That's it, I am no longer defending Cyclists!

[heebeegeetee]

Graveworm said:

1) So you want HANS as well as helmets in cars?

Didn't get chance to address this earlier...

No, I don't want HANs nor helmets in cars, nor do I want to wear a helmet at home or in the workplace, even though I know that severe brain injury can have devastating consequences, not least for the victims family, even though a brain injured person is admitted to hospital every 90 seconds.

Like most people I'll wear a helmet when I cycle, and take it off when I get home, even though under all analysis that makes no sense whatsoever - to take my helmet off before going into the place where most accidents happen.

I'm prepared to take my chances, like most people. I'm also therefore not prepared to then tell other unhelmeted people that they're wrong. Again, under any analysis that makes no sense whatsoever, and would be hypocritical to the point of stupidity.

I don't even want to have these discussions, because they reinforce the notion that cycling is dangerous, which it isn't. As the man in the film says, there is overwhelming evidence that the benefits vastly, vastly outweigh the risks, but I join these discussions to address the stupid things that my fellow motorists say.

I don't believe for one moment you are interested in whether a person wears a helmet or not, you just don't like cyclists (please don't try the nonsense of "I'm a cyclist myself" etc. That's like saying as motorists we wouldn't criticise other motorists).

I don't believe for one moment that you think people like this should be saved from herself, when all evidence says that on average she will live a longer life and enjoy more years of healthy life.


If you were interested in saving people from themselves, you'd surely be spending hours posting about 85,000 people dying each year due to a sedentary lifestyle, (like me, probably), rather than trying to prevent people like the person in this picture from doing what she does.

[Graveworm]

Mave said:

Graveworm said:

Mave said:

So the ROSPA data doesn't show that the vast majority of KSI accidents involving cyclists, are not the fault of motorists. To come to that conclusion from the data presented, you'd need to assume that in the majority of incidents where a cyclist is killed or seriously injured, there is no vehicle involved (your conjecture which I've put in bold) - that assumption is not in the ROSPA report, and I don't think it is realistic. Anecdotally, of all the cycling incidents involving friends, relatives or colleagues over the years, I can only think of 1 where there was none else involved; and only 2 where the police were involved.

I am happy with my logic and it shows what I think. Are you saying your friends relatives or colleagues were involved in KSIs with a motor vehicle on a road and there was no police involvement? Do you know the level of injury for serious? If it happened on the road involving a motor vehicle and they were killed or seriously inured then it would almost certainly involve the police. It is a legal requirement to start with and.a 999 call would trigger it as well. Very very few KSIs won't have that.

I'm saying that I don't believe that two thirds of KSI incidents involving road cyclists don't involve another vehicle.

But you are now not saying that the ROSPA Data doesn't imply that, You are free to believe what you like and their Data could be wrong.

What has the Highway code.& whether it is on the road got to do with whether wearing a helmet is a good thing and more importantly if suggesting wearing one is blaming the victim.

[Graveworm]

heebeegeetee said:

Didn't get chance to address this earlier...

No, I don't want HANs nor helmets in cars, nor do I want to wear a helmet at home or in the workplace, even though I know that severe brain injury can have devastating consequences, not least for the victims family, even though a brain injured person is admitted to hospital every 90 seconds.

Like most people I'll wear a helmet when I cycle, and take it off when I get home, even though under all analysis that makes no sense whatsoever - to take my helmet off before going into the place where most accidents happen.

I'm prepared to take my chances, like most people. I'm also therefore not prepared to then tell other unhelmeted people that they're wrong. Again, under any analysis that makes no sense whatsoever, and would be hypocritical to the point of stupidity.

I don't even want to have these discussions, because they reinforce the notion that cycling is dangerous, which it isn't. As the man in the film says, there is overwhelming evidence that the benefits vastly, vastly outweigh the risks, but I join these discussions to address the stupid things that my fellow motorists say.

I don't believe for one moment you are interested in whether a person wears a helmet or not, you just don't like cyclists (please don't try the nonsense of "I'm a cyclist myself" etc. That's like saying as motorists we wouldn't criticise other motorists).

I don't believe for one moment that you think people like this should be saved from herself, when all evidence says that on average she will live a longer life and enjoy more years of healthy life.


If you were interested in saving people from themselves, you'd surely be spending hours posting about 85,000 people dying each year due to a sedentary lifestyle, (like me, probably), rather than trying to prevent people like the person in this picture from doing what she does.

