Canberra 'Punk Commute'

Having seen the participants, it looked like a fun day out for those who cannot afford a trip to Switzerland for specialist medical treatment.

Kramer said :

Happy for people to not wear helmets provided they also give up their right to medical care due to head trauma suffered from cycling accidents while not wearing a helmet.
If you want darwinism, then we’ll give it to you.

Then why not apply the same rule to any dangerous activity? Think of all those people who’ve cracked their heads on the pavement after being attacked by some random drunk during a night on the town. Everyone knows the risk is there. Should clubbers who don’t bother to wear helmets forfeit their right to medical care if they get thumped?

Perhaps a rule based on a cyclists level of medical insurance would be more appropriate. Those who have full cover can go without a helmet.

Kramer said :

Happy for people to not wear helmets provided they also give up their right to medical care due to head trauma suffered from cycling accidents while not wearing a helmet.
If you want darwinism, then we’ll give it to you.

Gee, we wouldn’t want to make riding a bike appear dangerous now would we.

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/regular-cyclists-could-live-14-months-longer-than-car-drivers-28162

but couldn’t be the same said for smokers, fat people, drinkers who get liver problems or just general unhealthy people who cost the health system billiions?

Kramer said :

Happy for people to not wear helmets provided they also give up their right to medical care due to head trauma suffered from cycling accidents while not wearing a helmet.
If you want darwinism, then we’ll give it to you.

Yes mum.

Happy for people to not wear helmets provided they also give up their right to medical care due to head trauma suffered from cycling accidents while not wearing a helmet.
If you want darwinism, then we’ll give it to you.

BicycleCanberra said :

A Bicycle Helmet is unlikely to protect you in a collision with a car, at speeds over 50km/h. Unless your car has bonnet air bags!

who said anything about travelling at 50km/hr? If you hit a car the wrong way at 5km/hr you can still die.

Henry82 said :

[
Well hypothetically it could be the difference between some dead on the bonnet of your car, or just injured.

A Bicycle Helmet is unlikely to protect you in a collision with a car, at speeds over 50km/h. Unless your car has bonnet air bags!

http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news–general-news/the-car-bonnet-airbag-that-will-save-bikers-lives/4526.html
http://bicyclecanberra.blogspot.com/2011/06/driver-found-guilty.html

Watson said :

If you allow cyclists to choose whethere they wear a helmet or not, how is that really going to affect you?

Well hypothetically it could be the difference between some dead on the bonnet of your car, or just injured.

If you allow cyclists to choose whethere they wear a helmet or not, how is that really going to affect you? Do you really expect the health costs from split skulls to sky rocket to the point that we will have to pay more taxes or close schools? Bit different to wearing a seatbelt in the car, I would have thought.

How come so many Canberrans seem to have nothing better to do than to make sure others follow all the nitty gritty rules and don’t cross the mind numbingly tight boundaries of what they consider to be acceptable behaviour when that behaviour doesn’t affect them in any way? I already have a mother. I don’t need 300,000 more.

Thoroughly Smashed said :

bearlikesbeer said :

Thoroughly Smashed said :

BlackIce said :

bearlikesbeer said :

I ride a bmx at about 20kmph. What am I going to do? Have a fatal head-on with a rollerblader?

More likely a head-on with a commuter cyclist going at 40km/h. Your 20 plus their 40 would make for an uncomfortable collision.

It often doesn’t matter how fast you or any other involved party is going if you brain yourself on the footpath or some hard object.

So everyone on bike paths, including pedestrians, should wear a helmet just in case?

You must have already taken a blow to the head, were you wearing a helmet?

Please explain to me why pedestrians on bike paths shouldn’t be required to wear the same safety equipment as cyclists. Bouncing your head on a metal bike frame after a cyclist hits you could cause serious injury. Falling over and hitting your head on the path after a cyclist hits you could cause serious injury.

Thoroughly Smashed said :

bearlikesbeer said :

Thoroughly Smashed said :

BlackIce said :

bearlikesbeer said :

I ride a bmx at about 20kmph. What am I going to do? Have a fatal head-on with a rollerblader?

More likely a head-on with a commuter cyclist going at 40km/h. Your 20 plus their 40 would make for an uncomfortable collision.

It often doesn’t matter how fast you or any other involved party is going if you brain yourself on the footpath or some hard object.

So everyone on bike paths, including pedestrians, should wear a helmet just in case?

You must have already taken a blow to the head, were you wearing a helmet?

BicycleCanberra said :

00davist said :

If you honestly feel a block of strap-on foam is what prevents us transforming into a European bicycle utopia, then you’ve had one too many fall without one!

I’ve never had a fall on my bike while cycling for transport, that in 37 years of cycling in the Canberra. Cycle safety comes with experience and training from an early age. Something we used to do here in Canberra.

Yeah, and accidents still happen, you’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise!

Aeek said :

So Northbourne @ 60kmh is low speed, Federal Highway at 100/110 in NSW is low volume.
Where is the problem?

These are obviously not low speed low traffic environments! Low speed is 50kmh or less and lower than 10 000 vehicles per day for urban roads.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/truck-ploughs-into-cyclists-on-m4-one-dead-three-injured-20100410-rzs4.html

BicycleCanberra said :

There is no one or the other, on road cycle lanes are good in low speed low volume environments, The higher the speed and volume of traffic the greater the separation. This is international best practice gained by years of experience in European countries.

