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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you all think?

Automotive

Comments

      • Apoca89 on 05/02/2019 - 13:46
        +1

        How often can a helmet prevent the injury? If it is only one in a million, then is it a reasonable risk to take (especially as the risks of not exercising is so much greater)?

      • SkMed on 05/02/2019 - 14:27
        +2

        It's actually quite rare that a helmet will actually make a difference in a car+cycling accident. Helmets are only rated to cushion your noggin when impacted at limited angles and limited speeds etc. These are circumstances where it helps, but they are much less effective than you probably realise. Wearing a helmet will only very slightly increase your chances of coming out of a serious biking accident without a head injury, I believe it is something like less than 5% (i'd need to find the studies again).

        • Kangal on 05/02/2019 - 21:28
          +1

          [Citation Required]

        • trex on 06/02/2019 - 12:34

          Not according to this

      • XanderYuan on 06/02/2019 - 12:15

        Statistics show that people take more risks when riding with a helmet(and so do the drivers around them), so discretionary helmets are a good solution in terms of safety

        • trex on 06/02/2019 - 12:38

          We could also do the same with car seat belts, ABS and air bags in cars? Remove all of it from cars so that drivers won't get a false sense of safety so that they will take less risk while driving and drive safer.

          • XanderYuan on 06/02/2019 - 14:03

            @trex: I have no idea about seatbelts and the actually tradoffs between risk lowering and more injuries if it turns out the same as helmets then totally yes

            • trex on 06/02/2019 - 14:21

              @XanderYuan: Even the person who takes no risk in life will be affected by risk takers around him/her (or just plain bad fate). Helmets, car seat belts, air bags are there as an insurance policy just in case this happens.

              Do you have a car? Do you have a car insurance policy? Did you buy it because you think are you are not a good driver? Chances are it was purchased for just in case something bad happens…

              • XanderYuan on 06/02/2019 - 17:20

                @trex: Did I say anything about insurance…the answer is simply an assessment of a trade off between the 2 solutions to assess which solution is better… you compare the costs of removing seatbelts and the benefits gained from removing seatbelts, which ever is higher should be implemented

              • XanderYuan on 06/02/2019 - 17:22

                @trex: It is the same for bike helmets, from what I know, removing the requirement would result in more benefits than costs. Has nothing to do with whether one should buy insurance or not

                • pegaxs on 07/02/2019 - 10:06

                  @XanderYuan:

                  same for bike helmets… removing the requirement would result in more benefits than costs.

                  Name a few benefits that would come from repealing the helmet laws…

                  • XanderYuan on 07/02/2019 - 15:45
                    -1

                    @pegaxs: 1.more participation means less carbon emissions means less air pollution means less tax to maintain the environment means less fat people means less public funds on health since obesity maybe reduced and so on
                    2. Less risk taken by bike riders, less risk taken by drivers since they own bike riders a duty of care if injury happens
                    3. The benefits are endless and no one can give an exhaustive list
                    You get my point

                    • pegaxs on 07/02/2019 - 16:07

                      @XanderYuan: 1: The uptake would be minimal and have little affect on carbon emissions. Most people who want to ride without a helmet only want to do it to the local shop or to the park (things they currently forgo in lieu of sitting on the couch watching Netflix). They are not looking at doing it full time to replace their main mode of transport (Where carbon emission are at their worst). Not riding because "helmet laws" is an excuse, not a reason. There would not suddenly be an explosion of bicycle riders. Those people are free to ride now, with a helmet, and they don't.

                      As for "obesity", these people would not suddenly all jump on bikes. They have other options that don’t require a helmet (walking, swimming, exercise bike), yet they are still obese. People who are overweight or obese can still function in society, people with severe brain damage, cannot. Obesity has a relatively easy, self administered cure. Brain damage on the other hand cannot be cured. The cost to society for one brain damaged person would be far in excess of one obese person.

                      2: Drivers already do not care about cyclists (both bicycle and motorcycle) so, removing helmet laws would not make car drivers safer, just make cycle riders more vulnerable. Bike riders may be more careful, but from most of the comments on this thread, I can see that a majority of riders would not alter their behaviour if they didn’t have to wear a helmet, as they already believe that helmets are not needed.

                      3: You named 2 that were debunked in seconds. I hardly doubt that the list is "endless" nor "exhaustive"

                      You get my point

                      You didn’t make any, so, no.

