Australian helmet laws, edit (survey results )

HY10

HY10

100 mW
Joined
Sep 18, 2014
Messages
35
Unlikely to change the way of a nanny state
https://www.bicyclenetwork.com.au
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/DPBTMV3
I wear a helmet although i have left home without it
Feeling guilty when I realized.
The law is unable to target the youngest who are more likely than an experienced rider to have need.
Like all things what's the middle ground.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-04/calls-for-bike-helmet-laws-to-be-relaxed-like-northern-territory/9223348
I agree those under 16 should be protected
For everyone else it's like smoking or drinking you know the risk and take your chance

https://www.vision6.com.au/ch/38434/2my46c/2621222/0YSuX9JRKfQoBs.TTXO5eyh6ptbyFFJc8qSJI_D8-1.html
An update from the survey 31-10-18
 
Here it is not mandatory to wear a helmet on a bicycle, but recently they added ebikes to the helmet law. Most of the police officers don't care, but there is one zealous cop in my neighbourhood who decided to enforce the helmet law. Now I have to wear a helmet and I hate him every time I put it on. I pray for his mutation to another area or better, to the diving squad.
 
I wear a helmet because i am old and scarred enough to know i am not indestructable and that i live in a world dominated by idiots.
...but i dislike being told i must wear one, and support everyones right to freedom of choice in these trivial things.
 
Hillhater said:
I wear a helmet because i am old and scarred enough to know i am not indestructable and that i live in a world dominated by idiots.
...but i dislike being told i must wear one, and support everyones right to freedom of choice in these trivial things.
Click to expand...
I never did, except when riding in the freezing winter days. Now that I have survived more than half a century on 2 wheels, I feel that it is abusive to force me to wear a helmet. When others were telling me that I should wear a helmet, my answer was that they should wear a condom. :wink:

It is pretty much like cigarette laws, and lobbyists that I despise. Why should I quit smoking after surviving 2 packs a day for almost 6 decades? I am healthy, after smoking twice more than those who died of cancer. They want me to stop smoking, and they are burning gas. They should try burning the daily ration of a smoker, besides the daily ration of a car driver, to see what is killing life on this planet.
 
wineboyrider said:
Does a bicycle or motorcycle come equipped with a helmet? Nuff said.
Click to expand...

That argument would do very well for speed limits on bicycle pathways.
Think - Automobiles and motorcycles come with speedometers right. Automobiles come with seat belts, school buses and transit buses do not come with seat belts.

If they want to enforce a speed limit on bicycle pathways, the federal government must impose a safety standard to all commercially available bicycles sold in the country; that states you must have a speedometer. Otherwise speed limit signs on pathways are literally useless and they discriminate against the poor who can not afford $30 for a bicycle speedometer, let alone $75 for a bicycle helmet. There is a city bylaw that states bicyclists must have a bell, but even that is stupid, because my voice is better then a bell.

Forgot to add this even though I was thinking it, laws in a way are meant as a means of profit. This is how they can afford their new vehicles, gravy train pensions, payed suspensions, salary freezes or salary increases in an economic downturn when the rest of society are getting paid less. Dont really have to look any further then a black man in the USA getting imprisoned on personal use drugs, when the white guy snorting his powdered coke gets a slap on the wrist.
 
Not a fan of sentences with 'nanny state' in them.

I am all for helmets being mandatory. Doesn't matter if it discourages people. I've slid about 10 metres once, and I don't want to risk a concussion from now on. I don't want to have lost productivity either, even with NZ's welfare. Ebikes should overcome the discouragement of mandatory helmets.
 
As someone who has been doored twice and come off at speed ( 45km/h )... Wear a helmet. Better than leaving half your scalp on the road. All times, my helmet has saved my noggin tremendously.

And here's a permanent reminder of how shit can turn bad really fast.

[youtube]3o2AMHTv-ks[/youtube]
 
Bicycle helmets = victim blaming. Bicycle helmets discourage people from doing the right thing because "it's dangerous". Bicycle helmets interfere with situational awareness. Bicycle helmets would save far more lives if godforsaken car drivers were forced to wear them instead.

Bicycle helmets obviously work to reduce impacts-- that's what they're engineered to do-- but they don't detectably reduce per-cyclist injuries or fatalities anywhere they've been adopted. Why? Because they do as much harm as good. The mechanisms at work are debatable, but the results are plain.

When I rode my bike on the edge of control often, I used to wear one. I ride a bike everywhere I go now, and I haven't worn a helmet in many years.

I say, if you ride a motorcycle with pedals, and you think motorcycle helmets are a good idea, wear one. If you ride a bicycle, and you're not intoxicated or incompetent, you and your community are probably better off without you wearing one.
 
Appbeza said:
Not a fan of sentences with 'nanny state' in them.

I am all for helmets being mandatory. Doesn't matter if it discourages people. I've slid about 10 metres once, and I don't want to risk a concussion from now on. I don't want to have lost productivity either, even with NZ's welfare. Ebikes should overcome the discouragement of mandatory helmets.
Click to expand...
I've slid 10 meters and much more, at least 100 times without a helmet.

If you feel that you should, wear one. What does it have to do with others? Would you feel safer if I wear one?
My experience is that some riders are "head prone" in a crash, they seem to hit and land on their head every time. They usually wear a helmet for they know themselves. I never hurt my head in hundreds of crashes on horses, motorcycles and bikes. Now that it is an old head, that had survived a long life riding, they want to force me to wear a helmet!!! If I die in a crash wearing a helmet, let it be head first in the chest of a walking cop. :evil:
 
Wearing a helmet while riding in a car probably make more sense than doing so when riding a bike. But I still think that wearing a helmet while cycling at speeds around 15 mph and above is a good idea. I've routinely worn a helmet for decades now and have personally enjoyed a net benefit in doing so. But knowing how to operate your bike safely is much more important than wearing a helmet. That's the priority. You want to avoid an accident altogether more than you want to survive one.

Mandating helmet usage is mostly just feel-good law making, "Look! See? We did something about the problem."
 
I feel that you SHOULD wear your seatbelt, but the law should not have the power to force you to do so.
I feel that you SHOULD wear a helmet on a motorcycle, but the law should not have the power to force you to do so.
I feel that you SHOULD wear a helmet on a bicycle, but the law should not have the power to force you to do so.
I feel that you SHOULD wear a helmet on a skateboard, but the law should not have the power to force you to do so.
I feel that you SHOULD wear a helmet on a electric skateboard, but the law should not have the power to force you to do so.

anyone notice a theme?
in order to have a truly free society, the individual must have the ability to make choices that are stupid.

so if I always wear my helmets and seatbelts, why do I care?
because I dont want a frocking ticket for going from parked on one side of the parking lot to the other.. even if it is dangerous. same with moving my car around or jumping on a bicycle. its my personal decision and the government has no business sticking its nose in there.

what about the societal costs?
same as they were in the 70s... should be non-existant. the only reason they are is because you create an environment that allows it. its another issue, but the solution to it is not to take away the freedom of the people to protect the pockets of healthcare.

what if we want more people to buckle and helmet up?
then the ONLY thing that works is like littering or smoking. you can fine it and it will not change anything. raise the fines, no change. but make it socially unacceptable and suddenly you get compliance. smoking was never going away until it was uncool. littering was easy until becoming greener was the norm. Helmet use will rise if everyone thinks you're stupid for not wearing it.
 
