Helmet Complience

"Kurt Davis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Just looking at the thread about the Atmos Helmet, and it was going off
topic, but I want to know whats the difference with a Helmet that is
allowed
in Europe and the USA, but not on Australian roads.
The Giro Atmos is the top of the line in helmets, so I am sure if Lance
wears it, it must be safe.
Am I right ?

It's just got to do with the differences in testing, and who does the
testing. Some countries' standards are more difficult to pass than others,
some allow the manufacturer to certify their own helmets whilst others (like
here) must go through specific labs.
It's prety hard to define 'safe', if you want to see more about helmet
standards around the worls, have a look here:
http://www.bhsi.org/standard.htm The Australian standard appears pretty
tough.
Cheers
Gemma

Kurt Davis said:

Just looking at the thread about the Atmos Helmet, and it was going off
topic, but I want to know whats the difference with a Helmet that is allowed
in Europe and the USA, but not on Australian roads.
The Giro Atmos is the top of the line in helmets, so I am sure if Lance
wears it, it must be safe.
Am I right ?

Kurt

Ummm -- no.
The wearing of a helmet does not absolve a bicyclist from the
responsibility of riding safely so as to avoid accidents in the first
place.
I think about here I will stop and try to think a little reasonably and
non-emotively before posting more on this subject.

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "Peter" == Peter Keller <[email hidden]> writes:

Peter On Fri said:

Quoted message said:

Just looking at the thread about the Atmos Helmet, and it was
going off topic, but I want to know whats the difference with a
Helmet that is allowed in Europe and the USA, but not on
Australian roads. The Giro Atmos is the top of the line in
helmets, so I am sure if Lance wears it, it must be safe. Am I
right ?

Kurt

Peter> Ummm -- no. The wearing of a helmet does not absolve a
Peter> bicyclist from the responsibility of riding safely so as to
Peter> avoid accidents in the first place.

Peter> I think about here I will stop and try to think a little
Peter> reasonably and non-emotively before posting more on this
Peter> subject.

Probably a good idea. Kurt asked if the helmet was safe, not whether
wearing one made the rider safe.
--
Cheers
Euan

euan_b_uk said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> "Peter" == Peter Keller <[email hidden]> writes:

Peter On Fri said:

Quoted message said:

Just looking at the thread about the Atmos Helmet, and it was
going off topic, but I want to know whats the difference with a
Helmet that is allowed in Europe and the USA, but not on
Australian roads. The Giro Atmos is the top of the line in
helmets, so I am sure if Lance wears it, it must be safe. Am I
right ?

Kurt

Peter> Ummm -- no. The wearing of a helmet does not absolve a
Peter> bicyclist from the responsibility of riding safely so as to
Peter> avoid accidents in the first place.

Peter> I think about here I will stop and try to think a little
Peter> reasonably and non-emotively before posting more on this
Peter> subject.

Probably a good idea. Kurt asked if the helmet was safe, not whether
wearing one made the rider safe.

I take your point.
In the way that the helmet does not on its own volition deliberately
attack the rider, it can be construed as being safe.

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

Kurt Davis said:

Just looking at the thread about the Atmos Helmet, and it was going off
topic, but I want to know whats the difference with a Helmet that is allowed
in Europe and the USA, but not on Australian roads.
The Giro Atmos is the top of the line in helmets, so I am sure if Lance
wears it, it must be safe.
Am I right ?

Kurt

Without examining the standards, the helmet probably complies with the Australian Standard, but certification takes time and money from the manufacturer. They either haven't got around to getting it certified, or they don't think it's worth the cost.

Ritch

ritcho said:

Kurt Davis said:

Just looking at the thread about the Atmos Helmet, and it was going off
topic, but I want to know whats the difference with a Helmet that is
allowed
in Europe and the USA, but not on Australian roads.
The Giro Atmos is the top of the line in helmets, so I am sure if
Lance
wears it, it must be safe.
Am I right ?

Kurt

Without examining the standards, the helmet probably complies with the
Australian Standard, but certification takes time and money from the
manufacturer. They either haven't got around to getting it certified,
or they don't think it's worth the cost.

Ritch

--
ritcho

Perhaps they are not allowed on Australian roads because of our "unique
bitumen road surface"
(http://www.forsterhalfironman.com/event-crse.html)

;-)

(Yep, sure to be some people happy/amazed I actually referenced
something, even if it is a dodgy, dodgy quote.)

ritcho said:

Without examining the standards, the helmet probably complies with the Australian Standard, but certification takes time and money from the manufacturer. They either haven't got around to getting it certified, or they don't think it's worth the cost.

Ritch

Leaving aside the legality issue. There are a number of variables. Importers make an economic decision whether it is worthwhile/profitable to pay for certification. There are differences in certification standards between countries. There are differences between testing methodologies for those standards. The standards/testing methodologies attempt to replicate real world helmet stresses/risks/levels of protection in a consistently reproducable lab setting. The real world impact when a rider crashes may or may not be similar to the impact tests in the lab. Given these variables, it might not be unreasonable to trust your cranium to the protection of a helmet that is CPSC (ie US) certified but not Australian Standards certified.

