What readers think of plans to relax the laws on bicycle helmets

Loading

The first Child and Pedestrian Safety Survey (1990), which is supposed to be the cost / benefit study of the helmet law justification, states "The shortcomings in data collection make it very difficult to estimate specifies the health benefits of using the bike helmet. "The only reason the state introduced the law was to earn $ 20 million from the federal government for a blackhead funding grant. This means that no appropriate cost / benefit study has been undertaken. Most people also do not realize that the critical research results on the design and testing of the FORS CR55 study helmets have never been implemented, which means that the helmets are not designed to prevent serious injury and death. State and federal governments were too lousy to help manufacturers meet strict design and testing requirements. So much for the huge cost of heart disease that could be helped by cycling and far outweighs the cost of head injuries. Oh, and the million dollars that the state earns in fines is also not used for research and development … Ian

Finally a sensible answer. I will still wear a helmet, but not because I am obliged. Are we really the most stupid nation in the world on which we must have laws for everything? Wayne

No helmet should be necessary if driving in areas where speed is limited to 50 km / h or less. Children need more freedom in their own neighborhoods. Anonymous

I go to work every day to get to work, and I wear a helmet when I drive on busy roads without trusting drivers. However, at the age of 44, I find it completely ridiculous (and even condescending) to be legally helmeted when driving on safe and quiet roads, country lanes and roads. cycle paths. In my opinion, helmets should be mandatory until age 18, then optional. James Lascelles

Personally, I would continue to wear a helmet, but it should be mandatory only for those under 18 years old (17-year-olds are usually still in school and this may be a bad example for other children) . Cycling will be safer if there are more cyclists – security in numbers. At present, laws on helmet use discourage people from riding bicycles, especially using shared bike systems. Perhaps also an age limit, do you also have a speed limit – for example, making helmets mandatory for people exceeding 30 or 35 km / h. Most casual cyclists do not reach these speeds. To fart

There are some problems related here. If I go to work or drive on the road, I would not consider not wearing my helmet, but it becomes painful if you only have to walk a few kilometers to the beach on the trails. who are not too close to the road. Where should I leave my headphones expensive? The real problem is the lack of connected bike lanes that force cyclists to use a road for at least part of their journey. Allowing cyclists to drive on the fairways makes sense, which opens the way for alternative transportation for children and families, far from unreliable cars or public transport. Parking is a problem in most places and shopping areas, so it's a great way to get around. Studies show that people who arrive by bike often stay longer and spend money in those places where people by car are subject to parking restrictions. This leaves the risk of driving at low speeds without a helmet and the risks to others. A person with a bike may also fall and bump into the head as a pedestrian or jog. It's the same drop height so why not get everyone to wear a helmet (some of these zombie pedestrians on the phone could really use extra protection!). Pro choice

I totally support a relaxation of the obligation to wear a helmet – just travel to Europe! This should only be mandatory when driving on a road (including if you intend to cross roads rather than cross). Most cyclists ride bike paths below 20 km / h, which is about the speed of a top level marathon runner. Of course, if you plan to drive faster, wearing the helmet makes sense, like going down the steep Beechworth Rail Trail. Also, mountain biking can be quite dangerous. I'm not sure how you would do the police in such circumstances, but maybe you could induce insurance. Peter Farrell

I support the proposed change to loosen the helmet laws. Cyclists using trails and bike paths should be given the option of not wearing a helmet. Gerry Gowan

Cyclists already ride on the sidewalk against the law because that is safe. To legalize that makes sense. The law on helmet use should be changed so that you can ride without a helmet on any local road (50 km / h or less). Driving on the sidewalk should be legal up to 10 km / h (jogging speed) and no helmet should be required. Mast

Remove the law on the helmet. When it comes to walking trails, let's use common sense for the right moment to drive on this one and how fast. Anonymous

Of course, wearing the bike helmet should not be mandatory – we are the only country in the world to have such a law. Australia is wrong on this – not all others! Mike

