It's your responsibility. When does it become the fault of others when you ride without a helmet, and you're in an accident?

Melb69 on 04/02/2019 - 19:09
Last edited 14/02/2019 - 20:08 by 2 other users

Today I saw 2 bicycle riders. I wore a helmet and was generally riding on the footpath, but riding through lights on a red pedestrian signal and almost hit by a car turning left. She kept going like nothing happened.

Then later on my drive home another rider without a helmet. Riding on the road.

I mean really. If either of then were injured due to a car hitting them. Whose fault is it and who should pay for their stupidity and medical expenses. TAC.

There is currently a push by the riders association that riding without a helmet is an option. WTF. Put a dam helmet on. Being hit by a car is going to hurt. There's also currently this thing in Vic where motorised bike riders are riding in the bike lane. I don't think this is safe either. Especially when there are uber bikers, and he's checking his phone as to where hes meant to be going, and not looking at the road ahead. OMG

It's not that hard. Even if you stumble off your bike yourself and hit the pavement it could be serious without a helmet on.

What do you all think?

Automotive

Comments

- - petry on 08/02/2019 - 13:49
    
    user pays is a standard term applied in association with additional infrastructure costs but apparently the extra costs of wider roads for cyclists, and the environmental impact of more tarmac are irrelevant because cyclists are somehow special.
    
    The roadbuilders are making millions out of it, the cyclists ain't owning up to the environmental impact of their demands, and the pollies earn more backhanders. So non existent global warming won't effect Australia, coal mines are great, and queensland banana's won't go up - oh hold on they already have and just for a little extra rain….
    - norrisrules on 08/02/2019 - 17:02
      
      How are car drivers paying for the roads? Are you referring to registration? You realise that doesn't pay for any road infrastructure right?
EspressoDan on 05/02/2019 - 17:21

+1

Why does cyclist bating always come down to helmets in Australia. The bottom line is that if as a cyclist you are riding within the law and are hit by a cat the helmet issue is irrelevant. Regardless of perception amongst drivers, in the vast majority of cases of accidents involving cyclists, the driver was at fault. That's why 'presumed guilt' should be a non-issue, it makes very little practical difference as the driver is usually the cause.

Remember, a helmet only protects against head injuries.

Not only that, but globally there is poor correlation between wearing a helmet and avoidance of injuries if you're in a road traffic accident.

Fundamentally, all data points to compulsory helmet wearing as a political, rather than a practical issue. Decreasing injuries after compulsory helmet wearing was introduced in Oz are more closely related with an overall decrease in cycling due to that law, not with a per-capita decrease in serious head injuries.

That said, if you were:

A - In a road traffic accident
B - Specifically had serious head injuries
C - Were at fault
D - Were not wearing a helmet

You could probably anticipate a long legal battle trying to prove or disprove the effect that wearing a helmet may have had. I would expect that you could expect, as the injured cyclist, to receive a somewhat reduced payout from either your or the other parties insurers, remembering that fault is very hard to prove, especially when one party is potentially unable to provide their own account of what happened.

The fault question is important, a lack of a helmet is not a valid defense for injury if a driver is at fault. A cyclist should reasonably expect not to be hit by a car if they ride within the law.

All of the a above said, I still wear a helmet every trip, but I don't wear it in case I get hit by a car as it's unlikely to help, I wear it in case I fall off, encounter a low-hanging branch, and because it's (unfortunately) the law.
- pegaxs on 05/02/2019 - 21:17
  
  compulsory helmet wearing as a political, rather than a practical issue.
  
  Decreasing injuries after compulsory helmet wearing….closely related with an overall decrease in cycling due to that law
  
  lol… You had me interested until you got to this point. You were making logical sense until then. Any point you are/were trying to make can now quickly be dismissed as garbage.
  
  Go some source on that? How many riders, as a percentage, gave up riding as a result of helmet laws? A study into how many would take it up again if helmet laws were repealed? Any evidence of a direct correlation to the amount of people that gave up riding over helmet laws and the decrease in cyclist deaths not related to wearing helmets?
  
  All of the studies I have read, mostly from university studies (not government sites), back the claim that deaths decreased as a result of riders wearing helmets, not from riders giving up riding. A riders survivability increased dramatically after helmet laws were introduced and they are required to wear said helmets.
  
