Helmets, bike lanes, and other nanny state dictatoria

[StreetCowboy]

Should safety be forced on cyclists with the heavy iron fist of the law?

 

[StreetCowboy]

I ride my bike for fun, and I think there are health benefits as well.

I sometimes cycle instead of driving, though only rarely.  (maybe twice a month to the pub, once a month to the bank, and less than once a month to work).

 

I rarely choose to go out without a helmet, though occasionally I have forgotten; and on one or two occasions I took the view that the 3 km ride didn't justify lugging my sweaty helmet round the bank - no-one likes to smell a sweaty helmet.

 

I am told that some countries enforce compulsory helmets for cyclists.  What do you think about that?  

 

Many people clamour for segregated bicycle lanes to make it safer to cycle.  My experience of cycle lanes is that they are inadequately maintained, and at the weekend, when there is less traffic and drivers are more courteous, you are as well cycling on the road (to be fair, on the roads concerned I have never tried to cycle during the week).

 

To my mind, roads can be made safer for cycling without the land-take of segregated cycling lanes, by thoughtful design.  Cycling lanes generate the impression that cyclists should not be on the road, so until the cycle lane network is 100% coverage, they militate against the freedom of cyclists.

 

Pedestrians, playing children, cyclists and horses were on our streets long before cars were.  We need to make sure that our cities remain safe for people, regardless of the desires of the machines that we ride.

 

SC

[paulsingle]

I cycle 2 km down a fairly quiet suburban road to go swimming and always wear my helmet. I take the view that a head injury is possible on almost any ride.

I hang the helmet on the handlebars when I park the bike.

[deepinlaos]

Australia is the only country in the world I believe that has bicycle helmet laws.

 

nanny state overreach

 

 

[ljstanley54]

I'd always wear a helmet, even if it does get sweaty. I once mentioned to a friend that I was not going to bother for a short ride as I was feeling lazy and my normally easy going friend replied, "that's not  lazy it's <deleted> stupid." Sage advice.

[Saladin]

If you don't wear a helmet in Thai traffic you're a <deleted>.

[chrissables]

1 hour ago, deepinlaos said:

Australia is the only country in the world I believe that has bicycle helmet laws.

 

nanny state overreach

 

 

Total overreach, and unless off road trekking or totally incompetent no need for a helmet. People don't just fall off a bike.

[steveyinasia]

What law would that be in Thailand, there are already most laws being ignored for cash.

[macca1962]

30 minutes ago, chrissables said:

Total overreach, and unless off road trekking or totally incompetent no need for a helmet. People don't just fall off a bike.

Yes, but they do get hit by vehicles. Young man in my street in Australia was hit by a car which results in a number of boken broken bones etc. Saved from serious head injury because he had a helmet on. 

[chrissables]

2 minutes ago, macca1962 said:

Yes, but they do get hit by vehicles. Young man in my street in Australia was hit by a car which results in a number of boken broken bones etc. Saved from serious head injury because he had a helmet on. 

So you think everybody should wrap themselves in cotton wool in case some idiot knocks them off a bike?

He would have been saved any injury if the car had not hit him. 

Stop causes of accidents, not put the blame of injury on the victim!

[jerojero]

So you think everybody should wrap themselves in cotton wool in case some idiot knocks them off a bike?
He would have been saved any injury if the car had not hit him. 
Stop causes of accidents, not put the blame of injury on the victim!

So blame the victim is equivalent to using proven safety devices to protect oneself? Put the responsibility on the car drivers yes, and assume no one will make an error in driving? Wishful thinking.

[JungleBiker]

macca wasn't blaming the victim. He was just saying accidents do happen and wearing a helmet will help you survive. 

 

If I didn't wear a helmet I'd probably be dead or brain-damaged 2 or 3 times over. No fault of my own. Hit by reckless motorcyclists three times and a car one time.

 

Obviously more should be done to prevent accidents.    

[chrissables]

10 minutes ago, jerojero said:

So blame the victim is equivalent to using proven safety devices to protect oneself? Put the responsibility on the car drivers yes, and assume no one will make an error in driving? Wishful thinking.

People should be able to make up their own minds regarding what to wear.

 

Any person causing an accident or damage is who should be responsible. And they alone punished.

