Austcycle, Australia’s national provider of accredited cycle training will be on hand to help improve your skills.

You will learn about conducting a basic bicycle check, learning the correct riding positions, braking, balancing and cornering, changing gears, riding on hills, stopping and turning.

After the demonstration, a short ride around Picton Botanic Gardens, followed by a sausage sizzle lunch.
Sponsored by the Rotary Club of Picton

Picton Botanic Gardens

Where: Picton Botanic gardens

When: Saturday 5th November 2011

Start: 9:am

To register please contact Beverly Garrick, Sydney South West area Health Service on 4683 6025
or Leanne Ledwidge, Wollondilly Shire Council on 4677 1188

An invisible airbag for cyclists’ head, shaped as a collar worn around the neck has won one of the world’s largest monetary prize for design.

To see full story go to: The Telegraph.co.uk

Tweeted by: @CyclingRightNow

Is there a question?

There is a lot of discussion lately about helmet wearing.

Some say our mandatory helmet legislation discourages people riding a bike, and that if we want the health benefits of a large percentage of folk riding, it is better to abandon the helmet rules. Many doctors also believe in this argument.

Of course, the other side of the story is that head injuries are greatly reduced in a helmet wearing population.

With the rise of social, urban bicycling which occurs mainly on dedicated cycle-paths at sedate speeds, I think there may be an argument for not wearing a helmet.
However, for me that is where the story ends. I live in Wollondilly, a semi-rural shire south-west of Sydney that is magic for cycling. Our cash-strapped council has difficulty maintaining the roads in our vast shire, and although cycling infrastructure is on the agenda, it will be many many years before there are cycling shoulders, little alone cycle-ways throughout the shire!
I wear a helmet, and like wearing a seat belt in a car, it feels wrong if I’m not wearing one when cycling. It was even strange when I first attended a spin-class not to wear one!

Riding at speed on road or in the bush on a mountain bike, where I fall off far more frequently, would be personal madness NOT to wear a helmet. Sure it would be lovely to feel the wind in my hair, but I’d much prefer NOT end up in the brain surgery ward.

Being the secretary of BARBUG, I meet many cyclists who ride with us either regularly or on a visiting ride. Over the last few years there has been 5 incidents that have reinforced my need to wear a helmet.

1. A friend’s daughter was a very keen triathlete. She was training in the Blue Mountains and was hit from behind by a car traveling in the same direction. Her injuries were quite serious, and she was in hospital for many months. She did incur brain injury, but her doctors said that if she had not been wearing a helmet she would not have survived. As it was, she could go back to practicing law within a year.
2. One of our group was riding with two others in the rain to my place. Her front wheel slipped on a ridge between the shoulder and road. She came down onto the road. Thankfully a truck was able to swerve around her, so, although frightening, it was not a serious accident. A kindly passing driver popped her bike in his ute and gave her a lift to my house. Apart from being shaken, she was none the worse for her incident. I gave her a  cup of strong, sweet tea and we talked about how lucky she was. We did not realise just how lucky! On examination of her helmet she found it was cracked right through! Caroline did not even think she had struck her head when she fell!
   This accident may not have killed her, but without the helmet she would have quite a serious head injury.
3. 4. & 5. All are similar to Caroline’s story. Accidents which resulted in minor scrapes and abrasions and in one case a broken collarbone, but in EVERY  case the riders were not aware they had hit their heads’, and yet their helmets were damaged or cracked through.

I’m no spring chicken, and glamor was never my thing, but it seems to me that if your interest is looking good as well as riding, a little injenuity is required. There are some nice looking helmets and helmet covers available.

H1 Design Cycle Headdress

H1Design Cycle Headdress

Looking Good in a Helmet

Well Ventilated Pretty Helmet

Helmets must comply with the Australian Standard, which unfotunately limits our choice.
There are many brands available at your local bike shop, however although designed for brain safety and maximum air-flow, they are not considered cool in urban cycling terms.

