I've got to ask, to helmet or not?

**austastar** · 25th February 2018, 03:53 PM

Originally Posted by Eevo

those that dont wear a helmet, if they have an accident and have a head injury, should they have to pay for their medical bills?

Hi,
Helmet or not, unless a vehicle is involved and on a gazetted road (fault is not an issue in Tas), there is no help with medical with medical expenses apart from what ever health insurance you hold. Same as smokers or others who indulge in what are considered not healthy activities.

Vehicle drivers not wearing seat belts or involved in carrying out a crime at the time are not covered either.

Cheers

**Eevo** · 25th February 2018, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by austastar

Hi,
Helmet or not, unless a vehicle is involved and on a gazetted road (fault is not an issue in Tas), there is no help with medical with medical expenses apart from what ever health insurance you hold. Same as smokers or others who indulge in what are considered not healthy activities.

Vehicle drivers not wearing seat belts or involved in carrying out a crime at the time are not covered either.

Cheers

ah yes, good point, i forgot that didnt apply to cyclists. , but you knew what i meant.

**Gordie** · 25th February 2018, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by austastar

Hi,
Helmet or not, unless a vehicle is involved and on a gazetted road (fault is not an issue in Tas), there is no help with medical with medical expenses apart from what ever health insurance you hold. Same as smokers or others who indulge in what are considered not healthy activities.

Vehicle drivers not wearing seat belts or involved in carrying out a crime at the time are not covered either.

Cheers

Wow...a bit of common sense...I think I will move to Tas. Here in SA we look after the wrong-doers and criminals. They have rights you know.

**rick130** · 25th February 2018, 04:22 PM

Ok, I'll throw this out there.

I think I remember seeing a link to a study once that showed the overall health benefits to society encouraging greater participation to ride sans helmets outweighed the (potential) costs of injuries.

It's crazy, we a have an overall climate that is more conducive to ride than Europe yet the antipathy and outright hatred towards it means very few do.
Even Canberra, the riding capital of Oz is nothing compared to most European cities according to my friend. (she lived in Canberra for over two years)

**Mick_Marsh** · 25th February 2018, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by rick130

I think I remember seeing a link to a study once that showed the overall health benefits to society encouraging greater participation to ride sans helmets outweighed the (potential) costs of injuries.

That is sort of what they are on about in the article linked from the first post.
That is why I started this thread. I think there is a damned good argument for making helmets optional for some situations.

**trout1105** · 25th February 2018, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

That is sort of what they are on about in the article linked from the first post.
That is why I started this thread. I think there is a damned good argument for making helmets optional for some situations.

I have to disagree as you can get exactly the same amount of exercise when wearing a helmet on a bike as you would by not wearing one.
I understand that attracting new participants to bike riding is important But why would anyone want to put someone at risk by offering a service where helmets are not required, If you think about it the casual or new rider would be in more need of a helmet due to their inexperience.
BTW there are Many other pursuits and activities that will keep you healthy other than riding a bloody push bike

DiscoMick · 25th February 2018, 08:21 PM

Bike clubs couldn't get insurance for illegal activities like riding without a helmet so that won't happen.

**Mick_Marsh** · 25th February 2018, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by trout1105

I have to disagree as you can get exactly the same amount of exercise when wearing a helmet on a bike as you would by not wearing one.
I understand that attracting new participants to bike riding is important But why would anyone want to put someone at risk by offering a service where helmets are not required, If you think about it the casual or new rider would be in more need of a helmet due to their inexperience.
BTW there are Many other pursuits and activities that will keep you healthy other than riding a bloody push bike

And you can get exactly the same amount of exercise on one of these with even less inherent dangers.

I don't like where this is heading.

**Mick_Marsh** · 25th February 2018, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Bike clubs couldn't get insurance for illegal activities like riding without a helmet so that won't happen.

Read the first post.
It's not about bike clubs or illegal activities.

**CraigE** · 25th February 2018, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by martnH

Proportion doesn't matter.

You misread my post.
What I have said is cycling without helmet should not be covered by Medicare as it is what economist call moral hazard.
These guys (cycling without helmet) increase their risk of getting injury while not be made to pay a higher premium for insurance for such risk.

This is also why motor sports event will (I guess) require additional insurance because of perceived increased risk....

If shared bikes can be ridden without helmet, then the company offer such service should insure it's costumer for potential injury....

And I get and agree with your sentiment. Could you imagine turning up to a motorcycle race and refusing to wear a helmet as you disagree with it. You would not be allowed to race, no insurance would cover you and likely spend a few days in an institution. This would even be the result at any bicycle race. There is no difference between the two or even domestic cycling to the shop.
Each to there own, you choose not to use a safety device that is legislated, then so be it, your decision, but there are consequences for your action and if the worst happens (and I sincerely hope it does not to anyone including those who elect to not wear on) then you should be held accountable for your actions and decisions with mandated fines and bills for all the medical costs. The disturbing thing is people can make claims on the extra govt insurance levy we all pay even when they are negligent by not abiding the law by wearing a helmet.

Thread: I've got to ask, to helmet or not?

Thread Tools

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions