PDA

View Full Version : Incident



OldGrain
19th October 2014, 11:33 AM
A few weeks ago i got ushered from behind to pull over while riding to work on the M5 at Moorebank.The same route i`ve been taking for the last seven years.The first words said to me were - i pulled you over because you were speeding - & in the same breath he says - & holding up the traffic! Then he says why are you riding along here? Finally he got to the point & said - where`s your helmet? Now i ride a new Kent KX7 Cruiser.It is neither a racing or mountain bike & is in reality just a cruiser. 7 speed twist gears with standard 32" tyres.Yep the biggest wheels currently available. So pleasantries aside i said - i cant be speeding & holding up the traffic at the same time.The only reason i can be holding up the traffic is because you`re straddling my lane & the traffic lane beside me. Furthermore i can ride here because this is a dedicated bicycle lane.There are two signs stating so at the rise & if you look behind your vehicle there are two more signs telling me i can. Now i`ve been riding bikes for 50 years,never been booked & have never worn a helmet,dont intend to & for medical reasons cant wear a helmet - sustained head injury from an acrow prop falling 5m some 40 years ago - which when wearing a helmet causes agrevation/severe headaches.Not satisfied he then asks why i dont have a bell? Do you think a motorist travelling along at 110 or 80ks in this particular spot could possibly hear it let alone care? Theyve got their hifi/wifi/this fi/that fi..going on.They`re munching on maccas/stuffing about with aps on their dash.And when was the last time a motorist told you - sorry officer i didnt hear his tinkerbell! Not satisfied he further says - & why were you weaving in the lane? - because i can & have to as theres broken glass/tyre remnants/hubcaps/mirrors/grooves in the surface.Thats why.Needless to say i got booked for not wearing a helmet only.$69. Rang the SDRO & am having it heard in court. Now there is a mandatory helmet law in aust & nz.The only two places in the world! Spain has it but ONLY outside the towns & if you ride up a hill you can remove the helmet! Anywhere else its up to the rider or not.WA has repealed the law to Under 17 years of age only.Interestingly the Helmet Standards Testing is basically just that - they get a helmet,fit it with a head form & a sensor,tie it to a cable & raise it between 1.45m & 1.8M & drop it onto various shaped steel blocks. If it cracks or dents its scrapped.Unlike seat belts/airbags/child capsules they dont use a vehicle & crash test dummies.They could/should.Its not rocket science.A motorised bicycle with a crash dummy astride propelled at say 15kph then drive a 1.6 tonne commodore or such like at it. Nope.Nothing like that. When a vehicle hits a cyclist it doesnt care if you have or not a helmet on.It hits you at leg level & propels you through the air where you spear into the ground.And thats where the problem is & worsens.When you hit the ground from that, the helmet digs in & twists creating havoc to the brain which at 5ks avg weight & floating in fluid within your skull bounces around like an egg in water. A helmet is only designed for a - stand to drop situation -.Tour de France & other races use them for what reason? Not because a 2 tonne Citroen or Peugeot is going to hit them.... its purely from a fall off or between other cyclists. Well thats my bit so it remains to be seen of the outcome.

RossM
19th October 2014, 12:08 PM
Sorry - can't agree. Helmets are NOT there to protect from cars, but to protect your head when you fall from the bike &minimise the risk of you taking up valuable medical resources. You doNt have to be speeding. You don't have to be hit by a car. All it takes is your head hitting an unforgiving surface. Was involved in two incidents in last couple of years with very low speed accidents. First was coming across a kid who had fallen from almost stationary & had hit head on the curb. No helmet- a lot of blood & lost consciousness. A ambos said looked like depressed fracture of skull. The second was with a family outing. One of the kids came off at about 15km/h on Tarmac. Landed awkwardly, helmet hit the road & split, kid ended up with broken rib & some soft tissue injuries. Ambos called for that as well. They said without the helmet it would have been extremely serious.