Nutcase helmets comply to Aussie standard and are becoming accepted as urban head-ware. They come in lots of colours and fun patterns.

Nutcase?

Nutcase Helmets

There is a European brand called Yakkay, which is a basic helmet, that comes with a choice of many different covers to suit every occasion. Unfortunately they do not as yet comply with Australian Standards, which is a great pity.

Yakkay Helmet and Cover

Yakkay Helmets and Covers

Until such time that cycle-ways are widespread and urban cycling does not require interaction with traffic, helmets are a necessary evil.
For the many other cycling disciplines, that require high-speed and risk, helmets should always be mandatory.

12th May 2011
Author: Max Cameron
Principal Research Fellow at Monash University

If helmets protect against brain injury, why not wear them?

Convincing more Australians to get on a bike would undoubtedly deliver health improvements that come with reduced waistlines. But ditching bike helmets isn’t the answer.

The health benefits of more cycling would need to be multiplied countless times before they could offset the loss of life and health harms caused by serious head injury.

Benefits of helmets

Bicycle helmets have long been recognised as the best protection against head injury. As far back as 1977, Standards Australia approved a helmet design for cyclists to reduce their risk of head injury.

Throughout the 1980s the Victorian Government promoted cycling and encouraged the use of helmets with a bulk-purchase subsidy scheme, compulsory helmets for the schools Bike Ed program, a television and radio campaign, and a $10 per helmet rebate on purchases each December from 1984 to 1988.

Observational surveys show that the campaigns worked and helmet use grew each year in the 1980s, mostly among primary school children and also in teen and adult commuting cyclist groups.

As helmet use grew, the risk of head injuries reduced. The number of cyclists killed or hospitalised with head injuries reduced by about a third in the 1980s.

The number of other injuries actually increased, though it’s not surprising given there were greater numbers of cyclists on the road.

When the Victorian compulsory helmet laws passed on 1 July 1990, helmet wearing rates more than doubled — from around a third to three quarters — by March 1991. The increase was smaller for primary school children, who were already avid helmet-wearers.

Rates of cyclist head injury fell by 48% and 70% during the first and second years of the law.

It’s been suggested that helmet laws contributed little to the reduced injury rate, and that Victorian cyclists benefited most from road safety improvements, such as random breath testing, speed camera enforcement and supporting mass-media campaigns.

These initiatives may explain some of the reduction in the total number of cyclists killed and hospitalised during the early 1990s.

But the additional reduction in head injuries in the first two years of the law was consistent with the rise of helmet-wearing in those years.

Cyclist rates

So, there’s no doubt that mandatory helmet laws reduced head injury and improved cyclist safety. The problem is that it also reduced rates of cycling in some groups.

Teenage cycling decreased by 43% and 46% in the first and second years of the law. Rates of primary school student cyclists also dropped slightly.

But it wasn’t all bad news.

More adults began cycling after the introduction of mandatory helmet laws. Adult bicycle use increased by 88% from 1987/1988 to 1991, and doubled by 1992.

Overall bicycle use had increased by 9% in 1991 and by a further 3% in 1992.

So focusing on reduced bicycle use by teenagers, and to a lesser extent by younger children, gives a misleading impression of the overall impact of the helmet law on bicycle use.

New generations of cyclists

It’s interesting to speculate on what would happen if helmet laws were repealed.

Because the bicycle-use surveys weren’t repeated throughout the 1990s, we won’t ever know if helmet laws continued to discourage cycling.

If they did, we would have to ask whether repealing the law would increase cycling and bring about sufficient health improvements to offset the increased risk of head injury.

Valuing the benefits of exercise through cycling is outside my area of expertise. And I am yet to see a full analysis of these benefits comparable to an objective analysis of the costs of increased cyclist trauma, especially head injuries.

But failing to prevent serious trauma on our roads isn’t just a transport problem or even a public health issue — it’s both an ethical and economic dilemma.