I am not trying to prevent anything. All along I have just said that it is indefensible to suggest that it is wrong to advise the wearing of helmets.

If people posted that it was wrong to encourage people to avoid a sedentary lifestyle, as it was blaming the victim, I might post about it, I am a cyclist Lycra and everything at times, sometimes on a Boris bike with no helmet, I think it is a good indication that I don't hate cyclists that is not the same as saying I can't criticise them or motorists. By your measure, Chris Boardman also hates cyclists given his support for the original message. I have, in the distant past, delivered death messages to the families of people killed in RTCs. no cyclists I can recall, but it does mean I am very sure, less families losing a loved one, if they wear a helmet is a good thing. I help out with Scouts, Guides and with the DofE so maybe in a little way I do try to encourage an active lifestyle.

Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 10th January 01:12

[Mave]

Graveworm said:

Mave said:

Graveworm said:

Mave said:

So the ROSPA data doesn't show that the vast majority of KSI accidents involving cyclists, are not the fault of motorists. To come to that conclusion from the data presented, you'd need to assume that in the majority of incidents where a cyclist is killed or seriously injured, there is no vehicle involved (your conjecture which I've put in bold) - that assumption is not in the ROSPA report, and I don't think it is realistic. Anecdotally, of all the cycling incidents involving friends, relatives or colleagues over the years, I can only think of 1 where there was none else involved; and only 2 where the police were involved.

I am happy with my logic and it shows what I think. Are you saying your friends relatives or colleagues were involved in KSIs with a motor vehicle on a road and there was no police involvement? Do you know the level of injury for serious? If it happened on the road involving a motor vehicle and they were killed or seriously inured then it would almost certainly involve the police. It is a legal requirement to start with and.a 999 call would trigger it as well. Very very few KSIs won't have that.

I'm saying that I don't believe that two thirds of KSI incidents involving road cyclists don't involve another vehicle.

But you are now not saying that the ROSPA Data doesn't imply that, You are free to believe what you like and their Data could be wrong.

No, I'm saying what my opinion is, and what their data says rather than what an extrapolation of their data might say based on particular assumptions.

Graveworm said:

What has the Highway code.& whether it is on the road got to do with whether wearing a helmet is a good thing and more importantly if suggesting wearing one is blaming the victim.

I thought this was about potential ammendments to the highway code, no? Edited to add I just went back and realise I mixed discussions up, apologies.

Edited by Mave on Thursday 10th January 07:29

[swisstoni]

heebeegeetee said:

Graveworm said:

1) So you want HANS as well as helmets in cars?

Didn't get chance to address this earlier...

No, I don't want HANs nor helmets in cars, nor do I want to wear a helmet at home or in the workplace, even though I know that severe brain injury can have devastating consequences, not least for the victims family, even though a brain injured person is admitted to hospital every 90 seconds.

Like most people I'll wear a helmet when I cycle, and take it off when I get home, even though under all analysis that makes no sense whatsoever - to take my helmet off before going into the place where most accidents happen.

I'm prepared to take my chances, like most people. I'm also therefore not prepared to then tell other unhelmeted people that they're wrong. Again, under any analysis that makes no sense whatsoever, and would be hypocritical to the point of stupidity.

I don't even want to have these discussions, because they reinforce the notion that cycling is dangerous, which it isn't. As the man in the film says, there is overwhelming evidence that the benefits vastly, vastly outweigh the risks, but I join these discussions to address the stupid things that my fellow motorists say.

I don't believe for one moment you are interested in whether a person wears a helmet or not, you just don't like cyclists (please don't try the nonsense of "I'm a cyclist myself" etc. That's like saying as motorists we wouldn't criticise other motorists).

I don't believe for one moment that you think people like this should be saved from herself, when all evidence says that on average she will live a longer life and enjoy more years of healthy life.


If you were interested in saving people from themselves, you'd surely be spending hours posting about 85,000 people dying each year due to a sedentary lifestyle, (like me, probably), rather than trying to prevent people like the person in this picture from doing what she does.

I just don't want her to hurt her head if she comes off.
You don't want cycling to be discouraged by compulsory helmets and are dragging some 85,000 couch potatoes who have no intention of riding a bike or any other kind of exercise into the argument.

This reminds me of when anti seatbelt campaigners threw the kitchen sink at the issue before it became law. Racing drivers and all sorts were press ganged into it. One of my favourites was that seatbelts might stop you from being "thrown clear" during an accident.