SteveA
*Bell Phi Pro - CPSC Certified*
*Bell Rubicon Pro - Austrlain Standards Certified*
*Bell Ghisallo - CPSC Certified on its way from the USA*

as of the first Nov (in QLD, not sure about other states) being caught
not wearing a helmet will cost you $75.

Peter Keller said:

euan_b_uk said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>"Peter" == Peter Keller <[email hidden]> writes:

Peter On Fri said:

> Just looking at the thread about the Atmos Helmet, and it was
> going off topic, but I want to know whats the difference with a
> Helmet that is allowed in Europe and the USA, but not on
> Australian roads. The Giro Atmos is the top of the line in
> helmets, so I am sure if Lance wears it, it must be safe. Am I
> right ?
>
> Kurt

Peter> Ummm -- no. The wearing of a helmet does not absolve a
Peter> bicyclist from the responsibility of riding safely so as to
Peter> avoid accidents in the first place.

Peter> I think about here I will stop and try to think a little
Peter> reasonably and non-emotively before posting more on this
Peter> subject.

Probably a good idea. Kurt asked if the helmet was safe, not whether
wearing one made the rider safe.

I take your point.
In the way that the helmet does not on its own volition deliberately
attack the rider, it can be construed as being safe.

Peter

"Max" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Peter Keller wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I take your point.
In the way that the helmet does not on its own volition deliberately
attack the rider, it can be construed as being safe.

as of the first Nov (in QLD, not sure about other states) being caught
not wearing a helmet will cost you $75.

It's $100 in Victoria (Rule 256(1) & (3)). As an aside, it's theoretically
possible to get an exemption from the requirement to wear an "approved
hemet" (Rule 256(5)) but I have no idea on what grounds or whether it's ever
actually happened.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

quote='Peter Keller'On Sat said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> "Peter" == Peter Keller <[email hidden]> writes:

Peter On Fri said:

Quoted message said:

Just looking at the thread about the Atmos Helmet, and it was
going off topic, but I want to know whats the difference with a
Helmet that is allowed in Europe and the USA, but not on
Australian roads. The Giro Atmos is the top of the line in
helmets, so I am sure if Lance wears it, it must be safe. Am I
right ?

Kurt

Peter> Ummm -- no. The wearing of a helmet does not absolve a
Peter> bicyclist from the responsibility of riding safely so as to
Peter> avoid accidents in the first place.

Peter> I think about here I will stop and try to think a little
Peter> reasonably and non-emotively before posting more on this
Peter> subject.

Probably a good idea. Kurt asked if the helmet was safe, not whether
wearing one made the rider safe.

I take your point.
In the way that the helmet does not on its own volition deliberately
attack the rider, it can be construed as being safe.

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, if, when provoked, the helmet snaps shut, revealing carefully concealed beartrap-like jaws (previously hidden in the foam), then the helmet could be considered positively dangerous. Whilst probably saving the wearer abrasions and skull damage from contacting the ground suddenly and with force, the jaws clamped firmly around the wearer's neck would probably preclude that model of helmet gaining approval in all jurisdictions.

M "all foreseeable impacts" H

DRS said:

"Max" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Peter Keller wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I take your point.
In the way that the helmet does not on its own volition deliberately
attack the rider, it can be construed as being safe.

as of the first Nov (in QLD, not sure about other states) being caught
not wearing a helmet will cost you $75.

it's theoretically
possible to get an exemption from the requirement to wear an "approved
hemet" (Rule 256(5)) but I have no idea on what grounds or whether it's ever
actually happened.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

exemptions from wearing motorbike helmets are typically on the basis that the rider has a neck problem that would be exacerbated by the weight of the helmet.

SteveA

"SteveA" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

DRS said:

"Max" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Peter Keller wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

> I take your point.
> In the way that the helmet does not on its own volition deliberately
> attack the rider, it can be construed as being safe.
>
as of the first Nov (in QLD, not sure about other states) being

caught

Quoted message said:

not wearing a helmet will cost you $75.

it's theoretically
possible to get an exemption from the requirement to wear an "approved
hemet" (Rule 256(5)) but I have no idea on what grounds or whether it's
ever
actually happened.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

exemptions from wearing motorbike helmets are typically on the basis
that the rider has a neck problem that would be exacerbated by the
weight of the helmet.

SteveA

The police will often block this by saying that if your injury is bad enough
(that you can't wear a helmet) then you shouldn't be riding a motorbike. Or,
they have a duty to stop something happening which is unsafe to the public,
which includes you as a member of the public. I have had this charge used
against me once. (Long story!)

Marty

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "DRS" == drs <[email hidden]> writes:

DRS> It's $100 in Victoria (Rule 256(1) & (3)). As an aside, it's
DRS> theoretically possible to get an exemption from the requirement
DRS> to wear an "approved hemet" (Rule 256(5)) but I have no idea on
DRS> what grounds or whether it's ever actually happened.