MrDude_1 said:
I feel that you SHOULD wear your seatbelt, but the law should not have the power to force you to do so.
I feel that you SHOULD wear a helmet on a motorcycle, but the law should not have the power to force you to do so.
I feel that you SHOULD wear a helmet on a bicycle, but the law should not have the power to force you to do so.
I feel that you SHOULD wear a helmet on a skateboard, but the law should not have the power to force you to do so.
I feel that you SHOULD wear a helmet on a electric skateboard, but the law should not have the power to force you to do so.

anyone notice a theme?
in order to have a truly free society, the individual must have the ability to make choices that are stupid.

so if I always wear my helmets and seatbelts, why do I care?
because I dont want a frocking ticket for going from parked on one side of the parking lot to the other.. even if it is dangerous. same with moving my car around or jumping on a bicycle. its my personal decision and the government has no business sticking its nose in there.

what about the societal costs?
same as they were in the 70s... should be non-existant. the only reason they are is because you create an environment that allows it. its another issue, but the solution to it is not to take away the freedom of the people to protect the pockets of healthcare.

what if we want more people to buckle and helmet up?
then the ONLY thing that works is like littering or smoking. you can fine it and it will not change anything. raise the fines, no change. but make it socially unacceptable and suddenly you get compliance. smoking was never going away until it was uncool. littering was easy until becoming greener was the norm. Helmet use will rise if everyone thinks you're stupid for not wearing it.
Click to expand...
+1
Cant remember the last time i rode a bike without a helmet (by choice or law, the result would be the same), other than when 'riding' at walking pace next to a friend (with no bike). Cops still found it necessary to hassle me about it. In any case however, social pressure is a far better motivator than the law, and a infinitely more liberal/moral one.
 
Society/government wear the burden of additional medical costs when you do stack without a helmet though. Hospital stays/surgeons/MRI scans etc cost 10's of thousands which the government/tax payer needs to fork out if you do the wrong thing and injure yourself permanently.

In Australia where we have free government medicare for injuries and National Disability Support Scheme for disabled people, the government is paying to support disabled people FOR LIFE... Repeat that... You will be supported by the government FOR LIFE If you are permanently injured. The Australian Government will grant you about $15 to 20k/year for life so you maintain a fair level of quality of life and some independence. That is on top of the free physio/rehab/doctors appointments and support services ( nurse home visits/healthcare card for concession on all bills/transport etc. ) as well as paying your partner/spouse carers support to take care of you. The Australian government will pay your wife an income for taking care of you while you are injured.... Wearing a helmet to reduce injury and the associated costs is a no brainer (get the pun?)

If you were outside of Australia without a good government medical safety net and frocking your life costs the government nothing, then sure... dont wear a helmet. No one cares. At the moment, welfare takes up near 30% of the national budget (also includes support for free education and unemployment support and shit, but it's big)

Think of the bigger picture and it starts making more sense.
 
Raged said:
Society/government wear the burden of additional medical costs when you do stack without a helmet though. Hospital stays/surgeons/MRI scans etc cost 10's of thousands which the government/tax payer needs to fork out if you do the wrong thing and injure yourself permanently.

In Australia where we have free government medicare for injuries and National Disability Support Scheme for disabled people, the government is paying to support disabled people FOR LIFE... Repeat that... You will be supported by the government FOR LIFE If you are permanently injured. The Australian Government will grant you about $15 to 20k/year for life so you maintain a fair level of quality of life and some independence. That is on top of the free physio/rehab/doctors appointments and support services ( nurse home visits/healthcare card for concession on all bills/transport etc. ) as well as paying your partner/spouse carers support to take care of you. The Australian government will pay your wife an income for taking care of you while you are injured.... Wearing a helmet to reduce injury and the associated costs is a no brainer (get the pun?)

If you were outside of Australia without a good government medical safety net and frocking your life costs the government nothing, then sure... dont wear a helmet. No one cares. At the moment, welfare takes up near 30% of the national budget (also includes support for free education and unemployment support and shit, but it's big)

Think of the bigger picture and it starts making more sense.
Click to expand...

First, wearing a helmet doesn't reduce health care expenses. This have been proved statistically.

Nevertheless, let's say you are right. What is next?
- a law that forbids overweight people to eat
- a law that forbids any kind of extreme sports
- a law that forbids traveling without necessity purpose
- a law that forbids swimming without a floatation vest
- a law that forbids making babies if you are not 100% free of genetic disease

See, once you started protecting people from themselves for financial purpose, you are opening a crab nest. Oh lord, said he: save me from the hazards of life, and most of all save me frome those who want my good. :wink:
 
MadRhino said:
Raged said:
Society/government wear the burden of additional medical costs when you do stack without a helmet though. Hospital stays/surgeons/MRI scans etc cost 10's of thousands which the government/tax payer needs to fork out if you do the wrong thing and injure yourself permanently.

