Cyclists Want Compulsory Helmet Law Removed

[MikeCuzzy]

for the fact about replacing helmets. helmets before somethign like 2010 (dont hold me to this) cannot be sold anymore due to design changes.

I read that as of June 30, 2011 older designs cannot be sold. Doesn't mean they aren't very safe, just the new design is probably a little bit better.

also Mike. in the world there are more bikes then cars. just putting it out there for a fact.

also putting this out there. my neighbour who rides a bike most likely worth more then your car (in excess of $10,000 and weighs as much as your remote)
had some moron run into him one day and no he was not at fault. a helmet saved his life.
yet he still has metal plates in his head from the crash.

as i said before the few bad cyclists give the rest a bad name.
just like with P Plates. the bad few give the rest a bad name.

You're completely correct mate, globally bikes (both motorised and otherwise) far out number cars. But the above comments were specifically about Australia, that is what I was referring to.

I assure my car is worth far less than his bike lol. And you're very right, some cyclists think they are kings of the road and cars simply will magically not hit them if they cut off a 2 tonne piece of metal. The vast majority of cyclists are great in my experience. As a p plater, I find it annoying to be thrown under the p platers are terrible and hoon label, I had 16 cars stuck behind me the other day because I was doing the speed limit down the hill near my town. So I can imagine how they feel. As to wearing helmets, I always do

[Drawnnite]

You're completely correct mate, globally bikes (both motorised and otherwise) far out number cars. But the above comments were specifically about Australia, that is what I was referring to.

I had 16 cars stuck behind me the other day because I was doing the speed limit down the hill near my town. So I can imagine how they feel. As to wearing helmets, I always do

dont worry i realised the aus thing. =P

and yeah i know how you feel. travelling at speed limit to have people behind you as if your holding them up. happens to me every day.

and damn i wish my last post wasnt on the previous page :[

[cracker]

When you're laying in hospital as a vegetable because you suffered a brain tumour.. You'll be wishing you was wearing your helmet.
They don't prevent you from getting hurt.. but would be alot better than without.

because you suffered a brain tumour
brain tumour...?

breaking new helmets prevent brain tumors ?

[Blazed1101]

The real question is who is going to pay for the car to get fixed when they ride out in front of you while not wearing a helmet??
Would be harsh asking a vegetable to pay for there damages

[greenacc]

most cyclists are nobs. Change the law so they can wipe themselves out !!
Actually there's no way the law will change until we get rid of our nanny politicians. Now all passengers in power boats under 4.8metres have to wear life jackets at all times .... How NANNy is that.

[jules]

I’m a motorist who has too many cars and pays over $4000 a year in rego and insurance, not to mention the grab from tax on petrol and GST on all other related things for my cars. I also ride a bike for fitness two or three days a week. The roads are paid for by car owners whether they own bikes or not.

1. rego doesn't pay for the roads - it pays for the cost of administering rego scheme and in some states (vic at least) covers 3rd party injury insurance - not roads.
2. main roads are funded substantially by heavy vehicle rego, which is a lot higher than car rego and accounts for the cost of damage caused by heavy vehicles. cars and bikes both use those roads.
3. most roads are actually local roads, funded by councils - i.e. rates with help from i believe federal govt grants (who get their revenue from GST and the like).
4. major new roads and freeways, etc. are funded by govt expenditure that comes from consolidated revenue, not car rego.
5. cyclists are much more efficient users of the roads than motorists. part of the road charging formula accounts for space used - cars are very inefficient consumers of road space and should pay a lot more.

the bottom line is, rego doesn't pay for the roads - general taxation revenue pays for it. secondly, a condition of holding a car license is to respect all road users - motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists etc. - equally. if someone isn't prepared to do that and drives like they have more right to the road than anyone else, it's them who ironically has the least right to it - or really none at all.

[bonners]

I have epilepsy. I have it as a cause of a head injury. It is controlled but I have it. It's not something I would generally discuss on a public forum but when it comes to head injuries, nothing infuriates me more.