So Northbourne @ 60kmh is low speed, Federal Highway at 100/110 in NSW is low volume.
Where is the problem?

00davist said :

If you honestly feel a block of strap-on foam is what prevents us transforming into a European bicycle utopia, then you’ve had one too many fall without one!

I’ve never had a fall on my bike while cycling for transport, that in 37 years of cycling in the Canberra. Cycle safety comes with experience and training from an early age. Something we used to do here in Canberra.

BicycleCanberra said :

Aeek said :

Funny. I feel exactly the same when you stick the boot into the on-road lanes.
I’m all for spending money on the off road network, but why should that mean trashing the on-road?

There is no one or the other, on road cycle lanes are good in low speed low volume environments, The higher the speed and volume of traffic the greater the separation. This is international best practice gained by years of experience in European countries. Why can’t we have the best cycle infrastructure? because we don’t need to cause where forced to wear Helmets. C’mon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrqG0DqkSlw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIdQ8RMDtGM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOR6zm_Yziw

If you honestly feel a block of strap-on foam is what prevents us transforming into a European bicycle utopia, then you’ve had one too many fall without one!

Aeek said :

Funny. I feel exactly the same when you stick the boot into the on-road lanes.
I’m all for spending money on the off road network, but why should that mean trashing the on-road?

There is no one or the other, on road cycle lanes are good in low speed low volume environments, The higher the speed and volume of traffic the greater the separation. This is international best practice gained by years of experience in European countries. Why can’t we have the best cycle infrastructure? because we don’t need to cause where forced to wear Helmets. C’mon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrqG0DqkSlw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIdQ8RMDtGM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOR6zm_Yziw

BicycleCanberra said :

We need to be designing infrastructure for everyone to use not just you.

Funny. I feel exactly the same when you stick the boot into the on-road lanes.
I’m all for spending money on the off road network, but why should that mean trashing the on-road?

I was outside Civic library today, half a dozen old beardie weirdie’s on bikes with a banner.

Nothing to see here, move along now…..

Mysteryman said :

I find it VERY hard to believe that the reason that bicycles as a form of transport haven’t taken off in Australia is because of helmet laws. I can tell you why I don’t use one, and it has everything to do with Canberra being very spread out and very cold in winter, and nothing to do with helmet laws.

Laziness is a valid excuse (it is my main one) and so is time (can’t use that myself, am as fast on bike as by car) but cold is not! You get so toasty warm after riding a couple of kilometers. It takes my car longer to heat up than it takes my body on the bike.

BicycleCanberra said :

Mysteryman said :

I find it VERY hard to believe that the reason that bicycles as a form of transport haven’t taken off in Australia is because of helmet laws. I can tell you why I don’t use one, and it has everything to do with Canberra being very spread out and very cold in winter, and nothing to do with helmet laws.

Other countries that have high cycling rates and even some low ones always sight Australia as what not to do in enforcing Mandatory helmet laws. The cycling rate has not moved since the law came in and the number of children cycling has dropped off considerably.
If you believe Canberra is too cold for cycling, well it snows in Holland and Denmark with rivers freezing over yet many still cycle through winter.

Mate, I still think it’s a stretch to put that down to helmut laws, there are pleanty of other, and much better reasons so many of us dont ride to work (I did once upon a time though)

Problem is, the reasons that many people sight for not wanting to ride, dont fit your agenda, so you overlook them.

I gave up rideing to work long before i moved out of canberra, heres why:
-Time taken to get to work was greater
-More flat tires than my car ever had, this is not a cost issue, but a hastle.
-Nearly got skittled by one too many cabs
-cold mornings mean you need a good coat, but hot afternoons require less coat, and lugging it home in a backpack is much more uncomfortable than a helmut.
-Magpies dont hurt cars
-some mornings, I really dont feel like it!
-Rain
-Comfort
-Air con
-I’m not partial to the taste of bugs
-To many cyclists are dicks, i dont want to be associated with them, and taking the back ways to avoid having to put up with them results in less comfort, and more flat tires.

I still take the bike out often enough, but I can tell you now, I damn sure dont go anywhere near other cyclists, and I DO wear a helmut. (I like living)

Are there seriously people who say ‘well, I would have ridden that 500m to the shops, but because I have to wear a helmet I will drive and pay for parking’? That is just weird.

Perhaps cycling hasnt increased since the helmet laws because those laws co-incided with increased density, more traffic and higher car ownership.

And with the trend towards not letting children off on their own, where are they meant to cycle to? That said, if you hang around local public schools there are an awful lot of kids that ride in (I say ‘public’ not because private school kids cant ride, but because public schools cater for the local region – within riding distance- and private students come from all over)

BicycleCanberra said :

Mysteryman said :

I find it VERY hard to believe that the reason that bicycles as a form of transport haven’t taken off in Australia is because of helmet laws. I can tell you why I don’t use one, and it has everything to do with Canberra being very spread out and very cold in winter, and nothing to do with helmet laws.

Other countries that have high cycling rates and even some low ones always sight Australia as what not to do in enforcing Mandatory helmet laws. The cycling rate has not moved since the law came in and the number of children cycling has dropped off considerably.
If you believe Canberra is too cold for cycling, well it snows in Holland and Denmark with rivers freezing over yet many still cycle through winter.

Good for them! There’s a big difference between cities in Holland and Denmark and Canberra – namely urban density. 10 minutes on a bike in minus degrees is not the same as 45 minutes on a bike in minus degrees.

