. It's only 500m for gawds sake.
> 
> It has some of the most beautiful women and men, of a morning, depending on your preference, on which you could gaze, without having a lycra induced kerfuffle with motorists.
> 
> ...




 Which p is suss? only one above 0.05 is for motor cyclists.


----------



## Some Dude (16 May 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> There is no evidence, and I repeat no evidence that wearing a bicycle helmet improves the health of a population, rather it dimishes the health by discouraging cycling.
> 
> I know less about hockey than I do about ludo, so cannot comment.
> 
> ...




You raise a good point about extrapolating individual experience. What is the wider evidence that you accept?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 May 2013)

Some Dude said:


> You raise a good point about extrapolating individual experience. What is the wider evidence that you accept?




Piet de Jong from Macquarie University has published an excellent paper on the net harm that bicycle helmets have done to public health versus their role in head injury.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1368064

Logique brought the above paper to my notice.

gg


----------



## FlyingFox (16 May 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Piet de Jong from Macquarie University has published an excellent paper on the net harm that bicycle helmets have done to public health versus their role in head injury.
> 
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1368064
> 
> ...




Have you read the paper or are you quoting from the abstract?

BTW. you have not said which p values where suss in regards to cyclists in the article I linked to earlier?


----------



## Some Dude (16 May 2013)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Piet de Jong from Macquarie University has published an excellent paper on the net harm that bicycle helmets have done to public health versus their role in head injury.
> 
> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1368064
> 
> ...




Good to see you're not letting Popper's falsification prevent you from applying models for ascertaining something. Perhaps you will see the benefit in other areas also?

With regard to that study, have you read it and able to discuss the details of the model, the inputs and the outputs? In particular, is the the loss in μ compensated for by other potential activities or assumed a complete loss?

Have you read other studies on the topic? And no, I haven't but might start looking into it.

Edit:

Another thought. If after any other issues, the model can show that helmets do provide safer riding but the disincentive outweights the benefit, could a policy be designed that kept the helmets but provided other incentives?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 May 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Have you read the paper or are you quoting from the abstract?
> 
> BTW. you have not said which p values where suss in regards to cyclists in the article I linked to earlier?






Some Dude said:


> Good to see you're not letting Popper's falsification prevent you from applying models for ascertaining something. Perhaps you will see the benefit in other areas also?
> 
> With regard to that study, have you read it and able to discuss the details of the model, the inputs and the outputs? In particular, is the the loss in μ compensated for by other potential activities or assumed a complete loss?
> 
> ...




I must admit to you both that I feel rather naked in my quoting of pees and mews, and am awaiting some assistance from my good helmet less French mathematician mate, Pierre-Simon Laplace. 

I have probably overextended and misled on the p's. 

I still think helmets are bad for a population's health.

As for evidence, it's a bit like fighting weather scientists.

I'll take a Popper and think further on the evidence and numbers.

gg


----------



## Trembling Hand (31 July 2013)

> Bike riders save economy $21 on each commute




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/bike...ach-commute-20130730-2qxdg.html#ixzz2aa5QYztk

Thank you, I will take that in a tax reduction from the car drivers please....


----------



## CanOz (31 July 2013)

Trembling Hand said:


> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/bike...ach-commute-20130730-2qxdg.html#ixzz2aa5QYztk
> 
> Thank you, I will take that in a tax reduction from the car drivers please....




Hey, you don't commute, do you?


----------



## Trembling Hand (31 July 2013)

CanOz said:


> Hey, you don't commute, do you?




Not to get to "work".


----------



## bellenuit (2 August 2013)

*bellenuit*

Currently in Ireland having just spent 5 days in Amsterdam. I lived there 35 years ago, but there seems to be a lot more bicyclists now. Most bikes are the older style and the ladies go in for what we used call High Nellies. Bikes designed for comfort rather than speed. Almost everyone cycles at a leisurely pace, wearing their normal clothing and I saw none wearing helmets, except for a few Lycra clad speed freaks who spoiled it for everyone, especially pedestrians. Sitting at a cafe on the Leidseplein, there is a continuous stream of bicyclists passing and just thousands of bicycles parked along the street. I'm 100% sure that imposing mandatory helmets would destroy the great biking tradition the Dutch have.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 August 2013)

*Re: bellenuit*



bellenuit said:


> Currently in Ireland having just spent 5 days in Amsterdam. I lived there 35 years ago, but there seems to be a lot more bicyclists now. Most bikes are the older style and the ladies go in for what we used call High Nellies. Bikes designed for comfort rather than speed. Almost everyone cycles at a leisurely pace, wearing their normal clothing and I saw none wearing helmets, except for a few Lycra clad speed freaks who spoiled it for everyone, especially pedestrians. Sitting at a cafe on the Leidseplein, there is a continuous stream of bicyclists passing and just thousands of bicycles parked along the street. I'm 100% sure that imposing mandatory helmets would destroy the great biking tradition the Dutch have.




I would agree bellenuit.

Bicycle helmets kill by discouraging ordinary citizens from cycling at a leisurely pace without the ridiculous inconvenience of a polystyrene cap, thus contributing to obesity and heart disease.

The lycra steroid fuelled Sunday peleton mob of mis-shapened shaved legs do need them, but have imposed their will on lazy governments and an unwilling population.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 November 2013)

It seems that the eminently sensible Queensland Government may be the first to arrest the great toll that the bicycle helmet has inflicted on the Australian population.

The disincentive to sachay upon one's bicycle will be taken away by a move to allow cycists use bike paths without helmets.

More slow cyclists, better health for all, will be the response.

Next we need to ban lycra and fast bicycles from bicycle and pedestrian pathways.

http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/queensland-cyclists-to-get-1m-clearance-on-roads-permission-to-ride-without-helmets-under-proposed-laws/story-fnii5v6w-1226770826919



> The Transport, Housing and Local Government Committee will today table its 200-page report on cycling laws after a five-month inquiry.
> 
> The report includes 68 recommendations on issues from cyclists running stop signs to the disparity between penalties for cyclists and motorists.
> 
> ...




gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 January 2014)

> The reaction of bicyclists to intimations of their mortality seems somewhat different. For a start, the average pushbike rider doesn’t wear clothing that concedes the possibility of coming off as they hit top speed down a hill. The nanny state has decreed the little helmets, but beyond that, well, lycra goes better than leather with physical exertion.
> 
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/regulate-bicycles-off-the-road-20140117-30ytz.html#ixzz2qcKdDFly




A very interesting article from Michael Pascoe in the SMH today. Bicycles are dangerous, and a helmet does not make them less so, the way they are ridden on our highways.



> Regulate bicycles off the road



http://www.smh.com.au/business/regulate-bicycles-off-the-road-20140117-30ytz.html

My stance has been that having the ridiculous helmets encourages risk-taking by the speeders and impacts on the community's health by discouraging sensible riding away from highways.

gg


----------



## Trembling Hand (17 January 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> A very interesting article from Michael Pascoe in the SMH today. Bicycles are dangerous, and a helmet does not make them less so, the way they are ridden on our highways.