We have people so ignorant in this world that don't want to wear a helmet because they are so concerned about how they look. I can't fathom why it could be about anything else. I have tried modern helmets and they are as light as a feather

Take this extract from an episode of Seinfeld:
"There are many things you can point to as proof that the human is not smart. But my personal favorite would have to be that we needed to invent the helmet. What was happening, apparently, was that we were involved in a lot of activities that were cracking our heads. We chose not to avoid doing those activities but, instead, to come up with some sort of device to help us enjoy our head-cracking lifestyles. And even that didn't work because not enough people were wearing them so we had to come up with the helmet law. Which is even stupider, the idea behind the helmet law being to preserve a brain whose judgment is so poor, it does not even try to avoid the cracking of the head it's in."

This is the best thing I have ever heard. There are some so dumb who need a law to try and protect what they have.

The guy asking for this law to be removed deserves to learn first hand what's it like to have a head injury. What it's like to have a seizure. Yes I have had one (none for 10 years) and its not a pretty site. Do you know if you have a seizure you can't drive for 12 months.... I bet that would upset a few people on this site. And I have been there as well.

You guys can take what you like from my post. I hope you would take the intent of it and understand why we have such a law. Yes I could hurt my head injuring it in a car accident etc. but there is nothing to protect your brain and the pavement except that small amount of skull if you fell off while not wearing a helmet.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Darren_L]

I own two cars that I pay rego on, one only does about 3k a year, the other does probably 10k. I don't ride a bike so you bike riders who use the road more than I should pay your share for using said road.

In fact I'd like to see road tax payable on how many K you use the roads per year per vehicle/weight and everyone using the road must pay..

you do more kays then I do. I don't even do 10k per year in my cars. I maybe do 1500kays a year on my push bike
So you are using the road far more than me.
As said, I along with most motorists are paying to use the road. We can't ride a bike and drive a car at the same time.....

[Darren_L]

To be fair there are probably a few more cars on the road than cyclists.

true, but what's the accident rate per vehicle on the road compared to cyclists ?
I think you'd find it would still be higher than cyclists

my point is to claim cyclists have a 'horrendous safety record' is a ridiculous & unfounded statement - unless of course there is some sort of accident data that indicates otherwise.....

[cracker]

you do more kays then I do. I don't even do 10k per year in my cars. I maybe do 1500kays a year on my push bike
So you are using the road far more than me.
As said, I along with most motorists are paying to use the road. We can't ride a bike and drive a car at the same time.....

why do we have to ride on the road? i never ride on the road it shit house.

[GothicKidd]

because you suffered a brain tumour
brain tumour...?

breaking new helmets prevent brain tumors ?

Someone missed the point...

[Crisis63]

1. rego doesn't pay for the roads - it pays for the cost of administering rego scheme and in some states (vic at least) covers 3rd party injury insurance - not roads.

Thats one pretty expensive rego scheme. Im not seeing the value. We just had stickers removed (= less admin) and the cost went up. We pay 3rd party as a separate charge but included in the total bill. I actually suspect what you say is true about it not paying for roads. Reg goes into general revenue like all tax but motorists contribute to this general revenue and cycle riders like myself do not directly.

2. main roads are funded substantially by heavy vehicle rego, which is a lot higher than car rego and accounts for the cost of damage caused by heavy vehicles. cars and bikes both use those roads.

It stands to reason those who pay the most (and/or any) rego may lay claim to the largest share of the contribution. The fact that there are far more cars than heavy vehicles would mean that this gap may be smaller than you suggest though. Nevertheless the fact that heavy vehicle rego is higher and you site that as a more substantial contribution still supports the fact that general vehicle registration, being more substantial than non existent cycle registration, also plays a part.

3. most roads are actually local roads, funded by councils - i.e. rates with help from i believe federal govt grants (who get their revenue from GST and the like).

GST on petrol, car insurance, servicing, parts etc. Again its all general revenue. The fact that governments pool it all and redistribute the booty as they see fit doesn’t change than fact motorists pay far more into this pool than cyclist.

4. major new roads and freeways, etc. are funded by govt expenditure that comes from consolidated revenue, not car rego.

See above.

5. cyclists are much more efficient users of the roads than motorists. part of the road charging formula accounts for space used - cars are very inefficient consumers of road space and should pay a lot more.

