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

Originally Posted by johntins

Quite likely true, but irrelevant really. Fine revenue doesn't go into Motor Accident Trauma. That is the purview of the various authorities, such as the TAC in Vic. Except, of course, that cyclists aren't paying a TAC or equivalent fee, so then it comes back onto the Medicare, or in some cases Private Health, system. Fine revenue is a line item in every State Budget, and States don't fund Health, the Feds do. States merely 'manage' it.

Except they mostly do on the car they aren't driving at the moment they're cycling. Until a per km charge is levied on every road user all users contribute something through the taxation system.

Originally Posted by bee utey

Except they mostly do on the car they aren't driving at the moment they're cycling.

but if you come off your bike, your not covered by that system. you would get the hospital bill.

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

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

Shared bike schemes such as the one in Brisbane could be in insurance trouble if they allowed a person to hire a bike without requiring a helmet and that person suffered a head injury which might have been prevented by wearing a helmet, since it is illegal to ride a bike without a helmet. A big compensation claim could result.
Also, if a biking club allowed participants to ride without a helmet the club might be held to be negligent for promoting an illegal activity resulting in injury, disability or death. Again, a big compensation finding could bankrupt the club.

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Shared bike schemes such as the one in Brisbane could be in insurance trouble if they allowed a person to hire a bike without requiring a helmet and that person suffered a head injury which might have been prevented by wearing a helmet, since it is illegal to ride a bike without a helmet. A big compensation claim could result.
Also, if a biking club allowed participants to ride without a helmet the club might be held to be negligent for promoting an illegal activity resulting in injury, disability or death. Again, a big compensation finding could bankrupt the club.

But, it wouldn't be illegal.

And a bike club would not be involved.

Have another read of the article.

The original story is about bike-sharing in the ACT. And currently helmets are compulsory so not wearing a helmet is illegal. If the ACT Government tried to make not wearing a helmet legal it could get interesting. The government might be unable to get public liability insurance for its bike-sharing scheme, or the premiums might skyrocket because not requiring helmets would increase the risk of injury and compensation claims.

Every time I get to Byron bay I am amused to see the majority of cyclists helmet free. Last time I was there I asked about this. The common response was that the police were to turn a blind eye so as not to have the tourists from abroad get upset and go elsewhere. Wonder if this is true ?

Originally Posted by trog

Every time I get to Byron bay I am amused to see the majority of cyclists helmet free. Last time I was there I asked about this. The common response was that the police were to turn a blind eye so as not to have the tourists from abroad get upset and go elsewhere. Wonder if this is true ?

Bicycle helmets are very low on police priorities. They are usually too busy with more important matters. To add to that, in this state, anyone under 16yo can not be issued with an infringement notice, so it is hardly worth their time to 'pull over' a kid on a bike.

Originally Posted by rovers4

Tassie has now for many years had legislation requiring cyclists to wear helmets, regardless of speed or location.

Skate-boarders, quad-bike riders, and any other powered cycle riders are all required to wear them too.

And not an old builder's safety helmet either. Must be either a bicycle helmet, or a motor-cycle type.


The guy that presents our tv news has just recently returned to the screen. He took a tumble from his mountain bike, landed awkwardly and broke his neck. His helmet prevented brain damage.
After a stint in hospital, months of re-cuperation, some weeks just on radio, he is now back on the tellie.
One Peter Gee, (used to cover sport for Vic ABC TV) now swears by the use of helmets.


If you have taken a tumble and survived while not wearing one, you are indeed very lucky. Maybe you even suffered a minor fracture and don't know it. Go get things checked even now. Might explain the eye-strain/headaches, stiffness.

Is irrational purchasing of old landrover a symptom, in which case ?.....