Yeah it is interesting. The point about if bicycles were invented now is a good one. If *everything *was invented now you wouldn't build cars and roads for them that are massively expensive, environmental destructive and cause people to be fat lazy and stupid.

Trains for bulk transport,
Roads and trucks for port to user,
Paths for pedestrians.
Public transport for bulk person transport.
Bikes and feet for everything else.

Huge congestion taxes for anyone who wants a car for personal transport, like $20 a short trip $1 a kilometre for every K over 50 ks travelled per day. 


No more fatties sucking my tax dollars. And no more stupid car drivers and their road rage.


----------



## McLovin (17 January 2014)

Trembling Hand said:


> Yeah it is interesting. The point about if bicycles were invented now is a good one. If *everything *was invented now you wouldn't build cars and roads for them that are massively expensive, environmental destructive and cause people to be fat lazy and stupid.
> 
> Trains for bulk transport,
> Roads and trucks for port to user,
> ...




I like your thinking. 

Forget the road rage, it's just morons who don't know how to drive, and Australia has more of them than any other country I've been to.


----------



## CanOz (17 January 2014)

McLovin said:


> it's just morons who don't know how to drive, and Australia has more of them than any other country I've been to.




You have got to be joking....you've been to China McLovin...and other parts of Asia. How can you say that? At least in Australia (or when i was there last) if you put a signal light on they'll let you in. They won't, time and time again, ignore right away. They will stop at pedestrian crossings and yield.

This is the worse driving I've seen but I've not been to India, which i hear i much worse than here..


----------



## McLovin (17 January 2014)

CanOz said:


> You have got to be joking....you've been to China McLovin...and other parts of Asia. How can you say that? At least in Australia (or when i was there last) if you put a signal light on they'll let you in. They won't, time and time again, ignore right away. They will stop at pedestrian crossings and yield.
> 
> This is the worse driving I've seen but I've not been to India, which i hear i much worse than here..




OK the developed world. 

Yes, Chinese drivers are pretty bad. I certainly no to give a wide berth to any Camry with doilies and curtains in it.


----------



## Boggo (17 January 2014)

McLovin said:


> Forget the road rage, it's just morons who don't know how to drive, and Australia has more of them than any other country I've been to.




Got to agree entirely with this. For a so called developed society we are way behind other modern countries in driver testing, education and attitude.

To compare ourselves with third world countries where they are transitioning from a camel or a rickshaw to a powered vehicle in one generation is totally misleading.

This was photographed in Adelaide today (cnr Tapleys Hill Rd and Port Rd going North), a vehicle in the right hand lane on the wrong side of the road attempting to turn right into opposite direction traffic.

Under Australian law this clown is allowed to provide driving instruction to a learner driver - anyone else see where the sub standard driver issue stems from ?


----------



## CanOz (17 January 2014)

Boggo said:


> Got to agree entirely with this. For a so called developed society we are way behind other modern countries in driver testing, education and attitude.
> 
> To compare ourselves with third world countries where they are transitioning from a camel or a rickshaw to a powered vehicle in one generation is totally misleading.
> 
> ...




This looks like someone thats used to driving on the right side of the road, like China, N.America etc...

In fact when i looked at it i wondered "whats wrong with that?". I have had many close calls where i've found myself on the wrong side of the road after a lengthy time in either Australia or abroad. IT takes a while to convert back and it catches you just when you think you've got it under control. 

I recall a time near the Warrnambool cheese and butter factory, i did the same and nearly ran head on into a pickup...then i found out a young Chinese couple was killed at that same intersection doing the same thing.

I find its easier when you are switching back and forth between right and left driving often. I dread driving in Australia when we eventually move back...


----------



## bellenuit (17 January 2014)

CanOz said:


> They will stop at pedestrian crossings and yield.




I can agree with that. In Thailand the most dangerous place to cross a road is at a pedestrian cross (at least in the provinces). Assuming traffic is going to stop gives you a false sense of security and you may not be as careful as you would otherwise. The pedestrian crossing is completely ignored and the traffic drives through without slowing.

In Vietnam it is no better. However, there is a knack to crossing the road. You should walk at a constant pace without looking at the traffic and they will "generally" avoid you. If you look at the traffic you will hesitate and confuse the drivers, likely causing an accident.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 March 2014)

Yet another study confirms that bicycle helmets are killers. 

They do so, by discouraging citizens from cycling, leaving bicycles the domain of the manic lycra and rich.

The average punter will not wear a helmet and is disadvantaged from cycling, enduring a life of hell in a Camry or on public transport.



> A recent study into the reasons for the disappointing usage of Australia’s two bike share schemes has confirmed what many people already know: public bike share will not work with mandatory helmet laws.
> 
> Usage rates of Brisbane’s CityCycle and the Melbourne Bike Share are terrible. This new research confirms what we have previously reported; that Brisbane and Melbourne are receiving only 5-10% of the usage we should expect of successful bike share schemes.
> 
> ...









When oh when will our legislators return bicycles to the masses?

gg


----------



## Trembling Hand (12 March 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Yet another study confirms that bicycle helmets are killers.




Link gg? That must be old.

I know you guys are a bit slow up there in North QLD due to the heat & humidity cooking your brains and making you talk with a funny drawl but they now come with helmets and the option to by your own for $5. It aint an issue.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 March 2014)

Trembling Hand said:


> Link gg? That must be old.
> 
> I know you guys are a bit slow up there in North QLD due to the heat & humidity cooking your brains and making you talk with a funny drawl but they now come with helmets and the option to by your own for $5. It aint an issue.




Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

Volume 15, Issue 6, November 2012, Pages 686–698

ps  James Joyce never wore an element.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 March 2014)

More and more cyclists are being maimed and killed by cycling on major thoroughfares nationwide. 

This is in no small part due to the encouragement of high speed on modern bicycles, and, bicycle helmets which give cyclists a false sense of security in a prang. 

It is time that our governments encouraged a more gentle sashaying on bicycles, without the penalty of having to wear a helmet and that cyclists are encouraged to not use highways and cycle at an economical speed.   

We are the only nation which mandates this ridiculous potty plastic headgear, in a vain attempt to deny the law of entropy when large vehicles collide with bicycles. 

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 March 2014)

The lycra mob are becoming more powerful and the Arnage will have to stay a metre or 1.5m away from them soon. 

This will make it more difficult to ban bicycle helmets, and the rich lycra cyclists with their grain-fed ham like calves will become more prevalent on our highways. 

Their sense of entitlement will increase and fast aggressive bicycle riding will become the norm. This will make a case to legislate even more mandatory law to wear a bicycle helmet.

An end will come to gentler souls such as I who cycle back from the bakery at 10.05am, for my first beer, sans helmet, a dorrie between my lips and a hot pie in hand, causing no person any harm or distress. 

Australia will become a land of bigots, bigotted against slow cycling and peaceful cycle riding.