Helmets for cycling should be voluntary … period. Let's just let people make their own choice, cigarettes, swim with sharks, alcoholic beverages, drive a car to Sydney … anyway, something will happen to you. Anonymous

The bicycle helmet laws are the reason I'm not cycling anymore. Anonymous

Let the cyclists choose where and when they wear a helmet. It's their head. Another example of nanny status. Marty

We can reach 99% of the free world. The world has followed us with a seatbelt for a good reason and has not followed us over the past 27 years with a bike helmet. What is the cost of your head injury for the community? • There is no evidence that riding without a helmet significantly increases the risk of injury to the cyclist's head. • The overall health benefits of cycling have been shown to outweigh the costs (in terms of injuries / deaths) by a factor of 10 to 20 times greater. A study conducted in Spain showed that if you pedal instead of driving, this advantage would be 70 to one. The notion that head injuries for cyclists is an unacceptable cost to the community is furphy. • A recent study in Glasgow found that cycling in the workplace reduces the risk of all cancers by more than 40% • The cost to the community of inactivity related to type 2 diabetes, diseases Cardiovascular and other health problems related to obesity is astronomical compared to the cyclist's head injuries. They are just not on the same scale. John Myers

No mandatory law on wearing a helmet. We have enough laws for nannies. Max Andrews

Making helmets mandatory for cycling distracts the benefits of cycling. We do not expect the same from other road users. I agree that off-road, the discretion of the riders is at the rendezvous because we are all old enough to weigh the risks. Not all cities in the world expect runners to wear a helmet. Anonymous

Forget the walking trails, cyclists must be treated with respect, like all other vehicles on the road. Helmets are a subject of controversy as they restrict peripheral vision and hinder hearing because of wind noise, which increases the risk of being hit. Helmets are handy when you have not heard / seen the car, and can stop a lump in the head. (much more than a slight bump in the head and some esky material is almost useless). Bill the rocket surgeon

In Europe, it is the cyclist's responsibility to wear a helmet. Even though I'm in Europe, I always wear a helmet, but it's my choice. Alan

Keep your helmets

I totally agree with the comment above, and even a fall from a stationary bike can be dangerous. Guy Hutchinson

I will never understand the thought behind not wearing a helmet. Of course, many people will not fall and will not need headphones, and of course, there will be cases where an accident is so serious that a helmet would not have made any difference. But there is surely a central area where the impact of an accident or a fall will be greatly reduced due to the wearing of the helmet. And that can happen again under low risk circumstances. I mean, why not just relax the laws on seat belts in cars? Sometimes they will only change things, but when they do, you will be happy to wear one. If we had more bike infrastructure and the road was safer for cyclists, maybe. But we do not do it and cyclists are therefore more at risk here than in other cities. It is also difficult to integrate this infrastructure because many of our streets are already very narrow. I am all for the freedom and the right to choose, but I firmly believe that there is a very good reason for the laws on helmet use to exist. It may sound hard, but really, if your brain is the kind of brain that thinks that a helmet is not worth it, there may be a degree of natural selection here. Alexr

It's just a helmet. Carry. This saves you from injury and grief to yourself, your family / friends and a lot of public money if you have an accident. Anonymous

I would be dead if it was not for my helmet when I got off my bike when the front wheel got stuck in a gap between two blue stone bricks in an alleyway in Fitzroy. My head hit the edge of another blue stone brick at high speed. I ended up in the hospital with a lot of bruises, but nothing else thanks to my helmet. I would be dead SAFE if it was not for my helmet. I belong to a group of cyclists and we all wear a helmet. They are super light and very comfortable. No problem wearing them all day. In my opinion, it is crazy to suppress the law requiring the wearing of a helmet. On another trip, a companion detached on a rocky trail in New Zealand and his helmet prevented his helmet from entering his brain. Geoffrey Lee

Madness. Hitting a tree root or a rock off the road is like hitting a concrete border. Having a good friend who has suffered permanent brain injury (but not death, thankfully) from a bicycle accident – when I wear a helmet – makes me extremely aware of the need to wear a hard hat while driving . Dave