  The only political game a foot here is the government doesn’t want brain damaged idiots clogging up the hospital and welfare system if there is something they can pro-actively do to decrease the number of people presenting with brain injuries.
  
  Or then again, not wearing a helmet and actually dying may be better for the government, because then there is no ongoing treatment or welfare to worry about for dead cyclists…
  - I3IGN0sE on 06/02/2019 - 12:06
    
    https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2017/04/how-effective…
    
    im not sure you have done your research pegaxs. you're firing up a lot about the fact that people stop riding bicycles when they're forced to wear helmets. its a fact.
    - pegaxs on 06/02/2019 - 14:54
      
      Bad source is a bad source. This is not talking about the amount of riders giving up riding after the introduction of helmet laws and how that is the sole driver behind reduced deaths. This article is about the slow uptake of bike sharing and about a random study back in 1993 (26 years ago) done on school children (that I cant seem to be able to track down.) and does not cover if this trend for school kids still exists today, which I doubt, considering the helmet laws have been in existence for so long.
      
      Unfortunately, I have done too much research on this, I only wish I could have that time back, but I am yet to find where helmet laws are linked to political issues/agendas, increase in obesity or that the decline in deaths was totally related to the number that gave up cycling because of these laws and that the introduction of mandatory helmet laws had no affect on decreasing cycle related deaths.
      
      I do not doubt that people gave up cycling when helmet laws came into play, that part I am not disputing. I also believe that there are people out there who just cant be bothered because of all the pain and stress and complexity that comes with putting on a helmet to ride. But to say that obesity is linked to helmet laws or that the decline in deaths on bicycles was was only in proportion to the number of people who gave up because of helmet laws is laughable at best.
      
      So, what I have asked is, what is the statistics of pre and post era helmet laws? What was the drop in fatal accidents due to head injury after helmet laws were introduced. Because, at the moment, I can find plenty of data that supports helmets saving lives (multiple first hand experience there as well) but nothing to support that mandatory helmet laws have not decreased deaths, just the amount of people giving up cycling was the sole driver in reducing deaths. I cant find any articles that link helmet laws as being a large contributing factor in obesity either.
      - I3IGN0sE on 08/02/2019 - 16:24
        
        -1
        
        @pegaxs: you attack my source without providing any of your own. you act like an authority when you don't show any. you imply you've done plenty of research but show no sources.
        
        either you're a troll or you're deliberately obfuscating the truth because you don't believe it. either way i think you should be removed from the thread.
- mrtin on 11/02/2019 - 13:47
  
  I thought it always comes down to making cyclists pay registration. This will solve every problem apparently.
[Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 17:51

This post has devolved into "Cyclist should have the rights to not wear helmets".

When it should be about contributory negligence and tax payer funded support.

I could not care less if someone wanted to go long boarding down a gravel road fully nude. As long as they pay their own medical bills, why should anyone care?

As long as cyclist are happy to be on the receiving end of medicare and TAC should they be injured, they should submit to basic safety requirements, whether they believe in them or not.
- petry on 05/02/2019 - 18:03
  
  -2
  
  paying tax would contribute to medical costs
  
  expecting a lot of negs from cylists who pay bugger all and demand everything
  
  easy scheme - buy a new bike pay tax - say minimum $30. take details and send an annual premium request.
  
  cyclists who get injured and require medical assistance - police etc need annual licence or pay towards all costs depending on fault.
  
  cyclists who cause accidents pay more if they haven't paid bike tax basically and pay something towards extra costs incurred in building roads these days…
  - EspressoDan on 05/02/2019 - 18:24
    
    Nope, you can (profanity) off.
    
    I pay Rego for 2 cars. When I'm cycling to work I'm not making the same trip in my car.
    
    The net cost to the government of my bike trip in terms of infrastructure requirements required to support it is significantly less. Also, if I had a bad car accident on that trip the costs would be greater than if I have an accident on my bike.
    
    And that's not even getting onto subjects like pricing against emissions.
    
    Any way you slice it, proposing an additional tax for cyclists, the vast majority of whom also own at least one vehicle is a crass, dumb idea in the current circumstances.
    
    Pretty sure Palmer will go for it as a policy soon enough.
    - petry on 05/02/2019 - 18:51
      
      +1
      
      hope so because many cyclists don't pay vehicle tax and as a percentage of road users generate more medical costs.
      
      emissions is an irrelevance to the extra costs and additional size of roads, plus the materials used in building them.
      