I’m also willing to bet that the decline in the number of children cycling has more to do with the general attitude of parents and parenting than the enforcement of helmet laws. Children spend a lot more time indoors playing video games, using computers, and watching TV because it’s “easy entertainment” that keeps the kids quiet and safe, as opposed to parents encouraging their children to be outside and active.

Mysteryman said :

I find it VERY hard to believe that the reason that bicycles as a form of transport haven’t taken off in Australia is because of helmet laws. I can tell you why I don’t use one, and it has everything to do with Canberra being very spread out and very cold in winter, and nothing to do with helmet laws.

Other countries that have high cycling rates and even some low ones always sight Australia as what not to do in enforcing Mandatory helmet laws. The cycling rate has not moved since the law came in and the number of children cycling has dropped off considerably.
If you believe Canberra is too cold for cycling, well it snows in Holland and Denmark with rivers freezing over yet many still cycle through winter.

I find it VERY hard to believe that the reason that bicycles as a form of transport haven’t taken off in Australia is because of helmet laws. I can tell you why I don’t use one, and it has everything to do with Canberra being very spread out and very cold in winter, and nothing to do with helmet laws.

Watson said :

I hate them, I don’t wear them (often) and the police has way better things to do than to fine me..

a few times a year they have a few bike cops (and at one stage a police car) who hang out at Union Court ANU and fine every cyclist who ride through without a helmet. So it doesn’t happen often, but it does happen.

Watson said :

I hate them, I don’t wear them (often) and the police has way better things to do than to fine me. So couldn’t be bothered rocking up to the protest as the laws don’t bother me. It would be nice to have them cancelled if only to stop some other road users from acting like my mother, but it’s not a big deal.

+1, I just don’t wear them, no-one except the lycra clad seem to care.

I hate them, I don’t wear them (often) and the police has way better things to do than to fine me. So couldn’t be bothered rocking up to the protest as the laws don’t bother me. It would be nice to have them cancelled if only to stop some other road users from acting like my mother, but it’s not a big deal.

Out of curiosity I dropped by Civic Square to see what was happening. At 12.31 pm there were half a dozen bicycles, about a dozen bodies, one banner affixed to some of said bicycles, one small and barely legible protest sign, one megaphone attached to a lady wearing a floppy hat covered with imitation flowers and one curious MLA, Mr Hargreaves I believe, who was listening politely to the opinions of this supposedly representative gathering of Canberra citizenry.

I did not identify any representatives of the capitalist press (hiss, boo Mr Murdoch) or the Government licensed electronic media. No police were in sight, evidently intimidated by the assembled throng.

Elsewhere in Civic Square a couple (unmarried, I assume), were manning (sic) a card table in aid of marriage equality, and the remnants of a Teachers union pay equality rally were dispersing.

5 minutes of my life ticked by. Mr Hargreaves retreated inside the Assembly and was replaced by the ACT’s patron saint of direct action in defiance of the law, Greens MLA and Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Mr Rattenbury. And, the multitudes having increased to about 20 persons, megaphone lady decided to fire up said megaphone, presumably to rev up some direct action.

At this point, I decided that 10 minutes I would never get back was all I was prepared to devote to a cause I was not convinced by. I know it’s selfish but I was not prepared to sacrifice my hearing as well. I decided instead to go off and get some lunch.

So I don’t know what eventuated – did the vanguard of the bicycletariat, rightly enraged by the apathy of the indifferent, car-driving majority (OK, I’m guilty as charged), take it upon themselves to storm Parliament House? Or was this democratic upsurge brutally suppressed by the jackbooted constabulary, the unwitting tools of peak oil and helmet hair?

Perhaps some other citizen witness will take up the tale?

bearlikesbeer said :

Thoroughly Smashed said :

BlackIce said :

bearlikesbeer said :

I ride a bmx at about 20kmph. What am I going to do? Have a fatal head-on with a rollerblader?

More likely a head-on with a commuter cyclist going at 40km/h. Your 20 plus their 40 would make for an uncomfortable collision.

It often doesn’t matter how fast you or any other involved party is going if you brain yourself on the footpath or some hard object.

So everyone on bike paths, including pedestrians, should wear a helmet just in case?

You must have already taken a blow to the head, were you wearing a helmet?

troll-sniffer said :

john87_no1 said :

Of all the causes in all the world to make a stand for, these muppets choose helmet legislation?!?!?!? Has no one watched the news lately?

Looking for what exactly? I can’t think of anything that’s changed recently, the legislation is the same, my implacable refusal to obey this pointless and short-sighted law hasn’t shifted even one iota, self-righteous motorists still can’t help themselves and point to their heads as though it’s in any way their business…

aSniffer, what i meant was that there must be bigger injustices going on in the ACT let alone the rest of the world.

The reason some motorists point to their head is because if they hit you, or you them, they can kill you or may cause head injuries. To say it’s no one else’s business is short sighted. Unless you are really wealthy or have some type of special non-helmet wearing insurance, who do you think will be paying for your injuries if you’re hurt?

What is your argument for not wearing a helmet? Why wouldn’t you want to mitigate your chances of sustaining serious head injuries in a crash?

troll-sniffer said :

john87_no1 said :

Of all the causes in all the world to make a stand for, these muppets choose helmet legislation?!?!?!? Has no one watched the news lately?