Our politicians need to take this plague of lycra cyclists on board and perhaps have a Royal Commission, to ban bicycle helmets.

gg


----------



## Trembling Hand (26 March 2014)

Cannot believe I have to share the planet with people like this person that deliberately runs someone down. 

[video=youtube_share;bLAuktN2N10]http://youtu.be/bLAuktN2N10[/video]


----------



## CanOz (26 March 2014)

WTF?? Did they survive TH? Was the person charged and convicted?


----------



## Knobby22 (26 March 2014)

He survived, the helmet was cracked and he had bruising injuries.
She (25 year old) got fined $600 and was banned from driving for 3 months. 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...ied-from-driving/story-fnii5v70-1226859430056


----------



## Trembling Hand (26 March 2014)

You wanna feel your heart drop in horror???

Have a look at this close call and a little kid!

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10152080734854195&set=vb.696894194&type=2&theater


----------



## dutchie (26 March 2014)

Old Dutch proverb:

People who cycle on busy roads will soon be recycled.


----------



## Trembling Hand (26 March 2014)




----------



## CanOz (26 March 2014)

I think drivers should do a mandatory 3 months driving course in Shanghai and the surrounding suburbs. By the time you finished you'd have a new sense of awareness while driving. Its an exhausting exercise here, driving. We take public transport when ever we can i hate it that much. The scooters are the worst, but they sure improve your awareness, always running traffic lights, never replacing their burned out headlights...

I only cycle where i can stay on the cycle paths...very rarely going on the open road...


----------



## johenmo (27 March 2014)

You'd have to be brave to cycle in an indian city e.g.Delhi.  Need to drive/ride defensively to minimise collisions.  Aust drivers aren't any worse, there are idiots in all cultures.  I gave way to everything when i rode bikes, knowing I would come off second best in any prang.  What peeves me is cyclists riding on busy roads when a cycle lane or minor road runs in parallel.


----------



## Julia (27 March 2014)

johenmo said:


> What peeves me is cyclists riding on busy roads when a cycle lane or minor road runs in parallel.



+100.  And right out in the middle of the lane.


----------



## Trembling Hand (27 March 2014)

johenmo said:


> What peeves me is cyclists riding on busy roads when a cycle lane or minor road runs in parallel.






Julia said:


> +100.  And right out in the middle of the lane.




I never get this. If a few cyclist delay a motorist from racing to the next red light they slow them down maybe 10 seconds. Then they pass and can race off to the next red light.

*If I was in a car and the other cyclist were also in a car you would never get past!! Where is the logic in that?* 

In Melbourne CBD there is 10,000 cyclist trips a day. All the stupid car driver act like its the end of their life when they are delayed by a few seconds.... again to rush to the next red light..... would they prefer everyone else was in a car.... 10,000 frigging more of them each day to pass!!!


----------



## Julia (27 March 2014)

The point is, TH, why do cyclists not use the specifically designed bikeway which - at least here where I live - runs adjacent to the road.  It's empty while the cyclist insists on slowing traffic by riding in the middle of the lane at a speed considerably less than the posted limit.  On a two lane highway with constant traffic in both directions, it means almost no opportunity to pass and as a result a long line of banked up traffic.

Whole different story if there is no specifically designed bikeway.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 March 2014)

Julia said:


> The point is, TH, why do cyclists not use the specifically designed bikeway which - at least here where I live - runs adjacent to the road.  It's empty while the cyclist insists on slowing traffic by riding in the middle of the lane at a speed considerably less than the posted limit.  On a two lane highway with constant traffic in both directions, it means almost no opportunity to pass and as a result a long line of banked up traffic.
> 
> Whole different story if there is no specifically designed bikeway.




+200

Bike riders are a nuisance and slow traffic down. While I appreciate their fitness desires, maybe they should just go to the gym.


----------



## Trembling Hand (27 March 2014)

Julia said:


> The point is, TH, why do cyclists not use the specifically designed bikeway which - at least here where I live - runs adjacent to the road.  It's empty while the cyclist insists on slowing traffic by riding in the middle of the lane at a speed considerably less than the posted limit.  On a two lane highway with constant traffic in both directions, it means almost no opportunity to pass and as a result a long line of banked up traffic.
> 
> Whole different story if there is no specifically designed bikeway.




Mostly because they are designed for travel at 10-15 km per hour. Cyclist normally travel around 30 klm per hour average and at time much higher 40-50. Most bike paths are terribly designed by idiots who don't ride a bike (loose gravel for example). Then there are the people walking dogs and unaware pedestrians trying to mix with someone travelling 30-40 klm per hour.


I have hardly ever seen a person on a bike ride in the middle of the lane on a highway  without need. for example pot holes or high density of parked cars with thoughtless people opening doors into cyclists way. Are you sure that that happens


----------



## Trembling Hand (27 March 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Bike riders are a nuisance and slow traffic down. While I appreciate their fitness desires, maybe they should just go to the gym.




What if its their form of transport rather than another fat ar$e in a car clogging the road. In cities it IS NOT cyclist that slow down traffic. Its too many lazy people taking single occupancy trips in cars.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 March 2014)

Highways were built originally for horses and coaches, and later modified for motor vehicles. 

The helmeted lycra mob are out of their element on a large highway. 

Cyclists such as I meandering on bikeways or smaller suburban streets need no protection from the nanny state.

gg


----------



## SirRumpole (27 March 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Highways were built originally for horses and coaches, and later modified for motor vehicles.
> 
> The helmeted lycra mob are out of their element on a large highway.
> 
> ...




That's fair enough. Maybe all the car drivers restrained by seat belts don't need them either, we all seem to be well protected by airbags these days.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 March 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> That's fair enough. Maybe all the car drivers restrained by seat belts don't need them either, we all seem to be well protected by airbags these days.




I would agree, Horace, though the point I make is that the majority of Australians who are unfit are discouraged from riding bicycles by the ridiculous laws on helmets. They are thus being killed by bicycle helmet laws.

The cause of cycling is now run by a subset of extremely fit and sometimes aggressive lycra clad riders, travelling at high speed on our highways, with a sense of entitlement on a very dangerous mode of transport, made no safer by a polystyrene helmet.

One only needs to look at London or Copenhagen, compared to Brisbane, on the uptake of free bicycles by citizens, where bicycle helmet laws do not exist.

gg


----------



## Calliope (27 March 2014)

Trembling Hand said:


> What if its their form of transport rather than another fat ar$e in a car clogging the road. In cities it IS NOT cyclist that slow down traffic. Its too many lazy people taking single occupancy trips in cars.



 Heavily taxed "fat ar$e" motorists pay the Government $13.5 billion in petrol and diesel fuel excise annually, as well as state imposts, such as vehicle registration fees and motor vehicle stamp duty... just for the "privilege" of using our roads.

What do the Lycra Louts pay for this "privilege"? Like any other freeloaders they can't complain if they are treated as pests.


