I'm a little nervous about getting back on my bike, but I'll have to get over that by the weekend because I have a night riding course to do, ahead of LunarC the following week.
But that's by-the-by. The reason I wanted to post (after a very long absence) is that when I got home last Wednesday and had taken a painkiller for headache, I sat down to read Australian Cyclist. Ironically, there is an article in the lasted edition which presents the arguments for and against helmet laws.
Essentially, the argument against the helmet law is that riders should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they wear a helmet or not. It's the same argument motorbike riders have made for decades.
What irritated me about the argument against helmet regulations is that the author called for better infrastructure to protect cyclists from drivers.
It's not just drivers that cause serious head injuries in cycling accidents. My fall last week is the case in point. I was on a shared pathway and cycling at an acceptable speed. The ride was intended as a recreational ride, which, without the helmet law, plenty of people would probably do helmet-less.
In a helmet-less world, the puddle would still have been there and it would still have been slippery. There is a high likelihood I would still have fallen. If I'd not been wearing my helmet, I expect I would have suffered more serious concussion and there would definitely have been blood, requiring a visit to the doctor.
Needless to say, I'm happy to be required by law to wear a helmet.
The argument against helmet laws also makes the point that a badly fitting helmet that gives no protection to the rider in the case of a fall. So, if you do ride a bike and wear a helmet that wobbles on your head, sits too high above your eyebrow or you keep your chic strap loose because that looks 'cool', you really need to get a better helmet and get over yourself.
Posts
