Recent comments

@Paul M
This is an argument that has been trotted out by the helmet liberals regularly. Can you provide any supporting evidence that it is true?

"Similarly, many motorists suffer head injuries in crashes which could be mitigated if they had been wearing a helmet - should they also be forced to wear helmets?"

Thanks in anticipation...

Sakurashinmachi - you're reading an awful lot into the six words that i typed, none of which is even remotely justified. I was hoping that cat1 had his lid on because apparently it's illegal not to wear one there

yes, take your point it's something we've talked about too. One solution might be that when people started commenting on a story it also started a thread in the forum too and comments on the story itself would appear in both places. That would at least make it less likely you'd get two conversations about the same thing going on at the same time. Just not sure if that's actually doable.

@Sakuraetc No-one here in the UK is "anti-helmet", they are just anti-compulsion on helmet wearing. Plenty of people here wear helmets but few reckon we should be forced to.

I have seen the Australian Neurosurgeons reports and frankly they are about as scientific as "my uncle fell of his bike the other day. if he hadn't been wearing a helmet he wouldn't be here now". Lobbyists for helmets are good at quoting supportive reports which generally turn out to be flawed in one way or another. There are a great many reports which suggest that the evidence is inconclusive at best.

As for the remark about the pub cyclist, evidence in this country indicates that you are more likely to suffer a head injury in a pub than on a bike - should all pub-goers be forced to wear a helmet? Similarly, many motorists suffer head injuries in crashes which could be mitigated if they had been wearing a helmet - should they also be forced to wear helmets? Ditto (ad nauseam) pedestrians.

The compulsory helmet law is more a reflection of anti-cycling sentiment in official circles than of anything else, from people who are fine with bikes as long as they stay away from roads and don't slow down motor traffic.

We have seen how an Australian government can be brought down when it attempts to rein in the worst excesses of its big polluters. We are hearing about how the Hunter Valley wine region is being wiped out by strip coal mining. As a very big country with a fairly small population you may feel complacent about these things, but that can't last forever.

It's not the helmets: most of the people I see riding the blue bikes aren't wearing helmets so that obviously isn't inhibiting them. As commented before: the scheme was deliberately started in winter to iron out any bugs in the software, we've just had our coldest winter in years and our wettest spring in a decade and - most importantly - there's no need for the bikes because we have excellent street level public transport. Most of the cities where the schemes have succeeded don't have decent street-level public transport: we do. There are trams on every road around the city and they're CHEAPER than the bikes. The Age article managed to bury at the end a comment that it probably wasn't helmets that were the issue.

EDIT

Just had a look at the comments: about half are running the nanny state line the other half are in support of the helmet laws. And then there's this:

"The helmet issue is a furphy that hides the real reason this scheme is failing.

The hire structure is arranged to make short trips free or cheap, and longer trips prohibitively expensive. Furthermore the bikes can only be taken from docking station to docking station. So the bikes are only useful for short trips in the CBD.

Herein lies the issue. Melbourne's CBD is saturated with hop-on-hop-off trams running in every direction every minute or two, and it's ringed by the city rail loop. Short trips within the CBD are incredibly easy already by public transport, and 80% of the people in the CBD already arrived there by tram or train so they already have a Metcard.

Who exactly would wish to pay extra to take more time and effort to get around the city by bike when it is faster, easier and cheaper to use the public transport system? They are designing this bike scheme for a market that doesn't exist.

They should relocate half the docking stations to the inner suburbs, with a focus on cross-town trips that are poorly served by public transport. If people could make a five minute ride from Collingwood to Melbourne Uni or Carlton to North Melbourne, usage rate would skyrocket."

I think that is what I have said on a couple of occasions.

I have signed up and could do with some training partners.

Anyone else planning on doing this?

I've got entry for the Alpe d'Huez and found cheap lodgings near the finish-just need to figure out how to get to the start with bike and gear... sleep in the car the night before? Plenty of time to figure it out. Can't wait though!

I know how you feel. I sometimes think we missed a trick with Australia and New Zealand. Instead of colonising them, we should have built a huge fleet of ships, and moved the entire population down there each winter, then back again each spring.

I'm with you Fixie Girl. If it's not a (good) women's cut it's not worth £9.99 to me. Same with their winter jacket.

btw have you noticed how the Shutt www takes you from "Women" into "Jackets & Jerseys" that are mostly for guys??!?

Yes. Specially purchased for the trip! I usually cycle in just a cap. In fact, I'm so used to a cap, that I wore one under my helmet. Helped to keep the blazing Melbourne sun out of my eyes and shade my pasty English face.

hope you had yr lid on

Would never do that OR, top posters like you deserve more respect!