Pic of cyclist with baby sparks fury March 16, 2012 (Australia)

AltAccount

Is this Victoria's most irresponsible woman?

The selfish cyclist was snapped on a busy St Kilda road endangering a baby's life - but protecting her own.

Read it here:

http://m.news.com.au/NationalNews/fi984962.htm

Probably not a good idea to start a helmet thread, but this is pretty bloody stupid/shocking.







[/QUOTE]

gman2k

AltAccount wrote: »

this is pretty bloody stupid/shocking.

Which, the outrage or the story itself?

Lumen

I've heard that some crazy people carry their children unhelmeted WHILST WALKING, and even UP AND DOWN STAIRS.

Trip hazards, people! Jesus, think of the children.

deandean

Small fry!

clonmahon

Great quote in the article from "the Alfred hospital's trauma surgeon Professor Russell Gruen said, adding: "I'm dumbfounded that someone would put their most precious possession at such risk."

When did kids become a "possession"

enas

And another irresponsible father here:

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2012/03/spanish-police-harass-father-on-bicycle.html

Lumen wrote: »

I've heard that some crazy people carry their children unhelmeted WHILST WALKING, and even UP AND DOWN STAIRS.

Trip hazards, people! Jesus, think of the children.

Are you serious??? Didn't they buy one of these? You can now even get them at Tony Kealys in Cork, so there's really no excuse.

gman2k

enas wrote: »

at Tony Kealys....

protecting our precious loved ones little brains...
Help to promote early cycle helmet wearing habits....
protect those little noggins against icy slips and tumbles in the snow...

FFS

Any parent who puts this onto their 'little precious ones' needs a kick in the face (from facekicker)

AltAccount

gman2k wrote: »

Which, the outrage or the story itself?

The idea of transporting a child like that.

I'm not part of the helmet brigade, and only wear mine when I'm off road (where it's seriously saved me once or twice). I don't bleat on about "won't someone think of the children" either, but...

Toddlers on bikes should have a helmet. If they come off, they don't have the arm strength to catch/protect themselves. If they're strapped to your back in a cloth pouch and you come off, there's a fair chance they'll get their most significant injuries from your bodyweight.


This woman isn't Pol Pot, the headline is a bit histrionic, but I'd be fairly frustrated that an article like this will be used in an "everyone should wear PPE for everything" context when safety is more nuanced and sometimes, somebody really does need to think of the children!

kenmc

gman2k wrote: »

protecting our precious loved ones little brains...
Help to promote early cycle helmet wearing habits....
protect those little noggins against icy slips and tumbles in the snow...

FFS

Any parent who puts this onto their 'little precious ones' needs a kick in the face (from facekicker)

Mate of mine put one of them on his son. He got plenty of (well deserved IMO) abuse from the rest of us because of it; kids will fall down. It's how they learn to balance. They bounce.

enas

gman2k wrote: »

FFS

To be honest I was surprised they sell them at Tony Kealys. I wouldn't have imagined they could be legal in Ireland and Europe. Surely something affecting such a fundamental developmental stage should require an extensive amount of study to make sure at least that it isn't harmful to the child's development. Continuing on the off-topic, I have nothing against parents who would be tempted to buy one of these. Anyone who have had children knows about the type of feelings that can make you feel you need one. However, I think that shops selling them are being highly immoral, and shamelessly play on people's fear. I've been tempted to start an argument when I saw them on display last time I've been in their shop, but thought better of it (I've never been good at arguments, especially when it's not in any of my native languages).

Cookie_Monster

Unfortunitly the Aussies are a bit hysterical when it comes to helmet wearing; making it manditory :rolleyes: so of course their media will pick up on it way more than would otherwise happen in Ireland or Holland etc.

When a baby is really small you actually can't buy helmets to fit them

Seems like a pretty good reason not to have a helmet on the baby...


Oh and the baby would make for excellent back protection should she fall off so it's not all bad news, maybe everyone should have one :pac:

Salt001

Are you serious??? Didn't they buy one of these? You can now even get them at Tony Kealys in Cork, so there's really no excuse.[/QUOTE]

Oh dear God the world has gone mad.
Can you imagine putting one of these on your kid?.

Keep_Her_Lit

enas wrote: »

I've never been good at arguments, especially when it's not in any of my native languages.

No problem, just argue in your own language but go completely BALLISTIC. They'll still get the point.

Lusk Doyle

clonmahon wrote: »

When did kids become a "possession"

As the great Homer [Simpson] said "They're my kids. I own them."