Really? Bike lanes take up 1/8 of the physical space on the roads I use going to work. I pass more than 8 times the amount of cars in my travels. A group of 20 lycra clad wannabes holding back 20 cars is also not exactly efficient. Even if they were more efficient (and I don’t see this as much of an argument anyway) they should be because they don’t pay directly for the privilege!

the bottom line is, rego doesn't pay for the roads - general taxation revenue pays for it.

No, all received revenue does which includes rego.

secondly, a condition of holding a car license is to respect all road users - motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists etc. - equally. if someone isn't prepared to do that and drives like they have more right to the road than anyone else, it's them who ironically has the least right to it - or really none at all.

Well accoridng to your philosophy cyclists by way of not contributing and not having to accept any conditions for using the road end up with the least responsibility yet equal rights.
Simply put everyone needs to share the roads. Bikes have their place but they do not deserve to use the road in a way that inconveniences drivers or causes unnecessary hold ups. They can use the road in a way that does not result in this, I manage, and they should try to do so.

[Darren_L]

why do we have to ride on the road? i never ride on the road it shit house.

I agree, and it's dangerous - believe me, I avoid the road when possible, it's bad enough trying to dodge blind car drivers when I'm riding the motorbike
I only ride on the road when there isn't a bike track or suitable footpath available

[cracker]

Someone missed the point...

someone missed an english lesson

Head injury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tumor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Drawnnite]

I agree, and it's dangerous - believe me, I avoid the road when possible, it's bad enough trying to dodge blind car drivers when I'm riding the motorbike
I only ride on the road when there isn't a bike track or suitable footpath available

this is something i also do. i dont care if im breaking the law by being on a footpath (over 14 or 16 must be on the road by law)
im not disrupting other road users. and i move out of the way when people are on the path. as a common curtosy thing.
(also reflectors are ment to be on bikes to make it roadworthy. note how many people actually have these)

but ill say this again. in other countries and continenets (aka Europe) the bike and car users work well together due to respect and care.
over here no one can bother giving anyone any bit of respect, space or care about others.
most people only care about themselves and what they are doing. and until this changes the bike vs car debate will rage on

a little bit of mutual respect is all that is required. and for people to stop being so self centred.

[jules]

Reg goes into general revenue like all tax but motorists contribute to this general revenue and cycle riders like myself do not directly.

yes you do. general revenue comes from a range of sources - including non-motorists and cyclists who also drive.

It stands to reason those who pay the most (and/or any) rego may lay claim to the largest share of the contribution. The fact that there are far more cars than heavy vehicles would mean that this gap may be smaller than you suggest though. Nevertheless the fact that heavy vehicle rego is higher and you site that as a more substantial contribution still supports the fact that general vehicle registration, being more substantial than non existent cycle registration, also plays a part.

there's a economic principle known as 'user pays', which dictates that you (as an individual) pay for your use of a commodity, such as the roads. saying that there are more cars than bikes or trucks is not the point - which is that if there are more cars taking up the roads, they should pay more. that doesn't give all car drivers some collective higher status. the question is really - are individual road users paying their way?

GST on petrol, car insurance, servicing, parts etc. Again its all general revenue. The fact that governments pool it all and redistribute the booty as they see fit doesn’t change than fact motorists pay far more into this pool than cyclist.

there's no doubt drivers pay more than cyclists, even if the difference is probably marginal when you account for all the other sources of revenue that they both pay. but the point is that they should pay more - they take up more space on the roads (contributing to congestion), require more expensive road building techniques (cyclists don't need 2 feet of aggregate or whatever underneath the road surface) and wear the roads out more. again, paying additional fees to recover those higher costs of motorists' consumption of the roads doesn't give them any higher status - it just means they're paying their way. the problem is, as much of the costs of building roads are drawn from general tax revenue - they're not. cyclists and other non-motorists are actually paying for these higher costs, which again - aren't covered by rego.