Investment in preventing a road death is now valued at about $6 million in the National Road Safety Strategy. A serious head injury resulting in permanent brain damage, which a bicycle helmet can often prevent, could cost our health system a lot more.

More than two decades after they came into effect, it is likely that cyclists — and parents of child cyclists — have accepted that helmet wearing is a normal part of cycling.

Only those who are ideologically opposed to their legal obligation to protect themselves would choose not to wear a helmet.

What’s clear is that our community values preventing road deaths and serious injuries much higher than it did in the past.

Ultimately, the health benefits of increased bicycle exercise have a long way to go before they can offset the increased costs of cyclist death and serious head injury.

Chris Rissel from the University of Sydney kicked off The Conversation’s debate about mandatory bike helmet laws in March, when he said ditching helmets would encourage more people to get on a bike and get to fit. Read his article here

Continue the conversation in the comments field below:
Should mandatory helmet laws be maintained to protect cyclists against serious head injury?

References:

Cameron, MH, Vulcan, AP, Finch, CF, and Newstead, SV. Mandatory bicycle helmet use following a decade of helmet promotion in Victoria, Australia – An evaluation. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1994, 26(3), 325-337.

Wood, T, and Milne, P. Head injuries to pedal cyclists and the promotion of helmet use in Victoria, Australia. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 1988, 20(3), 177-185.

This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.

23rd March 2011
Author: Chris Rissel
Professor of Public Health at University of Sydney

The life expectancy gained from cycling to work outweighs the risks of ill health from pollution and injury.

With epidemics of diabetes and obesity threatening to bankrupt state health budgets, governments need to broaden their strategies to encourage physical activity.

Allowing cyclists to ride without a helmet would remove one common barrier to cycling and encourage more Australians to get on a bike. Even if there is a small risk involved.

The story of mandatory bicycle helmet legislation in Australia really starts in the 1970s. After WWII the urban transport landscape was overrun by private motor vehicles and by the 1970s road trauma was at an all-time high.

Through the 1980s a range of road safety measures were introduced in Australia and other developing countries. Lower speed limits, traffic calming, random breath testing and substantial road safety media campaigns led to significant reductions in injury rates for all road users, including cyclists.

In those glory days of road safety, attention was then turned to cyclists. Motorcyclists had already faced legislation requiring them to wear helmets, with some success in reducing head injuries, so there is an understandable logic that cyclists might benefit from helmets too.

In 1991 Australia introduced mandatory bicycle helmet laws requiring all adults and children to wear a helmet at all times when riding a bike, despite opposition from cycling groups.

The legislation increased helmet use – from about 30 to 80% – but was coupled with a 30 to 40% decline in the number of people cycling.

Rates of head injuries among cyclists, which had been dropping through the 1980s, continued to fall before levelling out in 1993. We didn’t see the kind of marked reduction in head injury rates that would be expected with the rapid increase in helmet use. In fact, any reductions in injuries may simply have been the result of having fewer cyclists on the road and therefore fewer people exposed to the risk of head injuries.

One researcher noted that after mandatory helmet laws were introduced there was a bigger decrease in head injuries among pedestrians than there was among cyclists. The improvements in the general road safety environment introduced in the 1980s are likely to have contributed far more to cyclist safety than helmet legislation.

This poses a puzzle – if bicycle helmets protect the head from injury, surely if all cyclists wore one there would be fewer head injuries?

Helmet design standards ensure that helmets sold in Australia are able to absorb the impact of a blow equivalent to a direct impact at about 19.5km/hour. Commuter cyclists typically average 20-25km/hour, with sports cyclists often averaging over 30km/hour.

To be effective helmets can’t be too old (they become brittle and cracked), and need to fit correctly and be worn properly. This can be a problem for infrequent riders. There is also a serious likelihood that modern (soft shell) helmets have actually increased the risk of some types of brain injury (for example diffuse axonal injury), with standards only changing in 2010 to try to take this problem into account.