In Australia where we have free government medicare for injuries and National Disability Support Scheme for disabled people, the government is paying to support disabled people FOR LIFE... Repeat that... You will be supported by the government FOR LIFE If you are permanently injured. The Australian Government will grant you about $15 to 20k/year for life so you maintain a fair level of quality of life and some independence. That is on top of the free physio/rehab/doctors appointments and support services ( nurse home visits/healthcare card for concession on all bills/transport etc. ) as well as paying your partner/spouse carers support to take care of you. The Australian government will pay your wife an income for taking care of you while you are injured.... Wearing a helmet to reduce injury and the associated costs is a no brainer (get the pun?)

If you were outside of Australia without a good government medical safety net and frocking your life costs the government nothing, then sure... dont wear a helmet. No one cares. At the moment, welfare takes up near 30% of the national budget (also includes support for free education and unemployment support and shit, but it's big)

Think of the bigger picture and it starts making more sense.
Click to expand...

First, wearing a helmet doesn't reduce health care expenses. This have been proved statistically.

Nevertheless, let's say you are right. What is next?
- a law that forbids overweight people to eat
- a law that forbids any kind of extreme sports
- a law that forbids traveling without necessity purpose
- a law that forbids swimming without a floatation vest
- a law that forbids making babies if you are not 100% free of genetic disease

See, once you started protecting people from themselves for financial purpose, you are opening a crab nest. Oh lord, said he: save me from the hazards of life, and most of all save me frome those who want my good. :wink:
Click to expand...

Now, I've just realized the many sides of this discussion are just spewing rhetoric and claims, including mine. And that many external ideas, personal and untested, are just muddling the discussion up. There is hardly any science and direction at all here, which is sad.
 
Raged said:
Society/government wear the burden of additional medical costs when you do stack without a helmet though. Hospital stays/surgeons/MRI scans etc cost 10's of thousands which the government/tax payer needs to fork out if you do the wrong thing and injure yourself permanently.

In Australia where we have free government medicare for injuries and National Disability Support Scheme for disabled people, the government is paying to support disabled people FOR LIFE... Repeat that... You will be supported by the government FOR LIFE If you are permanently injured. The Australian Government will grant you about $15 to 20k/year for life so you maintain a fair level of quality of life and some independence. That is on top of the free physio/rehab/doctors appointments and support services ( nurse home visits/healthcare card for concession on all bills/transport etc. ) as well as paying your partner/spouse carers support to take care of you. The Australian government will pay your wife an income for taking care of you while you are injured.... Wearing a helmet to reduce injury and the associated costs is a no brainer (get the pun?)

If you were outside of Australia without a good government medical safety net and frocking your life costs the government nothing, then sure... dont wear a helmet. No one cares. At the moment, welfare takes up near 30% of the national budget (also includes support for free education and unemployment support and shit, but it's big)

Think of the bigger picture and it starts making more sense.
Click to expand...

In Australia we do not have free gov healthcare, we have socialised healthcare. We all pay for it every time we get paid, or buy anything. And even then, its not 'free' in that regard, as there are numerous expenses not covered by medicare (MRI is a common one). The gov doesn't pay for it, they mandate that we all do.

And as rhino mentioned, by this logic even further intrusions into how individuals run their own lives are thus justified. far more for instance die as a result of over eating, lack of activity and other harmful habits - do you think we should start making laws to fine fat people going to maccas, unfit people from playing too many games, and smokers from smoking, because the gov (read - the people) wear the costs? Because principally there's no difference. There's a number of diseases that are highly heritable. Should we be fining parents for not checking for such diseases? for still having kids despite knowing it?

