Fines
Mar 27th 2011 | 10:59 am
#46
Canuck/Aussie
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 4,547
From: BC, Canada
Re: Fines
Totally agree. I think we've got a future Darwin Award winner here!http://www.darwinawards.com/
I don't really care if people wear their helmet or not. It's their choice if they want to risk serious brain injuries or death just to be more comfortable or look cool (or whatever other reasons). If it were to endanger someone else (like drink driving) then that's when I start to care.
However, I still think the law is the law so you were right to get the fine. It doesn't matter how often it is enforced, it's still the law and subject to a fine. So to argue about it with the police is stupid.
Last week I got a concussion while snowboarding on the bunny hill (going very slowly!). Hurt like hell, still does off and on. I can't imagine how bad it would have been had I not been wearing helmet. So after this it seems insane to ride a motorbike at 100 km/h without a helmet as I've seen people do. But, if the poster wants to risk the injuries and the fine so be it!
Mar 27th 2011 | 11:14 am
#47
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: Fines
Totally agree. I think we've got a future Darwin Award winner here!http://www.darwinawards.com/
I don't really care if people wear their helmet or not. It's their choice if they want to risk serious brain injuries or death just to be more comfortable or look cool (or whatever other reasons). If it were to endanger someone else (like drink driving) then that's when I start to care.
However, I still think the law is the law so you were right to get the fine. It doesn't matter how often it is enforced, it's still the law and subject to a fine. So to argue about it with the police is stupid.
Last week I got a concussion while snowboarding on the bunny hill (going very slowly!). Hurt like hell, still does off and on. I can't imagine how bad it would have been had I not been wearing helmet. So after this it seems insane to ride a motorbike at 100 km/h without a helmet as I've seen people do. But, if the poster wants to risk the injuries and the fine so be it!
Injuries to the head may be divided into direct, or focal, injuries and rotational, or diffuse, injuries.
Direct injuries occur as a result of linear acceleration of the skull by impact with another object, and typically lead to cuts, lacerations and concussion. Direct injuries, though sometimes painful, usually have minimal long-term effect.
Rotational injuries, on the other hand, do not necessarily involve direct contact with the head but result in the brain moving relative to the skull as a result of angular or rotational acceleration, which leads to diffuse axonal injury (DAI) and subdural haematoma (SDH). These are the most common ways that road crashes cause death or chronic intellectual disablement.
Cycle helmets may produce benefit by reducing and spreading the forces that lead to direct injuries. However, they are not designed to mitigate rotational injuries, and research has not shown them to be effective in doing so.
To the contrary, some researchers have expressed concern that cycle helmets might make some injuries worse by converting direct forces into rotational ones. These injuries will normally form a very small proportion of the injuries suffered by cyclists, but they are likely to form a large proportion of the injuries with serious long-term consequences. In this way cycle helmets may be harmful in a crash, but this harm may not be detected by small-scale research studies.
and...
The risk of serious head injury is small and frequently overstated. The promotion or mandation of cycle helmets is a disproportionate response to this risk.
There is no real-world evidence that helmets have reduced the likelihood or severity of head injuries among whole populations of cyclists.
and...
As early as 1988 Rodgers studied 8 million cases of injury or death to cyclists in the USA over 15 years - the largest survey of its kind ever undertaken. He concluded that there was no evidence that hard shell helmets had reduced head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, he found that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed.
A decade later, Kunich analysed cyclist and pedestrian fatalities in the USA and concluded that there was no evidence that cycle helmets were effective in reducing deaths.
Spaite found that bare-headed cyclists more often had severe injuries. However, this was true even when cyclists without major head injuries were analysed as a group. The implication being that people who do not use helmets tend to be in higher impact collisions than helmet users, since injuries are more severe to all parts of the body.
In 2001, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission reported that although helmet use had risen over a decade from 18% to 50% of cyclists, head injuries had also gone up by 10%. There was no clear evidence that cycle use had increased.
It goes on and on... It's not as cut and dried as people like to make out or believe.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html
Mar 27th 2011 | 11:34 am
#48
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,323
From: Amongst Melbourne's tall gum trees
Re: Fines
Ya think?