[richard_smith237]

A common sense balance should be applied in approach to any activity with an element of risk, no matter how great or small the risk:

 

Snowboarding - I used to wear full body protection and helmet (I no longer snowboard)

Skiing - I wear a helmet

Cycling - I wear a helmet and avoid traffic where feasibly possible

Wakeboarding - I wear a helmet (I rarely wakeboard now following a back injury)

Football - I wear boots and shin-pads

Car - I never go anywhere without a seatbelt

Car - My child never goes anywhere unless in the car seat

Taxi's - I prefer UBER as they have seatbelt in the back seats

Motorcycle Taxi's - I avoid then unless completely necessary (2 times last year, 0 times so far this year).

 

My question is why wouldn't you wear a helmet on a bike? It seems pretty stupid not to. 

 

Should it be law? perhaps, some people are so stupid they need protection from themselves and often cite 'nanny state' as an excuse not to do something.

 

People are of the misunderstanding that not wearing a seatbelt in a car, not wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle or bicycle are 'victimless' decisions... but they are not.. there is a potential knock on effect.

 

When directly involved as the sufferer of an accident by not wearing helmets etc the injuries could be more severe and longer term where there may otherwise be no other significant consequences... not wearing a helmet seems pretty careless towards loved ones. The impact may also be related to additional financial burden on the heath care.

 

So.. just like smokers and drinkers are taxed... perhaps those who wish not to wear helmets could pay an additional tax for not wishing to do so - Just a thought... 

 

IMO: I just don't get why someone wouldn't... As far as bike lanes are concerned - the merits of each one, location and access are different... some could be more dangers and lead cyclists in a false sense of security, others are simply ignored, others such as the Skylane (now closed for refurbishment) are excellent facilities. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chiangraifalang]

I'm on my bicycle daily. Sometimes only 8 km, sometimes 30 to 50 km, more seldom more than 100 km and more.

 

Most important is to separate the bicycles from the motor traffic. One reason is to avoid possible contacts with the motorised traffic because it's reducing the chance dramatically to have accidents with them. The other reason is, to avoid inhalation of the exhaust fumes. Stay on the traffic light and inhale the black cloud from a diesel truck is not fun and not healthy at all.

 

A good model for bicycle lanes is Denmark and special Copenhagen, Denmark. A little bit more than 50% of the daily traffic to work goes with bicycle. Even they have cold winters and it's more uncomfortable to handle the clothes then. Much more easier in a country with "always summer on", like Thailand. Of course develope a network of bicycle lanes is a project over decades.

 

The safety for the body, like helmet, is a priority for one's own responsibility. For a long time i've ignored the protective function of a helmet. Now i wear always a helmet, even for only some hundreds meter to go.

 

A lot for bicyclist happens special in the last years. Much, much more has to be done in the future to bring more motorist on the bicycle and feel save. Not only for the own healthiness. Much more for our environment.

[chrissables]

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

A common sense balance should be applied in approach to any activity with an element of risk, no matter how great or small the risk:

 

Snowboarding - I used to wear full body protection and helmet (I no longer snowboard)

Skiing - I wear a helmet

Cycling - I wear a helmet and avoid traffic where feasibly possible

Wakeboarding - I wear a helmet (I rarely wakeboard now following a back injury)

Football - I wear boots and shin-pads

Car - I never go anywhere without a seatbelt

Car - My child never goes anywhere unless in the car seat

Taxi's - I prefer UBER as they have seatbelt in the back seats

Motorcycle Taxi's - I avoid then unless completely necessary (2 times last year, 0 times so far this year).

 

My question is why wouldn't you wear a helmet on a bike? It seems pretty stupid not to. 

 

Should it be law? perhaps, some people are so stupid they need protection from themselves and often cite 'nanny state' as an excuse not to do something.

 

People are of the misunderstanding that not wearing a seatbelt in a car, not wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle or bicycle are 'victimless' decisions... but they are not.. there is a potential knock on effect.

 

When directly involved as the sufferer of an accident by not wearing helmets etc the injuries could be more severe and longer term where there may otherwise be no other significant consequences... not wearing a helmet seems pretty careless towards loved ones. The impact may also be related to additional financial burden on the heath care.

 

So.. just like smokers and drinkers are taxed... perhaps those who wish not to wear helmets could pay an additional tax for not wishing to do so - Just a thought... 

