Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Bicycle Helmets Kill

Jump to new
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.
 
drsmith said:
I dunno GG, the defence looks a bit wobbly.


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

English is indeed a beautiful language.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Sorry GG,
I'm just trying to visualise how the lovely young lady in uniform might see it from the perspective of the prosecution.
 
drsmith said:
I still think I'd rather be a lawyer for the prosecution than for the defence.



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



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

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
 
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.

"It is a libertarian argument. The responsibility is only towards myself. It's not like drinking and driving where you can damage other people. You do no harm. I'm not encouraging people not to do this, I'm just saying I make a decision not to."

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.

One Bath University academic claimed to have proved this theory by measuring how wide a berth drivers gave him in a helmet, without one and in a blond wig. His closest encounters were in the helmet.
Click to expand...


gg
 
"...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.
 
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.

Libertarians unite.

From the Graduain.

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




gg
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

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
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Doing 200K a week on my pushy and having fallen many times--You gotta have a helmet.
 
tech/a said:
Doing 200K a week on my pushy and having fallen many times--You gotta have a helmet.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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".
Click to expand...


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

Attachments

  • GG.jpg
    GG.jpg
    73.3 KB · Views: 93
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
 
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
 
Top