As a victim of a motorist who rides a bicycle, I appreciate the role that the mandatory helmet has played to help me survive. Until the research details the days of hospitalization and rehabilitation costs badociated with head injuries of cyclists in Australia, going from mandatory legislation to a cavalier law is jumping with potential for medical care. significant flow on effects and costs. John Cleary

I agree with that but I would like to see a new law where ALL cyclists (bicycles and motorbikes) must wear a fluorescent vest. Visibility would surely help reduce accidents? It worked in the industrial sector. Bruce

The bike network tries to stay relevant by asking for a fair trial to see if there is an increase in the number of injuries or deaths. What is there to gain? Hiking trails run along the fences and bike paths have trees. If I accidentally fall, I certainly would not like my head to hit me. George Batskos

I am a BN member and do 18000 km per year. I do not feel easy to see people without a helmet. I crack from time to time with my helmet and it saves my life. Your choice is your life, I respect it, but the only difference between Australia and another European country is that the government and / or the TAC pay for your trauma treatment to the head. Then again. I understand the other point of view and respect that a lot. I did not say anything today when a comrade from the suburbs drives a road bike over 30 km / h without a helmet but it is his choice and I hope he will pay for his admission to a private hospital . Taka

Where I work, I am superuser (skill examiner) for our fleet of electric bikes. During the last update of the super-user training, I presented this scenario to our coach, asking him: "If the helmet laws were repealed, do you think that would increase the use of the bicycle? ". And even before I finished asking the question, she shook her head. In general, I have found that if someone says that he does not want to participate in an activity because of a specific rule, he is simply looking for an excuse for not getting into the business. involve in an activity. And even if the rule were changed, they would probably still not be involved, even if they found a new excuse. In addition, look at the breakdown that you have published – the people who most oppose the laws in force include those who drive one or more times a year. I strongly doubt that, if the laws were repealed, they would start driving again – the helmet is a disadvantage that does not worry them. On the other hand, those who favor the laws include those who have been victims of an accident – and this is the most important thing: helmets save lives. And whoever goes up even semi-regularly understands that. Greg H

If you are cycling, wear a helmet. Brain damage can occur at any speed if you fall. Stirling

The vast majority of cyclists wear helmets and agree to do so. Why change the law unless the medical profession now says that the helmet does not prevent injury. One of my friends crashed into the back of a vehicle and went through the rear window. His helmet saved him from a serious injury. What a nonsense to say that you do not wear a helmet if you are on a trail. Accidents are as likely as on the road and what if the rider starts to drive on the road, if only for a short distance? Geoff McDonald

What is the problem with wearing the headphones? I ride a bike and I wear one. I also drive on the sidewalk in some places around Sydney, because in some places, the roads of these new subdivisions are too narrow. You must have rules to protect idiots from themselves. Mark

No helmet for the rider of the footpath ??? The trail is as difficult as the road, not sure of the logic behind that !!! Lord E

I'm glad you do not wear a helmet until you expect the health care system or I to pay for you in case of a fall or shock. It's common sense. John B Good

If you do not like your head, do not wear a helmet! Damage to the head is done when it hits the ground. This can (and happens!) On bike paths because of dogs, pedestrians, etc. It is not necessary for a motor vehicle to be involved. A completely stupid proposal !! Russell Patterson

It should be illegal for cyclists to ride on the road and legal to do it on the sidewalk. Helmets must be mandatory at all times. Mark

Claimants for injuries or compensation for cyclists without a helmet must be canceled if they have an accident. Cyclists must wear license plates so that, if they perform a hit-and-run on a pedestrian, they can, hopefully, be identified in the same way as cars. Likewise, cyclists who do not respect the rules of the road must be identified. Pedestrians must have priority over all trails. Horsebolter