                      • XanderYuan on 07/02/2019 - 17:41

                        @pegaxs: Oh great, you got any actuall evidence to disprove my point instead of writing an unnecessarily long paragraph?

                        • pegaxs on 07/02/2019 - 18:13
                          +1

                          @XanderYuan: Have you got any actual data to prove your initial outlandish claims? If you make outlandish comments, the onus is on you to back up your initial claims. Once you come back with proof, I will provide mine. At the moment, I am just questioning the logic. If it's not "logical" and isn't backed up by evidence, then I usually dismiss it as the garbage that it is.

                          I am happy to be proved otherwise. Link me to a study that backs up your original comment. (Try not to include tabloid news papers, biased cycling websites or wikipedia.) and once I read it, if I am wrong about your initial comment, I will accept it. I am here to learn. All I want are facts, and so far, I have been searching for hours trying to find anything of relevance anywhere on the internet that supports your views, and I just cant find it. I was hoping that you already had that information on hand, as you seem to know it already.

                          So, again, I ask, link me to a study or evidence (I want my mind changed.) that states that removing the mandatory helmet laws would;

                          • a) Increase participation substantially
                          • b) Significantly reduce carbon emissions / less air pollution
                          • c) Reduce the amount of fat people
                          • d) Reduce reliance on public funds on health since obesity maybe reduced and so on
                          • e) Reduce the risk taken by bike riders
                          • f) Reduce the risk taken by drivers
                          • g) The benefits are endless and no one can give an exhaustive list

                          From my reading so far on the subject, I have found;

                          a) Uptake of new or retuning riders would be minimal at most and almost all current riders would continue to wear helmets, regardless.
                          b) Most rides are of a short nature, therefore, unless everyone did it, there would be no significant reduction on carbon emissions if only related to cars.
                          c) No bearing in fact. It may entice a very small section of the obese to take up cycling, but at most, obesity rates would not be affected.
                          d) Again, removing helmet laws "may" increase head injuries and brain damage rates, further loading up the system, which is easily solved by wearing a helmet. Obesity rates cannot be fixed by removing a helmet.
                          e) This thread is full of people who have made comments saying they would not change how they ride, with or without a helmet.
                          f) Car drivers in general despise cyclists. There is no proof that car drivers would be better behaved if riders were sans-helmets. Most car drivers are too distracted to notice if a cyclist is wearing a helmet or not, and are more concerned with the riders actions than their attire.
                          g) Still waiting on that list.

                          • XanderYuan on 07/02/2019 - 18:51

                            @pegaxs: thx for summing up that, I was only wanting someone to do the research so I don’t need to do it. I’ll put my comments as a hypothesis. If you are kind enough to do all that writing can you provide some evidence to disprove the hypothesis?

                          • XanderYuan on 07/02/2019 - 18:54

                            @pegaxs: since as far as I know "Not only are there currently insufficient data for evaluating the impact of helmet laws, but also there are often inadequate data to track the number or severity of cycling accidents and injuries."

                      • XanderYuan on 07/02/2019 - 17:43

                        @pegaxs: Cite me research papers and data

                      • XanderYuan on 07/02/2019 - 17:59

                        @pegaxs: to get you started try this article
                        Bateman-House, Alison. American Journal of Public Health. Jun2014, Vol. 104 Issue 6, p986-992. 7p. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301810

                        • pegaxs on 07/02/2019 - 19:23

                          @XanderYuan: Did you actually read that or just cut and paste the first link you googled? Good lord. It isn’t even relevant to Australia, that is post 28 years after helmet laws were introduced. This is about New York 4 years ago. And is more a commentary on how decisions are made, not why they are made and what evidence there was to make those decisions.

                          But thanks for the read, as un-insightful as it was.

                          Your biggest rebuttal to date is "No, YOU show me proof". Even after making your initial claims, you still want me to prove my stance before you even attempt to cement yours.

                          No problem, dismissed as garbage then.

                          • XanderYuan on 07/02/2019 - 19:50
                            -1

                            @pegaxs: sad you can’t do research, I doubt you even have access to an economic database
                            I just wanted to hear what the other side can say, that being said you can’t produce any evidence as well.
                            What a waste of time “garbage”

      • Other on 07/02/2019 - 23:31

        I read a study that said helmets are mostly useless because if a car slams into a rider at 60km/h they tend not to survive due to internal injuries.