----------



## Julia (27 March 2014)

Trembling Hand said:


> Mostly because they are designed for travel at 10-15 km per hour. Cyclist normally travel around 30 klm per hour average and at time much higher 40-50. Most bike paths are terribly designed by idiots who don't ride a bike (loose gravel for example). Then there are the people walking dogs and unaware pedestrians trying to mix with someone travelling 30-40 klm per hour.
> 
> 
> I have hardly ever seen a person on a bike ride in the middle of the lane on a highway  without need. for example pot holes or high density of parked cars with thoughtless people opening doors into cyclists way. Are you sure that that happens



Am I sure that happens???  Do you really think I would post an assertion that I don't witness almost every day?

The bikeway to which I referred is a solid surface about 2.5 m wide and has clearly not been designed by an idiot.  A large number of ratepayer dollars went into both the designing and execution of it to provide safety for cyclists and maximise traffic flow on a busy road.

There has also been an equivalent amount of money spent on an additional bikeway about 1km in from that main road, so cyclists actually have a choice of two, both with complete safety from vehicular traffic.   There would be a reasonable case for anyone who might suggest far too much money has been spent on catering to cyclists, especially when most of them seem to eschew such specifically provided facilities and continue to hold up traffic on main roads.

Why would you imagine anyone would design a bikeway with a loose gravel surface?   That would be just stupid.
I've used this bikeway many, many times as a cyclist and it's 100% fine.

There seems to be an air of arrogance about cyclists who insist on ignoring a perfectly good, specifically designed bikeway in order to present themselves as an irritant to motorists in the two lane circumstance I described earlier.  Why they should so desire to put themselves at risk is quite beyond me, but I'm pretty sick of the whining about their feeling they are being denied their rights.

Seems to me they are demonstrating precious little respect for the rights of motorists in an attempt to make their somewhat obscure point.


----------



## trainspotter (27 March 2014)

AS GG explained earlier ... we are not a cycling nation due to restrictive bicycle helmet laws.


----------



## McLovin (27 March 2014)

Trembling Hand]Mostly because they are designed for travel at 10-15 km per hour. Cyclist normally travel around 30 klm per hour average and at time much higher 40-50. Most bike paths are terribly designed by idiots who don't ride a bike (loose gravel for example). Then there are the people walking dogs and unaware pedestrians trying to mix with someone travelling 30-40 klm per hour.
[/QUOTE]

+1


[QUOTE=trainspotter said:


> AS GG explained earlier ... we are not a cycling nation due to restrictive bicycle helmet laws.




BS.

We're not a cycling nation because we're morbidly obese.


----------



## bellenuit (28 March 2014)

McLovin said:


> We're not a cycling nation because we're morbidly obese.




Or are we morbidly obese because we're not a cycling nation?


----------



## McLovin (28 March 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Or are we morbidly obese because we're not a cycling nation?




Chicken meet egg.

Either way, you only need to look around in Australia to notice how fat people are. They're not getting on bikes because they're too lazy, not because they have to wear helmets.


----------



## bellenuit (28 March 2014)

McLovin said:


> Chicken meet egg.
> 
> Either way, you only need to look around in Australia to notice how fat people are. They're not getting on bikes because they're too lazy, not because they have to wear helmets.




I can only speak from my own experience, but my main reason for not using my bike is because I must wear a helmet. However, I do walk instead where practicable.

I was in Amsterdam last year and just loved how so many used bicycles to commute everywhere. All at a casual pace and most without helmets. It is a culture we need to adopt and is more achievable nowadays with urban infill. But it does need the nanny state attitude to be relaxed in regards to safety.


----------



## Judd (28 March 2014)

I cycle and really enjoy the activity.

However, there is no way I will ride on public roads as it is just a dumb thing to do.  If other cyclists wish to mix the unprotected human body with a tonne of metal and plastic which requires a greater stopping distance, is less maneuverable and has more blind spots than you can poke a stick at, they are welcome to it.

And to those cyclists who abuse me on bike paths, get stuffed.  If I decide to ride at a pace at which is comfortable and safe, I will do so.  Attempts on improving your PB are no concern of mine.  Rack off to a velodrome if you wish to get all hot and sweaty.

Same principle applies to car drivers when I am behind the wheel.

That's right one and all, I don't care about you as, frankly, you don't care about me.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 March 2014)

Judd said:


> That's right one and all, I don't care about you as, frankly, you don't care about me.




Ah , someone bitter and twisted. What a refreshing change


----------



## Judd (28 March 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Ah , someone bitter and twisted. What a refreshing change





Yep, that's me. :

Indifferent may be a more apt description.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 March 2014)

Bicycle Helmet Laws = 1 + 1 = 3







gg


----------



## Trembling Hand (28 March 2014)

Calliope said:


> Heavily taxed "fat ar$e" motorists pay the Government $13.5 billion in petrol and diesel fuel excise annually, as well as state imposts, such as vehicle registration fees and motor vehicle stamp duty... just for the "privilege" of using our roads.
> 
> What do the Lycra Louts pay for this "privilege"? Like any other freeloaders they can't complain if they are treated as pests.




Thats completely dumb. I also pay the same as I have a car and pay a heap of tax. But I get on a bike for most city travel because its faster and I am one of the 10,000 in Melbourne cbd who contribute to 10,000 less cars. Therefore making our roads less congested and by extension reducing the amount of tax that has to be paid by everyone, including the lazy.




Julia said:


> Am I sure that happens???  Do you really think I would post an assertion that I don't witness almost every day?
> 
> The bikeway to which I referred is a solid surface about 2.5 m wide and has clearly not been designed by an idiot.  A large number of ratepayer dollars went into both the designing and execution of it to provide safety for cyclists and maximise traffic flow on a busy road.
> 
> ...




Julia I have no idea as I don't know the cyclists or the path you are talking about. From my experience there is some goods paths but that doesn't mean they suit every trip you take on a bike, many are far to short or simply don't go where you want them to. I still cannot believe that someone would ride down the middle of a lane on a highway. That's just dangerous and silly.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 March 2014)

Trembling Hand said:


> I still cannot believe that someone would ride down the middle of a lane on a highway. That's just dangerous and silly.




I've seen them do it, or ride three abreast so you can't pass.

It's probably a bloody minded attempt to annoy car drivers, or trying to prove that they think they have the right to be there.


----------



## Trembling Hand (28 March 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I've seen them do it, or ride three abreast so you can't pass.
> 
> It's probably a bloody minded attempt to annoy car drivers, or trying to prove that they think they have the right to be there.




Yes there are Ar$eholes every where. But they are not exclusively confined to people on a bike.

What I still would like someone to answer though is why do motorist get so upset with being delayed a few seconds before they have the opportunity to race to the next red light. When if the said cyclist was in a car they would actually be stuck behind them. If every cyclist was in a car they would be stuck 3 klm back in traffic that doesn't move.

Where is the logic in wanting cyclist in cars


----------



## SirRumpole (28 March 2014)

Trembling Hand said:


> What I still would like someone to answer though is why do motorist get so upset with being delayed a few seconds before they have the opportunity to race to the next red light.




If cars were not delayed by cyclists they may make it through the lights before they turn red.