Head injuries due to bicycle accidents are terrible (and expensive, not only for hospital care, but also for paralyzed or similar care). As many accident victims are treated in public hospitals – funded by the taxes of all – it is an option that allows others to pay for pbadengers without helmets that hurt themselves. Why do not we make new optional seat belts? Of course, those who do not want helmet hair do not want their clothes to be creased by a seatbelt. Hilda Benjamin

The cost to society of a traumatized head cyclist justifies the adoption of mandatory helmet laws. Anonymous

Driving a bike without a helmet is just stupid and I would never do it. But the same thing applies to smoking and it is legal. People just need to be educated and then allowed to make their own decisions. For bike lanes, speed limits would be required, although the way in which this is controlled would be difficult. Mast

It is clear that the idea of ​​not wearing a helmet comes from people who, unfortunately, had already left their bike and had suffered brain damage. There are many examples of helmets saving lives, just ask the ABC press reader in Hobart who is alive today because of his helmet. Michael

Stupid idea. This will be the thin edge of the hold. Helmets when you ride! Anonymous

Build many more bike paths everywhere and make helmet use voluntary for adults. Until there are enough safe paths, helmets should be mandatory. Ann Berman

Twice I would have had head injuries following a fall from my bike. I strongly support bike helmets. Malcolm Cameron

If I did not wear a helmet during my accident, I would be a vegetable today. Anonymous

As a cyclist for many years, I support Ben Rossiter. The law on wearing compulsory helmets is often considered as a kind of inhibition of cycling. However, each time you look at the details of the different arguments, they are often vague or involve big badumptions. If you engage with these people on social media and try to stick to the facts or about it, it is not uncommon to experience Whataboutism. The fact is that no one with real credibility supports a proposal to change the laws. Wearing a helmet is easy and they are cheap. They will prevent you from serious injury. Adam O Halloran

Trail or bike path? Attention to pedestrians

I walk regularly, but I argue that people have the right to ride on the trails – it's too dangerous on the roads around my house (people who drive drugs or make speed, or poor drivers ), so I do not ride a bike. Sometimes people go on a bicycle on the way to the station – I do not have a problem – they are usually seniors / international students, etc. They would die on this road. Anonymous

I would like cyclists to stay off the trail – not shared trails, but pedestrian trails. A cyclist (without a helmet of course) came to see me directly in Belgrave the other day, across the narrow path full of coffee tables and chairs. He obviously did not bother to wear a helmet because he had nothing to protect. The road next to it (it's still a man) has a very slow traffic, so it would not have been in danger at all, unlike children, tourists, locals and dogs who roam along the path. Let us apply ALL the laws of the bike to protect pedestrians. Anne

Loading

Just walk around Southbank in the CBD to know that it would never work. It's crazy. There are too many arrogant cyclists who do not slow down and who think that the trail belongs to them only by themselves, and the pedestrians must move away from their path. It's a trail! How am I supposed to walk my dog ​​and listen to music with Lycra Men Aged Men running down the path screaming to spread (what they do). Children, the elderly, dogs that walk – it's just untenable. I have so many examples of bad experiences on shared paths with cyclists, I just do not trust them to ride safely on trails and put pedestrians first. millstone

Cyclists should not be allowed on the trails or at any time. Anthony Cook

Walk down any street in Melbourne CBD and get ready to make room for cyclists. Darren

Bikes are not compatible with pedestrians. Stay away from hiking trails ….. Don

I think that shared paths can be a problem, but why not spend all the money to set up bike paths next to the trail rather than on the roads. Bicycles, cars and pedestrians must all be separated if we really want to reduce accidents. Lou

Allowing a cyclist to walk slowly on a trail is a good thing for the safety of all. I think people should be allowed to decide on the importance of protecting their head. RightBalance

As a bilateral amputee, I am traveling on trails and roads and manual wheelchair trails. Cyclists are a privileged group that greatly reduces the accessibility of people like me, both by their presence on the trails and roads and by their demands for bike infrastructures increasingly inaccessible to people with reduced mobility. I would like more trails to be created to allow the disabled to access shopping and entertainment and less for cyclists. After all, both groups are about the same size. Mal Wilson