Looking for what exactly? I can’t think of anything that’s changed recently, the legislation is the same, my implacable refusal to obey this pointless and short-sighted law hasn’t shifted even one iota, self-righteous motorists still can’t help themselves and point to their heads as though it’s in any way their business…

Well, the first 1/2 of your name fits…

john87_no1 said :

Of all the causes in all the world to make a stand for, these muppets choose helmet legislation?!?!?!? Has no one watched the news lately?

Looking for what exactly? I can’t think of anything that’s changed recently, the legislation is the same, my implacable refusal to obey this pointless and short-sighted law hasn’t shifted even one iota, self-righteous motorists still can’t help themselves and point to their heads as though it’s in any way their business…

Of all the causes in all the world to make a stand for, these muppets choose helmet legislation?!?!?!? Has no one watched the news lately?

Stevian said :

00davist said :

So your saying we should knock down Canberra, and start over?

That idea is not without merit

LOL, when you put it that way…

But in all seriosness, comparing canberra to a city that was designed for cylcing, and then saying it does not match up, is beyond comprehension.

Canberra was not designed as a cylcists mecca, it was a designed city, sure, but not for that purpose, drawing comparisons with a far away city designed for cyclists, that holds no resmblance to canberra, just removes any credibility you had.

if you have a reasonable argument to put forward about his, you waste it the moment you start clutching at straws like this, it just makes you look clueless and out of touch, and any valuable contribution you might have, will be lost as people turn away from the crazy person.

BicycleCanberra said :

Aeek said :

BicycleCanberra said :

reason we have such poor infrastructure like cycle lanes on major arterial roads which is not the standard in Holland.

I’ve only ridden in Adelaide and Canberra, never in Holland – in that context I love the cycle lanes, in my experience they are separation.

There is a saying in the Building trade – ‘F**K you Jack I’m alright’ . We need to be designing infrastructure for everyone to use not just you.
The ACT spends a lack luster $3.6 million a year on walking & cycling infrastructure compared to $100 million ( not including carparks) on roads. We can do better than this.

Maybe cause y’know, cars are essential, and bikes are not.

00davist said :

So your saying we should knock down Canberra, and start over?

That idea is not without merit

For the imbeciles who, the evidence of their eyes to the contrary, think all cyclists wear lycra I’d like to point out that the lycra mob are gear fetishists and you’d be hard pressed to part them from their helmet.

Aeek said :

BicycleCanberra said :

reason we have such poor infrastructure like cycle lanes on major arterial roads which is not the standard in Holland.

I’ve only ridden in Adelaide and Canberra, never in Holland – in that context I love the cycle lanes, in my experience they are separation.

There is a saying in the Building trade – ‘F**K you Jack I’m alright’ . We need to be designing infrastructure for everyone to use not just you.
The ACT spends a lack luster $3.6 million a year on walking & cycling infrastructure compared to $100 million ( not including carparks) on roads. We can do better than this.

Deref said :

I bet if they made helmets out of lycra and covered them with advertisements bike riders would wear them in a flash.

You mean like many of the bike helmets available for sale in the late 80s to early 90s? They were lycra covered, and of course were available with garish “team” graphics.

“In-molding” the polystyrene to the hard outer shell has proved a more effective method since then..

Henry82 said :

I was thinking if apple produced an iHelmet, everyone would wear them, including pedestrians.

+1 LOL!

Patent this idea quicksmart before Jobs gets wind of it

BicycleCanberra said :

reason we have such poor infrastructure like cycle lanes on major arterial roads which is not the standard in Holland.

I’ve only ridden in Adelaide and Canberra, never in Holland – in that context I love the cycle lanes, in my experience they are separation.

I don’t like bike helmets because they flatten my hair and I need my hair to look decent at work. However, I am not stupid enough to ride my bike without one – fully aware through a friend’s accident that low-speed riders on bike paths can injure their brains. Sorry, bicycle proponents, I never ride my bike to work and never will – only down to the shops on the weekend with my helmet on, when how my hair looks doesn’t matter.

Deref said :

I bet if they made helmets out of lycra and covered them with advertisements bike riders would wear them in a flash.

I was thinking if apple produced an iHelmet, everyone would wear them, including pedestrians.

Anyone know if this protest is going ahead? an indication on numbers? whether its been approved? and whether the cops will be on the first corner handing out $60 tickets?

BicycleCanberra said :

neanderthalsis said :

Comparing Canberra, a town with far reaching urban spread, poor public transport and very high levels of car ownership with a smallish regional European town is drawing a long bow. Yes it may be the size of one of our town, but narrow windy streets, a lack of decentralized commercial/administrative districts and being relatively flat makes it far more conducive to cycling than Canberra.

Houten is about 10km from the city of Utrecht, similar distance from Woden to Civic which is about 7.5km. Houten was a medieval city before its residential expansion in the 70’s and 80’s. It was specifically designed for bicycle use ,lower residential speeds(common throughout European cities), direct routes for cyclists,cycle priority streets and right of way crossings. It has nothing to do with be of flat terrain but in the initial planning. Most buildings in the city centre are no taller than six stories and the residential areas are not that dense, in fact Houten has one of the lowest densities in Holland.

All this has created safety for people on bikes something that a helmet law hasn’t in Australia.

So your saying we should knock down Canberra, and start over?

I bet if they made helmets out of lycra and covered them with advertisements bike riders would wear them in a flash.

neanderthalsis said :

Comparing Canberra, a town with far reaching urban spread, poor public transport and very high levels of car ownership with a smallish regional European town is drawing a long bow. Yes it may be the size of one of our town, but narrow windy streets, a lack of decentralized commercial/administrative districts and being relatively flat makes it far more conducive to cycling than Canberra.

