At last something interesting instead of politics.
A public health expert has called for laws making the wearing of bike helmets compulsory to be repealed, to encourage more people to ride bikes.
I often forget to put my helmet on during morning rides when I'm thinking of how nice a day it is and realise that I'm enjoying the ride so much because of my missing helmet.
That said, if I was in a crash I'd rather have it on.
I survived a nasty bike accident because my foam helmet protected my head from the protruding door handle on a Kombi micro-bus. There was a clear depression a cm or so deep in the shape of the handle after the accident. Compulsory or not, I won't be ditching the helmet any time soon!
Fashionistas - get over yourselves! Brains splattered on the road is not sexy either.
no offense meant rockabye, just a topic I have strong views on.
Russell Moore
Member
I started wearing bicycle helmets in 1976, way before most, and way before compulsory helmet use came into force.I have ridden over 300,000kms, accidents?, I've had a few, one of which I was very glad to be wearing a helmet.
Considering the type of helmets that were available in the 70s/80s, we are overwhelmed with choice today, and they are much lighter and much more stylish and comfortable.
I remember in 1995 seeing a photo of a Tour de France racer (Fabio Casartelli), who crashed into some concrete blocks on the side of the road. He died, despite having doctors on site almost straight away. He wasn't wearing a helmet at the time. If this can happen to a pro rider and Olympic gold medalist, then it can happen to anyone, I will always wear a helmet, always.
Like lots of pleasurable activities there is always a down side. My preference is also to wear a helmet however there 'may' be scenarios where helmut use is allowed to be discretionary.
The comments in the ABC story suggest some, but there are many who raise the terrible consequences of brain injury quite correctly to refute those ideas. The comment about making non-helmet wearers automatic organ donors was interesting.
The other side of the debate has been put up on the ABC.
Hey!!!
It is really interesting to wear helmet on bicycles. It will protect from sever accidents. I am happy that someone is interested in this topic.
jeffjj
Member
I support mandatory use of bike helmets BUT only because we have such mediocre bicycle infrastructure and separation from cars. When riding in Holland several years ago WITHOUT a helmet I felt much safer than riding in Melbourne with one. I think that it is easier for Government to promote helmet use because it is cheaper than spending money on bike infrastructure.
Jeffbloggs
Member
I second that jeffjj. Overall we need much better bike/alternative transport infrastructure in Australia. The bike helmet is still a good idea for standard bikes, still to far to fall to the ground from that height. Thats why I ride a recumbent trike, laying down with my feet first, can't fall far, and you hit things feet first instead of head first. Only downside is that the visibility is lower for cars, as my head is lower than a car window sill. Even more reason for better infrastructure just for bikes. Plus recumbents are more aerodynamic, so you go faster/further with the same power, and they are much more comfortable, fully reclined seat with back support, opposed to a padded stick for your behind, and no more wrist ache either! you even have time to look around, instead of being forced to stare at the ground with the crouched position of a standard bike, is better for safety awareness as well.
I always dreamed of owning a recumbent but the price always beat me. I now have an electric bike with a sitting upright posture for good visibility and ease of use on hills and in headwinds due to my weak legs.
Still wearing the helmet of course as the average cruising speed of 25-30kmh makes it fast enough to be dangerous. Great on bike paths along the river though.
Buzzman
Member
Unless you fit a seat-belt to your recumbent, you still run the risk of being catapaulted from it in a shunt with either a car or roadside object.
The accelaration from that 'catapault' can be greater than the initial speed at which you were travelling and, in any case, it's not the speed you're travelling but the mass of the the object you hit when you stop that matters.
Even if you only slide down the road, the helmet is better protection than none at all.
As a former motorcyclist I used to look at the offroad and outlaw bikers with their 'open-face' helmets and wonder at their insouciance. A friend went throough the windscreen of a poorly driven car and was ONLY saved by the chinstrap on his full-face lid.
Never get on a bike of any kind without a helmet, unless you have multi-million-dollar incapacity and life insurance - enough for your family to be better off without you!
Financially, that is. 
Jeffbloggs
Member
Hey Buzzmann
In my trike recumbent my pedaling feet are the furthest thing forwards, plus I use clip on racing shoes that attach to the pedals, which is easy with a trike as I never have to put my feet down to balance when I stop. That and the laying down position quite literally puts my legs in a position to absorb most of the impact before it gets to any of the critical gear...;) Plus with the low center of gravity it is nearly impossible to be catapulted out of the bike, it's a bit like diving from a bridge into water feet first, you don't normally contort because of the impact and all of a sudden go head first when you hit the water.