Until cyclists prove that they can largely respect the rules of the road, they should not be allowed on the trails. I know that many cyclists are responsible and law-abiding citizens, but many of them are ridiculous, reckless and inconsiderate towards others. Maggie66

I am a cyclist. I go to work every day and do recreational walks on weekends. Adults cycling on the sidewalk should never be allowed (except when accompanying a child). The dangers for pedestrians are too high. If you have difficulty moving between sections of bike paths, alternative solutions must be found. Ben Curnow

Driving on a road without a bike lane is extremely dangerous for cyclists. Cycling on the sidewalk should be legal provided that pedestrians always have priority. Adrian Wortley

As a senior who has already been threatened with injuries by cyclists riding dangerously on trails, I am appalled that this selfish behavior can be legalized. Helmets must also be worn at all times. One of my friends died falling off a bike at low speed when a dog ran in front of him. Please consider the experience of people like me. Lee

I think it's perfectly fair – as long as they drive their bikes. Juliette

To be honest, I was almost completely annihilated by cyclists on Sydney sidewalks, that 's not funny. We are supposed to leave a certain distance between our cars and cyclists, which is perfectly logical, but pedestrians do not seem to have the slightest place for cyclists! Wend

The few cyclists I come across on the trail mostly show a breathtaking arrogance, a rudeness and a complete lack of respect for pedestrians. I can understand that roads are dangerous for most cyclists and understand their willingness to walk on trails, but so far they seem to want to do pedestrians what they accuse motorists of wanting to subject them. And of course, the normal action taken in case of contempt, disregard and violation of the law (registration, registration plates and other rules) is rejected because, God forbid, the behaving in a reasonable way makes cycling less attractive. So I can expect more, as if the person I was driving had dubbed the other night and was training his dog while riding a bike without a helmet, light or dark clothes. Anonymous

Traffic on sidewalks is allowed in Qld and it did not interfere with pedestrians. Pedestrians do not own the walking trail, so do not exclude taxpayers from using it. Cycling without a helmet improves peripheral vision and reduces accidents. Bart

I do not walk the roads and do not see why cyclists should be allowed to use the walking trails. A cyclist on a sidewalk puts pedestrians at risk on this sidewalk and the cyclist is not obliged to be insured [ or pay for some form of the equivalent of a “green slip” ] . In my turn, I would like to know who will compensate the injured pedestrian? Raumann Gagnon

We, cyclists of all ages, should have the right to ride on trails like in the ACT for decades. We, as cyclists, should know that pedestrians ABSOLUTELY have the right of way at all times, and we should be obliged to run their bike in high density pedestrian areas such as some shopping centers. Trails are often the only safe place to drive – with roads that are too dangerous. So we need to educate everyone to share this resource. Grant Robinson

I know an old lady spilled by a bike on a trail. She died of her wounds. Maryclare Anson

No lane should be allowed for cyclists on the walking trails: all riders must be on the road, bicycles and helmets worn, license plates must be affixed to the bicycle so that each rider can be identified and billed if it violates the highway code. John G

In some European countries, it is legal to ride a bike with wheels 20 "or less on the sidewalk.These bikes are smaller, slower and more maneuverable than ordinary bicycles.This seems to me to be a good compromise. helmets, whether legally required or not, I think you should be stupid not to wear them. Rod Sharples

It is dangerous to mix cyclists and pedestrians on the trails. Every day, I run the guantlet on Southbank, which is shared and ten times wider than a standard trail. Anonymous

I am a pedestrian and a cyclist. I live in South Melbourne and we are plagued by cyclists, adults and children, who walk fast on carefree footpaths and homeowners trying to cross it. Cyclists should stay on the road. Just as cyclists need protection against vehicles, pedestrians must be protected against cyclists. Do not encourage cyclists to use safe places for pedestrians. Many of them are already resolved to try to make records from home at work and vice versa. Les cyclistes européens semblent être capables de faire preuve de maturité en ce qui concerne le cyclisme quotidien quotidien. Cela ne semble certainement pas être le cas de beaucoup de nos coureurs arrogants de "garçons (et de filles) en lycra". Sandy Frame