One early helmet study in the late 1980s reported that helmets reduced the risk of head injury by a whopping 85%. Despite criticism of the methodology at the time, this figure has been frequently repeated by road safety authorities.

But a recent re-analysis of all the major studies examining the efficacy of helmets found a substantial publication bias in previous assessments. Most helmets reduced the risk of head injury by up to 15%, if worn properly.

So helmets offer a little protection, but the road environment is far more important.

The biggest pitfall of helmet legislation is that it discourages people from cycling.

In safety terms there is a phenomenon called safety in numbers. As more people cycle, our roads become safer for these cyclists. Drivers become used to seeing cyclists and adjust their behaviour, and infrastructure tends to be improved to better cater for cycling. Even if cyclist wear helmets they are less safe with fewer cyclists on the road than they would be with more cyclists about.

Helmets are a barrier to new riders, particularly for occasional and non-regular riders. The need to wear a helmet reinforces the message that cycling is dangerous – with perceptions of danger a major reason people give for not cycling.

All levels of Australian governments now have policies or plans to increase the population levels of cycling. The benefits are clear: increased levels of physical activity, less air pollution and reduced congestion.

The health benefits of physical activity are particularly important. A large study in Denmark found that commuter cycling for just three hours a week led to 39% fewer deaths (from any cause, including heart disease) compared with non cyclists, taking into account other leisure time physical activities and other explanatory factors.

A recent analysis compared the risks and benefits of leaving the car at home and commuting by bike. It found the life expectancy gained from physical activity was much higher than the risks of pollution and injury from cycling.

Increased physical activity added 3 to 14 months to a person’s life expectancy, while the life expectancy lost from air pollution was 0.8 to 40 days. Increased traffic accidents wiped 5-9 days off the life expectancy.

It is clear that the benefits of cycling outweigh the risks, with helmet legislation actually costing society more from lost health gains than saved from injury prevention. With Australia and New Zealand the only countries with mandatory helmet laws for cyclists, we have a lot to learn from our international cousins.

Background

The legislation increased helmet use – from about 30 to 80% – but was coupled with a 30 to 40% decline in the number of people cycling:

Gillham C. Bike numbers in Western Australia: government surveys.

Smith NC and Milthorpe FW. An Observational Survey of Law Compliance and Helmet Wearing by Bicyclists in New South Wales – 1993, Sydney: NSW Roads and Traffic Authority; 1993. (not available on-line, but many on-line references to it)

Finch CF, Heiman L, Neiger D. Bicycle use and helmet wearing rates in Melbourne, 1987 to 1992: the influence of the helmet wearing law. Melbourne: Monash University Accident Research Centre; 1993.

Finch CF, Newstead SV, Cameron MH, Vulcan AP. Head injury reductions in Victoria two years after introduction of mandatory bicycle helmet use. Melbourne: Monash University Accident Research Centre; 1993.

The same thing happened in New Zealand when helmet legislation was introduced there:

Land Transport New Zealand. Sustainable and safe land transport – trends and indicators.

Rates of head injuries among cyclists, which had been dropping through the 1980s, continued to fall before levelling out in 1993:

Hendrie D, Legge M, Rosman D, Kirov C. An economic evaluation of the mandatory bicycle helmet legislation in Western Australia. Road Accident Prevention Research Unit, 1999.

Finch CF, Newstead SV, Cameron MH, Vulcan AP. Head injury reductions in Victoria two years after introduction of mandatory bicycle helmet use. Monash University Accident Research Centre. Report No. 53, 1993 p10

Mortality rates parallel that of head injuries:

Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Monograph 17 Cycle Safety. 2004.

It is very important to note that the statement in this document “An ATSB study which reviewed numerous epidemiological studies published during the period 1987 to 1998, found ‘overwhelming evidence in support of helmets for preventing head injury and fatal injury.’ refers to a study now discredited for publication bias in a recent re-analysis.