OldGrain
19th October 2014, 01:15 PM
Gday RossM. Absolutely agree with you if you FALL from your bike & minimising risk & taking up valuable medical resourses. The problem is that helmets are not designed to withstand impact from a vehicle collision nor are they designed to minimise head impact from being propelled. Young kids should wear them as they are more vunerable than adults.The inner lining of most helmets is polystyrene - thats sound deadener which you find under most vehicle carpets today.Its also & moreso aircon insulation & used in fruit & vegetable boxes to keep them fresher.
Now when i sustained my head injury i didnt have a safety helmet on.It wasnt mandatory either back then. This was a unit site in Bondi. I was already hunched down screeting sand for a driveway pour. The prop came over the balcony, the base split my head open & knocked me over.I got up,gathered my self & walked up to the site office & reported the accident.The boss drove me to Eastern Suburbs Hospital where 49 stitches were applied. By noon i`d signed out & returned to work two days later.Probably less time spent than if i were stung by a bee. Assoc Prof Chris Risser & Dr Alex Voukelatos of Uni of Sydneys School of Public Health say - we would be better off without these laws-. The National Health & Medical Research Council warns - wearing of helmets may result in greater rotational forces & increased diffused brain injury - that is, akin to shaken baby syndrome. Judge Roy Ellis presiding a case said - i frankly dont think there is anything advantageous & there may well be a disadvantage in situations to have a helmet & it seems to me that its one of those areas where it ought to be a matter of choice -.

ian
19th October 2014, 03:55 PM
Gday RossM. Absolutely agree with you if you FALL from your bike & minimising risk & taking up valuable medical resourses. The problem is that helmets are not designed to withstand impact from a vehicle collision nor are they designed to minimise head impact from being propelled. Young kids should wear them as they are more vunerable than adults.the drop test you refer to is not supposed to simulate a real world crash -- is just a standardised test.
Standardised tests are used to assess differences between helmets

In the same way crash test dummies are used to assess differences in survivability between different cars or (for a manufacturer) different designs of the same car.

You skull (and brain tissue) can't tell -- and frankly doesn't care -- if you have fallen off a bike, been impacted by a car or if you have been propelled as the result of a vehicle impact. What matters is the rate your brain DECELERATES as your body stops. If this is kept below the critical level -- from memory about 15g the helmet has done its job.

Yes, young kids are more vulnerable than adults -- one reason is that peripheral vision doesn't develop until a kid turns 9 or so.
However, there is no real difference in vulnerability and susceptibility to injury between an adult's head and a kid's head.

Bicycle helmets are a compromise between weight and protection. If you want to maximise protection, wear a motorcycle helmet.
But if you do you have to accept the increased weight -- and the probability of suffering some sort of repetitive neck injury.

they are also a compromise between protection and comfort -- your head will get very hot in a motor cycle helmet after a few km of riding.
But if you race mountain bikes down hill, then the heat issue is less important than the extra protection of a BMX style helmet.


The inner lining of most helmets is polystyrene - thats sound deadener which you find under most vehicle carpets today.Its also & moreso aircon insulation & used in fruit & vegetable boxes to keep them fresher. the important thing is that it is also compressible -- good for around 12 Gs (or so I'm told).
If you look at helmet that has done it's job -- protecting a skull from fracture and keeping brain acceleration below the critical level -- you will find that the polystyrene is compressed and cracked. The hard outer shell of the helmet is there to keep the polystyrene together as it cracks and compresses.

Again it's all a compromise between weight, comfort and affordability.



And in deference to another unrelated thread,
I was a part time member of the Australian Standards Sports Helmet Committee around the time the debate around making bicycle helmets mandatory was being held. At that time, an Australian Standards Approved bike helmet was
too poorly ventilated to be comfortable
downright dangerous for a kid under about 3 -- because of its weight induced a range of better avoided neck injuries
a true pain in the neck if used for an extended period -- at the time, helmets manufactured to the then US ANSI standard represented a reasonable compromise.

Evanism
19th October 2014, 07:20 PM
Come on now. We all know this is a nanny socialist state where your freedoms are subjugated for What Is Good For You.

Wearing a helmet should be a personal choice, but, we don't live in a society where you get to make real choices. We live in a monstrously controlled, highly regulated, endlessly manipulated and tightly monitored utopia!

Your interactions with Mr Cranky is systematic of the passive agressive nature of policing here. Thank the gods you weren't a minority, Muslim or aboriginal, for then you would have been really hassled hard.

Mr Cranky doesn't give a damn about your head or the costs to public medicine, he cares about asserting his own tiny fascist control and meeting his daily sales quota.

It's a shame we don't have the same laws as the USA on interacting with police... "am I under arrest?"..."am I free to leave" ....try that here and they will burn up 3 hours of your time if not arrest you on some arbitrary trumped up BS.