 

IMO: I just don't get why someone wouldn't... As far as bike lanes are concerned - the merits of each one, location and access are different... some could be more dangers and lead cyclists in a false sense of security, others are simply ignored, others such as the Skylane (now closed for refurbishment) are excellent facilities. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is a victimless crime (if it was the law) 

If i am knocked off my bike, i am the victim. 

A tax for not wearing a helmet? Jesus!

For the "if it saves one life brigade" Smoking banned! Alcohol banned! Anyone who is overweight taxed 10 fold on fast food.

Leave me to go for a ride without dressing up like a <deleted>, it's too hot!

[deepinlaos]

Where does the nanny state stop?..........I'm thinking using the justification of some posters here that pedestrians should be made to wear helmets and pads just in case they fall over, a car mounts the pavement, or something drops out the sky.

 

a lot of countries looked at this bicycle helmet law and dismissed it........funny that.

 

 

[thailand49]

3 hours ago, deepinlaos said:

Australia is the only country in the world I believe that has bicycle helmet laws.

 

nanny state overreach

 

 

U,S. I think California has one?  When they pass the helmet law for for motorbikes in California it was the same claim people against made including like the Thais make " too hot "  today no complaints it has open up a billion dollar industry. Today I even see the Hell Angel wearing them it is a fashion statement.

Edited April 11, 2017 by thailand49

[deepinlaos]

9 minutes ago, thailand49 said:

U,S. I think California has one?  When they pass the helmet law for for motorbikes in California it was the same claim people against made including like the Thais make " too hot "  today no complaints it has open up a billion dollar industry. Today I even see the Hell Angel wearing them it is a fashion statement.

 

for children they do.

 

I am thinking people that run/jog should definitely be wearing helmets as they are doing the same speed as cyclists. 

[richard_smith237]

43 minutes ago, chrissables said:

It is a victimless crime (if it was the law) 

If i am knocked off my bike, i am the victim. 

A tax for not wearing a helmet? Jesus!

For the "if it saves one life brigade" Smoking banned! Alcohol banned! Anyone who is overweight taxed 10 fold on fast food.

Leave me to go for a ride without dressing up like a <deleted>, it's too hot!

 

IF you are knocked off your bike it may be your fault...  by simply cycling you are not exonerated in any wrong doing in the event of an accident - Cyclists may also be at fault... You never know when you will make a mistake (just like driving a car - we all believe we are the best infallible drivers)....  

 

So... if you are involved in an accident and its your fault, your injuries may be more severe because you chose not to protect yourself, in doing so you could end up costing your family emotionally... costing the state medical treatment, or costing the insurance more (which in turn increases everyone premiums)... 

 

Enjoy your ride... I do...  what I do suggest is applying intelligence and balance... The choices we make may impact others quite negatively, so when placing ourselves at risk, do our best to limit that risk... it seems selfish not to, especially for the sake of a simple cycle helmet. 

 

And lets face it, those cycle helmets are light, have good airflow (they are not too hot) and effected should we take a tumble... Well, unless of course you believe there is nothing to protect in the first place... 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

4 minutes ago, deepinlaos said:

 

for children they do.

 

I am thinking people that run/jog should definitely be wearing helmets as they are doing the same speed as cyclists. 

 

You can jog at 35 kmh ?

You jog through traffic ?

 

Helmets in cycling because the nature of a fall generally has you flying headfirst over the handlebars... 

 

As I wrote earlier, intelligent balance can be applied.

 

To be honest - I'm of the opinion that if someone doesn't wish to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle then thats their free choice... however, IF the government chooses to make wearing a helmet while riding a bike the law, I can understand why and have no real objections. 

[vogie]

1 hour ago, chrissables said:

It is a victimless crime (if it was the law) 

If i am knocked off my bike, i am the victim. 

A tax for not wearing a helmet? Jesus!

For the "if it saves one life brigade" Smoking banned! Alcohol banned! Anyone who is overweight taxed 10 fold on fast food.

Leave me to go for a ride without dressing up like a <deleted>, it's too hot!

Quite correct and not everybody wants to look like Stewart Cink.

[richard_smith237]

8 minutes ago, vogie said:

Quite correct and not everybody wants to look like Stewart Cink.

