Bike Share and Helmets don't Mix?

[LasagnaIsGood]

helmets don't just look absolutely retarded but are fuking dangerous. i can't even imagine myself biking down a busy street wearing one of those bulky things. and plus where i bike cars usually go 60km/h or more so i'd be dead if anyone hit me anyway.

[Johnpugwash]

The Bike Helmet law also plays a significant role in choosing NOT to ride a bike to the detriment of society in so many ways, such as Carbon, helath, traffic that it needs to be changed to adult choice now!

[JimexJimex]

The presenter's tone of voice is EXTREMELY suspicious.

[mariojragucci2]

I got ticketed here in Seattle for not wearing one, and i still don't, never have. It depends what your doing on the bicycle and your limitations. I can see an adult wanting to transition to carless lifestyle, who has grown up totally car dependent, wanting to wear protection. Also, Americans see bicycle racing and think that is normal for a bicyclist to look. I got nothing agaist folks wearing'em.

[megaforcemedia]

I've never worn a bike helmet here in Montreal. I ride slow anyway, sorta like walking but faster. Helmets are for dorks. Also, they promote overheating of the head which in turn causes people to become irrational and aggressive, so I'm not convinced that they dont cause more problems. Let cooler heads prevail.

[boyfinley]

Mike is right, the best solution would be to have two grades of bicycle, racing & commuter/shopper, and only require helmets for the former. Requiring a helmet removes all incentive to use these cycle sharing schemes for short journeys & tourism, which is exactly what they're best for. Without dropping the helmet requirement they'll be a complete white elephant.

[pjrob1957]

@boyfinley Good idea. In the Graeme Obree Vs cycling federation conflict in "the Flying Scotsman" there was a ruling that the tip of the seat had to be 2" behind the bottom bracket.

If a sit-up commuter/shopper bike was defined by the vertical distance between seat and handgrips that would give the authorities something to work with. Statistical evidence separating both bike types would be a good place to start.

[ChapmanCentral]

@boyfinley No, Mike is not right. The best thing to do is to recognise that the law has completely failed to yield the benefits its proponents promised, or indeed any measurable benefit at all, and repeal it altogether. Cycling is about as risky per mile as being a pedestrian.

[tehgussyone]

Interesting how the last gal, states she feels safe with a helmet on, but apparently doesn't know how to wear it correctly.

[kaelra126]

I'd be all in favor of abandoning the helmet law, but if that's really politically unfeasible then I'd think there's a technical alternative.

Have the Bike Share company develop a style of helmet with a disposable inner liner. The outer portion would then remain with the bike and the user would only buy the disposable part , sold from a vending machine at the bike stand. If produced in quantity the disposable portion could be sold quite cheaply (~$1) so as not to discourage use of the system

[MikeRubbo]

Kaeelra, I don't think you idea will work , logical though it sounds. This is because apparently, to be a legal protection, the helmet must be inspected after each use to see whether it has been banged, or in any way compromised.

That's wh, y in my movie, Alison says they decided to sell a new one each time, which wont work either for other reasons. Mike

[kaelra126]

AFAIK, to be a "legal protection", i.e. to protect against a ticket, all that's needed is for it to have a certification sticker when it was manufactured. The helmet w/disposable liner does this

To be an 'actual protection', i.e. to protect against serious injury, would require a much heavier and larger helmet than is feasible for cyclists to wear. That is why Australia did not see a decline in the injury or fatality rate (normalized to numbers of cyclists) when the helmet usage went way up.

[MikeRubbo]

Are you saying that most helmets are merely cosmetic and that bike share can profit from this by providing something which looks like a helmet.

But wont they get caught out in legalities? My understanding is that a rental helmet must be inspected after each use

[Colin6316]

You could say all bikes with permanent lights fitted, like the social bikes, not racers, could be exempt from helmet laws for riders older than 18 years of age. Promoting safety by the lights requirement and allowing adults a choice at the same time, a sort of compromise and encouraging more healthy cycling. A net health benefit for Australia would be the result plus for visitors they could hire bikes just like back home, making their holiday more enjoyable.