Injuries to the head may be divided into direct, or focal, injuries and rotational, or diffuse, injuries.
Direct injuries occur as a result of linear acceleration of the skull by impact with another object, and typically lead to cuts, lacerations and concussion. Direct injuries, though sometimes painful, usually have minimal long-term effect.
Rotational injuries, on the other hand, do not necessarily involve direct contact with the head but result in the brain moving relative to the skull as a result of angular or rotational acceleration, which leads to diffuse axonal injury (DAI) and subdural haematoma (SDH). These are the most common ways that road crashes cause death or chronic intellectual disablement.
Cycle helmets may produce benefit by reducing and spreading the forces that lead to direct injuries. However, they are not designed to mitigate rotational injuries, and research has not shown them to be effective in doing so.
To the contrary, some researchers have expressed concern that cycle helmets might make some injuries worse by converting direct forces into rotational ones. These injuries will normally form a very small proportion of the injuries suffered by cyclists, but they are likely to form a large proportion of the injuries with serious long-term consequences. In this way cycle helmets may be harmful in a crash, but this harm may not be detected by small-scale research studies.
and...
The risk of serious head injury is small and frequently overstated. The promotion or mandation of cycle helmets is a disproportionate response to this risk.
There is no real-world evidence that helmets have reduced the likelihood or severity of head injuries among whole populations of cyclists.
and...
As early as 1988 Rodgers studied 8 million cases of injury or death to cyclists in the USA over 15 years - the largest survey of its kind ever undertaken. He concluded that there was no evidence that hard shell helmets had reduced head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, he found that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed.
A decade later, Kunich analysed cyclist and pedestrian fatalities in the USA and concluded that there was no evidence that cycle helmets were effective in reducing deaths.
Spaite found that bare-headed cyclists more often had severe injuries. However, this was true even when cyclists without major head injuries were analysed as a group. The implication being that people who do not use helmets tend to be in higher impact collisions than helmet users, since injuries are more severe to all parts of the body.
In 2001, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission reported that although helmet use had risen over a decade from 18% to 50% of cyclists, head injuries had also gone up by 10%. There was no clear evidence that cycle use had increased.
It goes on and on... It's not as cut and dried as people like to make out or believe.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html
Injuries to the head may be divided into direct, or focal, injuries and rotational, or diffuse, injuries.
Direct injuries occur as a result of linear acceleration of the skull by impact with another object, and typically lead to cuts, lacerations and concussion. Direct injuries, though sometimes painful, usually have minimal long-term effect.
Rotational injuries, on the other hand, do not necessarily involve direct contact with the head but result in the brain moving relative to the skull as a result of angular or rotational acceleration, which leads to diffuse axonal injury (DAI) and subdural haematoma (SDH). These are the most common ways that road crashes cause death or chronic intellectual disablement.
Cycle helmets may produce benefit by reducing and spreading the forces that lead to direct injuries. However, they are not designed to mitigate rotational injuries, and research has not shown them to be effective in doing so.
To the contrary, some researchers have expressed concern that cycle helmets might make some injuries worse by converting direct forces into rotational ones. These injuries will normally form a very small proportion of the injuries suffered by cyclists, but they are likely to form a large proportion of the injuries with serious long-term consequences. In this way cycle helmets may be harmful in a crash, but this harm may not be detected by small-scale research studies.
and...
The risk of serious head injury is small and frequently overstated. The promotion or mandation of cycle helmets is a disproportionate response to this risk.
There is no real-world evidence that helmets have reduced the likelihood or severity of head injuries among whole populations of cyclists.
and...
As early as 1988 Rodgers studied 8 million cases of injury or death to cyclists in the USA over 15 years - the largest survey of its kind ever undertaken. He concluded that there was no evidence that hard shell helmets had reduced head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, he found that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed.
A decade later, Kunich analysed cyclist and pedestrian fatalities in the USA and concluded that there was no evidence that cycle helmets were effective in reducing deaths.