      I expect cyclists to squeal because they are demonstrably a selfish self important
      group.
      
      they just don't want to pay the extra for using a bike regardless of the additional infrastructure costs they generate.
      
      clearly even a nominal annual payment like $30 makes you very upset so reckon my points proven.
      - utopia on 05/02/2019 - 19:13
        
        @petry: https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Travel-and-transport/Cycling/Bene…
        https://www.thediscourse.ca/scarborough/full-cost-commute
        Plus driver rort the system(business and tax claims )
        maim 10000s and kill 1200 a year.
        
        Please tell me about paying your fair share again
        
        petry on 05/02/2019 - 19:26
        
        @utopia: no analysis of extra cost of larger roads
      - EspressoDan on 05/02/2019 - 19:18
        
        @petry: That's just utter bullshit.
        
        If there was a 'cyclist tax' there is no way that it would apply to children, and I'm pretty sure that the elderly and disabled would get away without paying it too.
        
        That leaves able bodied adults, and if you think that the proportion of those who don't pay Rego is beyond a fraction of a percentage of the population you're out of your tree.
        
        How on earth can you, as a person who's effective saying "the vast majority of cyclists shouldn't ride on roads that they also pay for" the turn around and say that the cyclists represent the demonstrably selfish group?
        
        There's only one point you're proving.
        
        petry on 05/02/2019 - 19:25
        
        @EspressoDan: because I never said that - your interpretation serves the cyclist mentality of non contribution.
        
        EspressoDan on 05/02/2019 - 19:32
        
        @petry: Look, I know I'm just feeding a troll here, but bottom line,
        
        I ride a few times a week. Always in the verge when one exists, always to the side of the road and always stop at lights.
        
        My journey adds no infrastructure costs. Where there are bike lanes they are shared with pedestrians.
        
        And yet every day I will get some random (profanity) swearing at me, close passing, yelling out of the window as they pass and just generally treating me like shit, and with genuine aggression, just because I happen to be on a bike that day.
        
        Quite simply, cyclists don't do that to car drivers. The abuse is unwarranted and one way.
        
        And sometimes people are killed, and when that happens a worrying percentage of the population say "bloddy cyclist" or "I wonder if he was wearing a helmet". It's just wrong, and completely f@#£&d up.
        
        I'm afraid that, demonstrably, there is only one group of C£&#s. And it's not the cyclists.
        
        petry on 05/02/2019 - 19:48
        
        +1
        
        @EspressoDan: roads are being built wider to accommodate cycle lanes - there is a huge difference in cost between building WIDER new roads for cyclists and reducing road width for vehicle users.
        
        Cyclists are generating additional huge costs, additional huge environmental costs, and are non contributing. Speak up and you get abused - I am not trolling - you've sworn at me and keep calling me names for speaking the truth.
        
        as I mentioned to start with the cycling crew are fascist in their approach to covering the entire world in cycle lanes.
        
        the road builders and the pollies love you - the rest of use sane greenies can shut up heh?
        
        I don't see people walking in cycle lanes because the cyclists punch them by the way…
        
        [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 21:09
        
        @petry: How are they not contributing? What portion of road building and maintenance costs comes from car rego, rather than from the general tax pool? Bike rego schemes have already been determined to cost more to run than they would make in revenue. That's why they don't exist. They're pointless. But yes, please tell how you'd make it work.
        
        Those widened roads for cycling lanes on the edge are beneficial both ways. It's a small additional margin, and a small additional cost, to keep a better flow of traffic and less dead people. Get more cars off the road, and more bikes in those lanes, and you'll find that traffic flows even better! Less CO2 coming out of less cars, and the cars that are there are travelling more efficiently and producing less pollution, getting where they want to go faster. Beneficial for everyone. If you make cycling safer in cities, you'll get more cyclists on the paths, and fewer motorists on the road, and again making less pollution, less congestion, less road wear, and less road costs.
        
        "Sane greenies" want fewer bikes and more cars on the road? Damn, that's a new one.
        
