Cyclists wanting to get rid of compulsory helmet wearing

[ajturbo]

i ride without a helmet (pushbike) and when i get pulled up for not wearing one... my name is john smith.. sorry don't have to carry ID when on a bike so no, i don't have any proof of my name ... ticket... wooops dropped it

[Drunken Monkey]

Do you not wince (too) when you see those staunch HD riders with their (all but useless) legal pudding bowls?

Well, no. As much as I think a bit of gravel rash to the chin could actually make some of those apes prettier, they're on their bikes having fun - out there, on the road, in celebration of life - not in fear of death.

There are other types of people out there that should consider even getting out of bed in the morning probably isn't the right choice for them.

[Drunken Monkey]

Prior to 1994 there were around 20 fatalities per year. In the last 10 years this appears to have reduced to about 10. I'm sure the number of cylists has not halved.

Actually, it has:

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

Cycling trip numbers roughly halved between 1989 and 2006.

[davereid]

they're on their bikes having fun - out there, on the road, in celebration of life - not in fear of death.

That is the problem.

People doing stuff that is unsafe just for enjoyment.

They are arrogant, and they cost us money when they have accidents.

We should ban this kind of behavior. Helmetless cyclists, smokers, drinkers, are only the tip of the iceberg.

The worst is motorcyclists.

They buy powerful machines, that have no place on a public road. They ride them for pleasure on non-essential trips, causing risk to themselves, and others, as well as needless greenhouse gas production.

Lets not forget that this is mostly done just for enjoyment.

We should follow the wonderful example of the Philippines, who have finally got a grasp on their terrible motorcycle death rate.

Its easy.

Ban all motorcycles with engines larger than 125cc or 18 BHP. This will not effect genuine commuters or riders who have no need to break the speed limit.

[ajturbo]

Ban all motorcycles with engines larger than 125cc or 18 BHP. This will not effect genuine commuters or riders who have no need to break the speed limit.

woo hoo.. a fire breathing 18hp....now THATS a bucket racer

[Drunken Monkey]

That is the problem.

People doing stuff that is unsafe just for enjoyment.

They are arrogant, and they cost us money when they have accidents.

We should ban this kind of behavior. Helmetless cyclists, smokers, drinkers, are only the tip of the iceberg.

The worst is motorcyclists.

They buy powerful machines, that have no place on a public road. They ride them for pleasure on non-essential trips, causing risk to themselves, and others, as well as needless greenhouse gas production.

Lets not forget that this is mostly done just for enjoyment.

We should follow the wonderful example of the Philippines, who have finally got a grasp on their terrible motorcycle death rate.

Its easy.

Ban all motorcycles with engines larger than 125cc or 18 BHP. This will not effect genuine commuters or riders who have no need to break the speed limit.

Good for you, bubble boy

[Big Dave]

Jakarta is considering motorcycle 'curfews' because the city is getting 900 new (mostly scooter) riders per day and the roads can't cope.

900 per day! - I wonder how many NZ gets in a year?

[Kickaha]

Jakarta is considering motorcycle 'curfews' because the city is getting 900 new (mostly scooter) riders per day and the roads can't cope.

900 per day! - I wonder how many NZ gets in a year?

Would they rather have 900 new car drivers?

[MSTRS:Me]

It could have been worse.

I *think* you were being sarky...
If not, then how could it have been worse? The helmet merely delayed face/concrete contact. With no mitigation of injury.

Well, no. As much as I think a bit of gravel rash to the chin could actually make some of those apes prettier...

I only used that type of helmet to illustrate how useless cycle helmets are.
Sure, the legalities are covered, but that's it. Like cycle helmets, those pudding basins are actually useless for the most part.

[Big Dave]

Would they rather have 900 new car drivers?

Loooksury. We used t' dream 'bout havin' t'car.

[davereid]

woo hoo.. a fire breathing 18hp....now THATS a bucket racer

Haha.. yeah too right...

I guess the point I was trying to make it that we have filled the thread up with those convinced that if they can demonstrate a safety advantage to banning helmet-less cycling, then it should be done.

So we have debated the statistics, because we have apparently accepted the premise thats it's ok in the name of safety to stop people doing stuff they enjoy.

I just see that as the thin end of the wedge, as there is no real reason for motorcycling at all, except as budget transport. And that need is easily met with 125 c.c. bikes.

For everyone of us happy to use "public safety" to eliminate helmet-less cycling there is someone equally happy to eliminate hyper powered motorcycles for the same reason.

Then the debate becomes merely one of "how much power ?"

Asia has already decided the figure is 18HP.

If my memory serves me, in the 70 or 80's the EU proposed 65 H.P.

Bikers only avoided that as some smart EU bikers supported the ban, but cleverly turned it into a "horsepower to limit top speed" argument, which resulted in cars being limited as well.

I guess I am just saying "beware feeding the safety Nazis... they will breed and keep sniffing around"

[Ocean1]

I just see that as the thin end of the wedge,

It's been too thick for me for several decades.

Fuck 'em, just 'cause they decided to use my money to pay for every other fucker's driving/riding/working/fucking habits don't mean they get to castigate me for my supposed recklesness.

Can't be bothered with the aorta brigade either, the ones that were responsible for the thin end sneaking through the "concerned citizen" gap in the "social responsiibility" fence all dem years ago. Big black dog up'em, stupid carnts.

[Wannabiker]

[QUOTE=MSTRS;1129825216]I *think* you were being sarky...
If not, then how could it have been worse? The helmet merely delayed face/concrete contact. With no mitigation of injury.

Hmmm. I wasnt trying to be smart and apologise if it came across like that.. Obviously, the outcome could have been better, and I feel for your son. I am in the dental profession, and deal with this type of injury often.

Cycle helmets for the most part are designed to protect the cranium. (the bit where the brain sits, and the most difficult bit to repair!!)). They offer little protection for the lower jaw or teeth. (unless specific design such as BMX or downhill MTB). Most helmets have a larger volume of polystyrene at the rear to protect the most vulnerable part.

The fact that your sons helmet was displaced on contact with the ground indicates that there was potential for that part of the head that was initially protected by the helmet to have made contact with the ground at the full force of the impact. Even though the helmet was displaced, there would have been a degree of shock absorption / deceleration.
(theoratically)

I worked for several years in a bicycle shop when I was racing (as a gesture to my sponsors) I was suprized at the number of parents that would buy a bike for their kids, but skimp on a helmet. I used to cringe at mothers and fathers that would buy a bike carrier seat for their bike for their child to travel in on the road, wear a helmet themselves and not buy one for their toddler. At that age, a childs reflexes are not as developed, nor are their muscles strong enough to be able to protect them in a crash.

Anyways...I could ramble on for hours.

As I said in anearlier post....all helmets are a useless waste of time...right up till the time your head hits the ground....

I would rather my head be in a helmet hitting the ground, than not.

[Woodman]

I guess I am just saying "beware feeding the safety Nazis... they will breed and keep sniffing around"

yes be very very careful about using safety as an argument.

[FJRider]

yes be very very careful about using safety as an argument.

Safety should be a requisite ... not an arguement ....