Spaite found that bare-headed cyclists more often had severe injuries. However, this was true even when cyclists without major head injuries were analysed as a group. The implication being that people who do not use helmets tend to be in higher impact collisions than helmet users, since injuries are more severe to all parts of the body.
In 2001, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission reported that although helmet use had risen over a decade from 18% to 50% of cyclists, head injuries had also gone up by 10%. There was no clear evidence that cycle use had increased.
It goes on and on... It's not as cut and dried as people like to make out or believe.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html
) and fell on his head on the road, he was a bit disoriented, but after checks at hospital, was deemed all good. His helmet, on the other hand, had to be retired on the grounds that the inside lining had a big crack right where the top of his head had been. I may be wrong, but that tells me that without a helmet, his head might have suffered the crack 
Helmets are a must for us now!
Mar 27th 2011 | 12:27 pm
#49
Rhino with a big horn!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,117
Re: Fines
Ya think?
Injuries to the head may be divided into direct, or focal, injuries and rotational, or diffuse, injuries.
Direct injuries occur as a result of linear acceleration of the skull by impact with another object, and typically lead to cuts, lacerations and concussion. Direct injuries, though sometimes painful, usually have minimal long-term effect.
Rotational injuries, on the other hand, do not necessarily involve direct contact with the head but result in the brain moving relative to the skull as a result of angular or rotational acceleration, which leads to diffuse axonal injury (DAI) and subdural haematoma (SDH). These are the most common ways that road crashes cause death or chronic intellectual disablement.
Cycle helmets may produce benefit by reducing and spreading the forces that lead to direct injuries. However, they are not designed to mitigate rotational injuries, and research has not shown them to be effective in doing so.
To the contrary, some researchers have expressed concern that cycle helmets might make some injuries worse by converting direct forces into rotational ones. These injuries will normally form a very small proportion of the injuries suffered by cyclists, but they are likely to form a large proportion of the injuries with serious long-term consequences. In this way cycle helmets may be harmful in a crash, but this harm may not be detected by small-scale research studies.
and...
The risk of serious head injury is small and frequently overstated. The promotion or mandation of cycle helmets is a disproportionate response to this risk.
There is no real-world evidence that helmets have reduced the likelihood or severity of head injuries among whole populations of cyclists.
and...
As early as 1988 Rodgers studied 8 million cases of injury or death to cyclists in the USA over 15 years - the largest survey of its kind ever undertaken. He concluded that there was no evidence that hard shell helmets had reduced head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, he found that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed.
A decade later, Kunich analysed cyclist and pedestrian fatalities in the USA and concluded that there was no evidence that cycle helmets were effective in reducing deaths.
Spaite found that bare-headed cyclists more often had severe injuries. However, this was true even when cyclists without major head injuries were analysed as a group. The implication being that people who do not use helmets tend to be in higher impact collisions than helmet users, since injuries are more severe to all parts of the body.
In 2001, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission reported that although helmet use had risen over a decade from 18% to 50% of cyclists, head injuries had also gone up by 10%. There was no clear evidence that cycle use had increased.
It goes on and on... It's not as cut and dried as people like to make out or believe.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html
Injuries to the head may be divided into direct, or focal, injuries and rotational, or diffuse, injuries.
Direct injuries occur as a result of linear acceleration of the skull by impact with another object, and typically lead to cuts, lacerations and concussion. Direct injuries, though sometimes painful, usually have minimal long-term effect.
Rotational injuries, on the other hand, do not necessarily involve direct contact with the head but result in the brain moving relative to the skull as a result of angular or rotational acceleration, which leads to diffuse axonal injury (DAI) and subdural haematoma (SDH). These are the most common ways that road crashes cause death or chronic intellectual disablement.
Cycle helmets may produce benefit by reducing and spreading the forces that lead to direct injuries. However, they are not designed to mitigate rotational injuries, and research has not shown them to be effective in doing so.
To the contrary, some researchers have expressed concern that cycle helmets might make some injuries worse by converting direct forces into rotational ones. These injuries will normally form a very small proportion of the injuries suffered by cyclists, but they are likely to form a large proportion of the injuries with serious long-term consequences. In this way cycle helmets may be harmful in a crash, but this harm may not be detected by small-scale research studies.
and...