In regards to your statement that you accelerate to a higher speed when you are catapulted from the bike, where do you propose the extra energy miraculously comes from? Definitely not from the 15kg bike frame I assume? Plus the mass of the object you hit might not be as important as its structural properties, ie steel roadside barrier is quite lite, but very uncomfortable on impact, however in comparison water is heavy but quite soft on impact. The correct way of looking at impact is the maximum g forces experienced, an impact needs to be cushioned or "delayed" over time, so that there is no abrupt stop, hence the invention of helmets(lightweight, impact absorbing foam) and for that matter even airbags and controlled frontal deformation on cars.
The more even this deceleration the less trauma. Reminds me of a joke I once heard about an Austrian mountain climber. To test the effectiveness of a helmet he threw it off the side of a cliff, and found that on impact it was completely broken and indented. He then threw a beanie off the same cliff, and it survived with no visible damage. So he continued to wear the beanie as it was obviously the superior product and never broke. 
BTW I'm all for helmets, not beanies!
The 'Cone Head' bicycle helmet won the New Inventors Grand Finalist award a few years ago. Don't know how widely available it is at the moment.
Gruen
Member
I'm completely opposed to mandatory helmet laws as they have clearly suppressed the growth in cycling that has been experienced in other first world countries. Cycling is seen as a dangerous activity in Australia rather than the convenient and sustainable means of transport it is elsewhere. With our blind insistence that we are right and the rest of the world is wrong, cycling here will continue to make up 5% or so of the transport mix and we'll continue to be the highest emitters of carbon on earth.
People tend to become easily outraged when engaging in the helmet debate and this is something I find difficult to understand. The venom reserved for those who choose to pedal without a helmet is completely out of proportion to the supposed crime. It's curiousier still when it comes from people who have sufficient interest to join environmental fora... shouldn't they be more upset by Hummer drivers, petrol-headed speeders, Tony Abbott? I have never heard anyone seriously argue that medical care should be refused or fully charge for someone who injures themselves as a result of their own speed in a car, their diet, their addictions, their silly hobbies, their incorrect usage of farm machinery, and yet these are suggestions regularly levied at people who cycle without helmets. Compulsory harvesting of organs of a particular segment of society does not sound like an interesting idea, it sounds abhorrent whichever way you look at it (and I'm someone who thinks compulsory organ harvesting for all is great public policy). Replace 'non-helmet wearer' with 'executed Chinese prisoner'... and you get the idea.
Everyone who engages in the helmet debate in Australia seems to be able to quote some instance where a helmet saved their/their friend's/their uncle's lives but these near misses are just not reflected in statistics. All of the millions spent on enforcement and bike helmet bureaucracy has not prevented deaths of cyclists at around the same tiny level it was twenty years ago. The most common way of a cyclist meeting their end is still being run over by a motor vehicle from behind. As Diver points out above, helmet technology is hardly groundbreaking as yet and I've read that the standard helmet is only effective to 19kmh. There's even also some compelling scientific study that says a cheap placcy helmet is likely to introduce increased risk of spinal twist injuries. None of the international agencies associated with road safety have helmet-wearing for cyclists on their hit-list of things that can measurably improve the horrible carnage on roads. Predictably, these things are speed, alcohol, road conditions, helmets on motorcyclists. Many experts predict that one of the next ways of reducing road tolls is compulsory helmet wearing for car occupants. But you will never hear this put forward in Australia because behind much of this passion for compulsory helmet laws is really a deep hatred for all things cycling.
Anyone interested in the issue should have a look at the films of the excellent Mike Rubbo on his channel on youtube and read his blog at http://www.situp-cycle.com/.
Jeffbloggs
Member
Gruen (thx for the link, the vids were fun!)
I would have to agree with most of your comments about making it compulsory to wear helmets whilst cycling. Maybe it should be mandatory for children only, because if an adult chooses not wear one, maybe the next fall will knock some sense into that persons head!?