        People constantly walk in bike exclusive paths. Not sure what planet you're living on. But that's ok, it's expected. Bells exist for a reason. Not sure where you are pulling these frequent cyclist vs pedestrian assaults from.
        
        petry on 06/02/2019 - 11:54
        
        -1
        
        @[Deactivated]: make your assertions - justify your refusal to contribute zero as a cyclist by spinning crap - wider roads - more tarmac - more warming - more cost - more resources used.
        
        Cyclists are clearly above contributing and user pays as a concept just doesn't apply to cyclists, because they are doing us all a favour.
        
        As for the cost of collection look how many billions are wasted on chasing centrelink clients every year… the dead , the dying, the sick, those overpaid because of erratic work payments etc etc.
utopia on 05/02/2019 - 19:03

+2

Short answer. The same people who pay for a driver with one light not working getting squashed by another driver. It's not that hard, but put in the word cyclist and the haters come out in force. Thanks for the clickbait.

Fyi, Mandatory Cycling Helmet laws have left Australia no safer and absolutely the 'do not follow model' whenever other countries (you know, the ones who can actually understand stats, understand the negative nett society impact, and probably understand climate change) even think of implementing it. It's a failed society policy and only brain washed people can't see it
- [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 21:22
  
  negative nett society impact…
  
  "For the greater good…"
CalmLemons on 05/02/2019 - 21:49

Wear a helmet, don't be dumb.

Saw two high speed pro cyclists coming down a hill, one from the main road and one from a side street nearly KO a slower cyclist. Would have been an absolutely shitbomb if the cars were moving and a tram came the other way. None of those 3 cyclist saw each other.

I think the Uber eats motorcyclists are way more of a danger these days…
witsa on 05/02/2019 - 22:14

+1

Firstly, if i ride a bike, I'll always wear a helmet. It's just sensible.

However, I don't think it should be illegal to not wear one. We're all adults - we can make our own decisions.

There's also plenty of situations where you could argue it is safe enough to not wear a helmet. Like when you ride those share bikes in city centres - they're heavy as, and you can't do anything on those. Or if you're riding in a park or just down to your local shops or something? Why not just let people decide based on the situation?
backpaqer on 05/02/2019 - 22:56

Here's an interesting link that covers the "new threat" - scooters, including some background on helmets.
- [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 23:22
  
  My issue with the Lime scooters is more people being inconsiderate rather than the concept itself being unsound or unsafe. People swerving back and forth on busy foot and cycle paths. People ditching their scooters in the middle of one of the busiest cycle ways in Brisbane. Just stupid stuff that is likely born of it being a new service and people mucking around and riding them just for the novelty. I expect will ease up as the service matures and people can act like prats on any mode of transport so its hardly exclusive.
  
  Also I'm not sure what the legality is of riding them on foot paths. I'd have thought if a path is excluded from cyclists then it should probably also be excluded from electric scooters/skateboards/etc as well shouldn't it? Should they be in the bike lanes instead?
  
  Good Link BTW. I do wish the media would learn to actually read the papers they report on.
backpaqer on 05/02/2019 - 23:10

+1

Supposedly the safest helmet in the world (if we believe the marketing) is the Hovding but it's not legal to use one in Australia. I suspect it may be to do with the fact it stuffs up the enforceability of the helmet law - if police can't see a visible foam hat as their basic test for law compliance by a cyclist it all becomes too hard. So we can't use the superior products.

A quick straw poll of the favoured helmets on Beach Road in the packs sees Kask a clear favourite. So our spending on helmets is providing a great boost to the Italian economy, not the boost to the Australian helmet manufacturer Rosebank (who got bought by the US Bell Helmets) the government was trying to prop up that produced the "stackhat" which while saving noggins…broke necks instead. There was quite a few evolutions of helmets that still managed to kill people (neck rotations, strangling kids).

Believe what you will. I prefer free choice. I wear a helmet on my commutes - but I don't carry one around with me in case I just happen to want to ride a bikeshare bike. Thank god they made the trams free in the CBD.
- [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 23:27
  
  Do they not provide helmets with the bikeshares in, I assume, Melbourne?
nukacolacherry on 05/02/2019 - 23:22

-2

Every cyclist has a duty of care to wear a helmet and not expose innocent people to an easily preventable trauma.