[heebeegeetee]

swisstoni said:

1. I just don't want her to hurt her head if she comes off.
2. You don't want cycling to be discouraged by compulsory helmets and are dragging some 85,000 couch potatoes who have no intention of riding a bike or any other kind of exercise into the argument.

3. This reminds me of when anti seatbelt campaigners threw the kitchen sink at the issue before it became law. Racing drivers and all sorts were press ganged into it. One of my favourites was that seatbelts might stop you from being "thrown clear" during an accident.

1. But not bothered about her hurting her head elsewhere?

I have read that that type of cyclist sur le continong, no more talks about their cycling accidents than we talk about our accidents as pedestrians.

2. I just find it curios as to what an issue this is, while 85,000 die from easily preventable causes.

3. Tell us more about post-seat belts. We're in post-helmet stage don't forget, many countries around the world have made them compulsory. The problem is that other countries that are large on cycling haven't, and still have a safer record.

So forget the statements being made before seat belts were made compulsory, tell us about afterwards. Were there also countries that did not make seat belts compulsory, did they still have a better safer record and healthier people too?

(On the link of fat countries I posted, of which Australia and UK is near the top, I noticed that neither Netherlands nor Denmark were on the list. Do we know how cycling countries compare against porky ones?)

Found this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by...

Edited by heebeegeetee on Thursday 10th January 13:24

[oyster]

Pica-Pica said:

Similar here. Massively wide and smooth cycle path. It is used by ‘working’ cyclists, but not by the Lycra set (a few good souls do - but not many).

When I drive, I get to choose whether to use the A25 (open to all road traffic) or the M25 (restricted to certain road users).
How is this any different to a cyclist choosing whether to use a restricted lane or the general (open to all) carriageway?



Answer: It's not.

[walm]

swisstoni said:

This reminds me of when anti seatbelt campaigners threw the kitchen sink at the issue before it became law.

It's completely different.
There is no detriment to the nation's health if wearing a seatbelt puts people off driving.

[Graveworm]

oyster said:

When I drive, I get to choose whether to use the A25 (open to all road traffic) or the M25 (restricted to certain road users).
How is this any different to a cyclist choosing whether to use a restricted lane or the general (open to all) carriageway?



Answer: It's not.

The Highway code doesn't say - as a car user - use the M25. unless it's unsafe to do so.

[Dark85]

oyster said:

When I drive, I get to choose whether to use the A25 (open to all road traffic) or the M25 (restricted to certain road users).
How is this any different to a cyclist choosing whether to use a restricted lane or the general (open to all) carriageway?



Answer: It's not.

But if the vast majority of people decided to use the A25 (or other alternate routes) would it not make the M25 look like an appalling waste of money? It's understandable that when so much of the infrastructure that people use is in such a poor state they get frustated when seeing money being spent to appease a small sub-section of society, who then turn around and say "it's not good enough, we won't use it"

[yellowjack]

Dark85 said:

But if the vast majority of people decided to use the A25 (or other alternate routes) would it not make the M25 look like an appalling waste of money? It's understandable that when so much of the infrastructure that people use is in such a poor state they get frustated when seeing money being spent to appease a small sub-section of society, who then turn around and say "it's not good enough, we won't use it"

Fill yer boots...

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/

...on that website. It's stuffed full of photos of tip-top A1 condition cycle paths and lanes designed and installed by Britain's leading cycle infrastructure experts and maintained immaculately in a money-no-object fashion...

Or try this one... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/20...

Or if you can't be bothered with those links, cast your eyes over these gems...











And that's just the ones that were badly designed/executed. Councils don't have cash to spend on sweeping and trimming trees/bushes on cycle paths, so they just get narrower every year as fallen leaves turn to fertile mulch and nettles/brambles/ferns narrow paths to the point where there physically isn't the space to ride a bike along them.


And yes, "Because I don't want to be" IS an acceptable answer to the bellowed question (so beloved of Neanderthal drivers) "Why aren't you on the faaaaaahkin' cycle path you caaaaaaaaaan't"


ETA:

Proof, as if any were needed, that just because something is labelled as a "cycle path" it doesn't necessarily mean it's in any way fit for purpose, or safe... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3552338/T...


Using this cycle path so as not to inconvenience drivers on the adjacent road cost five people their lives. So I'll ride on the fking carriageway if I fking choose to, within the bounds of the law...