        • trex on 08/02/2019 - 14:38

          So seatbelt on planes should be removed then? There are so many ways for a rider to be involved in an accident and it's not always with a car at 60km/h.

          • Other on 08/02/2019 - 14:46

            @trex: Explain to me how a seat belt on plane saves people in an airplane crash?
            I am sure the people on Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 would love to know.

            Seatbelts are used not to save people but stop people from being thrown around in the plane.
            As an aside if it does crash its much easier to recover the dead.

            There many ways for a rider….

            Come up with statistics…. Because a meteor could hit a cyclist and thats an 'accident' and 'not with a car at 60km/h.'
            I would argue most road deaths from cyclists are because someone hit them with a car…

            • trex on 08/02/2019 - 14:56

              @Other: Lol… its based on your logic that bicycle helmets are mostly useless if "a car slams into a rider at 60km/h they tend not to survive due to internal injuries". Likewise plane cruises at speeds around 900km/h so in your thinking it will not help if it slams into a mountain which is true but 370 was just one incident. There are so many other instances where seat belt on planes saved a person from injury or death. Ever encountered severe turbulence?

              Bicycle helmets/seat belts etc are just an insurance, it will not cover you 100% of the time but it will reduce injury or save your life in some of the time. Helmets, seat belts etc are like personal protective equipment (PPE) at work. It's not there to prevent incidents but it is there to lessen (not eliminate) any injury or risk.

              • Other on 08/02/2019 - 15:15

                @trex:

                … its based on your logic that bicycle helmets are mostly useless if "a car slams into a rider at 60km/h they tend not to survive due to internal injuries".

                My logic, and anyone with a brain logic. Please show me all the people who didn't die after being run over by a car thanks to the helmet? Well apart from the brain dead who are apparently lucky(!) to have their injuries lessened I don't think you are going to find too many…

                There are so many other instances where seat belt on planes saved a person from injury or death. Ever encountered severe turbulence?

                Lol… So severe turbulence = death without seatbelt? No. Injuries obviously. Death almost ridiculous (3 in 36 years of which 1 died due to complications - more people have died during sex - damn tigers). Also I can point to you where seatbelts have hindered people on aircraft surviving - if the plane catches fire.
                Where can I upload the video?

                Bicycle helmets/seat belts etc are just an insurance, it will not cover you 100% of the time

                People buy insurance to cover them 100% of the time, wtf do they buy insurance if it didn't cover them 100% of the time? (however I will grant insurance companies do try and wriggle out of it which is why the Government sets up inquiries to force insurers to cover 100% of the time again).

                Please disprove my comment: I would argue most road deaths from cyclists are because someone hit them with a car…

                • trex on 08/02/2019 - 15:27
                  +1

                  @Other: Firstly, please read my first comment:-

                  There are so many ways for a rider to be involved in an accident and it's not always with a car at 60km/h".

                  Bicycle helmets wasn't invented just for 60km/h crash with a car you know. Speed could be 55km/h, 30km/h, 7km/h… lol

                  Secondly, your logic tested here. (warning: may contain graphic images). To me whether it is a car crash at 60km/h or otherwise, the take away message from the study states "37% cyclists from this study could have survived if they had been wearing helmets". My logic says helmets can help save lives.

                  Thirdly what's with the obsession about death? It is supposed to also prevent injuries. Best way to test this is hitting one's head with a hammer. With helmet = no ouch, without helmet = ouch!

                  P.S. Insurance doesn't cover 100% of the time, you need to read the fine print. Your insurance won't cover your excess amount, stuff like act of god, car not in road worthy condition, driving while under influence, reckless acts etc.

    • dave999 on 05/02/2019 - 11:18
      +1

      What is it about the helmet on your head that stops you from riding? Please don't take this as some kind of insult, I'm genuinely interested.

      • Apoca89 on 05/02/2019 - 13:43
        +1

        People forgetting it, uncomfortable to wear etc

      • SkMed on 05/02/2019 - 14:31
        +1

        for me I literally cant find a helmet that fits my head, the ones that come close are so loose and sit so high off that im convinced it would do nothing at all.

        Also they make you overheat almost instantly (as most heat escapes through your head), so I cannot ride to work due to these facts + helmet laws as my work is now too far to be able to ride to without being a sweaty disgusting mess by the time i get there. Without the helmet im sure it would be manageable though.

        • Roman Sandstorm on 07/02/2019 - 10:55
          +1

          @SkMed

          Just so much wrong.

