Helmet Complience

Peter Keller Wrote:
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 08:07:14 +1000, euan_b_uk wrote

"Peter" == Peter Keller writes

Peter On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 21:19:15 +1000, Kurt Davis wrote
Just looking at the thread about the Atmos Helmet, and it wa
going off topic, but I want to know whats the difference wit

Helmet that is allowed in Europe and the USA, but not o
Australian roads. The Giro Atmos is the top of the line i
helmets, so I am sure if Lance wears it, it must be safe. A

right

Kur

Peter Ummm -- no. The wearing of a helmet does not absolve
Peter bicyclist from the responsibility of riding safely so a
t
Peter avoid accidents in the first place

Peter I think about here I will stop and try to think a littl
Peter reasonably and non-emotively before posting more on thi
Peter subject

Probably a good idea. Kurt asked if the helmet was safe, not whethe
wearing one made the rider safe

I take your point
In the way that the helmet does not on its own volition deliberatel
attack the rider, it can be construed as being safe

Pete

-
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- o
good -- will ever happen to you.
On the other hand, if, when provoked, the helmet snaps shut, revealin
carefully concealed beartrap-like jaws (previously hidden in the foam)
then the helmet could be considered positively dangerous. Whils
probably saving the wearer abrasions and skull damage from contactin
the ground suddenly and with force, the jaws clamped firmly around th
wearer's neck would probably preclude that model of helmet gainin
approval in all jurisdictions.

M "all foreseeable impacts"

--
mfhor

DRS Wrote:
"Max" wrote in messag

Peter Keller wrote

[...

I take your point
In the way that the helmet does not on its own volition deliberatel
attack the rider, it can be construed as being safe

as of the first Nov (in QLD, not sure about other states) bein
caugh
not wearing a helmet will cost you $75

it's theoreticall
possible to get an exemption from the requirement to wear an "approve
hemet" (Rule 256(5)) but I have no idea on what grounds or whether it'
eve
actually happened

-

A: Top-posters
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
exemptions from wearing motorbike helmets are typically on the basi
that the rider has a neck problem that would be exacerbated by th
weight of the helmet

Steve

--
SteveA

"SteveA" wrote in message
...

DRS Wrote:
"Max" wrote in message
u
Peter Keller wrote:

[...]

I take your point.
In the way that the helmet does not on its own volition deliberately
attack the rider, it can be construed as being safe.

as of the first Nov (in QLD, not sure about other states) being
caught
not wearing a helmet will cost you $75.

it's theoretically
possible to get an exemption from the requirement to wear an "approved
hemet" (Rule 256(5)) but I have no idea on what grounds or whether it's
ever
actually happened.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
exemptions from wearing motorbike helmets are typically on the basis
that the rider has a neck problem that would be exacerbated by the
weight of the helmet.

SteveA

The police will often block this by saying that if your injury is bad enough
(that you can't wear a helmet) then you shouldn't be riding a motorbike. Or,
they have a duty to stop something happening which is unsafe to the public,
which includes you as a member of the public. I have had this charge used
against me once. (Long story!)

Marty

"DRS" == drs writes:

DRS It's $100 in Victoria (Rule 256(1) & (3)). As an aside, it's
DRS theoretically possible to get an exemption from the requirement
DRS to wear an "approved hemet" (Rule 256(5)) but I have no idea on
DRS what grounds or whether it's ever actually happened.

I think it's normally religious grounds etc. In the UK Sikhs are exempt
because of the turban they wear.
--
Cheers
Euan

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:52:12 +1000, DRS wrote:

"Max" wrote in message
u

as of the first Nov (in QLD, not sure about other states) being caught
not wearing a helmet will cost you $75.

It's $100 in Victoria (Rule 256(1) & (3)). As an aside, it's theoretically
possible to get an exemption from the requirement to wear an "approved
hemet" (Rule 256(5)) but I have no idea on what grounds or whether it's ever
actually happened.

****!! $!00 just for not wearing something which has not been
conclusively proved to do anything useful? What does a motorist have to
do to get fined $100? What a heinous crime! I wonder why only NZ and
most of Australia think so? What do we know that 193 countries in the
world don't?

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

"DRS" wrote in message
...

It's $100 in Victoria (Rule 256(1) & (3)). As an aside, it's
theoretically
possible to get an exemption from the requirement to wear an "approved
hemet" (Rule 256(5)) but I have no idea on what grounds or whether it's
ever
actually happened.

