i don’t think it’s that big of an issue, being “forced” to wear one. unless you wanna get all “revo”. why wouldnt you want to wear a helmet? the whole “same fine for riding down to the milkbar/riding across the country” is usually brought up in discussions about seatbelts, and i think the brutal ads on tv bring it to a conclusion. no matter the distance or location you’re riding, there are always uncalculable risks.
regardless of the law, i think everyone should wear a helmet, more importantly, everyone should WANT to wear a helmet.
Read the below post Will and have a real think about how dangerous cycling is.
The restrictions are totally not in proportion the danger level, especially in regards to other things that don’t have stupid draconian laws. As I’ve stated, more people were getting head injuries from falling off chairs and falling over while walking than riding a bike before helmet laws came in. Why not under your logic FORCE people to wear helmets walking down King st on a Saturday night?
I’m going to restate this for you. You’ve totally missed the point of my debate here. It’s not about the effectivmess of helmets or if they’re cool or not, the debate is about being FORCED to wear one by the government. That’s all.
I realise this is not what is being debated here but I don’t think the way you deduced that cycling is safer is correct. I’m not saying it’s not safer, but you need more data to work this out. You would need, at least, to look at the proportion of cycling deaths against the number of cyclist trips and the the proportion of MV deaths against the number of MV trips.
For (a simple) example,
People have made 20m MV trips this year, so 0.00594% have died.
People have made 500k bike trips this year, so 0.0062% have died.
As for the actual debate. I don’t care if you wear one or not. It should be a personal decision.
The government forces us to do a lot of things fairly or unfairly, heatseeker
Unless the collective cycling community can effectively demonstrate to the government why helmets should be optional, the law is never going to change. I reckon you’d be hard-pressed making a convincing scientifically supported argument for change.
And laws aren’t necessarily about logic- they are often just a reflection of the wider communities attitudes.
Sorry, I was over-exuberant in my simplification. No idea if those sort of stats are even around.
I guess my point is that a shitload of people die in cars every year, with seatbelts, airbags etc. A shitload of people die just walking down the street every year, with their own footpaths, pedestrian crossings etc. So to have such a small number of people (which is still too high) die each year in what is often seen as a dangerous pursuit, that’s some pretty decent odds. Anecdotally speaking.
yeah i’ve overlooked your point, i suppose i was looking more into the replies and looking for a more important point than some sort of “government control”. so your point could also be applied to seat belts in cars, speed limits, manslaughter, picking up your dogs poop, public nudity, shoplifting, involuntary patients in the mental health system etc. laws sometimes seem awkward and unfair but they are really put in place for our best interests.
i suppose for me it’s hard to grasp the concept of not wearing/not wanting to wear/having an issue with wearing helmets.
so your point could also be applied to seat belts in cars, speed limits, manslaughter, picking up your dogs poop, public nudity, shoplifting, involuntary patients in the mental health system etc. laws sometimes seem awkward and unfair but they are really put in place for our best interests.
No, just mandatory helmets on bicycles. You may be happy to live in a nanny state but I am not.
Get your final words in kids because it’s nearly closing time.