On to the point, helmets DON'T save brain injuries. I asked my wife's Neurologist (she has a brain tumour) and he told me that the resultant brain and neck injuries are far worse. From the experts: QED.

Big Shed
19th October 2014, 07:59 PM
If "nanny socialist states" are the cause of laws like compulsory bicycle helmets then why is it not compulsory to wear a bicycle helmet in the Netherlands?

There are more bicycles per sq km in the Netherlands than anywhere else in the world yet you are perfectly free to hop on your bike and not wear a helmet.

In fact my daugther has just returned from a Euopean holiday and one of the highlights of her tour was a full day bike ride sans helmet.

In fact when she told her Dutch hosts they couldn't stop laughing!

As bikes in the Netherlands mingle freely with cars etc. in most of the cities (ever been to Amsterdam?) their head injury statistics must be horrendous (not!)

The fact of the matter is that with our oversupply of bureaucrats we tend to go overboard with these things, witness our ludricous OH&S laws.

clear out
20th October 2014, 04:09 PM
As bikes in the Netherlands mingle freely with cars etc. in most of the cities (ever been to Amsterdam?) their head injury statistics must be horrendous (not!)

The fact of the matter is that with our oversupply of bureaucrats we tend to go overboard with these things, witness our ludricous OH&S laws.[/QUOTE]

I suggest that over there the bikes have well established lanes and they also have public acceptance as a legitimate means of transport not a hindrance to the almighty car.
If perhaps the nasty OH&S laws had been in force earlier you might not have suffered in the work accident.
I think personal responsibility is great but I am sick of paying thru my taxes for people who smoke, drink to excess,don't wear seat belts/helmets,etc.
Whilst it all very well for adults to ride without helmets try getting your kids to wear one if all the adults don't.
Try arguing the point with a LA or NY copper especially if you have a good tan.
H.

Sturdee
20th October 2014, 05:04 PM
I suggest that over there the bikes have well established lanes and they also have public acceptance as a legitimate means of transport not a hindrance to the almighty car.

When I lived in Amsterdam there where few bicycle lanes, may have changed since then, but it's the attitude in the community that not only is it a legitimate way of transport but the preferable way. Cars are considered to be not as legitimate as bicycles unlike here where the car drivers attitude seems to be the opposite.

Peter.

Big Shed
20th October 2014, 05:41 PM
Peter, clear out misses the point of my post. It doesn't matter whether you fall off your bike in a bicycle lane or on a shared road, you will still hit your head! And the Dutch seem to manage to survive this without the compulsory use of bicycle helmets.
Let's also not forget that these Ducth bicycle lanes are actually shared lanes. The bikes share them with "bromfietsen", 49cc motorised bikes which go quite fast and there are also lots of them.

Bear in mind also that they are out on their bikes in all weather, rain, hail and snow, literally, not forgetting the slippery conditions in winter. Don't see too many bikes out in Oz in those sorts of conditions, we're more a fair weather cyclist nation.

Maybe the Dutch are made of sterner stuff?

As for OH&S, I have nothing against safety, but again we have gone totally overboard with our Hi-Vis vests safety glasses and hard hats everywhere. But then again without them the pollies couldn't have their photo-ops, could they.

The point was made earlier, Oz and NZ are the only countries in the world with compulsory bike helmets, perhaps we are soft in the head after all.:;

From Wikipedia:



No compulsory bicycle helmet laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet_laws).[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands#cite_note-11) In the Netherlands, bicycle helmets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet) are not commonly worn; they are mostly used by young children and sports cyclists who ride racing bikes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racing_bike) or mountain bikes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_bike). In fact, the Dutch Fietsersbond (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fietsersbond) (Cyclists' Union) summarized existing evidence and concluded that, for normal, everyday cycling (i.e. not sports cycling), a compulsory helmet law would have a negative impact on population health.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands#cite_note-12)

OldGrain
20th October 2014, 06:18 PM
As an aside to this continuing story - i`m employed as an automotive detailer,something i`ve been doing for over thirty years - i crack my head almost every day on low slung opened bonnets & bootlids/hatches - can`t see helmets ever being introduced under these conditions.

RossM
20th October 2014, 07:29 PM
I think personal responsibility is great but I am sick of paying thru my taxes for people who smoke, drink to excess,don't wear seat belts/helmets,etc


I totally agree - the "personal responsibility" argument is intrinsically selfish as it simply pushes up costs via increased insurance & increased taxes, and places unnecessary strain on an overstretched medical system.