          I literally cant find a helmet that fits my head

          Really? Literally? Do you have an unfortunate encephalitic condition? Or one of those 'tennis ball' sized bulges on your cranium?

          Literally…. literally any helmet will fit your head. Whether it fits well, or comfortably on your most unusually-shaped melon is another story. But literally…

          they make you overheat almost instantly

          No. You believe you experience 'overheating' with the helmets that you literally cannot find, which you have tried on. Whether the hundreds of millions of bike riders who wear helmets around the world suffer such 'overheating' is open to discussion.

          as most heat escapes through your head

          You're trotting this out, are you? Really? Literally?

          No. No. No. No. No. And…. no. Just do a Google search. Not true. Never was. Like the 'humans only use ten percent of our brains'.

          my work is now too far to be able to ride to without being a sweaty disgusting mess by the time i get there.

          I'm sure your fellow workers appreciate your civic-mindedness in not cycling to work.

          Without the helmet im sure it would be manageable though

          No, it won't be.

          I think you need a chakra realignment and a good dose of homeopathic bryonia (for heat exhaustion).

          • pegaxs on 07/02/2019 - 10:58

            @Roman Sandstorm: OMG, I literally cant even…

            But, my bicycle helmet like, has like totally got vents in the top, to like, let out the like hot air and stuff. It's literally amazing.

            • Other on 07/02/2019 - 23:32

              @pegaxs: Literally!

            • SkMed on 08/02/2019 - 19:47

              @pegaxs: Go poke a couple of holes in a beanie and go for a run, I bet it makes very little difference.

          • SkMed on 08/02/2019 - 19:46

            @Roman Sandstorm: To clarify, I do wear a helmet a lot of the time when i ride in the city, however that is limited to short distances in the city because A) They just don't fit, and B) they do 100 percent make you hotter.

            Helmets not fitting is most likely due to my hair, and I ain't cutting my hair just to be able to abide by some bullshit nanny state law.

            Apart from that I can confirm that overheating is actually an issue, when i'm outside the city and bike touring long distances (even carrying 30+Kg of gear) it takes much longer to get hot/overheat than riding with a helmet on in the city.

            Yes its a "myth" that 90 percent of heat escapes from your head, but a shitload of it does, try wearing a beanie and going for a run and tell me it doesn't.

            Also yes, without a helmet is manageable to ride to work, i've done it on weekends before sans helmet by taking an even longer route where I don't need to ride on the road and can get away without a helmet, although this isnt possible around peak hour without getting busted unfortunately.

            • Roman Sandstorm on 11/02/2019 - 14:49

              @SkMed: @SkMed

              I'm not entirely sure you should have doubled down in your response.

              Helmets not fitting is most likely due to my hair, and I ain't cutting my hair
              OK, so this is completely new information we were not privileged to previously.

              And yes, if your hair is like this: https://larrybrownsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/troy…, then certainly there may be an issue.

              And helmet manufacturers should be compelled to design and construct new helmets capable of taking into account your, other other, er, excessive? hair.

              Yes its a "myth" that 90 percent of heat escapes from your head, but a shitload of it does
              I guess your and my definition of a 'shitload' must differ somewhat. (https://www.livescience.com/34411-body-heat-loss-head.html)

              What you are saying is that you get hot above your collar, that you feel uncomfortable wearing the bicycle helmets that literally don't fit your coiffed bonce.

              Even in this selective forum there appear to be more contributors who don't really seem to support you substantially. Even among the bike-riding types.

              The lesson to take: don't generalise a point, and assume that is the case for everyone purely from your own personal experience. By all means, you and your big hair can continue to ride helmet-free, but don't expect a lot of sympathy from a harsh OzB community if and when you fall off and have a real hairdressing emergency.

    • Rhubarb Jones on 08/02/2019 - 13:14

      An argument that actually uses data and evidence!! Well done.

      As opposed to "I saw two cyclists and they hurt my feelings, we should punish them…"

  • outlander on 04/02/2019 - 19:45
    +1

    I think you're a lizard, and lizards can't ride bikes because of their tales. Therefor your story is bollocks

    • Melb69 on 04/02/2019 - 19:57
      +2

      This is assuming they have an estate. If they don't then it will still probably come from the State.

        • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 09:32

          They certainly have the thought capacity of a roo, so… Appropes?