Edited by yellowjack on Thursday 10th January 14:54

[anonymous-user]

Pica-Pica said:

Similar here. Massively wide and smooth cycle path. It is used by ‘working’ cyclists, but not by the Lycra set (a few good souls do - but not many).

Don’t you ever read what you write and think ‘fk me there’s more to life to worry about than what the fk someone else chooses to do’

It really doesn’t affect you either way.

[TheGreatSoprendo]

yellowjack said:

Fill yer boots...

http://www.warringtoncyclecampaign.co.uk/

<snipped>

Round my way there are virtually no dedicated cycle lanes. What the council, in their infinite wisdom, have done is taken a bunch of perfectly good pavements, put up a few of these signs and, hey presto! Instant "cycling infrastructure"!



What the poor sods on bikes get now is abuse from pedestrians for riding on the "pavement" if they use the shared use path and abuse from the knuckle dragging end of the motorist spectrum for not using the "cycle path" if they're on the road. Still, it puts a tick in a council box, so that's ok....

[yellowjack]

TheGreatSoprendo said:

Round my way there are virtually no dedicated cycle lanes. What the council, in their infinite wisdom, have done is taken a bunch of perfectly good pavements, put up a few of these signs and, hey presto! Instant "cycling infrastructure"!



What the poor sods on bikes get now is abuse from pedestrians for riding on the "pavement" if they use the shared use path and abuse from the knuckle dragging end of the motorist spectrum for not using the "cycle path" if they're on the road. Still, it puts a tick in a council box, so that's ok....

Ah! The bicycle pictogram. Internationally recognised symbol for free, unlimited, unregulated parking.

Round my way, if I found cars parked like that on a "shared use cycling facility" their owners would be needing to budget for new door mirrors, I'm afraid. In fact I've been known to suddenly find myself with rather wide elbows when walking past cars parked so as to obstruct the footway.

Call me old-fashioned, but the "carriageway" is for "carriages" (a legal definition applied to the humble bicycle decades before it applied to the motor car, btw), and the footway is for pedestrians. My "legally speaking, it's a carriage " bicycle will therefore be ridden on the carriageway unless there's a cycle path away from the road that can save me time, distance, effort, (or any combination thereof) or otherwise take me on a more scenic, less congested, less polluted route. Sadly, experience has shown me that using such traffic free infrastructure can often COST me extra time, effort, or even money. Case in point between Christmas and New Year. I rode up to Richmond Park for a nose about, and followed the signed NCN4 along the Thames Path. It was a muddy, horrible quagmire, thronged by phone zombies, and being used as a marathon course. So progress was slow, instructed as I was to give priority to pedestrians. To make matters worse, I rode 315 miles in that 8-day period, and the only puncture I picked up was on that last section of Thames Path back to Kingston. So it cost me a new inner tube as well the extra time spent swapping the tubes over in the freezing cold and dark. Lesson learned, though, and I won't be doing that again, because there are plenty of roads leading to Richmond Park and so I don't have any fathomable need to use NCN4 through that part of London ever again.

[swisstoni]

walm said:

swisstoni said:

This reminds me of when anti seatbelt campaigners threw the kitchen sink at the issue before it became law.

It's completely different.
There is no detriment to the nation's health if wearing a seatbelt puts people off driving.

I could see quite a lot of benefits to the nation’s health if less people drove, frankly.
But I wouldn’t put my selfishness in front of preventing people flying through windscreens.

[Mort7]

yellowjack said:

And yes, "Because I don't want to be" IS an acceptable answer to the bellowed question (so beloved of Neanderthal drivers) "Why aren't you on the faaaaaahkin' cycle path you caaaaaaaaaan't"

yellowjack said:

Round my way, if I found cars parked like that on a "shared use cycling facility" their owners would be needing to budget for new door mirrors, I'm afraid. In fact I've been known to suddenly find myself with rather wide elbows when walking past cars parked so as to obstruct the footway.

So.... it's OK for you to carry out acts of criminal damage, but if someone criticises you, then they are a 'Nethanderthal'?

Christ! You really do have double standards, and anger management issues, don't you? If you really care about promoting cycling then perhaps you should rein it in a little.