Dutch seem to manage to survive this without the compulsory use of bicycle helmets

Glad you mentioned the Dutch. People trot this out all the time from third hand "facts". Look at their published figures & do some basic statistics on it (I have). You will find that the risk is about 1 in 90 that a Dutch cyclist will sustain a a serious (i.e. significant enough that it is a reportable incident requiring medical attention) head/brain injury. Bear in mind that this is for the average Dutch rider, who rides about 2.5km per day or about 1000km per annum. If you extrapolate that for someone who rides, say, 500km per annum the risk is about 1 in 18. And this is for a society where there is a huge culture of respect for cyclists, where the traffic laws are aggressively pro-cyclist and where there is an enormous amount of dedicated cycling infrastructure.

Actuarial studies of hospitalization in Australia show a reduction of about 50% for serious head injuries - it does work. As for arguments that helmets cause a decline in cycling & thus increase in sedentary diseases - that's hard to justify. Cycling uptake has increased more than 45% over the last decade in Australia. There is no evidence to support the notion that by eliminating helmet requirements will get existing couch potatoes off their butts & onto bikes.

People may think compulsory helmet laws are some sort of affront to their "rights" (whatever that means in this country) however we live in a society, and that comes with a whole lot of obligations that we trade for the benefits of living in said society. Simple and low cost means of preventing injuries that would otherwise be a burden on society is one of those things - its cheap insurance. The anti helmet brigade need to get over it.

Big Shed
20th October 2014, 08:00 PM
I am not "anti helmet", I merely question the need to make wearing them compulsory.

It seems that every time anyone questions anything to do with cyclists we get jumped on from a great height, almost as though cyclists are somehow a more "protected species" to the rest of society.

I also didn't question whether they work or not.

What I did, and do, question is why Australia and NZ are the only countries in the world where the wearing of bicycle helmets has been made compulsory?

Nobody has answered that question.

I am also not stopping anyone from wearing a bicycle helmet, nor am I protesting about an invasion of my personal liberties.

Would I wear a helmet if it wasn't compulsory, yes and no. I would wear it if I was riding in heavy traffic, I wouldn't wear it when I was on our local, mainly unsealed, forest tracks.

In other words I am old enough and ugly enough to make those sort of decisions for myself.

If we take this "it is for your own good and it saves society (health) money" to its' logical conclusion then why don't we make the wearing of Kevlar pants and heavy leathers compulsory for motorcyclist? Ever seen the horrendous injuries that motorcyclists get when they come off their bike?

I could go on, there are lots of things that can be done to make all of us safer.

PS

I didn't trot out "third hand facts" when I mentioned the Dutch. I was born in Amsterdam, rode a bike there for many years even as a youngster going to school, still visit there regularly and even ride a bike when I am there, without a helmet I might add. I don't need to quote selective statistics, I have first hand knowledge, do you?

ian
21st October 2014, 02:54 AM
I am not "anti helmet", I merely question the need to make wearing them compulsory.

snip

What I did, and do, question is why Australia and NZ are the only countries in the world where the wearing of bicycle helmets has been made compulsory?

Nobody has answered that question.I'll have a crack at it ...

back in the mid 80s I was a part time member of the Australian Standards Sports Helmet Committee around the time the debate around making bicycle helmets mandatory was being held.

I well remember the debate.

The AUS helmet manufactures wanted an AUS specific standard that kept US manufactured ANSI helmets out of the AUS market.
The cyclist lobby wanted the US ANSI standard helmets approved for use in AUS, because the AUS helmets were too heavy and hot to wear.
The child health people wanted all kids on bikes to wear head protection. I can still recall the child health woman from Sydney's Camperdown Children's Hospital talking about the issue. The "typical" kid was given a bicycle by grandma the Christmas before they started school. They would spend January learning to ride so that they could ride to and from school when they started kindergarten. Once the training wheel were off too many would crash their bikes (into poles, gutters, other bikes) and end up in Emergency with head injuries.
The trauma specialists were just beginning to enjoy the big reduction in crash victims following the introduction of random breath testing and kids head trauma -- from falls from bikes -- was the next public health item with an easy "fix".
The cyclist lobby was prepared to go along with compulsory helmets for the "greater good" -- in part because the only helmets suitable for use by kids came from the US and were manufactured to the ANSI standard. see No.2.



so nearly everyone got what they wanted.