Lusk Doyle

kenmc wrote: »

kids will ... bounce.

I play basketball with mine all the time. They are ok. You're right!

deandean

Oh sweet Jeez that kids thumpguard thing looks desperate. I've always done balancing type sports - bikes, skateboard, skiing, windsurfing etc and I've always found that any headgear covering my ears - like a balaclava or the likes of that thumpguard - fcuked up my balance.

manwithaplan

I saw one guy carrying a very small baby in the crook of his arm while cycling clipped in on his road bike after a Swords club league race last year. I couldn't decide whether it was cool or insane.

emtroche

AltAccount wrote: »

Read it here:

http://m.news.com.au/NationalNews/fi984962.htm

Probably not a good idea to start a helmet thread, but this is pretty bloody stupid/shocking.

Anybody else notice that she has her helmet on the wrong way around ?? :eek:

BostonB

I wouldn't do it with a toddler or a baby. Doesn't seem right.

That said I was more interested in the stats.

...About 600 people a year suffer moderate to severe brain injuries from road incidents, 3 per cent of which involve bicycles....

So 97% of these injuries do not involve bicycles.

I'd be curious what % of cyclists that is. Also what % wearing a helmet would made a difference. Otherwise its a bit meaningless without context.

rp

Lumen wrote: »

I've heard that some crazy people carry their children unhelmeted WHILST WALKING, and even UP AND DOWN STAIRS.

Thats not the worst: I've heard of people regularly transporting young children in cars, where the high levels benzines, cyclohexanone and other carciogens pretty much guarantee health problems in later life.

DirkVoodoo

Australia has a pretty poor attitude to cycling in general.

They seem to believe that mandatory helmet wearing makes up for the poor driver education regarding cyclists (just the other day I was told to "get off the road", again) and the belief that cycling is inherently dangerous and an extreme sport.

This really isn't surprising. There was an incident recently where a woman was struck by a car and killed while out training. Without any evidence as to what actually happened, bar the fact she was crossing a busy highway in darkness, all the police and papers immediately pointed to the fact that she had no lights (she should have), she wasn't wearing a helmet (eh, ok, no evidence that a helmet would have saved her) and lastly that she had headphones in (again, no evidence on whether or not they contributed to the accident).

No such allegations were levelled at the driver, but Australian media and authorities seem to like targeting cyclists rather than the fundamental issue of a car-centric culture with little awareness of cyclists as anything other than oddities who should be confined to parks and tracks.

Some examples: http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/fitness/blogs/on-your-bike/helmet-crackdown-makes-no-sense-20120322-1vl5v.html

hardCopy

rp wrote: »

Thats not the worst: I've heard of people regularly transporting young children in cars, where the high levels benzines, cyclohexanone and other carciogens pretty much guarantee health problems in later life.

And NO HELMETS!

Victor

The one concern I would have is that the child is high up on her back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLRrA-rKY-Q

Truman Burbank

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-16812023

tomasrojo

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Some examples: http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/fitness/blogs/on-your-bike/helmet-crackdown-makes-no-sense-20120322-1vl5v.html

They certainly hand out a lot of fines in Australia.

I was told that the members of the legislative assembly who approved the helmet bill in Victoria in 1990 were led to believe that about two thousand cyclists might be fined in the first twelve months; more than nineteen thousand were fined.

fasttalkerchat

I've seen that before... older child but still no helmet.

check_six

tomasrojo wrote: »

They certainly hand out a lot of fines in Australia.

I was told that the members of the legislative assembly who approved the helmet bill in Victoria in 1990 were led to believe that about two thousand cyclists might be fined in the first twelve months; more than nineteen thousand were fined.

Was the measure brought in as a revenue generator? Or did it become one? Do they still chase down non-compliant cyclists? Does anyone cycle casually there any more?

I'm always wondering what people think a helmet will protect them from. I worry that people think it is a panacea, but we know that they not designed to be much use beyond falling over when trackstanding.

I wonder what qualifies as a bicycle helmet in Victoria? Could you loop a strap through a bit of packing material from a new tv? Maybe you could get more creative with cereal boxes, rice krispie cakes, and the like.

When my kids are out on the bike I get all concerned about them falling asleep with a helmet on and whether the straps will squeeze their necks or not. This is paranoia in the other direction, but as was pointed out earlier in this thread you can't really get good fitting helmets for very small kids.

Lumen

check_six wrote: »

I'm always wondering what people think a helmet will protect them from. I worry that people think it is a panacea, but we know that they not designed to be much use beyond falling over when trackstanding.

I'm not sure that's reasonable. If I was going to deliberately crash at 50kph I'd stick a helmet on to do it. Would you rather be unhelmeted in that situation?

The problem (as the smh article DirkVoodoo posted describes) is that the net result of these helmet regs is less cycling, worse conditions for those who remain, and no net reduction in injuries.

It's a basic sub-optimisation problem. If you could enforce helmet wearing for those people who are going to crash, that'd be great. We just need a pool of floating precogs to work out who needs them. "You're going to crash today, here's your free helmet".

tomasrojo

check_six wrote: »

Was the measure brought in as a revenue generator? Or did it become one? Do they still chase down non-compliant cyclists? Does anyone cycle casually there any more?

I think they bring in fair bit of revenue, and from what I've read in some federal states they pursue non-compliant cyclists with great zeal, while in others enforcement is lax, or the compulsion is not universal.

check_six wrote: »

I wonder what qualifies as a bicycle helmet in Victoria?

I think it's covered by a joint Australia/New Zealand standard that is probably better than that in force elsewhere. For example, it stipulates that the helmet has to detach after the first impact, and that it must prominently warn of the danger of strangulation when worn by children off the bike.
EDIT:
http://www.productsafety.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/974624

The straps which hold a helmet on a cyclist’s head must stretch sufficiently to let the helmet come off in an accident.

Each helmet must be accompanied by a brochure or label that includes the following, word for word, in letters at least 2 mm high:
This helmet should not be used by children while climbing or doing other activities where there is a risk of hanging or strangulation if the child gets trapped while wearing the helmet.

gman2k

check_six

Lumen wrote: »

The problem (as the smh article DirkVoodoo posted describes) is that the net result of these helmet regs is less cycling, worse conditions for those who remain, and no net reduction in injuries.

That's a big bugbear of mine. The idea that you need a whole bunch of equipment before hopping on a bike puts people off, and the fewer people cycling, the more times you'll have problems with other road users. The whole dublin bikes scheme has either coincided with or sparked the increased numbers of cyclists on the streets today. The DB scheme being a good example of not even needing your own bike to cycle, never mind hi-vis undercrackers or whatever.

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think they bring in fair bit of revenue, and from what I've read in some federal states they pursue non-compliant cyclists with great zeal, while in others enforcement is lax, or the compulsion is not universal.

Maybe a variation of this could be a new tax revenue stream targeting cyclists in Ireland. Some kind of complicated Euro Rules based craziness. Imagine the next time a car turns in front of you you will be able to shake your fist and shout "Blasted motorists! You shouldn't be on the road, you don't even pay Sock Length Tax!"

tomasrojo wrote: »

I think it's covered by a joint Australia/New Zealand standard that is probably better than that in force elsewhere. For example, it stipulates that the helmet has to detach after the first impact, and that it must prominently warn of the danger of strangulation when worn by children off the bike.
EDIT:
http://www.productsafety.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/974624[/QUOTE]

I wasn't aware of this standard before. Sounds useful alright.

What was the name of Marge Simpson's magazine of choice? Fretful Mother/Parent? I need a subscription!

coolbeans

Australia is the ultimate nanny state. You can't fall out of bed without some sort of net, social or otherwise, to catch you.

MrCreosote

there was a child on bike without helmet at the track world champs there! Political statement I reckon.

tunney

gman2k wrote: »

protecting our precious loved ones little brains...
Help to promote early cycle helmet wearing habits....
protect those little noggins against icy slips and tumbles in the snow...

FFS

Any parent who puts this onto their 'little precious ones' needs a kick in the face (from facekicker)

Have you any idea of what a thud guard is for???

A friend had so many trips to hospital with his son when he was a toddler that Social Services were mentioned. The parents tried to explained that he just hadn't learnt to put his hands out when falling and landed on his head. Doctors were understanding but the number of trips seemed excessive .... until the kid did it in front of them.

For a reasonably high percentage of toddlers its common and a thud guard stops alot of pain.

DirkVoodoo

From what I could see, the only difference in testing between AU/NZ and everywhere else is that they do batch testing here. The actual safety regulations are no more stringent.

Still, I've been told that in the event of an accident, the first thing the "ambos" do is check the helmet to see if it has the AU/NZ certification sticker. So, my Bell Sweep, despite being just as safe as a Bell Sweep helmet bought in Australia, is a liability if I ever get knocked down and more than likely will stand against me.

Oh sure, the guy could be drunk behind the wheel or not giving enough space when overtaking, actual dangerous behaviour that needs to be stamped out. But because I don't have a small shiny sticker on the inside of my helmet, I'll probably be just as culpable.

I'm gonna buy a prevail.

Lumen

tunney wrote: »

Have you any idea of what a thud guard is for???...For a reasonably high percentage of toddlers its common and a thud guard stops alot of pain.

What did we do before the thud guard? Like, for the past hundred thousand years or so?

el tel

That little photo is not conclusive proof that the woman was riding a bike at the time. I'm sure a barrister would argue the same if the matter got that far.

But does that helmet look like it's back to front?

NeedMoreGears

Lumen wrote: »

What did we do before the thud guard? Like, for the past hundred thousand years or so?

thudded presumably - probably accounts for the current shape of my head!

tunney

Lumen wrote: »

What did we do before the thud guard? Like, for the past hundred thousand years or so?

Had kids with severe bruising around their heads.

Just because something always was so does not mean it need always be so.

enas

tunney wrote: »

Had kids with severe bruising around their heads.

That didn't prevent humanity to evolve, during that time, from a relatively sophisticated great ape to the incredibly sophisticated species that it is now (and that is skilful enough to build, among so many other things, those helmets).

Learning to walk has to be a very primitive and instinctive thing right? It should work without the need for any artefact, otherwise you'd wonder how we passed through evolution.

I'm not talking of any particular case. I'm sure there are many, of which I'm unaware, for which you can rightfully argue the need for such a helmet. But come on now, as a general rule toddlers don't need a helmet to learn to walk. Quite the contrary, I think that before commercialising such a product, proof should be provided that they're not detrimental to the correct acquisition of the walking skill. Those helmets might have a place in a medical equipment shop, surely not in a nursery shop.

el tel

I've seen people wearing helmets on a bus. They must know the driver is a lunatic or something. You can never be too careful, danger is everywhere.

Rob A. Bank

It appears to me that the greatest danger to that child, in the event of a spill, is the Australian woman's helmet !

Lumen wrote: »

What did we do before the thud guard? Like, for the past hundred thousand years or so?

Far longer than that... Homo Sapiens has been around for approx 0.275 million years... and apes have been plummeting from trees for millions of years before that !

How DID we manage to evolve without helmets ?

:rolleyes:

gman2k

By normalising these thud guard helmets for kids, selling them in nursery shops etc, it won't be long before it becomes the accepted thing, and next thing it becomes law.
As others have said, Humans have been around for many a year, and all of a sudden children become 'your little precious ones' which need to be bubblewrapped.

Never in the entire history of mankind has a generation such as today's kids become so protected form every perceived and imaginary danger, to the extent that they are not even allowed to run in school, in case they fall over, driven everywhere, fed junk non stop. God help us all !

tunney

enas wrote: »

That didn't prevent humanity to evolve, during that time, from a relatively sophisticated great ape to the incredibly sophisticated species that it is now (and that is skilful enough to build, among so many other things, those helmets).

Learning to walk has to be a very primitive and instinctive thing right? It should work without the need for any artefact, otherwise you'd wonder how we passed through evolution.

I'm not talking of any particular case. I'm sure there are many, of which I'm unaware, for which you can rightfully argue the need for such a helmet. But come on now, as a general rule toddlers don't need a helmet to learn to walk. Quite the contrary, I think that before commercialising such a product, proof should be provided that they're not detrimental to the correct acquisition of the walking skill. Those helmets might have a place in a medical equipment shop, surely not in a nursery shop.

gman2k wrote: »

By normalising these thud guard helmets for kids, selling them in nursery shops etc, it won't be long before it becomes the accepted thing, and next thing it becomes law.
As others have said, Humans have been around for many a year, and all of a sudden children become 'your little precious ones' which need to be bubblewrapped.

Never in the entire history of mankind has a generation such as today's kids become so protected form every perceived and imaginary danger, to the extent that they are not even allowed to run in school, in case they fall over, driven everywhere, fed junk non stop. God help us all !

Kids still learn to walk. They still get very upset when they fall. however for the clumsier kid it can stop alot of pain.


Of course children "become your little precious ones". Assuming you don't have kids.

#1 didn't snot herself too badly too often to need anything other than the odd ice pop.