    • BumbaT on 05/02/2019 - 03:26
      +1

      Helmet and necks? Your helmet will never ever prevent your neck from getting broken. Mother must have dropped you when you were child. Without a helmet.

      • Nalar on 05/02/2019 - 06:08

        Oof someone missed the point then assumed their mother also dropped them….

      • Melb69 on 05/02/2019 - 06:20

        So your thought process. Oh if I'm in an accident I'm probably going to die or be seriously mammed anyway. So why wear a helmet. Are you serious. Plus hey let someone else look after my responsibility to take some care. Really.

        • Other on 07/02/2019 - 23:33

          I think we should make you wear a helmet everywhere….

          Mob rule is fun!

  • Donaldhump on 04/02/2019 - 19:58

    People should be charged for medical expenses caused by

    Anyone that needs their stomach pumped of alcohol
    Anyone o/d ing an illegal drug that had knowledge of the drug
    Anyone not wearing a helmet
    Any motorbike rider not wearing leather and a helmet
    Anyone swimming drunk
    Anyone who picks up a blue ringed octopus
    Anyone sticking fire crackers in their ass
    Anyone one doing parqor
    Anyone jumping off roofs and balconies
    Anyone shitfaced to the point they can’t function

    If you made people pay for shit they wouldn’t do it

    • Billies4Budha on 04/02/2019 - 22:10
      +1

      While we're at it why don't we just raise all the taxes for all the same things. People like you are the ones turning this country into a nanny state. Just because you don't like to take risks doesn't mean that no one should be allowed to…

      • [Deactivated] on 04/02/2019 - 22:19
        +4

        Wait. This makes no sense.

        Making people pay for their own expense has nothing to do with raising taxes and certainly has the direct opposite effect of nannying.

        Just because you don't like to take risks doesn't mean that no one should be allowed to…

        They can still take the risk… they also risk having to pay their medical bill. Even greater thrill.

      • Donaldhump on 05/02/2019 - 06:12
        +1

        I’m not stopping you taking a risk, where did I say you can’t do any of the above?

        Let’s suppose we live on an island together, and I come to your house, get blind, break my leg and make you pay half the bill. You cool with that

    • Harold Halfprice on 04/02/2019 - 23:47
      +19

      What's the point of public healthcare then?

      You can literally extend the argument to EVERY aspect of our lives. Someone that eats junk food? No cover. Someone that doesn't exercise? No cover. Someone that likes the outdoors? No cover. Someone that plays sports? No cover. Anyone that does anything more risky than the arbitrary line I drew in the sand? No cover.

      If you made people pay for shit they wouldn’t do it

      Have a good look at the US. They have to pay for shit, and they still do dumb shit.

      Unfortunately, this is part of living in a society. You must stoop to the lowest denominator. If not, there wouldn't be a need for half of our laws.

    • DarwinBoy on 05/02/2019 - 00:33
      +2

      Are you from Darwin? That sounds like a list of front page news stories from up here.

      • Chris Topher on 05/02/2019 - 17:35
        -1

        "Pavement" refers to the U.S. & Canada, a lot of front page news stories from there.

    • Thaal Sinestro on 05/02/2019 - 07:50
      +1

      What about diabetes and obesity from overeating, sedentary living and excess sugar consumption? Cigarette smoking linked diseases?

      The think is, people who living in a dangerous or unhealthy manner cost the government more in the short term in health costs, but they die yonger, saving the government years of pensions payments, subsidized housing, subsidized prescriptions and so on. In the long run, studies have found that cigarette smokes have not net cost to the community. Remember that smokers pay extortionate taxes.

      • Donaldhump on 05/02/2019 - 09:20

        cigarettes already taxed to cope with this expense, and like you says studies have been done that show, it costs less to look after a smoker who dies quickly, and than someone with dementia on the pension in a nursing home. hence why the government secretly loves people darting up.

        sugar should be taxed.

        • Bargain80 on 05/02/2019 - 10:00

          it costs less to look after a smoker who dies quickly

          not quick enough.
          they should put more nicotine in it

    • trapper on 05/02/2019 - 12:54

      Anyone with a BMI over 30

    • Other on 07/02/2019 - 23:35

      I will tell that to all the children in a big lecture hall and give them the strap if they don't follow the rules.