[innerwestie]

[Part 2 - Darn character count restrictions]

But I fail to see the point of including a grab (at the end) from a self-declared clumsy 'un-co', who states that even as a tourist in Germany she wore a helmet. Contradictory and unhelpful.

By the way, her helmet is so poorly and incorrectly fitted (so far back on the head) as to be a decided liability in certain situations

[MikeRubbo]

In innerwestie, I put that in because people are so freaked out by any proposed change to the helmet law, having come to rely on the helmet superstitiously, that one has to insist they would have choice.

That girl went on to remember that she hadn't worn a helmet in Europe and eventually felt OK about that.

My wife has me trained to look in the mirror before leaving the house, a Russian superstition. she likes it when I do. Now, its become part of me, silly as that sounds.

[innerwestie]

I understand what you are saying, but I still dont think it really reads that way in the piece (superstition), and I think it compromises the growing pressure on the compulsory helmet law that bike share programs have the potential to exact. The position is so precarious, that this sort of dilution is not worth it. AND, she is less than credible given that she later changed her story. Im glad you put THAT here. We could be on the verge of a major breakthrough, dilution does not serve us.

[innerwestie]

P.S. I listened with headphones last night, and I must say that the EXTREME panning of the various voices is very irritating (to me) . Pan, by all means, but bring it all into the centre a bit more, per favore. It sees (to me) a bit amateurish, and I know you are far from an amateur, but maybe theres a reason I havet seen, involving Russians needing to look in mirrors as they leave the house!!

[MikeRubbo]

Sorry, innerwesti, apparently I don't have full control over the editing. I don't hear what you hear and would not know how to fix it at this point.

Want to help? Mike

[innerwestie]

I was referring to the various audio elements being at times so far panned as to be in only one channel (then your voice-over panned so far as to be only in the other channel). It's not a problem with my gear here.

It's a small quibble, and I wish I hadn't brought it up, since the far more important thing is the good work your films and their content are doing. I congratulate you again!

[innerwestie]

[Part 1]

Another nice piece, congratulations.

This could be the way forward Id happily (as an adult) declare that I had absolutely no intention of going faster than 25 kph if I could have dispensation from wearing a helmet! I grant myself my own dispensation anyway. Unfortunately, share bike schemes are doomed in Australia unless we see sense and make helmet wear a matter of choice. Will we ever wake up?

[bronsoir]

Motorcyclists, firemen, F1 drivers and construction workers must wear helmets.

Skiers, snowboarders and surfers don't have to. They face an arguably greater risk of head injury than cyclists, yet cyclists must wear the lids.

Yes, there is a cost of treating of cycle related head injuries but how does this compare to treating the health issues of the fattest nation on earth (yup, we overtook the yanks in 2008)?

Bring back darwinism and let cyclists decide!

[downfader2]

I would imagine that the hire bikes (if they are similar to the ones being proposed here in the UK) would be quite heavy. They dont look as manouvreable as a racing bike so perhaps the Aus authorities could take that into consideration if they make exceptions?

[MikeRubbo]

Good point, Downfader, those bike all tend to be heavier to stand up to abuse. yet they do make good riding around a city, and surely will come to be seen as a thing apart.

[nisabubur]

I think the problem is that many cyclists do ride on the roads with cars, and do cycle quite fast, so a helmet is necessary for safety reasons. If the bike stays on a path, and travels slowly, then there isn't much need for a helmet. I lived in Tokyo for a year and rode my bike all over my local area, including for shopping & work, and didn't wear a helmet. It was very safe. The cycling culture here in Aus is different. Personally, I don't like wearing helmets! I don't wear mine for short trips

[MikeRubbo]

What do you think? should these bike share type bikes be exempt?

It would certainly make the scheme possible, but at what price?

What about choice, Should we have that on principle?

[DavidHembrow]

Mike, I think you're absolutely right that helmets stand in the way of such a system working. If they're not straightforward to use then people simply won't be able to use the bikes.

And choice ? Of course. People should have choice. The safest cyclists in the world are here in the Netherlands where we also have the lowest helmet wearing rate in the world. Why ? Because it's infrastructure which makes cyclists safe, not helmets.

[HadrianMcFussell]

@DavidHembrow "it's infrastructure which makes cyclists safe, not helmets".  I couldn't agree more David.