Houten is about 10km from the city of Utrecht, similar distance from Woden to Civic which is about 7.5km. Houten was a medieval city before its residential expansion in the 70’s and 80’s. It was specifically designed for bicycle use ,lower residential speeds(common throughout European cities), direct routes for cyclists,cycle priority streets and right of way crossings. It has nothing to do with be of flat terrain but in the initial planning. Most buildings in the city centre are no taller than six stories and the residential areas are not that dense, in fact Houten has one of the lowest densities in Holland.

All this has created safety for people on bikes something that a helmet law hasn’t in Australia.

repjon22 said As a cyclist who didn’t like wearing a helmet initially, and still doesn’t, I’ve now learned to adapt to wearing my helmet in cars as well. While sometimes especially uncomfortable in small cars, it is quite fun wearing your helmet when travelling in the front passenger seat: great eyeballing other drivers while wearing your helmet. I suggest best call for cyclists who don’t like helmets is to call for them to be compulsory for all drivers as well. It’d save a lot of money, most of which is taxpayers. The evidence is there.

Deary me……its like that Seifield episode where they all think Kramer is disabled.

Seriously, man up dude

Doc Dogg said :

There are helmet laws in Canberra? The only cyclists I’ve ever seen with a helmet in the two years I’ve been here was overtaking me downhill at the Cotter (I’d be wearing a helmet too at those speeds).

i think all things considered there’s a remarkable level of compliance with helmet laws in ACT

Only i people I tend to see who ride without helmets are:

1. Derros, often on their way to local shops for ciggies/grog, or a drug or stolen goods related rendezvous
2. University students
3. Metrosexual men / women who don’t want to mess up their carefully styled hair on the ride in to work

Doc Dogg – maybe you live in an area heavily populated by one or more of the above demographic groups (like the Inner North, home to all three groups)

BicycleCanberra said :

….

Take a look in Houten, Holland a town the size of one of Canberra’s town centres with 60 % of the inhabitants that cycle and the safest place in the world to cycle. All this without mandatory helmet laws

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oEJTuxOt5M&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Comparing Canberra, a town with far reaching urban spread, poor public transport and very high levels of car ownership with a smallish regional European town is drawing a long bow. Yes it may be the size of one of our town, but narrow windy streets, a lack of decentralized commercial/administrative districts and being relatively flat makes it far more conducive to cycling than Canberra.

As you mention, bicycle use hasn’t changed in 20 years, so mandatory helmet wearing isn’t turning people away from cycling.

stormboy said :

Take a look in Houten, Holland a town the size of one of Canberra’s town centres with 60 % of the inhabitants that cycle and the safest place in the world to cycle. All this without mandatory helmet laws

The difference is that in many European cities the citizens have at least a minimum level of respect for each other. In Australia it’s all “Me me me. Get outta my way ya C**t, etc and so forth”. No valid comparison can be made

Take a look in Houten, Holland a town the size of one of Canberra’s town centres with 60 % of the inhabitants that cycle and the safest place in the world to cycle. All this without mandatory helmet laws

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oEJTuxOt5M&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Great bit of video, thanks for sharing that. Interestingly, in Holland they don’t seem to share arterial roads with cars travelling at 60, 80 or more. Also very interestingly, they don’t seen to have pig headed lycra clad superhero’s roaring down their beautiful path network risking the lives of their children. Most of the daddys of the clowns that give your ‘passion’ a bad name should of had a helmet on when they were getting frinky with the mammas

Fair dinkum Freedomcycle, when cyclists can act in a law abiding and respectful manner I might change my view about you but I’ll still reinforce the importance of protecting your brain to my kids.

I trust that Mr Plod will be issuing infringements as necessary during your “protest”.

Flame suit has been sent to the cleaners……

I just don’t like helmets. Or hats, for that matter. My head gets hot. My hair gets squashed and matted and prickly, and then my head itches badly. Some helmets (more the skiing ones) severely cut down the ability to hear… the bike ones aren’t so bad in that regard.

But I just don’t like them. So I don’t wear them. And since in Australia I have to wear one on a bike, I don’t cycle in Australia. And I do miss it, but not enough to wear a helmet. Tried it, hated it.

As for the argument that it’s to protect the public health system, oh please. Smoking. Obesity. P-Platers. When having obese kids becomes child abuse (since a fat kid is almost guaranteed to be a fat adult) then I’ll buy the public health argument.

Ditto the number of head injuries from car crashes; pretty sure that would justify mandating helmets for car drivers and passengers. So how about it?

I am so fed up with this type of thread on RA

Want to get your point across … learn how to spell and construct a coherent sentence

I ride, I have a halo
I drive, I have a halo
I walk, I have a halo

With all the precious people around Canberra, how come we have a problem?

BicycleCanberra said :

The link with seat belts is ridiculous as helmets still do not protect a cyclist in a collision with a motor vehicle, that’s why separation is the key to a safe cycling city and that’s why Holland and Denmark are the safest cities in the world to cycle.

The link is in no way rediculous, seat belt protect a driver in more than just crashes with other cars, as helmuts will protect a rider in other situations.

As i said before, when I first higlited this point, it’s not just about the car eliment.

Further, seems to me this tagline is all the anti-helmet mob can defend, while conveniently overlooking the other dangers faced.