Recently a QLD POLICE OFFICER successfully received a payout from the insurer of a man who took drugs and died in a car crash. As the first responder, and the person who held this young man's hand as he died, and told his parents that their son was about to die, the police officer was understandably left with Ptsd. Said officer refused to retire under medical grounds so was ultimately fired.

It was ruled that the deceased had a duty of care to not expose any person to such trauma. I feel that if not wearing a helmet this is the cyclists responsibility and as soon as they get on a bike and choose to ride without a helmet they are at fault.
- [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 23:35
  
  By the judge's ruling, that case is an extremely specific set of circumstances and not intended to set a broad precedent. You should probably not do the same.
  
  Interesting case though, and I'll be interested to see if the precedent does indeed create just a 'trickle' of similar cases.
ankor on 06/02/2019 - 08:22

+2
This has gone horribly offtopic. The four broad topics you are after, in insurance law are:

contributory negligence

duty to mitigate loss

assessment of damages

overcompensation

Do some googling and don't listen to the left wing vs right wing conspiracies here.
- Melb69 on 06/02/2019 - 19:05
  
  Tend to happen. I think at the end of the day we all pay somehow. Just do whatever you like if your adult where a helmet or not. I wouldn't want to be in an accident and spending that extra time in hospital and rehab because I didn't where a helmet.
infinity03 on 06/02/2019 - 10:30

If you are hit by a motor vehicle then all injuries incurred are covered by the compulsory third party (CTP) insurance in NSW atleast (unsure about other states). It works on a no fault basis - so regardless of whether no having a helmet is considered the bike rider's fault CTP will cover it. However, when premiums are determined for this insurance, they would account for paying out these claims, thus end of the day these costs are passed back to all motor vehicle users.
Deliver My Food on 06/02/2019 - 13:18

+3

People should wear helmets 24/7. Especially in your own home. Imagine the risk of falling off the toilet when leaning forward having a wipe. Freaking insane risks if you ask me.

Or maybe it's just a nanny state and everyone can't think and needs to be controlled like 2 year old children.

I never plan to have a accident or get injured, and for the last 45 years it has been going to plan.

Risks of injury is one in millions. Might as well put faith in lotto.

Screw nanny state BS. The rest of the world survives.
kRaYziE666 on 06/02/2019 - 14:10

was this on Nicholson rd? Almost hit a cyclist riding on the red pedestrian crossing. they didn't even look or respond to my honk.
bryans on 06/02/2019 - 21:15

Doesn't take much speed and force when falling off a bike, to have your skull crack open and brains splatter. Show them a few gore videos and they will change.
- mysterytal on 06/02/2019 - 21:22
  
  -2
  
  Is it really that dangerous?
  
  I ride a bicycle at a leisurely pace. If I were to fall off I'd graze my elbow or knee and that's about it. I just don't believe that riding without a helmet would cause my brains to splatter. There just isn't the forces involved for that to happen. It takes quite a lot of force to crack a human skull open.
  
  You can show me all the gory videos you want. I will not believe it. The skull is not that fragile.
  - pegaxs on 07/02/2019 - 10:15
    
    There just isn't the forces involved for that to happen.
    
    People die from head injuries sustained from falling from standing height while not in motion. (Think of the people who die from being knocked over in a brawl and hit their head on the pavement.) On a bicycle, you are usually above standing height AND moving, so the force of impact is greater, increasing chances of significant brain injury or death. (Albeit, some people have hollow heads, so this doesn’t apply to them.)
    
    The skull is not that fragile.
    
    And it's not the skull that is fragile, it's the grey goop inside. When your head hits something at speed and suddenly stops, your brain continues to move and slams into the inside of your skull. It is that impact that does the damage, not necessarily the splitting open of the skull. (Although, splitting open and letting the grey goop out can also be an issue.)
    - backpaqer on 07/02/2019 - 13:01
      
      -2
      
      I've been hit from behind and thrown a good 10 metres into a fence through trees and walked away (after a short few hours in hospital to clear me of any possible concussion), I've t-boned a car at 40kmh and written it off without a mark on the helmet. When's all this Gore and brain spattering you're guaranteeing me?
      - pegaxs on 07/02/2019 - 13:51
        
        @backpaqer: I made no mention of gore. I made mention that there does not have to be any gore at all to cause severe brain trauma or even death.
        
        And it seems as though you were lucky more than the helmet having anything to do with it. You didn’t hit your head, so we don’t really have anything to gauge it against. If I were you, I would keep that helmet. It seems to be your good luck charm.
        
