🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <ljh655.32.00101EB9@anugpo.anu.edu.au>, by ljh655@anugpo.anu.edu.au (Lubosh):
> Once for all the problem with bicycle helmets in Canberra can be solved. It seems to be apparent that there are two sides in dispute here. One is the ACT government that introduced the law with the intention to lower the potential cost of treatment of inj
> "those cyclists who have chosen not to wear a helmet will be liable for the cost of treatment of any head injuries sustained in a fall and/or involvment in a traffic accident".
> The objective of the government will be achieved, since the cyclists who choose not to wear helmets will pay for their treatment. The cyclists, however, should not need to object to this amendment, since they do believe that they are safer without a helme
     Interesting argument, but in many cases the Government isn't going
to pay for the treatment.  If I get hit by a car (the most likey cause
of my getting head injured when cycling), then the driver's third party
insurance will pay, or failing that the fund for uninsured drivers.
     And given that helmets aren't even designed to prevent head injuries
in car/bike collisions, I'd maintain that if a driver is reckless enough
to hit a cyclist or a pedestrian, his insurance should pay the full
amount irrespective of whether that person was or was not wearing a helmet.
As cyclists, we should never allow people to get away with irresponsible 
actions, or allow drivers or insurance companies to blame the victim
simply because they weren't wearing a helmet.
      Personally, I think it is attrocious that there isn't a no claim
bonus for compulsory 3rd party insurance.  It means those who drive
responsibly are having to pay the insurance costs of those who don't,
and in the end that probably doesn't help the standard of driving in the
country.  If, for example, compulsory 3rd party insurance premiums doubled if
you hit a pedestrian or cyclist or caused someone to be injured in some
other way, maybe there'd be a few less pedestrians & cyclists injured every 
year.   (Sorry, Victorians, I'm really discussing the NSW situation
at the moment.  No fault compensation insurance could probably be accommodated
similarly by removing no claim bonuses or increasing the premimum of drivers 
who caused the accident and not altering premiums when drivers were not
to blame.)
      While we are on the subject, I note that compulsory 3rd party
insurance in NSW doesn't generally cover the cost of medical treatment of the
driver.  Why should Medicare have to pay for the treatment of all these
head injuries to irresponsible drivers?  I note that in Queensland in
1990, before the helmet law, there were more than 6 times as many car
occupants treated in hospital for head injury than there were cyclists.
Assuming the same insurance rules apply to motor cyclists & truck 
drivers, make that 7 or 8 times as many motorists with head injury
as cyclists.  Why should the Government baulk at paying for a few
measly cyclists' head injuries, when it is has to pay for a
substantial proportion of all these motorists' head injuries?
      Lubosh's suggestion is not a solution to helmet laws.  It
is, pure and simply, discrimination against cyclists.
      Dorre
> Lubosh
PS   Happy cycling!