Se cogner la tête sur un sentier en béton va sûrement causer autant de blessures que de le faire sur le tarmac. Mais les sentiers doivent être réservés aux pieds. La marche est un exercice valable et les marcheurs ne devraient pas voir leur espace de marche (qui est généralement déjà insuffisant) empêché par les cyclistes roulant à grande vitesse. Anonymous

Le cyclisme devrait être autorisé sur les sentiers. La vitesse est le problème, alors ralentissez. Ceux qui veulent faire un PB à chaque sortie doivent trouver un endroit qui ne soit pas à usage mixte. Anonymous

La proposition d'autoriser les cyclistes à utiliser les sentiers est irresponsable. Les personnes âgées, les personnes handicapées, les enfants en bas âge et les mères qui portent un bébé seraient exposés à des risques inutiles. Anonymous

Il y a deux problèmes: les casques et les sentiers. Les sentiers me préoccupent le plus, car la loi sur le port du casque fonctionne bien. Je vis près du sentier partagé de Gardiners Creek et l’ai abandonné en tant que piéton. Les cyclistes roulent très vite et très près de moi pendant que je marche, ce qui est toujours à gauche. Les sentiers sont le dernier refuge de ceux qui marchent à pied. Gardez les cyclistes à l’écart, quelle que soit la résolution du problème du casque. Jill Dumsday

Je suis avec le groupe de défense des piétons. Il faut faire quelque chose pour protéger les piétons des cyclistes agressifs sur des chemins partagés. Surtout pour les personnes âgées, ces cyclistes n'utilisent jamais de cloches et volent trop près de vous. Et si vous vous trouvez au mauvais endroit sur le chemin (à leur avis), vous êtes victime de violence. Il semble que les cyclistes veuillent dominer les routes et toutes les chaussées au détriment de toutes les autres. Ils sont une menace. Peter Bittner

Les vélos représentent déjà la plus grande menace pour les piétons. Les cyclistes courent déjà sur les sentiers pédestres et les pbadages piétons pédestres, sachant qu’ils peuvent faire ce qu’ils veulent sans risque d’être blâmés. Un coup de cloche (si cela) et vous feriez mieux de vous disperser car ils se considèrent comme au-dessus de la loi et imaginent que leur choix de faire du vélo leur confère des droits souverains sur le reste de la population. Anonymous

Comment cela s'accorde-t-il avec d'autres lois?

Demandez à un politicien cette réforme et il parcourra des kilomètres malgré le fait que le cyclisme, avec ou sans casque, permet d’économiser plus de 220 millions de dollars sur le budget annuel de la santé du gouvernement fédéral – plus de cyclisme implique davantage d’économies. "Si cela ne sauve qu'une vie, ça vaut le coup!" Demandez au même politicien d'interdire totalement de fumer dans ce pays et il courra encore plus vite et plus loin, bien que fumer soit tout un mal et ne procure aucun avantage à la fois au fumeur et au fumeur. ceux qui sont affligés par leur fumée. «Les adultes ont le droit de choisir les risques qu’ils prennent, nous ne voulons pas d’un nounou comme nous le faisons.» Demandez à un politicien d’épeler «hypocrisie» ou «incohérence logique» – suggérez-leur d’essayer «M E». Murray

En tant que cycliste, je saute parfois sur le sentier pour éviter des situations plus dangereuses sur la route, mais je suis très attentif aux piétons. J'aimerais que la loi ne punisse pas cela, mais le fait de ne pas porter de casque n'est pas un argument adéquat. Merci également de ne pas utiliser le terme "trottoir" dans cet article. Anonymous

Si Bicycle Network veut se libérer du port du casque obligatoire face à un nombre inchangé de décès liés au cyclisme, pourquoi ne pas regarder le fait que la plupart des cyclistes au crépuscule et la nuit n'ont pas de phare avant, ni au mieux, des lumières inadéquates? John