Really? Bike lanes take up 1/8 of the physical space on the roads I use going to work. I pass more than 8 times the amount of cars in my travels. A group of 20 lycra clad wannabes holding back 20 cars is also not exactly efficient.

when was the last time you sat in a traffic jam behind 20 cyclists? that's just a fantasy. i drove to work for 8 years (thankfully i don't have to anymore, it was hell) and i spent probably 3 months of my life waiting in traffic. i would say the split was about:
- 99.999% behind cars
- 0.001% behind "20 lycra clad wannabes"

it's pretty clear who's holding who up. i do ride to work these days and i pass columns of cars going nowhere, holding each other up. occasionally some idiot will go nuts and absolutely floor it to get past me.. then stop 50m up the road behind the queue of traffic. i always ask them politely if that was worth it

Simply put everyone needs to share the roads. Bikes have their place but they do not deserve to use the road in a way that inconveniences drivers or causes unnecessary hold ups. They can use the road in a way that does not result in this, I manage, and they should try to do so.

the whole car vs. bike thing is mostly bullshit anyway. i rarely get any hassle when either cycling or driving. there are morons on bikes who deserve what they get, but there are drivers in that category too..

[Darren_L]

this is something i also do. i dont care if im breaking the law by being on a footpath (over 14 or 16 must be on the road by law)
im not disrupting other road users. and i move out of the way when people are on the path. as a common curtosy thing.
(also reflectors are ment to be on bikes to make it roadworthy. note how many people actually have these)

but ill say this again. in other countries and continenets (aka Europe) the bike and car users work well together due to respect and care.
over here no one can bother giving anyone any bit of respect, space or care about others.
most people only care about themselves and what they are doing. and until this changes the bike vs car debate will rage on

a little bit of mutual respect is all that is required. and for people to stop being so self centred.

totally agree!
there is no reason why cyclists and motorists cant share the roads with mutual respect
it all comes down to attitude

btw I have reflectors, lights (front & rear) AND a bell on my bike

[ojame]

totally agree!
there is no reason why cyclists and motorists cant share the roads with mutual respect
it all comes down to attitude

btw I have reflectors, lights (front & rear) AND a bell on my bike

I do have the same respect for cyclists and motorists.

It infuriates me when someone is driving at 50km/h in a 60km/h zone, i don't tailgate but it does annoy me. It pisses me off when cars swerve into my lane a little bit, i hate the thought of getting side swiped by a vehicle. When i see someone run a red light i think "what a ########, i hope there was a camera" as it's truely one of the more life risking moves. When i see people on motorbikes go up beside (or worse, in between) other cars to get to the front of the intersection/avoid traffic i feel like opening my door on them.

Case for case, this happens a lot more with cyclists. Granted, on the weekend my work commute path is in direct contact with literally hundreds of cyclists but still.

The good cyclists are a-ok with me, i wait to overtake, heck i even let them pass me.

[Crisis63]

yes you do. general revenue comes from a range of sources - including non-motorists and cyclists who also drive.

cycle riders like myself do not directly.
I suppose it comes down to accepting whatever tax or charge we pay really has no relationship to where it will be spent. The idealist notion whatever you pay as a motorist should in some way result in some benefit for you as a motorist is really a fallacy then.

there's a economic principle known as 'user pays', which dictates that you (as an individual) pay for your use of a commodity, such as the roads.

there’s the conundrum. Ideally it should be user pays. I.e. the funding of roads and related infrastructure is derived directly from the associated fees and charges applied to the users. Motorists. But as you say it is not. It is general revenue. The status quo then is a result of governments not using the money that is paid in taxes and charges for a service or provision that is directly associated with it. That is not the motorists fault.

saying that there are more cars than bikes or trucks is not the point –

I know, that is why I responded to your comment “main roads are funded substantially by heavy vehicle rego” as I did.

which is that if there are more cars taking up the roads, they should pay more. that doesn't give all car drivers some collective higher status.

So they should pay to take up more room ("user pays") but they shouldn’t expect to get what they paid for (no “collective higher status”) by receiving the extra room?

the question is really - are individual road users paying their way?

Yes, and directly cyclists pay nothing. The tax on their lattes may eventually find its way back to painting a bike lane but whatever a cyclists pays in tax will never match what a motorist pays.

when was the last time you sat in a traffic jam behind 20 cyclists? that's just a fantasy.