A helmut is sutch a minor thing, it is not uncomfortable, and it taked a few seconds to put on, the idea that that is what is stopping people riding, is rediculous, as is the idea that wearing a helmut stops bike infrastructure being built.

Perhaps more bike infrastructure would be built if you stopped wasting your time on this, you would also seem a heck of a lot more credible.

bearlikesbeer said :

Pedestrians don’t wear helmets when they walk along the footpath, or when they cross the street. So why should I wear a helmet when I only cycle on bike paths, and walk my bike over crossings? I ride a bmx at about 20kmph. What am I going to do? Have a fatal head-on with a rollerblader?

Certainly any cyclist who competes with traffic in cycle lanes would be mad not to wear a helmet. I feel riding the cycle paths around the lake shouldn’t require the same level of protection.

You’d be one of the few who walk your bike over crossings. I’ve seen many a cyclist speed across the crossings nearly mowing over the pedestrians. It’s lucky that we slow down at the crossings to see those cyclists.

20 years on Australia’s bicycle use hasn’t changed at all on average and the mandatory helmets haven’t helped. Many of us who cycled school did so without helmets as did children in the Holland. Now cycling is seen as a dangerous activity because of helmets and the reason we have such poor infrastructure like cycle lanes on major arterial roads which is not the standard in Holland.

If the rest of the world had also made laws for Mandatory Bicycle Helmets then we wouldn’t be having this conversation. Australia is now one of the fattest nations in the world with a quarter of our children overweight or obese.

Lifestyle has a lot to do with this as do other traffic laws but a good first step would be to remove the mandatory helmet laws for Adults who ride on the cyclepaths away from the road. This is the law in the Northern Territory which has the highest percentage of people riding bikes in Australia with no increases in head injury rates.

The link with seat belts is ridiculous as helmets still do not protect a cyclist in a collision with a motor vehicle, that’s why separation is the key to a safe cycling city and that’s why Holland and Denmark are the safest cities in the world to cycle.

I am not talking about racing cycling or mountain biking or BMX racing this is about purely cycling for transport which people here get confused about all the time. I don’t get excited from watching the Tour de France and want to get in the Lycra to ride to the shops or cycle my children to school. Its about the freedom to do so without someone saying that it is dangerous.

Take a look in Houten, Holland a town the size of one of Canberra’s town centres with 60 % of the inhabitants that cycle and the safest place in the world to cycle. All this without mandatory helmet laws

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oEJTuxOt5M&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

Waste of time protest.

Wonder if they have ever witnessed and heard the sound of a skull fracture after a bicycle accident from a non-helmet wearing cyclist. Ever seen brain matter as a result?

Wear a helmet give your scone some chance.

I wear a helmet when I’m on the motorcycle, cycling (road, commute, mtbing), skiing, and rollerblading. I’d probably wear a helmet in a car if I wasn’t so self-conscious. And I will make my sons wear helmets when they get onto wheels.

I’ve had numerous head impacts and have the scars on my helmets to prove it. I’ve hit my head so hard I’ve had amnesia, but was up and walking by the end of the week with no surgery. I had a helmet that day. I can only guess what my condition would’ve been without a helmet. I’ve whacked my head hard skiing and mtbing more than once and been glad to have been wearing a helmet. For me, personally, helmets are compulsory gear when speed is involved, and from an empirical view they have worked for me.

But if adults don’t want to wear helmets, I couldn’t care less. It’s a personal choice and a personal risk; the only people significantly affected if their wind-in-the-hair freedom goes tits up is them and their family.

The only reasons I think helmet laws have any merit is because kids see adults wearing them, and because helmets reduce the medical impact and the subsequent impost on the public purse (minor compared to cars). But if no helmets meant more idiots on bikes and less idiots in one-ton cars, well, it’s win-win as far as I’m concerned.

Making drivers of motor vehicles wear helmets will save lives. See Prevention of Head Injuries to Car Occupants: An Investigation of Interior Padding Options from Monash and Adelaide Universities in 1997 (http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/atsb160.pdf). To quote the abstract:

“… there is considerable potential for reducing the severity and consequences of impacts to the head by padding the upper interior of the passenger compartment. The total annual benefit of this measure, in terms of reduced HARM, would be about $123 million, or $154 per car (with a 5% discount rate). However, an even greater level of protection would be provided by the use of protective headwear. The total benefits associated with headwear in the form of a soft shell bicycle helmet were estimated to be $380 million (assuming a fully airbag equipped fleet) or $476 per car (626 for cars without airbags).”

As a cyclist who didn’t like wearing a helmet initially, and still doesn’t, I’ve now learned to adapt to wearing my helmet in cars as well. While sometimes especially uncomfortable in small cars, it is quite fun wearing your helmet when travelling in the front passenger seat: great eyeballing other drivers while wearing your helmet. I suggest best call for cyclists who don’t like helmets is to call for them to be compulsory for all drivers as well. It’d save a lot of money, most of which is taxpayers. The evidence is there.

Also, reading FreedomCyclist’s original “article” brightened up my day.

Thoroughly Smashed said :

BlackIce said :

bearlikesbeer said :

I ride a bmx at about 20kmph. What am I going to do? Have a fatal head-on with a rollerblader?

More likely a head-on with a commuter cyclist going at 40km/h. Your 20 plus their 40 would make for an uncomfortable collision.

It often doesn’t matter how fast you or any other involved party is going if you brain yourself on the footpath or some hard object.

So everyone on bike paths, including pedestrians, should wear a helmet just in case?