      I mean look at this stupid child… such an idiot…
      https://www.9news.com.au/2018/12/04/09/53/blue-ringed-octopu…

  • Diji1 on 04/02/2019 - 20:07
    -1

    I see the usual right wing extremists advocating leaving people to die despite themselves having a myriad of risky behaviors that they undertake that is going to lead to some of them getting injured. Naturally if it's something they did like driving a car without a seatbealt because they forgot they're suddenly against leaving people to die.

    Australia is a mean, nasty conservative country indeed.

    • ozhunter on 04/02/2019 - 20:30
      -1

      I think it's the left that hates personal responsibility. I mean, they seem to be generous, only when it's with other people's money.

      I still think the medicare levy is a fair amount that Australian's are required to pay to help others.

    • [Deactivated] on 04/02/2019 - 21:02
      +2

      Ah. The left wing moderates vs the right wing extremist.

      • Greihawk on 04/02/2019 - 22:45
        -1

        No such thing as a left-wing moderate, left-wing, rightwing both extremists.

        • [Deactivated] on 04/02/2019 - 22:49
          +7

          Left wing, right wing, both delicious.

        • ozhunter on 05/02/2019 - 05:22

          I wonder what a centrist would think.

          • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 09:13
            +4

            @ozhunter: Centric extremists you mean

  • Third_Gear on 04/02/2019 - 20:10
    +5

    All joggers and pedestrians should be forced to wear helmets too. I see plenty of them dashing across the road on red lights. Almost had a new hood ornament once or twice….

    • mskeggs on 04/02/2019 - 21:57
      +5

      And car passengers. Head injuries in a motor vehicle accident can be very serious.

      • Other on 07/02/2019 - 23:37

        Its like that Opera episode where everyone got a car….

        "Everyone gets a helmet!"

  • bitcoinorbust on 04/02/2019 - 20:47
    -7

    only female cyclists should wear helmets

  • [Deactivated] on 04/02/2019 - 21:06

    Welcome to the tip of the right wing iceberg.

    This is why we don't think universal healthcare and welfare payments is sustainable.

    Some people want the freedom to not wear a helmet. We pay for head trauma.

    Some people want to the freedom to eat all the junk foods. We pay for diabetes and hypertension medications.

    Some people want the freedom to play five days a week.

    Some people want to not work and have seven kids.

    Some people want to bring in boats of people.

    Nobody wants to pay.

      • [Deactivated] on 04/02/2019 - 22:07
        +1

        The benefit of freedom to not wear a helmet is not worth the medical costs involved

        A person paying for their own medical expenses can decide better. Since it is the tax payer paying, I guess that is moot.

        With the junk food thing, it would make sense to add tax depending on the percentage of sugar or fat in foods

        Certain cultures will have different sugar and tar content. Certain ethnicities can process simple sugars better. Certain occupations need higher sugar content. Good luck legislating diet. Easier to remove healthcare.

        leaving children to grow up in squalor will only perpetuate the cycle and mean even more resources needed for them

        If we're not giving resources away, it doesn't cost us more resources.

          • [Deactivated] on 04/02/2019 - 22:22

            @Quantumcat: So, unless we pay them, the crime rate goes up?

            Isn't that like… extortion?

            In that case, we definitely shouldn't pay.

            • Pantagonist on 04/02/2019 - 23:24
              +2

              @[Deactivated]: No, it just means you have to face the reality of dealing with people who commit crimes and the cost of putting them in prison, which tends to be greater than the cost of paying them welfare.

              Alternatively, you just abolish jails and sentence anyone who commits a crime to death. Then you compost their remains and establish community gardens with their nutrients to appease the left.

              I think I just solved the world's problems with a single post.

              • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 09:14

                @Pantagonist: Or we could reduce the quality of incarceration.

                Jail is only expensive in first world countries.

                No, it just means you have to face the reality of dealing with people who commit crimes

                You start with the word no but go on to sound extortiony.

                "I'm not asking you to do anything but the reality is, people go missing."

                • Pantagonist on 05/02/2019 - 13:09

                  @[Deactivated]: It's not extortion, it's a statement of fact.

                  Someone who has no money and no means of support is more likely to turn to crime to survive. In addition to the jail costs we also need to factor in the cost of the crime itself, which could include property damage or injury to another person which has ongoing costs.

                  Jail costs aren't likely to drop below the cost of welfare per person in Australia any time soon, so that's not really a feasible solution.

                  Which countries do you think we should be modelling our prisons on?

                  • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 17:41

                    @Pantagonist: The ones where we build big concrete shells and let the inmates govern and feed themselves.