Yesterday. My drive home is along a seafront road that cyclists use regularly for training and on weekends, such as last weekend, as a race track. A bunch, lets say 20 , cyclists involved in a race with a car behind them with flashing lights was holding up about 8 cars, myself included, as they engaged in their recreational indulgence. They do several laps. If I want to play a game of football I must not do that on a road and stop traffic. The road is not a sporting field for individual’s private indulgence.

the whole car vs. bike thing is mostly bullshit anyway. i rarely get any hassle when either cycling or driving. there are morons on bikes who deserve what they get, but there are drivers in that category too..

Yes it is and yes there are. Courtesy and consideration for others would eliminate 99% of the grief. Goes for most things really.

[jules]

So they should pay to take up more room ("user pays") but they shouldn’t expect to get what they paid for (no “collective higher status”) by receiving the extra room?

the extra room is different from the collective higher status. a car takes up more room than a bicycle - a simple, geometrical fact. the higher status i was referring to was the claim by motorists that they had more rights to use the roads than cyclists. that's a different proposition and one that isn't supported by their paying for the extra room they consume.

it's like someone from business class coming back to your seat in economy on a plane and pinching your entertainment console. sure they paid more than you, but that doesn't give them a general entitlement over other passengers.

The status quo then is a result of governments not using the money that is paid in taxes and charges for a service or provision that is directly associated with it. That is not the motorists fault.

you're missing the point. if motorists had to pay for the cost of their consumption of roads, they'd be paying s***loads more. and cyclists would be paying less general taxes, as the govt wouldn't need their taxes to fund the costs of motorists using the roads, which they were now paying themselves.

when someone (motorists) are consuming a commodity (roads) that is being funded by general taxation, then they are getting a free ride. and everyone else - who is not a motorist - is getting ripped off.

in a nutshell, this is why traffic congestion occurs - when you give something away at a discount price, demand tends to increase beyond supply. if you read the Henry Tax Review, he called for road user charging to fix that. make no mistake, motorists would pay more, not cyclists.

Yes, and directly cyclists pay nothing. The tax on their lattes may eventually find its way back to painting a bike lane but whatever a cyclists pays in tax will never match what a motorist pays.

with respect, you're completely wrong - you've got it the wrong way around.

[Crisis63]

it's like someone from business class coming back to your seat in economy on a plane and pinching your entertainment console. sure they paid more than you, but that doesn't give them a general entitlement over other passengers.

Not really a good analogy. Both parties have paid directly for their seat.

you're missing the point. if motorists had to pay for the cost of their consumption of roads, they'd be paying s***loads more. and cyclists would be paying less general taxes, as the govt wouldn't need their taxes to fund the costs of motorists using the roads, which they were now paying themselves.

when someone (motorists) are consuming a commodity (roads) that is being funded by general taxation, then they are getting a free ride. and everyone else - who is not a motorist - is getting ripped off.

That’s fine except motorists are paying all the charges and taxes that related to owning and driving a cars AS WELL as all the other taxes the non motorists are. So they are contributing directly to the roads or should be if the share they pay was directed solely at the building and maintenance of roads and related infrastructure.

in a nutshell, this is why traffic congestion occurs - when you give something away at a discount price, demand tends to increase beyond supply. if you read the Henry Tax Review, he called for road user charging to fix that. make no mistake, motorists would pay more, not cyclists.

Given motorists pay all taxes as well as motoring related ones they pay more than their share. Did Henry take into account the massive revenue derived from speeding fines? Hundreds of millions of dollars nationally per year. These funds should also be directed back into roads to make them safer. This would have a far more significant affect on road safety than policing 50k zones with speed cameras.

[Darren_L]

We've all walked on the road at some stage, if cyclists are expected to pay rego for using the road, then pedestrians should too...

[Drawnnite]

We've all walked on the road at some stage, if cyclists are expected to pay rego for using the road, then pedestrians should too...

but wait theres more!...
for only $49.99 + P+H you can breathe the air we currently live in.

(next part not related to quote)

but can you please explain this to me. i pay the taxes etc to have my car on the road.
instead of driving said vehicle i get on my pushbike (no not lycra clad sunday brunch on a bike that is barely used rider).
im saving the air you breathe, the carparking space for you and im not on the air in your way when you come flooring it up my tail.
so you wait to charge me more to make your life easier? fine ill go back to driving my car taking your car parking spot and being in your way.