 

you mean you care more for your vanity than your safety...  no need to wear a helmet - there's no intelligence to protect....  Don't wear a seatbelt in a car, it might crease your shirt... Dont wear a helmet on a motorbike, it may impact your hair style... well, or it won't cos you are as bald as a coot and prefer tanning the cue ball when out on a ride... 

 

Just a response - its still a free world... as such opinions differ... some are bound to think I am over cautious.. I'm bound to think others make unintelligent choices...  

 

 

[vogie]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

you mean you care more for your vanity than your safety...  no need to wear a helmet - there's no intelligence to protect....  Don't wear a seatbelt in a car, it might crease your shirt... Dont wear a helmet on a motorbike, it may impact your hair style... well, or it won't cos you are as bald as a coot and prefer tanning the cue ball when out on a ride... 

 

Just a response - its still a free world... as such opinions differ... some are bound to think I am over cautious.. I'm bound to think others make unintelligent choices...  

 

 

If I wanted to live in a nanny state I would have stayed in England, I still want to make my own decisions and use my own common sense to get through life, if you need someone to direct you, so be it, I would not question it.

[thailand49]

1 hour ago, deepinlaos said:

 

for children they do.

 

I am thinking people that run/jog should definitely be wearing helmets as they are doing the same speed as cyclists. 

And I think people walking should also wear helmets, some run and jog as it they are walking and some people never grow up from being a child.

 

[macca1962]

3 hours ago, chrissables said:

So you think everybody should wrap themselves in cotton wool in case some idiot knocks them off a bike?

He would have been saved any injury if the car had not hit him. 

Stop causes of accidents, not put the blame of injury on the victim!

Maybe if that was your child you not be so be so thoughtless.  Not wrapped in cotton wool, just being a senseible parent. Cheers

[StreetCowboy]

I reckon it would show a reckless disregard for my responsibilities to my dependents to cycle long distances without my helmet.  On the other hand, I'm not too worried about a couple of kilometres in the suburbs near home.  And I'm certainly not going to cancel a trip because I don't have my helmet with me...

 

But I worry more about being banned from cycling on the road, and being forced to cycle on a few dedicated cycle paths and shared footpaths.  I think it is much more dangerous to be on a footpath, and continuously crossing roads and traffic, than to be cycling along with the traffic.

 

I'm just grateful that round here, at the weekends at least, the car drivers are courteous and considerate towards cyclists.  We were belting through town at a slightly intimidating junction, where we had to find our way into the third lane to go straight on, and a young chap passed by on the left with a big thumbs-up out of his car window "Good Job!" he cried, or something similar.

 

SC

[chrissables]

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

IF you are knocked off your bike it may be your fault...  by simply cycling you are not exonerated in any wrong doing in the event of an accident - Cyclists may also be at fault... You never know when you will make a mistake (just like driving a car - we all believe we are the best infallible drivers)....  

 

So... if you are involved in an accident and its your fault, your injuries may be more severe because you chose not to protect yourself, in doing so you could end up costing your family emotionally... costing the state medical treatment, or costing the insurance more (which in turn increases everyone premiums)... 

 

Enjoy your ride... I do...  what I do suggest is applying intelligence and balance... The choices we make may impact others quite negatively, so when placing ourselves at risk, do our best to limit that risk... it seems selfish not to, especially for the sake of a simple cycle helmet. 

 

And lets face it, those cycle helmets are light, have good airflow (they are not too hot) and effected should we take a tumble... Well, unless of course you believe there is nothing to protect in the first place... 

 

 

Costing who????

Do you even live here?

Hospital i must pay!

If i fall off due my actions, i will deal with it. I sure as <deleted> don't need others to stick there nose into my business!

[chrissables]

42 minutes ago, macca1962 said:

Maybe if that was your child you not be so be so thoughtless.  Not wrapped in cotton wool, just being a senseible parent. Cheers

I am talking about adults being able to decide for themselves. If you need guidance god help you!

[William C F Pierce]

Helmets. Compulsory Yes! Once I went to get off my bike to cross a road after it had been raining. The bike slipped, I slipped and hit my head on the kerb, badly cutting my head. I ended up in hospital for 24 Hours and a bill for 1900 Baht. Lesson learnt, always a bike helmet now. At night I wear a thin Hiviz jacket, flashing light ankle straps and flashing warning light on the helmet as well as the bike lights. Like this the police wave me on through there road blocks and never stop me.