                    • Other on 07/02/2019 - 23:41

                      @[Deactivated]: Actually no… i thought that way but I cannot agree now.

                      Prisons run by prisoners is almost like a holiday to criminals. All it will lead to is bigger kingpins.

                      Better to have similar to japanese jails - no body EVER wants to go back.
                      We should make our jails similar to them (harshness) - just without the freezing to death bit and the beatings bit.

    • Other on 07/02/2019 - 23:37

      well technically the taxpayer pays.. meaning that even if they don't want to pay, they are paying.

  • Caped Baldy on 04/02/2019 - 21:07
    -2

    Regardless of helmets, if the cyclist did the wrong thing then they did the wrong thing. If they're involved in an accident they should be booked for riding without a helmet.

    • ATangk on 05/02/2019 - 11:43
      -1

      Even then, they won't have insurance or any 3rd party liability for damage they cause to vehicles or other persons.

      • EspressoDan on 05/02/2019 - 19:42
        +1

        That's untrue.

        A significant percentage of the population will have cover through their household insurance policies for accidents outside the home.

        Quite a few cyclists are also member of cycling Australia, who provide insurance with membership.

        And finally, a cyclist is just not capable of doing a great deal of damage to a car.

  • Godric on 04/02/2019 - 21:13
    -7

    Cyclists are always at fault

  • chumlee on 04/02/2019 - 21:59
    -5

    If you don't wear a helmet you most likely don't have a well functioning brain so why not just let them decide If they want to wear a helmet - can't get any worse for them

  • bargainhunter87 on 04/02/2019 - 22:57

    Contributory negligence.

  • Pantagonist on 04/02/2019 - 23:16
    +2

    In the NT you don't need to wear a helmet if you're cycling on a path off the road.

    Presumably if you have an accident you get looked after in a public hospital if you don't have private health insurance and choose to be admitted as a private patient, although in the NT you'd probably need to have some sort of brain injury to think being admitted as a private patient means you'll get better care than in the public system.

    • serpserpserp on 04/02/2019 - 23:25
      +1

      No not really. You will get the same care.

      But the public hospital system would really like it if you sign in with PHI as it's less cost on the public health system.

      • Pantagonist on 04/02/2019 - 23:34
        -1

        Isn't it just a market mechanism failure if you get the same treatment as someone who doesn't pay more than what they're required to through tax?

        If you get the same care in the public system as you do in the private system, essentially the only people who will pay are those who are so vehemently opposed to the public system that they do it out of principle.

        The only benefit to private health care seems to be a shorter waiting list for elective surgery, which the people who can afford private health insurance probably wouldn't need to worry about if they laid off the caviar and gout-inducing foods.

        • serpserpserp on 05/02/2019 - 09:30
          +1

          There are numerous benefits. But at a public hospital, you'll get the same level of care from doctors/nurses. But you might get a private room etc. if one available. Plus PHI will help with the costs as an outpatient for follow up consults and/or rehab costs etc.

          In a private hospital you will get attended to quicker, probably be better monitored, and usually have a nicer room/stay. But yes, there is a cost to all of this.

          I don't see treating people equally as a failure. If someone is sick enough to be admitted to a public hospital, they deserve good care regardless of if they are homeless, pensioner, lower/middle class or a high roller. I'm glad our country still provides this kind of service at public hospitals.

          • Other on 07/02/2019 - 23:44

            @serpserpserp: I'm glad our country still provides this kind of service at public hospitals.

            If our country doesn't, we are literally not even better than a 3rd world country.
            I fully support Medicare, even if I'm a capitalist.

  • [Deactivated] on 04/02/2019 - 23:59
    -1

    Generally riding on the footpath, I'm glad you didn't hit me with my child. Your breaking the law too. You should be on the road. With or without a helmet it's safer for me and my child.

  • Euphemistic on 05/02/2019 - 07:35
    +12

    Its your responsibiltiy. When does it become others fault when you don't ride with a helmet on, and your in an accident ,& why?

    The vast majority of cases involving a motor vehicle are the motor vehicle drivers fault - like over 80%. Wearing a helmet will not cxhange this.

    Wearing a plastic bucket on your head does very little to prevent injury in the event of an impact. They are designed to deal with impacts of around 20km/h any more than that and they aren’t very effective. Impacts from motor vehicles are the biggest cause of significant injury for cyclists.