[yellowjack]

Mort7 said:

yellowjack said:

And yes, "Because I don't want to be" IS an acceptable answer to the bellowed question (so beloved of Neanderthal drivers) "Why aren't you on the faaaaaahkin' cycle path you caaaaaaaaaan't"

yellowjack said:

Round my way, if I found cars parked like that on a "shared use cycling facility" their owners would be needing to budget for new door mirrors, I'm afraid. In fact I've been known to suddenly find myself with rather wide elbows when walking past cars parked so as to obstruct the footway.

So.... it's OK for you to carry out acts of criminal damage, but if someone criticises you, then they are a 'Nethanderthal'?

Christ! You really do have double standards, and anger management issues, don't you? If you really care about promoting cycling then perhaps you should rein it in a little.

Roll your eyes all you want. But it doesn't change the fact that I have a right to pass and re-pass over the public highway. Driver A is so keen for me not to cycle in the carriageway that he'll use his car as a weapon to drive me off said carriageway, and threaten me with physical violence. Driver B couldn't give a flying fk about my needs or my safety, because he's gone and blocked the footway with his carriage. I have two choices. Stand patiently waiting to step out into the carriageway while drivers fly past exceeding the speed limit and tailgating one-another, ignoring my predicament. Or push my way past the ILLEGALLY and IGNORANTLY parked car of Driver B and shrug my shoulders if/when I scrape a zip/bag/walking stick/crutch/14lb sledgehammer down it's flank or knock it's door mirror. Because it isn't me who creates situations like this, it's lazy tts parking cars wherever they please simply because it isn't spelled out on a sign that it's expressly forbidden.

So no. I see no double standards at all. If I choose to ride on the carriageway I'm damned by drivers who want me on the path. If I ride on the path I'm confronted by knobbish parking.

Fun fact? Just yesterday I walked the mile round trip to a local shop. On the road to the shop, every single house, without exception, has a driveway big enough for at least two cars. Yet three times I had to squeeze past cars parked outside properties with empty driveways. One so tight against a wall that I couldn't avoid some form of contact with it. Then, on the way back, I was crossing a side road when, in contravention of Highway Code Rule 70, a BMW driving twuntbag failed to give way to me (...watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way...). He was so close that he narrowly avoided running over my foot. That earned him a flat-palmed slap on the bootlid (literally, not metaphorically). He briefly slowed, must not have fancied his chances, and promptly drove away.

Then there's the local road where there is a cycle lane at the edge, "protected" by a dotted white line. It's habitually used by the residents as a car park, so I NEVER use it. Instead I cycle in the middle of the lane, because it's dangerous to keep popping into and out of sight of drivers behind me, and far, far safer to remain in unobstructed vision, on the part of the road to which they are most likely to be giving their full attention. All the tooting, swearing, and threats in the world won't change that fact, so the only solution is to paint double yellow lines along it and enforce them, or better still erase the cycle lane that nobody asked for in the first place. And lets not mention the crashing irony of drivers bleating about "being held up by cyclists" and performing stupid overtakes, only for the bike rider to get past them, and the 20 to 30 car queue ahead of them, at the next roundabout, and be off and away never to see them again.

FACT. The world does NOT revolve around cars and their drivers. Drivers just think it does. The sooner these misguided fools are put back in their box the better. Bring on the legislation! I'll happily submit to compulsory cycle helmets if it means a complete ban on the internal combustion engine, rationing of EVs, and the introduction of driverless cars. Fk it, I'll even get a registration plate, and pay "road tax" to watch a bunch of self obsessed onanists frap themselves into a lather because Nanny took away their toys. Meanwhile, elsewhere on PistonHeads, there are threads and threads and threads devoted to moaning about increased enforcement of the law through increased use of technology, the introduction of new "anti-car" motoring legislation, lower speed limits, low emissions zones, and power-hungry councils conducting "highway robbery" of "innocent motorists". Innocent except that they were too thick/arrogant to obey the bus lane rules or stay out of the yellow box junction, and who fully deserve every fine and penalty point they get. So why is it that "legislation is bad" and we must all "stick it to the man" when it comes to cars, yet those same frothy-mouthed idiots are super-keen to introduce new draconian laws forcing cyclists to use sub-standard, knee-jerk bike lines, and stick polystyrene hats on for every single bike ride? That's"double standards" in action right there.



ps: Don't believe every word some random types into the internet.

pps: Sometimes I over-egg the pudding a bit, and exaggerate out of a "keyboard warrior"sense of internet bravado. But in my defence I never used to do that until I joined PistonHeads and learned from the real experts...

[Mort7]

You're right. The world doesn't revolve around cars and their drivers, and it doesn't revolve around cyclists either. Everyone needs to take a deep breath, count to ten, and learn to play nicely together.

[heebeegeetee]

swisstoni said:

I could see quite a lot of benefits to the nation’s health if less people drove, frankly.
But I wouldn’t put my selfishness in front of preventing people flying through windscreens.

Come on, let's put this to bed.

Despite your user name you seem to have completely forgotten that there is a world beyond our shores.

Helmets were made compulsory back in 1990, and so there is plenty of experience, research and results to be studied.

Not everywhere in the world opted for mandatory helmets - unlike with seat belts (afaiaa).

Many nations which did not mandate helmets have enjoyed higher levels of safety than those that did - unlike with seat belts.

Those that mandated helmets were able to record a significant drop in levels of cycling - unlike with seat belts and cars.

Those that mandated helmets were able to record an even more significant reduction of children cycling - unlike with seat belts and cars.

Some/most(?) nations that mandated helmets have experienced an explosion in obesity - unlike seat belts.

Nations that encourage cycling and have not mandated helmets are at the other end of the obesity scale - not the experience with seat belts.

Nations that mandated helmets have been unable to record a benefit to public health that could be attributed to helmets - completely the opposite experience with seat belts.

Nations or jurisdictions that have mandated helmets are now reconsidering - completely the opposite experience with seat belts.

I'm sorry, but those who correlate cycle helmets with seat belts are displaying exactly the same thinking, reasoning and intellect as the arguments of "road tax" and "they break the law".

>>Australia's largest cycling organisation, the Bicycle Network, has reversed its policy and from 31 October 2018 is recommending a five year trial permitting people older than 17 to choose whether they wear a helmet when riding on footpaths or off-road cycle paths (read recommendation and policy paper).<<

>>What's not reported in Australia: In January 2018 the government of Malta - the only European Union country with a mandatory all-age bike helmet law - announced it will repeal the law because it no longer wishes to discourage cycling.<<

>>In March 2017, Bosnia and Herzegovina repealed the all-age mandatory bicycle helmet law it had enforced for the previous six years.<<

>>On 10 June 2014, Dallas City Council in Texas repealed the jurisdiction's adult bicycle helmet law which was first enacted in 1996.<<

>>In August 2011, Israel repealed its adult bike helmet law on cycle paths to encourage healthy recreational transport, with Tel Aviv enjoying a consequent 54% increase in cycling participation from 2010 to 2012.<<

>>Surveys show Western Australia's mandatory helmet legislation reduced public cycling numbers by at least 30%, yet total hospitalised cyclist injuries did not decline at all. The reduction in head injury numbers was marginal. West Australian cyclist numbers recovered in the decade to 2000 but hospital admissions were at record levels from 1997, roughly 30% above pre-law levels by 2000.<<

>>As reported in March 2007 and based on data from Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria, the number of Australian children walking or riding a bicycle to school has plunged from about 80% in 1977 to the current level around 5%. The data on this website and on this page confirms that in Western Australia, the massive decline in cycling (and children's health and safety) began in 1991 when the helmet law was enacted. In June 2008, research at Melbourne's Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute found that Australia is now the fattest nation on earth.<<

http://www.cycle-helmets.com/index.html

>>Research published by Deakin University in October 2009 shows that Australian pre-school children spend 85% of their waking hours inactive.<<

>>Australia now challenges America in having the greatest proportion of obese citizens. About one in five children in Western Australia is considered obese and it's predicted that 75% of Australia's adult population will in some way be overweight by 2020. About 60% of all Australians are classified as overweight or obese.

A report published in 2007 by the Public Library of Science-Medicine (PDF 216kb) shows that just 15 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per day reduces the odds of obesity in 12 year old boys by 50% and in girls by 40%.

According to the Heart Foundation, more than 54% of West Australian adults were overweight or obese in 2009 and the proportion almost doubled from one in 10 to one in five people from 1995 to 2008. Western Australia enforced mandatory bicycle helmet laws in 1992.<<
http://www.cycle-helmets.com/helmet-health.html#

[SVS]

Strange but true: “ ... any protection that [cycle] helmets give is cancelled out by other mechanisms, such as by riders possibly taking more risks and/or changes in how other road users behave towards cyclists.”

It turns out car drivers drive closer to cyclists who wear a helmet, thereby increasing the risk to cyclists.