----------



## Calliope (28 March 2014)

Trembling Hand said:


> But I get on a bike for most city travel because its faster and I am one of the 10,000 in Melbourne cbd who contribute to 10,000 less cars. Therefore making our roads less congested and by extension reducing the amount of tax that has to be paid by everyone, including the lazy.




Your attitude is typical of the "holier than thou attitude" of city cyclists. They are on their bikes for the good of their fellow citizens *including* the "fat ar$e lazy drivers".

Recently I was cut off on a roundabout bo a swarm of lycla clad helmeted lunatics. They completely ignored the fact that I had right of way, in fact I doubt if they even looked.   They were invoking your "holier than thou" attitude that that they make their own rules and their attitude to motorists is the same as yours...i.e. fat ar$e lazy motorists should defer to them.


----------



## Trembling Hand (28 March 2014)

Calliope said:


> Recently I was cut off on a roundabout blah blah blah




Oh here we go....

I once witness a Red Headed Italian Female Butcher walking her Irish Setter when it stopped on my yard and cr@pped.

Now when ever I see someone with red hair,

Or

Italian
Female
Butchers
Or
Dogs

I abuse them


----------



## CanOz (28 March 2014)

Calliope said:


> Your attitude is typical of the "holier than thou attitude" of city cyclists. They are on their bikes for the good of their fellow citizens *including* the "fat ar$e lazy drivers".
> 
> Recently I was cut off on a roundabout bo a swarm of lycla clad helmeted lunatics. They completely ignored the fact that I had right of way, in fact I doubt if they even looked.   They were invoking your "holier than thou" attitude that that they make their own rules and their attitude to motorists is the same as yours...i.e. fat ar$e lazy motorists should defer to them.




Good Grief


----------



## darkhorse70 (28 March 2014)

You feel fragile as hell not wearing a helmet. More so on a motorbike/dirt bike especially when ur front tyres off the floor most of the time haha

Gear up kids or be a SQUID


----------



## Trembling Hand (28 March 2014)

Calliope said:


> Your attitude is typical of the "holier than thou attitude" of city cyclists.




By the way I don't want the world to bow to me when ever I ride past on my bike. I just don't want to be abused, run over, have things thrown at me, etc etc...... you know just normal reasonable human behaviour......


----------



## Calliope (28 March 2014)

Trembling Hand said:


> Now when ever I see someone with red hair,
> 
> Or
> 
> ...




I am not surprised. Cyclists tend to be abusive.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 March 2014)

Calliope said:


> Your attitude is typical of the "holier than thou attitude" of city cyclists. They are on their bikes for the good of their fellow citizens *including* the "fat ar$e lazy drivers".
> 
> Recently I was cut off on a roundabout bo a swarm of lycla clad helmeted lunatics. They completely ignored the fact that I had right of way, in fact I doubt if they even looked.   They were invoking your "holier than thou" attitude that that they make their own rules and their attitude to motorists is the same as yours...i.e. fat ar$e lazy motorists should defer to them.




This is very typical of the lycratites, travelling in a mob. They are so souped up with adrenaline and probably some uppers, that they lose perspective.

In Queensland, Campbell Newman has eliminated Bikie Gangs from our streets and highways.

It may be time for Government to go in to "lycra households" and clubs, usually in rich Green enclaves of our cities and towns, and confiscate bicycles, lycra and helmets from these pests. 

A visit from the QPS would settle them down.

What a cheek these lycra bullies have. 

gg


----------



## Trembling Hand (31 March 2014)

[video=vimeo;90181627]https://vimeo.com/90181627[/video]


----------



## Trembling Hand (3 April 2014)

''It's probably a bit embarrassing that we can have somebody [on a bike] beating public transport or even a car into town over 30 kilometres.''


> It is quicker to charter a boat from Melbourne's western suburbs to the CBD than it is to hop in your car and attempt to brave the crush of the West Gate Freeway.
> On Wednesday morning the Wyndham City Council held a race into Federation Square, pitting motorists, cyclists and public transport users against each other. But even the council did not expect these results.
> Despite having to travel more than 30 kilometres, the cyclists came out ahead, zipping well ahead of the cars as they groaned along the Princes Highway. They also beat the commuters who had taken a bus to their local railway station.
> 
> ...


----------



## CanOz (3 April 2014)

I recall spending two hours a day in traffic in Northern China and thankfully they built another coupla hundred kms of roads and bridges...

Better trains and subways are the answer, not many people are going to brave the weather to bike to work while risking getting killed by motorists...


----------



## bellenuit (17 May 2014)

*Stop forcing people to wear bike helmets*

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/16/5720762/stop-forcing-people-to-wear-bike-helmets


----------



## Julia (17 May 2014)

Our local paper today publishes a suggestion from cyclist that the Esplanade - a two lane highway which runs the length of this beachside town, about 20 kms, should be made one way, in order to provide a 'proper lane' for cyclists!!!

Never mind that there is a purpose built bikeway running adjacent all this way.  Apparently it's not good enough.
I just cannot believe the arrogance of these cyclists.  Even the current two lanes frequently results in traffic snarls.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 June 2015)

I should alert ASF to a quite brilliant expose of the bicycle helmet nonsense. 

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/showcase/features/assumptions/susan-carland-assumptions-living-alone-relationships-bike-helmet/6519366

There is a machinery about which dictates that Australians need to wear bicycle helmets when 180 other advanced countries say that it is rubbish.

gg


----------



## qldfrog (24 June 2015)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I should alert ASF to a quite brilliant expose of the bicycle helmet nonsense.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/showcase/features/assumptions/susan-carland-assumptions-living-alone-relationships-bike-helmet/6519366
> 
> ...



Thanks gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 August 2015)

At long last the medical profession are turning to my point of view that bicycle helmets kill, by dissuading the unfit from cycling.

From the Australian today.



> Doctors have urged parliament to dismantle laws requiring cyclists to wear helmets, saying the safety measure is dissuading unfit Australians from riding their bicycles.
> 
> The Senate’s broad-ranging inquiry into “nanny state” public safety laws has received written submissions from three medical practitioners, all arguing helmets should be optional for adults.
> 
> ...




gg


----------



## galumay (11 August 2015)

Being in europe for a few months certainly shows how stupid australia is with its helmet laws. So many people ride bikes here its amazing, even with much worse weather than most of australia and often more hilly, people just seem to love their bicycles - and i am sure that a large part of the reason is no stupid helmet laws.

Car drivers are also much better behaved towards cyclists and the infrastructure with bike paths and so on is much better. 

One obvious benefit is much fitter people in these countries, its patently obvious that there are a lot less obese people here.

We are very backward in many ways compared to europe though, not just cycling!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 February 2016)

It now appears that the forces of state control are being let loose in Sydney and NSW following the implementation of new laws on bicycle helmets.

Cycling fines are standardised at as of today at $71 but from Monday will more than quadruple to $319 for not wearing a helmet.

What is the world coming to? In The Netherlands which has the greatest use of bicycles per capita, nobody wears helmets. 

Here in Australia,( the largest and only child day care centre completely surrounded by water ), cyclists are treated like children. 