If #2 starts splitting his head open regularly of course I'm going to take preventative measures. It would be irresponsible not to.

As for normalising safety equipment.

Stair guards - normalised but not the law.
Press and drawer locks - normalised but not the law.
Fire guards - normalised but not the law.
Socket covers - normalised but not the law.
Window locks on upstairs windows - normalised but not the law.

The list goes on. People choose to use what suits them and their children.

clonmahon

A good book on the subject of risk is "Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear" by Dan Gardner. The problem is that most people are not very good at accessing risk.

Life has never been safer or easier than it is in recent decades in the western world yet the place is full of people who are worrying about all kinds of remote risks. Very strange.

http://www.amazon.ca/Risk-The-Science-Politics-Fear/dp/0771032994

Lumen

tunney wrote: »

As for normalising safety equipment.

Stair guards - normalised but not the law.
Press and drawer locks - normalised but not the law.
Fire guards - normalised but not the law.
Socket covers - normalised but not the law.
Window locks on upstairs windows - normalised but not the law.

Actually my house (2004 build) came with window locks downstairs but not upstairs. I swapped them around then tortured myself trying to work out whether a house fire or a toddler-flying-attempt was more likely.

Top tip: Calpol bottle tops are not childproof. When your toddler comes to you with pink liquid round his mouth and an empty bottle, it is tricky to remember how much was in there the last time you used it.

Also, child-proof cabinet latches not very reliable, and food processor blades look very interesting to a small child.

Anyway, they've made it to school age with all fingers and livers intact. Win!

Enduro

clonmahon wrote: »

A good book on the subject of risk is "Risk: The Science and Politics of Fear" by Dan Gardner. The problem is that most people are not very good at accessing risk.

Life has never been safer or easier than it is in recent decades in the western world yet the place is full of people who are worrying about all kinds of remote risks. Very strange.

http://www.amazon.ca/Risk-The-Science-Politics-Fear/dp/0771032994

+1. Fantastic book.

goldencleric

tunney wrote: »

Have you any idea of what a thud guard is for???

A friend had so many trips to hospital with his son when he was a toddler that Social Services were mentioned. The parents tried to explained that he just hadn't learnt to put his hands out when falling and landed on his head. Doctors were understanding but the number of trips seemed excessive .... until the kid did it in front of them.

For a reasonably high percentage of toddlers its common and a thud guard stops alot of pain.

I think Thudguard was associated with unusually high rates of pre-adolscent baldness in a recent study, due to the poor development of hair follicles as a child.

tunney

Lumen wrote: »

Actually my house (2004 build) came with window locks downstairs but not upstairs. I swapped them around then tortured myself trying to work out whether a house fire or a toddler-flying-attempt was more likely.

Top tip: Calpol bottle tops are not childproof. When your toddler comes to you with pink liquid round his mouth and an empty bottle, it is tricky to remember how much was in there the last time you used it.

Also, child-proof cabinet latches not very reliable, and food processor blades look very interesting to a small child.

Anyway, they've made it to school age with all fingers and livers intact. Win!

best I have seen so far is "ooooooohhhhhhh pink" and then running to the toilet to stick her hands in the pink liquid around the toilet bowl (bleach).

they get into everything and discover new ways to hurt themselves, and they don't do it a second time - usually.

the fire versus flying argument is a tough one.

gman2k

tunney wrote: »

Window locks on upstairs windows - normalised but not the law.

Actually, it's against the regs to have locks on upstairs bedroom windows!

Anyways,

tomasrojo

Seems relevant to this thread. IT today. Study carried out by Children’s University Hospital, Temple Street, with the Road Safety Authority of Ireland.

Researchers looked at road-related injuries in under-15 year olds between 1996-2000 and 2004-2008, including all road and traffic crashes on public roads involving Garda assistance. They found a 36 per cent decrease in the total number of children injured or killed on Irish roads, from 5,928 to 3,659.

The most significant decrease was in the cycling injuries category. Child cyclist fatalities fell by 76 per cent and there was a 68 per cent reduction in cyclist injuries.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0404/breaking22.html#.T3xMJjTuPYk.email

Helmets prioritised over segregation and traffic calming at end (actually, they're not even mentioned).

Seems shoddy, at least as presented in IT. The drop in numbers of children killed or injured while cycling strikes me as roughly proportional to the overall drop in children cycling in the street on their own during this period. Also this period corresponds with a rapid increase in child obesity. So with a different slant, it's very mixed news.