(the new emerging Sydney Cyclist!)
A Standard Helmet label quotes the following, and boasts AS/NZS 2063:
- lightweight protective helmet NOT intended for use in motor sports or by motor cyclists
- can be damaged and rendered ineffective by petroleum, petro-products, cleaning agents, paints, adhesives etc. (what exactly does etc entail?) without damage being visible to user
- when not in use, avoid leaving helmets sitting in sun or enclosed spaces such as cars for prolonged periods of time (rules out Australia or perhaps we're supposed to keep them refrigerated)
- heat damaged helmets will have random disfigured areas where the texture will appear bubbly or uneven
- if damaged, your helmet should be destroyed and replaced immediately
AS/NZS 2063 is the Australian and New Zealand mandatory standard, designed by Standards Australia and enforced by the Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC). It is interesting to note that there are no mandatory standards for headform AA, a common head size for the under 4 years olds - perhaps this is why relevant bodies are silent on the issue of cycling with young children. When questioned, the Roads & Traffic Authority (RTA) admitted they had no policy on cycling with young children.
The helmet label implies significant fragility. It would appear that the helmet is an 'anatomy modifying' device that is not only temperature and chemical sensitive but also etc sensitive which further implies an extremely broad sensitivity.
Basically in a nutshell, it cannot reassure because...it cannot reassure.
I refuse to compromise on seeking a repeal of our mandatory helmet laws. Bicycle helmets should be a matter of choice no matter what type of bicycle you ride.
Consequently, whether you ride road bikes or european bikes, the issue of whether to don a helmet or not should be your decision and yours alone - it's a question of civil rights and anti-discrimination.
Cagey Chinese raider HNA needs eye of FIRB
2 days ago