How many people's health is affected by being put off cycling by having to wear these silly helmets?

gg


----------



## SirRumpole (26 February 2016)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It now appears that the forces of state control are being let loose in Sydney and NSW following the implementation of new laws on bicycle helmets.
> 
> Cycling fines are standardised at as of today at $71 but from Monday will more than quadruple to $319 for not wearing a helmet.
> 
> ...




And they have to carry ID now ?

Just like motorists. Oh the shame !


----------



## Knobby22 (26 February 2016)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> What is the world coming to? In The Netherlands which has the greatest use of bicycles per capita, nobody wears helmets.
> 
> gg




Australia is now no. 1 nanny state.
I was in Thailand last week and riding the "put puts" with no seatbelts watching people in motorbikes fly buy with girls on the back with no helmets.
I didn't once see any plastic bits on the ground at intersections and ramps and there seemed to be hardly any traffic and parking signs.

I felt free.


----------



## Monkey C Doo (26 February 2016)

Knobby22 said:


> Australia is now no. 1 nanny state.
> I was in Thailand last week and riding the "put puts" with no seatbelts watching people in motorbikes fly buy with girls on the back with no helmets.
> I didn't once see any plastic bits on the ground at intersections and ramps and there seemed to be hardly any traffic and parking signs.
> 
> I felt free.




I go to Asia town a bit and yeah it's cheap, girls are friendly....   but mostly it's the freedom that keeps me going back. 

Australia is pretty awesome for quality of life if measured by income, health, socialised / feminised sheeple type stuff bla bla but it's boring and sanitized as fark. I can't stand this place. I can't even buy my kid a slug gun  FFS!!!

I don't ride a bike (got money, got 4X4) but I do go fishing and sailing - same thing, mandatory life jackets.
If conditions are bad i'll wear one - if not, I don't. Why does the government want to intervene with Darwin so much? and why do we have such a piss poor constitution that the government has such powers???


----------



## SirRumpole (26 February 2016)

Monkey C Doo said:


> Why does the government want to intervene with Darwin so much? and why do we have such a piss poor constitution that the government has such powers???




Why is Darwin any different to the rest of the country ?

As to government powers, you can make a fair point that people should be able to look after their personal safety as long as they don't endanger others. 

I doesn't really bother me if people ride around on bikes without helmets. If they fall over and injure themselves then that's their problem. If they run over me as a pedestrian and cause me injury without any ID to say who they are and pay me damages then that's my problem as well as theirs.

So there is a balance to be considered.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (26 February 2016)

News cycling laws to be enforced next week.

These laws would never have been considered necessary except for the fact that a fair percentage of the lyra set are extremely aggressive and arrogant.  I've seen them breaking laws, cutting in front of pedestrians, acting like complete a-holes.  They brought it on themselevs. 

As GG said, elsewhere on the planet, cyclists are much more pleasant.  Here it's as if they are trying to prove something.

Yes, I have a bike - I use it occasionally.  No lycra.


----------



## Monkey C Doo (26 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Why is Darwin any different to the rest of the country ?




Cool, I meant Darwin as in the bloke, survival of the fittest 'n all. (my bad, should have added an "ism" to the end.


----------



## sikboy (26 February 2016)

I personally think that bicyclists should have to sit a road and safety test and be licensed to ride a bike on public roads and be treated just like any other motor vehicle user on the road. They should be paying registration fees, ctp insurance etc as well. 

If they sat the exact same course for motorcycle users to get through their L's and P's, it would be a step forward for everyone.


----------



## qldfrog (27 February 2016)

sikboy said:


> I personally think that bicyclists should have to sit a road and safety test and be licensed to ride a bike on public roads and be treated just like any other motor vehicle user on the road. They should be paying registration fees, ctp insurance etc as well.
> 
> If they sat the exact same course for motorcycle users to get through their L's and P's, it would be a step forward for everyone.



And some more nanny state above, what about pedestrians, with increased fees for children and older people who are more at risk of accident, not to forget breath tests for pedestrians....
As Knobby said:
Each time I go to Asia, I feel a fresh air of freedom.
As a kid, i once travelled past the iron wall in Hungary (the relaxed version of the communist dictatorship).
Well now in Australia, I can only see the troubling ressemblance, yet I am nearly Sure sikboy will not be a rabid communist supporter...
What about making people responsible? If i run over a person on my bike or even crash a car by my own mistake/stupidity, sue the crap out of me, [and allow me to do the same the other way round] that would be fairer than another level of government inefficiency, a few extra thousand public servants and a bigger budget deficit that your kids will never be able to pay.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 February 2016)

> Each time I go to Asia, I feel a fresh air of freedom.




Sure, but life is cheap in Asia. You lose people when an overcrowded ferry sinks or an overcrowded train gets derailed, or a shoddy building collapses and people don't care because there are plenty more people.

As I said before, there is a balance.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (27 February 2016)

Knobby22 said:


> Australia is now no. 1 nanny state.
> I was in Thailand last week and riding the "put puts" with no seatbelts watching people in motorbikes fly buy with girls on the back with no helmets.
> I didn't once see any plastic bits on the ground at intersections and ramps and there seemed to be hardly any traffic and parking signs.
> 
> I felt free.






Gringotts Bank said:


> News cycling laws to be enforced next week.
> 
> These laws would never have been considered necessary except for the fact that a fair percentage of the lyra set are extremely aggressive and arrogant.  I've seen them breaking laws, cutting in front of pedestrians, acting like complete a-holes.  They brought it on themselevs.
> 
> ...




I couldn't agree more Kn22 and GB.

1.  Australia has become a nanny state.
2.  These bicycle laws have been brought in because of the lycra set, not because of such as I smoking a Marlboro sachaying down to the Newsagent to buy a copy of Bacon Busters Magazine on my Malvern Star..

gg


----------



## qldfrog (27 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Sure, but life is cheap in Asia. You lose people when an overcrowded ferry sinks or an overcrowded train gets derailed, or a shoddy building collapses and people don't care because there are plenty more people.
> 
> As I said before, there is a balance.



True, but I know I left Europe 20y ago and had a breath of fresh air ariving here, sadly, it is not true anymore.
20y is all it took to transform Oz into a nanny state where people are entiotled to (just because they are) and have adapted a selfish moronic mostly (sorry) way of life.
Spoilt rotten by an engineered RE  explosion and a mining boom only very few contributed to.
Harsh but I am and feel australian now so I can have a voice; The bikes laws (same for motorbikes /car by the way, pool regulations, H&S at work, on pavements/playground) are just symptoms of a very sick society in my opinion.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 February 2016)

qldfrog said:


> True, but I know I left Europe 20y ago and had a breath of fresh air ariving here, sadly, it is not true anymore.
> 20y is all it took to transform Oz into a nanny state where people are entiotled to (just because they are) and have adapted a selfish moronic mostly (sorry) way of life.
> Spoilt rotten by an engineered RE  explosion and a mining boom only very few contributed to.
> Harsh but I am and feel australian now so I can have a voice; The bikes laws (same for motorbikes /car by the way, pool regulations, H&S at work, on pavements/playground) are just symptoms of a very sick society in my opinion.