Elvik R. Publication bias and time-trend bias in meta-analysis of bicycle helmet efficacy: A re-analysis of Attewell, Glase and McFadden, 2001. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2011;43(3):1245-51.

There is no question that cycling has many health benefits:

The classic Danish study that found commuter cycling for just three hours a week led to 39% fewer deaths: Andersen LB, Schnohr P, Schroll M, Hein HO. All-cause mortality associated with physical activity during leisure time, work, sports and cycling to work. Archives of Internal Medicine 2000,160:1621-1628.

It is clear that the benefits of cycling outweigh the risks:

de Hartog, J. J., Boogaard, H., Nijland, H., and Hoek, G. Do the Health Benefits of Cycling Outweigh the Risks? Environmental Health Perspectives 2010: 118: 1109-1116.

Helmet legislation actually costs society more from lost health gains than saved from injury prevention:

De Jong P. The health impact of mandatory bicycle helmet laws. (February 24, 2010).

This article was originally published at The Conversation.
Read the original article.

Update!

Due to large interest in this product, we have spoken to our supplier and managed to arrange special pricing of $99 inc Gst, plus postage. This represents a substantial saving off the RRP of $150plus gst.

Click Here For Further Enquiries

I believe these rear indicator lights have long been needed by social and commuting cyclists.  It is often difficult to raise your arm to indicate direction, particularly on a downhill turn or on a pot-holed or poor road surface.  Also, riders are often better balanced on one side or the other. The control panel on this system solves these problems and allows cyclists to indicate direction earlier and for longer.

Price:

• Single Order: $150 + GST and Postage
• 5 or more: $115 + GST and Postage

Why not purchase at the discounted rate through BARBUG? I am happy to order on your behalf.

A small price to pay for increased safety!

A lot of bicycle accidents are vehicles colliding with a bicycle. When asked drivers were unsure of cyclists intentions or not enough indication was given prior to executing a turn.

We believe that this product will help ease some of the frustration between motorists and cyclists. This product may also help develop road rules and courtesy to other road users. It is intended to be used in conjunction with a head check prior to executing a turn.

Easily Seen at Night

Features:

Benefits:

• Rechargeable 3.7 volt lithium-ion battery installed both in front Control and back LED light.
• Keep both hands on the handlebars to control Left/Right indicators.
• Wireless – lets you use and install easily (less than 5 minutes, no tools required). Quick to remove.
• Immediate Self synchronizing Between control and light unit upon switch on.
• Prompt and accurate reaction with no delay.
• Turn Signal can be switched off manually after turn or will self cancel after 30 seconds.
• Turn Signal will automatically bring on the red LED solid in order to easily identify the Right or Left indicator.
• Super bright LED lighting – Visible in all conditions.
• Excellent design with high quality construction.
• Compact Size. Lightweight app 140 grams.
• Anti theft, is easy to detach and carry – control panel and rear light clip together.
• Flash and Steady modes for the 3 middle red LED lights as tail lamp use – Flash mode will be auto changed to Steady mode while the turn signal is on to get attention for the indicator.
• Water and dust Resistant casing.
• 5 super bright LED lights – 3 red LED’s rear light, 1 yellow LED left signal and 1 yellow LED right signal
• Low Battery indicator warning light.
• 240 volt charger included and In-Charge indicator on control panel and light.

Size:

• Control Panel: 75(L) x 40(W) x 20 (H) mm
• LED Rear Light: 115(L) x 58(W) x 35(H) mm

Weight:

• Control Panel: 50g (With Li-Battery)
• LED Rear Light: 91g (With Li-Battery)

Tool Free Installation:

Installed LED Rear Light

Enjoy Those Summer Evening Rides With More Safety

For Enquiries Contact:

Robert Thompson

Fibre Optic Cables Pty Ltd

35 Research Drive
Croyden, Vic 3136

Ph: (03) 9761 4017

Fax: (03) 9761 4137

Email: sales@fibreopticcable.com.au