        And are you suggesting is that you think at 40km/h, head into the pavement, you would have walked it off with no injury had you not been wearing a helmet?
        
        I have a friend's son who was pushed off a bike in a playground and suffered brain damage. He wasn't even riding at the time, just sitting on it without a helmet.
        
        I was hit on my motorcycle at about 15km/h and my head hit the road. My helmet was an absolute write off and I suffered concussion for a few days.
    - mysterytal on 07/02/2019 - 18:29
      
      -2
      
      Wow…A $5 bit of foam covered by a tiny bit of hard plastic will protect my skull from cracking open and prevent my brains from turning to splatter all over the pavement.
      
      That is absolutely amazing.
      
      Sorry for being so sceptical but I just don't ride around at high speed on a bicycle. The worst injury I've ever had falling off a bicycle is a grazed knee and elbow. I've also chipped my tooth and cut my lips. I was not wearing a helmet. I was riding in a jurisdiction that does not enforce the wearing of bicycle helmets. I do not ride a bicycle in Australia. I drive instead.
      
      Yes I've heard of many cyclists dying in crashes but I don't put myself at that risk. As I said I keep to local roads, cycle paths and parks. I do not ride on the highway.
      - pegaxs on 07/02/2019 - 18:57
        
        @mysterytal: Where did I say that your head needs to split open to cause death or brain damage?
        
        And it’s ok to be skeptical. I mean, there is absolutely no evidence on the internet that supports the idea that helmets can reduce or eliminate head injuries as opposed to not wearing one at all. According to others in this thread, the human head is good for up to 40km/h at a minimum…
        
        I think it’s just a big conspiracy by helmet manufacturers to sell me something I don’t actually need. I mean, you’re right, all accidents are avoidable simply through risk management.
Architectonic on 07/02/2019 - 02:46

Reading the comments, it is quite clear who rides bikes for activities other than sport/recreation and who doesn't…
Zonty on 07/02/2019 - 09:23

If I am in parliament I pass bill at healthcare sector.Scrap all private health insurance industry greedy profit making industries,and offer by Medicare this offer with no premium for basic cover free(which is providing now) afterward increase premiums according level of cover. it will make premium affordable to every ausee.
This Medibank, Bupa and many other they make profits for their investors. That bring premium very high.
Let people decide what level of cover do you need by Medicare, I bat it will save half of premium what I do pay .

Probably now too late because few profit making industries and investors will cry out loud.
fruxo on 07/02/2019 - 09:33

+2

I feel like this is such a common sense issue blown out of proportion. A compromise could easily be found, such as below.

1/ more dedicated bike paths. This 30cm lane at side of high speed road is ridiculous and will always cause accidents. It would encourage biking and probably pay for itself if looking at the bigger picture (less obesity etc).

2/ mandatory helmets for children and if travelling on 60km/h+ roads.

3/ non-mandatory when on roads that don't have motor vehicles (bike path, footpath etc). Or 60km/h- roads.

This would mean that proper cyclists going next to motor vehicles need helmets whereas occasional riders can ride their bike on footpath 10 minutes to grocery store or train station or wherever without the hassle of then having a helmet so carry around.

As adults, we make a lot more significant decisions every day. We can decide when to wear a helmet and when it's fine to ride without one. Me riding slowly to train station has roughly the same risk as me walking briskly along the same path. And I don't see anyone advocating for helmets when walking (just a matter of time I'm sure!).
Vhaluus on 07/02/2019 - 15:03

You do realize that in most states an adult riding on the footpath is illegal?
- [Deactivated] on 07/02/2019 - 17:31
  
  Many footpaths are shared zones where it is perfectly legal to ride/scoot/skate. Also if one is changing riding and helmet laws one could just as easily change footpath laws where appropriate.
  
  I got pulled over by the police when I was about 10 for riding my bike on the foot path. Even though there wasn't a foot path, it was just grass, and the road that they think I should have been riding on was the Cunningham Highway.
  