In SA there's a legal exemption for people of the Sikh religion (as they'd
have to remove their turbans to wear a helmet correctly). So there you go!
Anyone may seek an exemption from the Minister for Transport though. If you
had an odd-shaped head, or a large growth, or a head so massive a helmet
wouldn't fit, or something else like that I reckon you'd have a chance at an
exemption.
Gemma

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:52:12 +1000, DRS wrote:

It's $100 in Victoria (Rule 256(1) & (3)). As an aside, it's theoretically
possible to get an exemption from the requirement to wear an "approved
hemet" (Rule 256(5)) but I have no idea on what grounds or whether it's ever
actually happened.

My LBS says he has one customer who has one. I don't know the grounds,
but I don't think they are religious.

--
Shane Stanley

Shane Stanley wrote:

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:52:12 +1000, DRS wrote:

It's $100 in Victoria (Rule 256(1) & (3)). As an aside, it's theoretically
possible to get an exemption from the requirement to wear an "approved
hemet" (Rule 256(5)) but I have no idea on what grounds or whether it's ever
actually happened.

My LBS says he has one customer who has one. I don't know the grounds,
but I don't think they are religious.

In Qld you can get only be exempt on the grounds that you carry a
current medical certificate. I got busted riding with a very broad
brimmed hat on a day with very intense UV up here in the deep north. No
excuse.

Now, given that I have a family history of skin cancer and am living in
the state with the world's highest incidence of melanoma, I think I
should try to obtain a medical certificate based on that risk.

It's not easy to judge the relative risks of sun exposure to cycling
accident because nobody has produced any reports on the rates of death
per hour exposure for melanoma. But there are around 200 or so deaths
from melanoma alone (there are other forms of skin cancer as well) in
Qld each year. Currently there are about 4 head injury cycling deaths.
The peak was about 9, in 1988.

I can't attach a broad brim to my helmet because the manufacturer says
it would be illegal to do so. The magistrate in my case told me the best
option would be to find some other form of transport that doesn't expose
me to UV.

Peter
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 16:21:55 +1000, Peter McCallum wrote:

Shane Stanley wrote:

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 17:52:12 +1000, DRS wrote:

It's $100 in Victoria (Rule 256(1) & (3)). As an aside, it's theoretically
possible to get an exemption from the requirement to wear an "approved
hemet" (Rule 256(5)) but I have no idea on what grounds or whether it's ever
actually happened.

My LBS says he has one customer who has one. I don't know the grounds,
but I don't think they are religious.

In Qld you can get only be exempt on the grounds that you carry a
current medical certificate. I got busted riding with a very broad
brimmed hat on a day with very intense UV up here in the deep north. No
excuse.

Now, given that I have a family history of skin cancer and am living in
the state with the world's highest incidence of melanoma, I think I
should try to obtain a medical certificate based on that risk.

It's not easy to judge the relative risks of sun exposure to cycling
accident because nobody has produced any reports on the rates of death
per hour exposure for melanoma. But there are around 200 or so deaths
from melanoma alone (there are other forms of skin cancer as well) in
Qld each year. Currently there are about 4 head injury cycling deaths.
The peak was about 9, in 1988.

I can't attach a broad brim to my helmet because the manufacturer says
it would be illegal to do so. The magistrate in my case told me the best
option would be to find some other form of transport that doesn't expose
me to UV.

That is totally disgraceful that a perfectly safe, effective, and healthy
means of transport should be recommended against like this. No wonder
most countries in Europe look at the Australia nad New Zealand situation
with total disbelief.

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

Peter Keller Wrote:
[snip]

I can't attach a broad brim to my helmet because the manufacture
says
it would be illegal to do so. The magistrate in my case told me th
best
option would be to find some other form of transport that doesn'
expose
me to UV.

That is totally disgraceful that a perfectly safe, effective, an
healthy
means of transport should be recommended against like this. No wonder
most countries in Europe look at the Australia nad New Zealan
situation
with total disbelief.

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.[/color]

I think you're getting there P, a helmet troll combined with a jab tha
is based on nationalistic lines. Keep throwing that line in the water
though I know a much better spot... rec.bicycles.misc (!)

Happy fishing!
Ritc

--
ritcho