This also skips over the fact that the introduction of helmet laws had a marginal, if any, impact on fatalities and injuries - rates fell after laws were introduced around 1990, but the rates of cycling also reduced - by approximately the same amount. It may even be that helmet laws have increased the rates of death, due to reduced rates of exercise, particularly among children and teenagers. This would also mean much greater impact on those socialised healthcare costs too, if reducing costs is the primary objective...
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jun/23/cycling-accidents-rising-in-australia
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...353785&usg=AFQjCNG3Sv-Sw0HW7CsZCzn4ShtEaEcFsw

In any case my point remains that peoples behaviour that only endangers themselves (or presents minimal risk to others, though where that line lies is up for debate) should be largely, or entirely unregulated. People have no choice to participate in our socialised healthcare system, quite the opposite, they will be imprisoned if they dont. I fail to see how that can possibly justify further intrusions into peoples lives in order to 'reduce the cost that its mandated you will pay'.

And just to be abundantly clear, I think wearing a helmet is in 90% of cases (particularly on a ebike) a good idea - this is coming from some one who's had some crashes where wearing one would have actually made things worse. I dont think however that the gov should be enforcing how people are to live their lives 'for your own good', no matter how small the intrusion.
 
sn0wchyld said:
In Australia we do not have free gov healthcare, we have socialised healthcare. We all pay for it every time we get paid, or buy anything. And even then, its not 'free' in that regard, as there are numerous expenses not covered by medicare (MRI is a common one). The gov doesn't pay for it, they mandate that we all do.

And as rhino mentioned, by this logic even further intrusions into how individuals run their own lives are thus justified. far more for instance die as a result of over eating, lack of activity and other harmful habits - do you think we should start making laws to fine fat people going to maccas, unfit people from playing too many games, and smokers from smoking, because the gov (read - the people) wear the costs? Because principally there's no difference. There's a number of diseases that are highly heritable. Should we be fining parents for not checking for such diseases? for still having kids despite knowing it?

This also skips over the fact that the introduction of helmet laws had a marginal, if any, impact on fatalities and injuries - rates fell after laws were introduced around 1990, but the rates of cycling also reduced - by approximately the same amount. It may even be that helmet laws have increased the rates of death, due to reduced rates of exercise, particularly among children and teenagers. This would also mean much greater impact on those socialised healthcare costs too, if reducing costs is the primary objective...
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jun/23/cycling-accidents-rising-in-australia
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...353785&usg=AFQjCNG3Sv-Sw0HW7CsZCzn4ShtEaEcFsw

In any case my point remains that peoples behaviour that only endangers themselves (or presents minimal risk to others, though where that line lies is up for debate) should be largely, or entirely unregulated. People have no choice to participate in our socialised healthcare system, quite the opposite, they will be imprisoned if they dont. I fail to see how that can possibly justify further intrusions into peoples lives in order to 'reduce the cost that its mandated you will pay'.

And just to be abundantly clear, I think wearing a helmet is in 90% of cases (particularly on a ebike) a good idea - this is coming from some one who's had some crashes where wearing one would have actually made things worse. I dont think however that the gov should be enforcing how people are to live their lives 'for your own good', no matter how small the intrusion.
Click to expand...

You only pay the medicare levy when you earn over $80,000 ? If you make over $80k/year then you have the option to pay the levy (is it 1% or 1.5%?) or take out personal health insurance to reduce your burden on the public system. It's not a perfect solution, but it's the best that has been brought up to cater for most people considering the average Australian wage is still around $54k and the levy only targets "high earners" to support the less fortunate. I personally dont have an issue paying that levy or for personal health insurance as I've been on the other side and have needed to use it. With the system in place, an Australian citizen will receive the full medical protection regardless of their income/status in life. It's a very very good safety net. Having travelled around the world, I would say it is one of the most fair systems in place.

Imagine a system if you didnt have appropriate insurance or money, you'd just be frocked for life with either a permanent injury (no rehab) or staggering medical bills. That system would just empower the rich and burden the less fortunate. A simple act of falling off your bike and slipping a spine disc would be near terminal in a labouring career. Under medicare, it's mostly covered ( I do understand there's a 3 month waiting period for operations ).