Even though I agree compulsory helmets might be a small deterrent on the popular uptake of a healthy form of transport, I don't believe that not wearing a helmet, is better than wearing one. It being government enforced (read: revenue raising) and compulsory, is however not a part of the same argument, as how effective a helmet protects against impact. I think the slow uptake of cycling is mostly due to our inherent laziness and personal comfort, and the lack of appropriate infrastructure and regulatory resistance to further developing the bicycle into a 21st century transportation device.
It is sad when we have to rely on government to protect us from our own ignorance. You would think parents are good enough teachers to provide this essential common sense to their offspring. But sadly it would seem the opposite is true, as parents and "children" are allowed to pursue a crazy diet, addictions and silly hobbies in the pursuit of a perceived "freedom". Every action has a reaction. An individuals actions impacts their community, as the communities actions also impact the individual. They are in-separable symbiants of humanity. It is becoming more and more apparent that selfish individualism is unsustainable, and some "common" sense would go a long way to fixing the problem.
BTW has anybody considered the impact of unnecessary and ineffective car trips on human safety and the environment? Maybe we should reconsider why everyone really needs their own car, so that they can drive by themselves to wherever they want, whenever they can afford to? Pride, selfishness and greed are the cause for these three actions, and none of these are sustainable human traits.
So...jump on your bike to save the world! ;p
Jeff. Good points.
"But sadly it would seem the opposite is true, as parents and "children" are allowed to pursue a crazy diet, addictions and silly hobbies in the pursuit of a perceived "freedom". Every action has a reaction."
At risk of being off topic, and repetitive, looking at the recent alcohol report released this week where an annual bill of $36B-$40B to the Australian community is accepted with very little discomfort, the issue of bike helmets seems quite trivial. Still important but it is amazing how we can introduce good laws to save lives in this area but ignore the elephant in the room from far more serious activities.
Buzzman
Member
Jeffblogs
The mass of your recumbent may be only 15kgs, but you assuredly are a lot more than that. The kinetic energy generated by the forward movement of the vehicle and embodied in your own mass accelarates your body when the vehicle stops.
Sure, you'll probably break the bones in your face on your own knees before you get flicked over the bonnet of the car/guardrail/immovable object....
My point is that anything which provides additional protection (over zero) has to be better than the rest of the community having to support you indefinitely on life support and in a vegetative state due to the trauma received when your nose was driven 6cm into your brain.
Having slid down the road without a helmet (as a child, pre compulsory helmet law) and having been involved inadvertently in several 'other vehicle induced' crashes while motorcycling, I can assure you from personal experience that helmet laws save a lot more than just lives.
There is an organisation called 4Bs - BBBB - Bent, Busted and Broken Bikers, whose members visit other bikers stuck in hospital recovering from such injuries.
It ain't pretty.
I once read, but cannot find again, some stats on the degree of injuries received dependent on crash speed. From memory, the increase in damage/injury (and therefore the cost of remediation and recovery) was exponential to increase in speed. It certainly wasn't linear, at least.
So maybe if we were all forced to travel at the 20-40km/h of the average cyclist there would be way less road traumas and a much lower hospital bill for the community to bear, and maybe some of that saving could be spent on either public transport infrastructure or decentralisation.
At least if it was spent on the latter we might be closer to work than most of us are generally, tipping 'whole of life' balance back in OUR favour, rather than that of the running dog capitalist exploiters! (Tongue firmly in cheek)
Benny
Member
Buzzman - I agree with all you say on the safety aspects of wearing helmets etc. But I think what JB is saying is that there is no way that being in a collision can "accelerate you to a greater speed that that at which you were originally travelling". An object travelling at 40km/h when it hits something will just try to continue on at that same speed - it can only accelerate to a greater speed if it has some force behind it. It may well appear that the rider accelerates because the bike hits the object first and decelerates, the rider detaches from the bike and keeps going at the original speed and so overtakes the bike, until they also start to hit the stationary object.
I can't even think of any "catapult" type mechanism that would make the rider go faster. If your feet were restrained and your body kept going you'd start to rotate but average body speed would be the same. Just semantics I know but I think thats what JB was arguing.
Gruen
Member
Yes, Jeffbloggs, you've got to love Mike Rubbo's work.