Big Shed
21st October 2014, 07:19 AM
Thank you Ian, that (largely) explains the "how", but not really the "why".

I remember that at the time most of the States were reluctant to introduce these laws but were black mailed in to it by threats from Canberra to reduce road funding unless they did. Similar to SA refusing to reduce their maximum speed limit to from 110 to 100 but doing so after being blackmailed by the same threat.

This article gives some interesting facts about the benefits or otherwise of compulsory bicycle helmet wearing:

https://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/australia%27s-helmet-law-disaster

silentC
21st October 2014, 09:38 AM
It seems that every time anyone questions anything to do with cyclists we get jumped on from a great height, almost as though cyclists are somehow a more "protected species" to the rest of society.
That's largely due to the level of ignorance and intolerance that is often displayed when such questions are asked by non-cyclists. But in this particular case, you will probably find that, far from jumping on you from a great height, many, maybe even most, cyclists will actually agree with you on this one.

Personally, I don't care whether helmets are compulsory or not. I would still wear one. I would still make my kids wear one until they are old enough to decide for themselves. I am somewhat sceptical of some of the lines of argument taken by anti-MHL protagonists, like the suggestion that people won't take up cycling because a) helmets are uncomfortable/mess up their hair/make them look stupid and b) create the impression that cycling is dangerous. There may have been an impact on cyclist numbers when it came in, but anecdotally I see more cyclists now than 10 years ago. And plenty of kids ride past my house to school every day.

However I can understand that some people have a huge objection to being told what to do and so are in principle against it.

WRT to the original poster, there have been reports of increased attention from police to cycling offences. There is a belief that this is in response to community pressure over cyclists 'getting away with it' in an attempt to level up the playing field so that motorists don't feel they are being unfairly treated - largely as a response to the 1m passing laws in QLD and soon to be trialled elsewhere.

You can't do anything about the laws and if they go easy on you it doesn't look good. So you have to suck it up, you took one for the team. Good luck with your court appearance.

OldGrain
21st October 2014, 04:38 PM
Gday SilentC. If as a cyclist i`m riding recklessly i expect to cop the consequences. Nudging 64 i have no need or want to act in that manner. I actually leave about 15 minutes earlier to ride to work (rain,hail or shine) not because it takes longer to ride but because i enjoy just peddaling along. As it happens i work 15 mins from my workplace so in any effect speeding isnt a need.And the majority of motorists aren`t a worry for me as most give a toot as they pass by.Oddly enough apart from the officer on the day no others have ever been remotely interested in calling me aside given the number who cruise that stretch. Now to those that enjoy cycling i thoroughly recommend the cycle i ride.And you dont need a tool kit if you get a puncture! Just a bottle of Slime,a liquid puncture preventitive/repair that instantly seals holes/splits up to 5mm & suitable for any bicycle.Good for two years you first deflate your tyres,squeeze in 50% of volume to each tube.Spin the tyres around,inflate & you`re on your way.Its that simple & quick. The fluid remains liquid but once you get a puncture the fluid zeros in on the puncture & instantly seals it. And in my case i need it as 60psi/ 32" tubes/tyres aren`t readily available.

silentC
21st October 2014, 04:52 PM
Absolutely. I'm not justifying the cop's actions, just giving you a possible explanation for why he chose not to turn a blind eye. I don't know if you've noticed but there has been a lot of argy-bargy in the media recently over cyclists and the perception that they are out there breaking the road rules all day, so the police have been conducting 'blitzes' on cycling offences and the whole profile has generally been raised.

To the letter of the law, you are required to wear a helmet and you are required to have a bell. Simple as that. It usually goes under the radar but the above is why I believe attention is being directed towards such petty things.

I don't necessarily support either law but they are what they are. Complain all you like but it will fall on deaf ears. Having your day in court is the only alternative you have and hopefully you will have a patient magistrate.

OldGrain
3rd March 2015, 06:23 PM
Fronted court yesterday w/o counsel armed to the teeth with pages of info.Pled guilty with explanation & discuss."No need to discuss. You have current medical report?" Magistrate read through (verified) medical certificate. "Case dismissed.No costs.No record.Keep medical certificate on board cycle".