I think it's normally religious grounds etc. In the UK Sikhs are exempt
because of the turban they wear.
--
Cheers
Euan

DRS said:

"Max" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as of the first Nov (in QLD, not sure about other states) being caught
not wearing a helmet will cost you $75.

It's $100 in Victoria (Rule 256(1) & (3)). As an aside, it's theoretically
possible to get an exemption from the requirement to wear an "approved
hemet" (Rule 256(5)) but I have no idea on what grounds or whether it's ever
actually happened.

[censored]!! $!00 just for not wearing something which has not been
conclusively proved to do anything useful? What does a motorist have to
do to get fined $100? What a heinous crime! I wonder why only NZ and
most of Australia think so? What do we know that 193 countries in the
world don't?

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

"DRS" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

It's $100 in Victoria (Rule 256(1) & (3)). As an aside, it's
theoretically
possible to get an exemption from the requirement to wear an "approved
hemet" (Rule 256(5)) but I have no idea on what grounds or whether it's
ever
actually happened.

In SA there's a legal exemption for people of the Sikh religion (as they'd
have to remove their turbans to wear a helmet correctly). So there you go!
Anyone may seek an exemption from the Minister for Transport though. If you
had an odd-shaped head, or a large growth, or a head so massive a helmet
wouldn't fit, or something else like that I reckon you'd have a chance at an
exemption.
Gemma

DRS said:

It's $100 in Victoria (Rule 256(1) & (3)). As an aside, it's theoretically
possible to get an exemption from the requirement to wear an "approved
hemet" (Rule 256(5)) but I have no idea on what grounds or whether it's ever
actually happened.

My LBS says he has one customer who has one. I don't know the grounds,
but I don't think they are religious.

--
Shane Stanley

Shane Stanley said:

DRS said:

It's $100 in Victoria (Rule 256(1) & (3)). As an aside, it's theoretically
possible to get an exemption from the requirement to wear an "approved
hemet" (Rule 256(5)) but I have no idea on what grounds or whether it's ever
actually happened.

My LBS says he has one customer who has one. I don't know the grounds,
but I don't think they are religious.

In Qld you can get only be exempt on the grounds that you carry a
current medical certificate. I got busted riding with a very broad
brimmed hat on a day with very intense UV up here in the deep north. No
excuse.

Now, given that I have a family history of skin cancer and am living in
the state with the world's highest incidence of melanoma, I think I
should try to obtain a medical certificate based on that risk.

It's not easy to judge the relative risks of sun exposure to cycling
accident because nobody has produced any reports on the rates of death
per hour exposure for melanoma. But there are around 200 or so deaths
from melanoma alone (there are other forms of skin cancer as well) in
Qld each year. Currently there are about 4 head injury cycling deaths.
The peak was about 9, in 1988.

I can't attach a broad brim to my helmet because the manufacturer says
it would be illegal to do so. The magistrate in my case told me the best
option would be to find some other form of transport that doesn't expose
me to UV.

Peter
--
Peter McCallum
Mackay Qld AUSTRALIA

Peter McCallum said:

Shane Stanley said:

DRS said:

It's $100 in Victoria (Rule 256(1) & (3)). As an aside, it's theoretically
possible to get an exemption from the requirement to wear an "approved
hemet" (Rule 256(5)) but I have no idea on what grounds or whether it's ever
actually happened.

My LBS says he has one customer who has one. I don't know the grounds,
but I don't think they are religious.

In Qld you can get only be exempt on the grounds that you carry a
current medical certificate. I got busted riding with a very broad
brimmed hat on a day with very intense UV up here in the deep north. No
excuse.

Now, given that I have a family history of skin cancer and am living in
the state with the world's highest incidence of melanoma, I think I
should try to obtain a medical certificate based on that risk.

It's not easy to judge the relative risks of sun exposure to cycling
accident because nobody has produced any reports on the rates of death
per hour exposure for melanoma. But there are around 200 or so deaths
from melanoma alone (there are other forms of skin cancer as well) in
Qld each year. Currently there are about 4 head injury cycling deaths.
The peak was about 9, in 1988.

I can't attach a broad brim to my helmet because the manufacturer says
it would be illegal to do so. The magistrate in my case told me the best
option would be to find some other form of transport that doesn't expose
me to UV.

That is totally disgraceful that a perfectly safe, effective, and healthy
means of transport should be recommended against like this. No wonder
most countries in Europe look at the Australia nad New Zealand situation
with total disbelief.

Quoted message said:

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

Peter Keller said:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

I can't attach a broad brim to my helmet because the manufacturer says
it would be illegal to do so. The magistrate in my case told me the best
option would be to find some other form of transport that doesn't expose
me to UV.

That is totally disgraceful that a perfectly safe, effective, and healthy
means of transport should be recommended against like this. No wonder
most countries in Europe look at the Australia nad New Zealand situation
with total disbelief.

Quoted message said:

Peter

--
If you are careful enough in life, nothing bad -- or
good -- will ever happen to you.

I think you're getting there P, a helmet troll combined with a jab that is based on nationalistic lines. Keep throwing that line in the water, though I know a much better spot... rec.bicycles.misc (!)

Happy fishing!
Ritch