I agree entirely with you, Jeffblogs, on the insanity of individual ownership of means of transport. Did you know that when the BOS reports on the census data next year the second item in the Australian household accounts is likely to be transport? Insanity. Elsewhere, mobile technology, smart cards, e-commerce combos are allowing car shares to become a genuine component in the transport mix. Hertz has just started car sharing in Madrid and NYC. Bike sharing is huge in other cities around the world but will not be in Australia until we get rid of the silly helmet laws. I easily envisage a future where every railway station would have a bike share alongside proper facilities for private bikes which would easily replace the standard car journey (less than 5km on average-- all those ineffective and unnecessary car trips). This can't happen when we blindly insist that our compulsory helmet laws stay in place.
It's very dubious to say that as a matter of public policy that compulsory bike helmets save lives. An individual decision is very different from a mandated public policy objective and, regardless of how anyone chooses to cover their own noggin, we need to realize that on helmets our governments and laws are wrong.
Every activity carries a risk to the person. The danger of peddling a bike is way overstated in Australia and is one of the main reasons why uptake of cycling is so low, and fairly much concentrated around a demographic of middle-aged male commuters. Australians are no lazier than anyone else, but they are fatter. We are fatter because we don't walk, don't cycle. We are fatter because our children don't ride to school but learn very early on that the only mode of transport is the car. The health benefits that would accrue from us ignoring the silly culture of fear that's evolved would save many more lives and produce fewer injuries than our current frozen state of inaction.
No arguments from me, Buzzman, on compulsory helmets for motorcyclists. The benefit of these laws has international statistical backing, unlike cycle helmets. I also have no problem with society picking up the tab for the care and support of those injured as a result of motorcycling accidents even though I choose not to use that form of transport.
Jeffbloggs
Member
Buzzman
No probs with the acceleration thing. I'm not against wearing a helmet, and I always do, but I'm just against government telling me to do so. In regards to speed causing injury, it really is the case of the stop that hurts, and not the speed. It's true that if you double the speed you quadruple the impact energy, but the opposite also works, if you double the impact time (or soften/delay the impact time) you halve the impact energy. Likewise you will suffer significant head trauma if you hit something headfirst, and significantly less head trauma feet first, like on a recumbent. Remember on impact we are working on very small time tolerances between injury and survival. Humans can survive 50g -100g depending on the body part exposed. Put 100g on a foot or leg and it might break, it will however suffice to absorb most of the energy at normal bicycle speeds (max40kmh) without much damage to the skull. Turn the bike around and impact the riders head with 100g and you will most likely die, even with a helmet. Pressure can also be of concern in a impact, the greater the impact area, the smaller the localized pressure and the less likely that something will penetrate/damage something critical. This is what airbags are designed to do, increase surface area over that of the seat belt area, and simultaneously reduce impact time and therefore deceleration g's. Helmets have a similar effect.
Gruen
Talking about bicycle infrastructure and the potential of human powered vehicles; have you seen the shweeb? http://www.shweeb.com/
Weatherproof, aerodynamic, fast and doesn't interfere with traffic both pedestrian and vehicular. Add a bit of electric assist for the not so fit and hills, and see a new generation of pedaling. But best of all: NO helmets!!
BTW I am still not convinced of the significance of mandatory helmet regulation on bike usage. I understand that it would seem wrong for the government to "pedal" it as a life saver, but I still think helmets are more effective at head injury protection than a beanie. Maybe the gov should impose compulsory bike riding for trips under 5km, to go with the helmet mandate? Might as well impose some more "life saving" regulations, not just for the dumb, but also for the fat...
Jeffbloggs
Member
Good question, but maybe they could incorporate some type of blind system for shade, maybe even electrochromatic glass?. I still think a electric hybrid version would be best ie brushless variable generator driven by pedals and linear electric motor in rail. Don't need any acceleration "bumps" like they're proposing, and everyone including disabled people could use it via electric power, without others being speed disadvantaged. Plus you could maybe even automize some for deliveries, rubbish collection etc and even use the rail structure for fibre optics, water and power networks in new suburbs. You could more easily implement collision prevention systems, and possibly even further energy savings as well. I suppose that way if the power grid goes down everyone can jump on their bikes so we can still all watch "New Inventors"...;)
Buzzman
Member
They face the same problem light rail does - it has to stay on the tracks - a bicycle (or recumbent trike) can go anywhere there is a path wide enough for it.
Enclosed velos would seem to be an even better solution. Google "velo". There are heaps, but still very expensive - Greenspeed's is about $12K!!!
Could buy a second-hand Jag for that, and almost get a 2nd-hand Prius for that matter (seen them on carsales for under $15K with less than 100K km).
