Cycling in Melbourne Australia

Helmets and fines

Police on bikes at the local station stopped a number of people for not wearing helmets. Fair enough, but then I considered the penalty these people faced, a fine of $50.

The riders, there were three of them, included a woman, probably in her fifties, who looked as though she may have been a pensioner - the bike was old, she was wearing a dress, and of course, no helmet.

Having been knocked off my bike and hitting the ground head first, I am glad I was wearing a helmet - the helmet shattered, I was concussed which is a far, far better result than skull shattered and dead! So I understand the value of helmets.

The less well-off would struggle to pay the fine - it represents a considerable slug of their income (most of which is probably not disposable anyway!).

My solutions:-
One, make the fine a percentage of income - the poor can afford the fine and if a highly paid person gets a high fine, well, you wonder why they are paid heaps when thy are patently stupid to not wear a helmet!
or
Two, just like cars with an unroadworthy sticker, the rider must present themselves at the local police station with a helmet (educative and not as expensive as the fine!) if it is their first offence, for subsequent nabbings, then hit them with the fine.

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Hielke on November 3, 2009 at 9:35pm: Just to also reply on-topic, I think Germany uses/used income dependent fines. But I think it is only for serious offenses (Boris Becker got a record one for speeding). Finland has/had them too. Nokia chief once was fined 113 THOUSAND euro for doing 75kmh in a 50kmh zone.

Just repeal the helmet laws and make them voluntary. Seems infinitely easier, cheaper and fairer........; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ChrisS on November 3, 2009 at 10:43pm: Since returning to cycling in 1996 I've had two particularly bad bingles where wearing a helmet probably saved me from severe injury or worse. Although I've been in several more bingles where wearing cycling gloves also saved my hands from severe injuries or worse. Moral, if any? Improve road conditions for all road users ...; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Polecat on November 6, 2009 at 2:39pm: I have noticed loads of people riding around melbourne lately not wearing helmets. I feel like I spot someone without one nearly every second day. I worry for these people. All you need to do is hit your head badly and you're dead. What's a life worth? Put a skid lid on and save worries about fines, or worse still cracking your skull open.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by SimonE on November 6, 2009 at 3:29pm: Typically they're worried about looking cool. Or not. But dead is not cool.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael on November 6, 2009 at 4:51pm: I've been reading research around helmet safety since this thread started. Previously my view was much the same as yours Polecat - I've always voluntarily worn a helmet when riding in the city or on training rides in Australia and elsewhere (London, France, Italy, US) because I figure there's a heightened chance in these cases of an 'off' - why not protect yourself.

But the safety factor appears to be much less conclusive than you might think - especially for children.

Helmets seem to offer protection from direct 90-degree blows to the head - eg head-butting the road, tree or car. And helmets reduce abrasion injuries.

But there's a second equally dangerous type of blow that helmets may actually make worse. Glancing blows (the majority of head blows) cause head and brain rotation and can damage the spinal cord. Brain rotation is very damaging, particulalry in children. Helmets make the situation worse in two ways: 1) the increased size actually makes the likliehood of a head impact greater - ie a near miss becomes a glancing blow 2) the extra radius and mass of the helmet increases the angular momentum of the head and brain. A child's head being lighter than an adult head sees this effect magnified.

Finally, helmets also make it more difficult to wear proper sun protection. A small peaked cap can certainly be worn with only a little difficulty but the kind of proper wide-brimmed protection recommended by cancer experts is impossible - again this is particularly an issue with children's sensitive skin.

This won't stop me wearing a helmet in Australia - 99% of the time - but it does convince me of the need to push for helmets to be voluntary.

As for my own kids - they would rather leave their bikes in the shed, soon to be joined by their scooters now the law is changing, rather than wear a helmet. But those well known paragons of safe mobility, skateboards and roller blades are still exempt. Weird.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by SimonE on November 7, 2009 at 12:12pm: I see where this view might be going. But it's a bit like saying "there's no proof that tumours are caused by mobile phones and other radiation". Even brain surgeons are saying "just because there is no 'conclusive' proof doesn't mean you shouldn't take precautions. Using a loud speaker doesn't hurt and may reduce your chances." The same is true of helmets - in MOST cases, it will reduce the danger and the damage, so in MOST cases it doesn't hurt to wear one. Most regular riders I know will say they would be seriously damaged with the number of falls they've had if they weren't wearing a helmet. Legalities aside - it makes no different if it becomes voluntary. Common sense can't be controlled with laws, or without them. If the kids are on the skate board, they're better off with the helmet too - regardless of whether public servants have got around to updating the law.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Hielke on November 6, 2009 at 9:34pm: Hey Polecat, according the the (US) Environmental Protection Agency the value of a statistical life is about US$7 million: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/10/american-life-worth-less_n...

However, I doubt our government really ever did do a cost benefit analysis when they mandated helmets.; ▶ Reply to This