EvanJames said :

I go much faster on skis than i’ll ever go on a bike, and I don’t wear a helmet for that, either. Unless in the very unlikely event that I go in a formal race, for which helmets are mandated.

Presumably you don’t ski helmetless down Northbourne or Adelaide Ave though

Speed is one thing. Mixing with cars another.

Bet I know who will be the first to whinge and whine about the roads, FOOTpaths and other obstacles being too hard when they hit them with their naked heads.

Not sure if trolling or just incredibly stupid.

BlackIce said :

bearlikesbeer said :

I ride a bmx at about 20kmph. What am I going to do? Have a fatal head-on with a rollerblader?

More likely a head-on with a commuter cyclist going at 40km/h. Your 20 plus their 40 would make for an uncomfortable collision.

It often doesn’t matter how fast you or any other involved party is going if you brain yourself on the footpath or some hard object.

Doc Dogg said :

There are helmet laws in Canberra? The only cyclists I’ve ever seen with a helmet in the two years I’ve been here was overtaking me downhill at the Cotter (I’d be wearing a helmet too at those speeds).

You raise one point that I have to laugh at…

Why the hell are they protesting a bunch of laws that are clearly and consistanly under-enforced!

There are helmet laws in Canberra? The only cyclists I’ve ever seen with a helmet in the two years I’ve been here was overtaking me downhill at the Cotter (I’d be wearing a helmet too at those speeds).

BlackIce said :

bearlikesbeer said :

I ride a bmx at about 20kmph. What am I going to do? Have a fatal head-on with a rollerblader?

More likely a head-on with a commuter cyclist going at 40km/h. Your 20 plus their 40 would make for an uncomfortable collision.

Good point. Cyclists share bike paths with pedestrians, scooter riders, rollerbladers, etc. The casual bike path user can feel quite threatened by the spandex-clad nutters on their fancy racing bikes. It amazes me how fast those guys ride with pedestrians and little kids all over the bike paths. Should the pedestrians wear helmets on bike paths just in case they get hit by a Tour de Francer? Or should cyclists simply keep their speed down on bike paths, and use the roads if they want to hit 40kmph?

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the the universe.”

Albert Einstein

FreedomCyclist, have you banged your head against the pavement once too many times? Casting bike clubs as one of the causes of “failure of sustainable transport” is nonsense.

EvanJames – Head injuries can and do happen to cyclists in solo, low-speed accidents.

nice_enough – recent passenger vehicles have mandatory + very expensive helmets in the form of airbags. Funnily enough, devices to protect the head have been found quite useful in most motor vehicle accidents.

I can see it now .. One of the protesters with a roadworthy bike using their effective brakes to stop suddenly in front of a brainbucket-less, brake-less fixie riding fellow protester – who will learn a lesson about helmets and brakes at the same time.

nescius said :

They are also good for deflecting magpie attacks.

I was thinking that it’s not really the right season to be riding a bike without a helmet. My helmet gets whacked by a magpie on a daily basis.

Wow, a cyclist rebellion.

Terrifying.

Easy, Thumper, or you’ll get flogged with a bunch of wet celery.

FFS, of all the things to get one’s collective panties in a bunch about.

Don’t stop there. Let’s get rid of those pesky seatbelts that crease your ties. And those safety caps on medicine bottles and bottles of Draino that stop the toddlers having fun and exploring new and exciting things to put in their mouths.

Putting the ‘win’ in Darwin.

dtc said :

…library book lending periods…

Heh! Love it.

bearlikesbeer said :

I ride a bmx at about 20kmph. What am I going to do? Have a fatal head-on with a rollerblader?

More likely a head-on with a commuter cyclist going at 40km/h. Your 20 plus their 40 would make for an uncomfortable collision.

EvanJames said :

I go much faster on skis than i’ll ever go on a bike, and I don’t wear a helmet for that, either.

Maybe helmets while skiing should also be mandatory:
[Death Of Natasha Richardson Sparks Ski Helmet Debate]

I do feel helmets should be mandatory for those who cycle on roads, just as they are mandatory for motorcyclists. Treatment of head injuries are often covered by our taxes, so the fewer the better.

When it comes to cruising around Canberra’s excellent bike paths, I really don’t see the point in helmets. Sure accidents occur on bike paths too, but they are far less likely to result in severe head injuries. Besides, the close-calls I’ve had riding on bike paths involved pedestrians who weren’t wearing helmets.

I certainly wouldn’t participate in a protest if it involved me cycling in traffic to Parliament House. I’d want a helmet for that ride.

I dont understand the anti helmet brigade:

– they arent particularly uncomfortable and the comfort difference between a helmet and non helmet is pretty minor, certainly not something to base an entire protest on

– saying ‘but other dangerous activities dont require a helmet’ is irrelevant. That argument supports a response of ‘lets make helmets compulsory for those other activities’ just as much as it supports the argument ‘lets get rid of helmets for bikes’. So its a non argument.

– they mess up your hair much less than riding without a helmet

– if you are concerned about looking stylish, then get over yourself (and the old stack hat nerd perception has disappeared in my view anyway)

– helmets clearly have the ability to protect you in many accidents

– if you are basing your argument on a ‘right to choose’ then I hope you are intending to work your way down the list of all the other things which do not allow you the right to choose. Such as use of drugs, taxes, requiring a doctor to give you a prescription, red lights, sex discrimination legislation, speed limits, library book lending periods, smoking indoors, fishing licences, storage of dangerous chemicals and so forth. Why should you have the ‘right to choose’ not to wear a helmet but be satisfied in not having a right to choose all these other things – be consistently libertarian or the argument fails. Just because you disagree with a particular law does not make the law undemocratic, it just means you are in the minority.