    The real risk of falling from a bicycle whilst riding sedately is not much different to walking. The risk of head injury in a fall from a slow moving bicycle is also quite low.

    I’m a cyclist and believe that helmets are a good injury preventer and have used my helmet effectively a few times - impacted my head while mountain biking, not while riding on a path or road. I haven’t had cause to need a helmet while riding a path since I was a kid.

    I think the law for helmets should be changed such that adults have the choice to wear one when on paths or roads with speed limit under 60km/h. This will likely increase the number of cyclists around, which will create awareness of cyclists and increase overall safety for cyclists. I, like many other cyclists, would continue to wear a helmet if the law changes, except for casual riding on paths.

    Edit: if a car driver has broken the law (speeding, texting etc) is there any less medical treatment provided after a crash? No. Do they cop a fine? Probably. Shoukd be same for bicycle riders.

    • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 08:16
      +6

      I vaguely recall some Dutch studies on the public health aspect and found that the increase in people cycling pretty much outweighs any increased health expenditure from the actually rather small number of increased injuries.

      That said I don't advocate for cycling without a helmet and believe everyone should, and support the laws same as I do seat belt laws. I'd consider removing mandatory helmets so long as they were still required for minors. But a lot of people in here who seem to live pristine, perfect lives free of any sinful unhealthy behaviour seem to miss the fact that health economics is a little bit trickier than they realise.

      • dave999 on 05/02/2019 - 11:30
        +1

        The problem with Dutch studies is that the conditions for riders in the Netherlands is very different to the riding conditions in Sydney (for example). In the Netherlands the whole infrastructure is more bike friendly and it is completely flat. If they had the majority of their riders on heavily trafficked, high speed roads their accident rate and injury rate would be much, much higher.

        • Euphemistic on 05/02/2019 - 21:29
          +2

          yes, the Netherlands is different, but encouraging aussies to cycle will lead to more of them, which will increase awareness of them which will increase the numbers which will increase safety. It is the way the Netherlands started a long time ago. They consciously decided that active transport should be a priority and built infrastructure and laws to suit it. We can do the same.

          One big thing different in Aus is the climate. I haven’t been riding much lately because it is too hot. Heck, i work up a sweat just standing around this time of year.

    • ademiix on 05/02/2019 - 08:18
      +1

      Wow, a sensible comment amongst the "Abolish all laws! Abolish the government!" and the "Every other western country doesn't enforce helmet laws for adults, but here in Australia if you don't wear a helmet you'll be DEAD!" trash. Thanks.

    • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 09:22
      +1

      80%. Wearing a helmet will not cxhange this.

      So by extension, if this is true, up to 20% of the time, the helmet makes a difference?

      That's a very high percent!

      The percentage of speeding incidences that end up in a collision is less than 20%. We enforce speed.

      The number of people with bowel cancer is lower than 20%. We send out screening kits.

      The number of people who commit suicide is less than 20%. We have awareness days, TV ads and helplines.

      • HighAndDry on 05/02/2019 - 11:36

        The percentage of speeding incidences that end up in a collision is less than 20%. We enforce speed.

        If they wanted to abolish speed limits at the same time as mandatory helmet laws, hey - their noggin'.

  • lostn on 05/02/2019 - 08:04
    +6

    Not sure if I understood you correctly.

    Every cyclist should wear a helmet for their safety.

    But whether they wear one or not doesn't determine who was at fault in an accident. If you hit them and they had no helmet, it's still your fault. If they caused the accident but had a helmet, it's still their fault.

    • [Deactivated] on 05/02/2019 - 08:36
      +3

      Yeah I don't really get the point of the post. It's like saying 'Driver A ran a red light and isn't wearing a seat belt. Driver B hit them. Who's at fault when driver A isn't wearing a seat belt?' The seat belt might influence the degree of injury but it has nothing to do with fault in the crash.

      • outlander on 05/02/2019 - 15:10
        +2

        It's a troll post. I think thats obvious to everyone.

        Next one will be
        " You had sex and now you want to have an abortion. When does it become someone elses responsibility?"

  • orangetrain on 05/02/2019 - 08:20

    Helmets are needed because governments are just redrawing roads. Drivers who used to drive there will be angry when there's congestion and the bike lane is empty.

    Source: several places in Sydney. Some bike paths are just for one street. So cyclists need to merge with car lane. Even uphill, where cars have to wait behind them.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join