Not bad for something that was over $40K new!
But heading seriously OT......
Jeffbloggs
Member
"Velo" means "bicycle" in French.
In regards to a bike path, bitumen and concrete are quite energy intensive (fossil) forms of paving, and riding a bike down it at 40kmh could be dangerous for pedestrians. With mixed traffic like a pathway down the side of a normal road, even more dangerous. I'd rather be in a shweeb above ground anyday, (plus no helmet!) so long there is some sort of gondola winch to let you down in an emergency. Most commuting bikers don't go "off road", but rather from point a to point b. Maybe a hybrid velomobile/schweeb would be good in the interim?
Being up in the air on a rail, with a little bit of electric assist (500W or so), without any traffic lights would mean average speeds of up to 70kmh in suburbia, in comparison to 30-40kmh average for cars. A standard car (non hybrid/EV) also consumes considerably more fuel in suburbia because it stands around waiting for traffic. Cars are much better for long distance, at which point the shweeb would become to small & less comfortable. Life cycle energy consumption and maintenance would be a fraction of that required to maintain roads & vehicles, even with a prius or EV. Also the cost of a automobile is in direct relation to the amounts being produced, the cost per unit of a shweeb would reduce drastically with mass production. Over 70% of road traffic is for a single person per car, get rid of all of those by using a shweeb type system for short trips, and all of a sudden you will have at least 50%+ more capacity on the congested suburban roads, plus the fuel consumption reduction. If we are going to get rid of fossils because of emissions & climate change, we will have to think of some new paving for the roads anyway, because bitumen won't be around any more.
Article in Melbourne's "The Age" - 29/08/2010.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/a-new-helmet-to-bring-riders-into-the-fold-20100828-13wxk.html
Is Melbourne the only city where a bicycle hire scheme has failed?
Good Slow TV presentation on bicycle use in Copenhagen. Hardly a helmet in sight.
http://www.themonthly.com.au/urban-cycling-mikael-colville-andersen-2689
Lots of good ideas from this talk given in Melbourne during August.
Good section on helmets.
Buzzman
Member
Jeffbloggs
When I learned French in high school thirty years ago, 'bicycle' was "bicyclette", en francais!
'Velocette' from which comes the diminutive 'velo' meant smll-capacity-motorcycle.
It is now used more generally to include some mopeds but especially enclosed cycles and/or enclosed mopeds.
The problem with the schweeb is that, like a trian, it doesn't go everywhere.
A further problem is that if one person wants to get off, everyone has to stop.
Or, there has to be lots of off-track 'loops' - or 'sidings' - as most lay people understand them, just as there are on train lines. This would add immensely to the cost of the necessary infrastructure.
Just can't see it as a practical alternative to EV buses or EV trains - and especially the latter on which you can take your pedal-cycle and get off closer to where you need to go.
Jeffbloggs
Member
Buzzman
With the velo terminology their seems to be various dialectics...in Switzerland (French & German part) they call a bike "velo", but you are correct that in France it is mostly called bicyclette. My wife, who currently teaches French in college, clarified this for me. Apparently asking my daughter (who also learnt French), who said "Velo" meant bicycle, was only partially correct! Sorry, her bad!
I agree that there is a sidings problem with the current shweeb layout, unless you have a "driveway" per house/exit, which however, could also be utilised for automated deliveries/pickups via a electric powered automated shweeb gondala, for shopping deliveries, recycling/rubbish pickup, mail etc. The cost of infrastructure with a shweeb, would be a lot less than a e-train though (and even less than car&road infrastructure with mass production), and you could select you location directly without having to change "carriages". Plus with the shweeb you would have nearly no loss of availability due to poor weather problems (ice, snow, rain, fog...maybe better for security at night too?), relevant especially in EU, colder climates etc. Riding a bike down the road in bad weather ain't fun or safe, the shweeb would be very comfortable in comparison, and you wouldn't even need wind screen wipers with rail guidance. Maybe the schweeb can find a niche between pedestrians and cars with some intelligent designs?
Rockabye
Very relevant perspective on the car vs bike problem. To many cars with one occupant chewing up resources and endangering the human species on all levels...;)
The NT has a partial exception to the helmet rule - allowing riders to go bare-headed when they are not on the road.
http://www.ntnews.com.au/article/2010/09/02/176431_ntnews.html