We have a public health system which treats everyone. Shouldn’t we try to reduce injury? I’m sure anyone riding without a helmet will still be treated in the public hospitals.

Mind you, I remember riding without one as a kid, and it was great.

EvanJames said :

I dislike wearing helmets in any situation. I ride bikes a lot when in other countries, but not here as I really hate the helmet thing. I only wore a helmet riding horses when competing or in an event where a hat was compulsory (useless felt hats with an elastic strap, for show really). I go much faster on skis than i’ll ever go on a bike, and I don’t wear a helmet for that, either. Unless in the very unlikely event that I go in a formal race, for which helmets are mandated.

And notice, I haven’t used insulting language about the people who like helmets, but let’s see what the pro-helmet people say in response to this.

This anti-helmet attitude interests me, what is it that you don’t like about helmets? Is it the helmet, or is it that someone is making you wear one?

I am a helmet wearer, I don’t find them uncomfortable, and I would wear one even if I didn’t have to. I don’t have a particularly strong opinion on mandatory helmet laws, I suppose adults should be capable of making their own decisions.

They are also good for deflecting magpie attacks.

Pedestrians don’t wear helmets when they walk along the footpath, or when they cross the street. So why should I wear a helmet when I only cycle on bike paths, and walk my bike over crossings? I ride a bmx at about 20kmph. What am I going to do? Have a fatal head-on with a rollerblader?

Certainly any cyclist who competes with traffic in cycle lanes would be mad not to wear a helmet. I feel riding the cycle paths around the lake shouldn’t require the same level of protection.

I wore a helmet skiing for the first time this year and I will continue to do so. I wore it for a similar reason to wearing my bike helmet; because being struck by either a stoned snowboarder at 75kph at Perisher or worse a nissan skyline at 140kph on Ginninderra Drive would hurt and best advice is that the type of helmet I wear would diminish the likelyhood of brain injury.

Provided that requirements around helmets are based on the best science I dont really see a problem. Most people dont gripe about seatbelts, how are helmets any different?

EvanJames said :

I dislike wearing helmets in any situation. I ride bikes a lot when in other countries, but not here as I really hate the helmet thing. I only wore a helmet riding horses when competing or in an event where a hat was compulsory (useless felt hats with an elastic strap, for show really). I go much faster on skis than i’ll ever go on a bike, and I don’t wear a helmet for that, either. Unless in the very unlikely event that I go in a formal race, for which helmets are mandated.

And notice, I haven’t used insulting language about the people who like helmets, but let’s see what the pro-helmet people say in response to this.

I understand your argument with the skiing, but i dont think i take that the way you intend, as, I have noticed a habbit skiiers have, of dying from head trauma when colliding with tree’s in particular, although thankfully, the faster than a bike ones are generally managing to avoid tree’s, however, things do go wrong.

I feel alot of people focus on helmuts in respect to injury from colliding with cars, and yes, when a car collides with a cycilist at speed, that little foam block does not stand to much of a chance, however, it will protect your head if a car swipes you at low speeds, particuarly if the swipe, or simply attempting evasie action when confronted with an erratic or irresposible car causes you to hit the curb, as that foam block will provide good protection when your talking about your skull hitting the gutter.

Personally (and yes, i realise this is just my own opinion) i cant understand the fuss, I have never found a helmut to be any sort of inconvenience, the few seconds spend putting it on are negligable, and a well fitted helmut is not really uncomfortable, especcially when it’s barley noticable if existant discomfort levels are wieghed up against it’s potential increases to safety.

I notice you refer to the discomfort you experience, have you been well fitted, or is it just that i have a lucky head shape, and that some people are not able to have as comfortable a fit?

I’m going to ride my R1 without a helmet too! I’ll just keep it at speeds below what a road bike can do. Down with helmets!

intaba said :

I don’t have a bike so can’t join in, but in solidarity I will drive my car without wearing a seat belt and ignore all the speed limit signs.

+1

I quite like my helmet just for the sun visor.

I dislike wearing helmets in any situation. I ride bikes a lot when in other countries, but not here as I really hate the helmet thing. I only wore a helmet riding horses when competing or in an event where a hat was compulsory (useless felt hats with an elastic strap, for show really). I go much faster on skis than i’ll ever go on a bike, and I don’t wear a helmet for that, either. Unless in the very unlikely event that I go in a formal race, for which helmets are mandated.

And notice, I haven’t used insulting language about the people who like helmets, but let’s see what the pro-helmet people say in response to this.

Jim Jones said :

“crippling helmet regulation”

Ah the irony

+1
Though my sister who use to work in the acquired brain injury field probably wouldnt appreciate it.

Race car drivers have to wear helmets, so maybe we should legislate that all car passengers should wear them too? Hey it may make you look stupid and ruin your hair, but it will save lives so??

Maybe the helmet laws should go!

Then darwin can knok this lot off the coil, and we can continue on with a few less idiots!

“crippling helmet regulation”

Ah the irony

I don’t have a bike so can’t join in, but in solidarity I will drive my car without wearing a seat belt and ignore all the speed limit signs.

hopefully no one will smash their head open.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43624650/ns/us_news-life/t/ny-motorcyclist-dies-ride-protesting-helmet-law/#.TnfVCOz4LEs