  Also what's the law in regards to skateboarding and Lime-like scooters and helmets? I've seen barely anyone on a lime scooter wearing helmets. Not saying I think they should have to just curious if they're supposed to but no one cares.
  - Melb69 on 07/02/2019 - 19:38
    
    As with all laws. Its all well and good to have the laws, but if the authorities don't enforce it what's the point. Police have more pressing things to deal with then skateboarders and scooter riders. Not that they shouldn't be ensuring the laws are enforced.
DrLobster on 07/02/2019 - 23:31

If you had a kid (yours or someone elses) riding on the back of your bike in kid seat would you make them wear a helmet?
- mysterytal on 08/02/2019 - 14:51
  
  Yes, I would require them to wear a helmet as they do not yet have the skill of using their arms, rolling their body on to their side and tucking their chin in to help break a fall if they were to fall off.
  - DrLobster on 08/02/2019 - 18:16
    
    Ok so what you are saying is that having/not having to wear a helmet is actually based on skill and/or development level. How/who determines skill and the thresholds for have having the required 'skill' on your bike or if the child riding independently? Some adults may not even have these skills. Infants and toddlers are taught how to swim/float or roll over face up to avoid drowning/injury. If children demonstrate the required skills do they then not have to wear a helmet?
thord on 08/02/2019 - 13:17

+1
Helmets should be optional and not mandatory if ridden on the footpath or anywhere other than the road.

If ridden on the road, helmets should be mandatory.

Bikes should be able to be ridden on footpaths.

More cyclelanes/shared pedestrian paths should be created to get bikes off roads.
points4life on 08/02/2019 - 14:41

Go to Europe (especially the Netherlands) and have a look around… you will soon see that people aren't dying left right and centre.
- Melb69 on 10/02/2019 - 15:17
  
  There city is designed for bikes ours is a hash job. Maybe in the City the car speeds are ok. Elsewhere not so good. You don't have to die left right and centre as you don't have a helmet. What you can do is minimise your risk. That's all.
  - points4life on 11/02/2019 - 15:50
    
    That's fine but life is a risk… it should be up to the individual to decide. Australia is already a nanny state: you can't do this and you can't do that.
    To create a better society you need less rules that restrict freedom and more tolerance. There's this car vs bike mentality here which I find rather amusing because the reality is you can have it both.
    - Melb69 on 14/02/2019 - 19:59
      
      You can have it both ways, but the car will always win in an accident, whether it was your fault or the driver of the car.
Oneguyinmelb on 08/02/2019 - 16:14

Cycling fatalities in Australia have almost halved since mandatory helmet laws were introduced in the 1990s, new research from the University of NSW shows.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/report-reveals-how-many-l…

I suppose you would have to question though, whether the fatalities reduced because of helmet laws, or an improvement in infrastructure/education.
- Melb69 on 08/02/2019 - 19:50
  
  Great article. The pro no helmet riders should read it. Its probably a combination. You wouldn't second think about not putting your seat belt on when your driving. It should be the same when riding.
- SkMed on 13/02/2019 - 17:14
  
  It's interesting in this article how they omitted the fact that the study was based on deaths per percentage of population, not on participants of cyclists. The original article/report had that and got torn to shreds because its skewed data, lemme see if i can find it.
- SkMed on 13/02/2019 - 17:18
  
  here it is:
  
  https://road.cc/content/news/255946-professor-likens-anti-he…
  
  "There was an immediate 46 per cent reduction in the rate of cycling fatalities per 100,000 population following the introduction of bicycle helmet legislation in Australia,"
  
  … Population, not riding participants! So this data is totally skewed! Im sure the number of cyclists per 100,000 have also declined since the introduction of helmet laws so im sure that 46 percent would dramatically decline with the correct stats. IF it doesnt then i'll happily jump on the pro-helmet law train.
- SkMed on 13/02/2019 - 17:37
  
  I cant find any studies confirming a decline in riders. However I did find this data on cyclists and if you compare 2011 to 2015 (thats as far as the data goes) you'll see it shows a decline in cyclists while the population grows:
  
  2011 had an average of about 170 cyclists at peak hour on each bike path
  2015 had an average of about 155 cyclists at peak hour on each bike path
  
  AND between those years Melbourne population grew from 3.85milion to 4.53million!
  
  Plus between those years there have been significant improvements in the bike networks and trails.
  
  So according to this data (i know its pretty broad and vague) cyclists are still in decline vs population growth, which means that article/study is totally skewed in favour of MHL.
  
  https://public.tableau.com/views/BikePublic_0/BikeProfileDas…
- SkMed on 13/02/2019 - 18:02
  
  lol also just realised the wording here.
  