We certainly have a lot of cultural problems to overcome. Irresponsibility and the alcohol culture are two of those. 

Why we have them I don't particularly know apart from the fact that our origins are from lawless convicts with a dna for sticking it to authority and no real cultural role models to look up to apart from a few daggy rock stars and sporting heroes. Warney !!!

If we were more responsible as a nation then we wouldn't need as many nanny state laws. Better education systems would be part of the solution, but then of course we would get cries of "social engineering" and "Lefty agendas".

I don't know, it all encourages me to look elsewhere. Maybe Scandinavia but I don't like the cold.


----------



## orr (27 February 2016)

Those that feel the impulse can write to their local member citing the logic of The NSW transport minister Duncan Gay, His reasoning being that it is safer to dice on the roads with B-Doubles, concrete trucks, semi trailers with the mandatory styrofoam cap, because this is legal. Than alternatively amble down unused and under used foot paths at not much more than walking speed giving way to any pedestrian you encounter, this activity being illegal for those of adult age.
These laws could have been better formulated by cretins. 

Exercise diminishes your chances of contracting type2 diabetes... 280 Australian will be diagnosed with type2 today and tomorrow and on and on ... 2010 stats are that 7750 australians died due to diabetes that year. 

Nothing statistically points to high safety by mandatory helmet use by cyclists.
Taken at a societal level mandatory bicycle helmets kill people


----------



## SirRumpole (27 February 2016)

orr said:


> Taken at a societal level mandatory bicycle helmets kill people




Only if people don't cycle as some sort of protest against wearing bicycle helmets.

How many cyclists would do that do you think ?


----------



## McLovin (27 February 2016)

The new laws in NSW are another lurch toward the nanny state. Get rid of a few governments that have to justify their existence by doing "something". And while we're at it get rid of the half wits who swallow every bit of media spin hook, line and sinker.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rying-bust-cyclists-SPEEDING-Sydney-park.html

I've cycled in that park thousands of times, I literally cycle there most mornings. The Highway Patrol should just rename itself State Revenue.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 February 2016)

> They booked cyclists for going through a stop sign that is placed at the bottom of an very steep hill where there has always been safe "flow" of bikes rolling down and flowing through.
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lists-SPEEDING-Sydney-park.html#ixzz41MdHuAA7
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook




Like they never do that to motorists right ?

Never.


----------



## McLovin (27 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Like they never do that to motorists right ?
> 
> Never.




Who cares if they do. Cyclists are not motorists.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 February 2016)

McLovin said:


> Who cares if they do. Cyclists are not motorists.




You want to be a protected species ?

Basically I'm against entrapment of any kind; ie setting people up to be booked. Going 10 kph over the speed limit in a motor vehicle on a straight road should get a warning not a fine. Same for cyclists unless they are being reckless or dangerous.

What's good for the goose...


----------



## McLovin (28 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You want to be a protected species ?




I want some commonsense. There's a difference between a 80-90kg cyclist doing 15-20kmh approaching an intersection and a two tonne motor vehicle travelling at 60-80kmh. The average cyclist is far more aware than the average driver, because they know they've got a lot to lose if they get things wrong. There are different road rules for heavy vehicles, so why not for cyclists? The test should be around safety, not equality. The biggest threat to cyclists is motor vehicle drivers, cyclists are not usually at fault. Many European cities allow cyclists to slow and give way but cross intersections on red lights or stop signs. Most Europeans also know how to drive a car too, unlike the average Australian.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 February 2016)

McLovin said:


> I want some commonsense. There's a difference between a 80-90kg cyclist doing 15-20kmh approaching an intersection and a two tonne motor vehicle travelling at 60-80kmh. The average cyclist is far more aware than the average driver, because they know they've got a lot to lose if they get things wrong. There are different road rules for heavy vehicles, so why not for cyclists? The test should be around safety, not equality. The biggest threat to cyclists is motor vehicle drivers, cyclists are not usually at fault. Many European cities allow cyclists to slow and give way but cross intersections on red lights or stop signs. Most Europeans also know how to drive a car too, unlike the average Australian.




Well I think you have to accept the realities of human perception and vision.

Cyclists have a small cross sectional area which is easy to get into a drivers blind spot and therefore not be seen. 

That's not a function of inattention or carelessness but simply of human anatomy. 

It's good to see cyclists trying to make themselves more visible which hopefully will cut down accidents but there will always be cases where the drivers simply don't see them. I'd say if a bike rider swapped places with a car driver they would have the same problem as we all have the same eye structure.


----------



## qldfrog (28 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I'd say if a bike rider swapped places with a car driver they would have the same problem as we all have the same eye structure.



Sir Rumpole, most of bike riders are also car drivers, but as i cyclist, i drive differently believe me;
And yes as most cyclists I pay a car rego.
i do wear lycra , as a daily commute of 40 to 50km return can not be done daily wearing a tshirt and shorts,
 and lycras are much cheaper than specialised "disguised as usual clothes" equipment (they exist...)
the last thing i want to add is sometimes even well intentionned drivers are an actual danger:
when riding on a road (and not a bikeway) there is nothing worse for a cyclist as being followed by a car 3m behind  who does not dare to overtake you , but will still run over you if you fall and is pissing off 10 cars behind you  who will be ready to hurl insults or push you off the road;
car/cyclist issues here are mostly a problem of incompetent and selfish drivers (and to a limit some moronic cyclists..they do exist too) Australian driving was appaling 20y ago, and it still is, actually worsen; it is a problem of readiness/attention and focus on driving: 
you can not drive and drink/use a cruise control/look at the kid in the capsule/speak on the phone or worse but as frequent sending sms.
So if you see a cyclist 200m ahead you ensure your timing when reaching his/her level is such that you can overtake safely.either accelerating or slowing and in 90% of case, all is good.But you need to look ahead and use your brain.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (28 February 2016)

Bicycle helmets don't kill.


----------



## McLovin (2 March 2016)

NSW, where you get so many fines the government designed an app to help you "manage" your fines.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 March 2016)

McLovin said:


> NSW, where you get so many fines the government designed an app to help you "manage" your fines.
> 
> View attachment 65994




All this is a natural consequence of politicians stuffing the cities so full of people that you can't do anything without tripping over someone else.

Out here is the bush where the population densities are far less the authorities are much more relaxed (in fact there are far fewer "authorities" and they usually don't give a stuff about pulling people over for trivialities.

The real danger to our liberty is police "quotas", whether they be on speeding fines, parking offences or whatever. 

That's when you get nitpicking and a bullying attitude of the enforcers towards the public.


----------



## Logique (2 March 2016)

In these pages, you won't find me much agreeing with posters Orr and McLovin. But I am with them on this issue!

I'm not a "lycra" bicyclist, but an enthusiastic one. In Sydney central, bicyclists are a reviled breed. The dedicated bicycle lanes are loathed by motorists.  Influential people have whispered in the ear of the NSW government. That's where these nanny state laws have come from.