The risk of serious head injury is small and frequently overstated. The promotion or mandation of cycle helmets is a disproportionate response to this risk.
There is no real-world evidence that helmets have reduced the likelihood or severity of head injuries among whole populations of cyclists.
and...
As early as 1988 Rodgers studied 8 million cases of injury or death to cyclists in the USA over 15 years - the largest survey of its kind ever undertaken. He concluded that there was no evidence that hard shell helmets had reduced head injury or fatality rates. Indeed, he found that helmeted riders were more likely to be killed.
A decade later, Kunich analysed cyclist and pedestrian fatalities in the USA and concluded that there was no evidence that cycle helmets were effective in reducing deaths.
Spaite found that bare-headed cyclists more often had severe injuries. However, this was true even when cyclists without major head injuries were analysed as a group. The implication being that people who do not use helmets tend to be in higher impact collisions than helmet users, since injuries are more severe to all parts of the body.
In 2001, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission reported that although helmet use had risen over a decade from 18% to 50% of cyclists, head injuries had also gone up by 10%. There was no clear evidence that cycle use had increased.
It goes on and on... It's not as cut and dried as people like to make out or believe.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1139.html
Mar 27th 2011 | 12:32 pm
#50
Forum Regular
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 38
From: Brisbane
Re: Fines
Got caught riding without a helmet today. Only hundred so now that I'm a little more relaxed I'll just pay it. Funny part about it I told the cop I've ridden past him a few times before and he only decided to ping me now. Then asked him if he had made his quota for the night. Can't understand it but he wasn't impressed... As I was riding away he said I had a bad attitude LOL. Hell if it's gonna cost me I'm going to at least get my monies worth out of the bugger
Mar 28th 2011 | 12:38 am
#52
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,253
Re: Fines
I forgot a couple minor details.
I'm flying back to pakistan tomorrow because i've over stayed my visa by five years and centrelink's after me and my 12.5 wives for $250,000. Do you all think I should pay the fine? I might want to come back in a couple years or so when things blow over, after all I really like this country.
I'm flying back to pakistan tomorrow because i've over stayed my visa by five years and centrelink's after me and my 12.5 wives for $250,000. Do you all think I should pay the fine? I might want to come back in a couple years or so when things blow over, after all I really like this country.
Last edited by furbacchione; Mar 28th 2011 at 12:40 am.
Mar 28th 2011 | 8:05 am
#53
Rhino with a big horn!
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,117
Re: Fines
I forgot a couple minor details.
I'm flying back to pakistan tomorrow because i've over stayed my visa by five years and centrelink's after me and my 12.5 wives for $250,000. Do you all think I should pay the fine? I might want to come back in a couple years or so when things blow over, after all I really like this country.
I'm flying back to pakistan tomorrow because i've over stayed my visa by five years and centrelink's after me and my 12.5 wives for $250,000. Do you all think I should pay the fine? I might want to come back in a couple years or so when things blow over, after all I really like this country.
Mar 28th 2011 | 8:27 am
#54
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: Fines
If I was him I would be concerned about all those chest x-rays. One day as Aaban, then Aadil, then Aafiya, then Aalam.....
Mar 28th 2011 | 10:01 am
#57
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,253
Re: Fines
My say on helmets. At least try to read it carefully. It took me a great deal of time to think this through.
I
I
Last edited by cresta57; Mar 28th 2011 at 11:04 am. Reason: Yep rule 7 tut tut
Mar 28th 2011 | 10:05 am
#58
Account Closed
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,188
Re: Fines
My say on helmets
Now if you got this far then pat yourself on the back for being dumb enough to read that - what ever it said. I just googled bicycle helmet and grabbed the first thing on the list that looked annoying enough and cut and pasted it to see who would be dumb enough to read it and respond.
Now if you got this far then pat yourself on the back for being dumb enough to read that - what ever it said. I just googled bicycle helmet and grabbed the first thing on the list that looked annoying enough and cut and pasted it to see who would be dumb enough to read it and respond.