  "There was an immediate 46 per cent reduction in the rate of cycling fatalities"
  
  Well there was also an immediate 30-40 percent reduction in cycling participation after the laws were introduced haha.
  
  So in reality wouldn't the percentage only be like 6 percent potentially? guess that isnt as sexy though.
backpaqer on 09/02/2019 - 08:39

Helmets aren't mandatory at ski resorts. Yet most people wear them. No mandatory helmet law here.

Problem is that it causes Superman syndrome and you see people skiing/boarding beyond their abilities and getting themselves into more trouble and exposing others to the risks of their inexperience.
- Melb69 on 09/02/2019 - 11:04
  
  As long as you are taking responsibility and at least considering your nog. It probably does make you think your superman on the slopes. I think on the bike its just annoys people for having to wear them as they think it's not important, hence probably why the issue about why do I need to wear it when I think I'm unlikely to fall off or be in an accident. I have seen a lot of close calls. Are you better off having a helmet on if you get doored and come off and hit the road with your NOG.
  - mysterytal on 10/02/2019 - 13:26
    
    My advice.
    
    Don't ride so close to car doors….
    
    I wouldn't. I don't even walk behind cars in car parks. I walk in the middle of the road when walking back to my car. Yes cars driving behind me looking for parking spots hate it when they're speeding around the car park and have to slow down to wait for me to get to the side but at least I will have enough time to see when a car suddenly reverses into the road and I have the time to get out of the way.
    
    Quote from Vicroads https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/cyclis… - Take care when riding beside parked cars. Position yourself so that there is sufficient space between you and the parked cars (if possible and safe to do so).
    - Melb69 on 10/02/2019 - 15:15
      
      Bit hard if you have traffic beside you little room between parked car and moving ones. No you have to battle the Uber bike riders who use the bike lane as well. Rider has no hope if it all goes wrong. Door opens, rider swings out. Copes it by the Uber bike or the Uber driver.
  - backpaqer on 11/02/2019 - 09:53
    
    +1
    
    Dunno! Both times I've been doored, I have somersaulted over the door and landed on my feet. Helmet hasn't come into play. Both events were passengers getting out of cars in traffic.
    
    I learned how to fall at school using trampolines and crash mats. Maybe they're so used to wrapping kids in cotton wool these days they don't know how to fall - because the helmet will save them! At least with 300-400g of extra weight up there it will increase the chances the head will hit first if any inertia is involved.
Banj0 on 12/02/2019 - 09:47

+1

I was once riding along a path besides a construction site…not particularly fast or anything. Some of the orange safety mesh wasn't secured properly, and a gust of wind blew it into the path where it snagged my handlebar and flipped me off my bike. I landed flat on my back with my head hitting the concrete. I smacked down hard - certainly harder than simply falling from a standing position.

I took about a minute laying on the ground checking myself for injuries, then got up and looked about for onlookers (embarrassment was my first reaction). Head was throbbing a tad (probably should have got myself checked out in hindsight), but otherwise, I was all good.

That was with a helmet. A helmet I no longer have, as the incident wrote it off.

Had I not been wearing a helmet, I suspect that the outcome may have been a brain injury or worse. We've all seen reports of deaths and injuries sustained by people simply falling to the ground.

Many decades of cycling, including the last 15 years regularly to and from work. I've had about three stacks, and just that once hitting my head on the ground, riding at low speed. Just that once things could have ended badly. It's not a common thing, but the consequences can be dire I think.

Bit of a no brainer for me. I'll continue wearing my helmet thanks.
- Melb69 on 12/02/2019 - 20:26
  
  Wearing a helmet just makes sense. If you had not worn it either yourself or someone would have to pay for your rehabilitation. It could also have long term affects that may never get you back to normal. I just don't get why people would not ride with a helmet on. Your example is just the reason why your should.
cille745 on 14/02/2019 - 13:34

To be honest I believe it should be a legal requirement to have one, but not sure what happens in terms of blame in an accident. I mean, we're required to wear seatbelts by law, so I don't see why this should be any different

It's your responsibility. When does it become the fault of others when you ride without a helmet, and you're in an accident?

Comments

New Forum Topics