So we have this five-fold increase in the penalties for bicyclists, on let's face it, trivial offences. 

SirR, these increased penalties, if for now unlikely to be enforced outside the city - just wait until the out-of-town police task force arrives, and books everyone in town!

Take your bull mastiff or siberian husky down to the local pram park and let them run around off-leash - sure no problem. 

Bicycle through the same park without a stryofoam helmet and look out, penalty notice $300 plus. Welcome to NSW.


----------



## McLovin (2 March 2016)

Logique said:


> In these pages, you won't find me much agreeing with posters Orr and McLovin. But I am with them on this issue!
> 
> I'm not a "lycra" bicyclist, but an enthusiastic one. In Sydney central, bicyclists are a reviled breed. The dedicated bicycle lanes are loathed by motorists.  Influential people have whispered in the ear of the NSW government. That's where these nanny state laws have come from.
> 
> ...




I agree. This has nothing to do with over population and everything to do with the government thinking it can get away with this sort of rubbish. Yesterday I had to pick up some dry cleaning. I parked about 10 metres from the dry cleaners, and knowing I wouldn't take more than two minutes and having no change on me, I didn't get a ticket. Of course low and behold as I walk out there's a parking inspector giving me a $116 ticket for my outrageous infraction. In Melbourne the same fine would have been $30. Of course it's not revenue raising. Someone explain how on Earth the punishment fits the "crime".


----------



## SirRumpole (2 March 2016)

McLovin said:


> I agree. This has nothing to do with over population and everything to do with the government thinking it can get away with this sort of rubbish. Yesterday I had to pick up some dry cleaning. I parked about 10 metres from the dry cleaners, and knowing I wouldn't take more than two minutes and having no change on me, I didn't get a ticket. Of course low and behold as I walk out there's a parking inspector giving me a $116 ticket for my outrageous infraction. In Melbourne the same fine would have been $30. Of course it's not revenue raising. Someone explain how on Earth the punishment fits the "crime".




Well, there a a few things you can do.

1. Take the matter to court and encourage everyone else to do the same so you flood the court system and make collecting the fines uneconomic.

2. Get a mob of friends, abduct a parking inspector, tie him/her to a tree and throw sewerage on them, making it perfectly clear that any parking inspector is fair game so that no one wants to do the job. Result; free parking.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 March 2016)

Uncle Festivus said:


> Bicycle helmets don't kill.




Bicycle helmets do kill. 

They are uncomfortable and silly looking to wear, and discourage people from cycling. Many of those people discouraged would have had better health had they cycled. 

Thus they are harmful, in Australia to population health.

This pilfering of people's money by NSW for refusing to wear these silly, silly objects is a new take on idiocy, or it may be something more sinister, such as Orwell's 1984.

You make people wear a piece of styrofoam on their head. The police watch out for you if you don't. Then they fine you. Then they throw you in prison if you do not pay. 

It all started with styrofoam helmets, the worker's enemy, the enemy of fitness for those who most need it, smokers, fat people, the indigent, the waddling, the coughing, the artery clogged, such as I. 

gg


----------



## qldfrog (2 March 2016)

To rephrase it more precisely:
*Bicycle Helmets do not Kill*
BUT
*Mandatory *Bicycle Helmets Kill
And you can find study pointed to the above


----------



## McLovin (2 March 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Well, there a a few things you can do.
> 
> 1. Take the matter to court and encourage everyone else to do the same so you flood the court system and make collecting the fines uneconomic.
> 
> 2. Get a mob of friends, abduct a parking inspector, tie him/her to a tree and throw sewerage on them, making it perfectly clear that any parking inspector is fair game so that no one wants to do the job. Result; free parking.




One sounds good. If someone else with more time on their hands organises it I'll partake.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (4 March 2016)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Bicycle helmets do kill.
> 
> They are uncomfortable and silly looking to wear, and discourage people from cycling. Many of those people discouraged would have had better health had they cycled.
> 
> ...






> They are uncomfortable and silly looking to wear, and discourage people from cycling. Many of those people discouraged would have had better health had they cycled.




Just more excuses by lazy people. 

The problem appears to be that all those who don't like wearing helmets think it's just more meddling by big government into their personal lives. The same meddling that requires all cars to have standardised seat belts and for the occupants to wear them, for sole purpose of which is to save the lives of all people regardless of whether they wanted to wear them or not. 

Perhaps the anti helmetters can organise a visit to a hospital spinal ward to say hello to those who have head, neck or spinal injuries from a fall from a bike or motorbike to encourage them to not wear any helmets next time. The fact that there is a next time would be attributed to them wearing a helmet. The ones that don't wear helmets simply go straight to the morgue.

As for being the workers enemy, well, that's just showing a complete ignorance for preventing head injuries and harks back to the bad old days of the beginning of the industrial revolution where workplace deaths were matter of fact, until the workers themselves rose up and demanded better safety regulations.

I think we should all have freedom of choice to do what we like but when your choice is not to wear a helmet then it's left to the rest of society ie the ones who do abide by the rules, to care and pay for you while you are hospitalised for your injuries, perhaps for the rest of your life - if you are so lucky!

So, where is the evidence that wearing a helmet kills? Do you have evidence that wearing a helmet resulted in more severe injuries than would otherwise have been the case by not wearing a helmet?

I thought not.


----------



## Junior (4 March 2016)

I genuinely appreciate the anti-government meddling attitude here, and agree helmets should not be compulsory for tourists or those staying on the bike paths and away from Australia's aggressive motorists, BUT

I've dated two nurses in my time, and having seen the hospital admissions first-hand both were adamant that helmets do, in fact save lives, and significantly reduce instances of serious trauma to one's scone.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 August 2021)

Fractured a rib cycling a few days ago + grazes in quite a few spots.
My stupidity. Going down a wooden bridge I started sliding.

I know so many people who have been hurt cycling. One had a big dent in his helmet, another with a broken shoulder, another in hospital for weeks after being hit by a car. Not to mention that Olympic accident.

Dangerous game .. but fun. Like horse riding which I also enjoy, and skiing. 
Cars don't do it for me.


----------



## PZ99 (12 August 2021)

Knobby22 said:


> Fractured a rib cycling a few days ago + grazes in quite a few spots.
> My stupidity. Going down a wooden bridge I started sliding.
> 
> I know so many people who have been hurt cycling. One had a big dent in his helmet, another with a broken shoulder, another in hospital for weeks after being hit by a car. Not to mention that Olympic accident.
> ...



They way things are going you'll be made to wear a helmet, mask and passport even when driving your car.

Speedy recovery on that rib mate


----------



## SirRumpole (12 August 2021)

PZ99 said:


> Speedy recovery on that rib mate




Ditto from me.


----------



## Ferret (12 August 2021)

Sorry to hear that Knobby. Hope you are back on your bike soon. 

I love my cycling too, but all to aware of the dangers.  Despite being careful, it only takes one bad car driver and things can get nasty.


----------