The rates of death/lack of fitness/obesity is not directly correlated to cycling. It's just a manipulation of statistics. 1990s was the golden age of personal computers and you suddenly had a whole generation of youth playing video games etc. People who want to cycle will cycle... those who dont... wont. Correlation is not causation. Look at the kids who would rather spend the weekend on their iphone than go for a bushwalk and you get the idea... Wearing a helmet or not has zero impact on their decisions.

Smokers are getting punished btw. A pack of smokes in Asia is about AUD$2.50... A pack in Australia is about $30 now after the last increase. Government intervention to reduce smokers and the harmful effect it has on the health system which is 100% preventable. Same with alchohol... I was in the US earlier this year where a bottle of Vodka was $18 at the local ABC shop... Same bottle in Australia was $40 due to additional taxes. The government is just using the methods available to them to discourage excessive smoking/drinking.

In regards to wearing a helmet reducing healthcare costs... It may be the difference between a broken arm with concussion vs a broken arm and brain damage.

I do however believe in free choice... However I believe the government "should" try to protect the people as best they can. Whether it is financially driven or not, it is about the quality of life of an individual and reducing the risk and damage an accident can cause.
 
MadRhino said:
First, wearing a helmet doesn't reduce health care expenses. This have been proved statistically.

Nevertheless, let's say you are right. What is next?
- a law that forbids overweight people to eat
- a law that forbids any kind of extreme sports
- a law that forbids traveling without necessity purpose
- a law that forbids swimming without a floatation vest
- a law that forbids making babies if you are not 100% free of genetic disease

See, once you started protecting people from themselves for financial purpose, you are opening a crab nest. Oh lord, said he: save me from the hazards of life, and most of all save me frome those who want my good. :wink:
Click to expand...

Wow, this is such an outstanding point. You can see here exactly why it's such a bad idea to protect people from themselves.

Others are saying "but it drives up the cost of public healthcare". The problem there is the socialized healthcare. Take away the violence backed system and let people pay for the services they choose/require. If they're afraid of catastrophic accidents, they can buy insurance. Socialized healthcare is always bad anyway, so if we get rid of that there will be no worries about people who choose to behave stupidly.

Then not only can we stop protecting people from themselves, but we get a huge boost to the economy from the greatly reduced taxes. It's a win-win for everyone.
 
True. Here they included all medication to the healthcare system. Guess what happened ? We became the champions of the world for medication consuming. The cost have exploded, and now healthcare is 50% of the government budget. That is sick, when half of our tax money is going in a health system that is inefficient. They are building gigantic hospitals with billions of $, where "sick" people are waiting 6 hours to have service. The idiots believe it's free, so they go for nothing, and are prescribed medication for nothing, that is making them sick eventually. :roll:
 
Enjoy your brain injuries. :roll:
 
I have half a century riding behind me, and no brain injury. I have seen riders die without a helmet, and others survive with one, a long life of a vegetable. I have seen people survive amazing danger, and others die in pain who never took any risk. I don't buy the counseling from kids who believe a helmet is a magic cure for fear or destiny. When your time has arrived, nothing can save you.

Then, one doesn't need to suffer brain injury, to have a distorted perception of reality, the risk of living, or the value of freedom. Some are not satisfied of their fear for themselves, and need to fear for the others as well. Save them from themselves, the poor fearless who are risking their lives, they say. I always prefered to live by my cavalry background that says: One day of life of a brave man, is worth more than a hundred years of life of a coward. Fear never saved anyone from pain and death, that is the destiny for all of us. Heard in a movie: Death is smiling to us all, the best we can do is smiling back to her.
 
Good points all round but to me regardless of a law I will still wear one especially when mixing with traffic or hooning in the bush, a cycleway ride I may pass. Most falls are predictable but it's those awkward ones where you may get a clip or tap from behind that'll throw your line out and into somewhere not intended, no biggy to me to clip one on but I respect the choice of others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top