tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3090991993980511979.post1850221333519190917..comments2023-08-23T22:06:29.354+10:00Comments on Freedom Cyclist (ad-free advocacy): The ubiquitous 5 ticksFreedom Cyclisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11187400454555241935noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3090991993980511979.post-69363397599865532252011-12-06T20:38:00.756+11:002011-12-06T20:38:00.756+11:00Thanks Sue. I don't really need to see the who...Thanks Sue. I don't really need to see the whole thing, another reason why it's not worth $60 to me. Perhaps you could just confirm a couple of things for me so I can query the Cancer Council with facts behind me.<br /><br />Is it correct that the latest amendment has a limit on protrusions from the exterior of the helmet? I think I read somewhere (can't remember where) that a limit of about 20mm has been included. Clearly an unspoken acknowledgement of the (still denied) rotational brain injury problem.<br /><br />Is it correct that the only mention of user modifications is in the labelling requirements?<br /><br />I think the standard requires vents in the helmet sufficient for cooling. If so, just covering the vents might make it non compliant.<br /><br />I feel silly picking over little details like this but, since common sense is not part of the law or the standard, I am reduced to poking officialdom with whatever stick I can find.Steve Scanlannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3090991993980511979.post-37223197627363039932011-12-06T18:48:16.425+11:002011-12-06T18:48:16.425+11:00Hey Steve! - doesn't it suck!!!! I bought one ...Hey Steve! - doesn't it suck!!!! I bought one for information purposes & you're more than welcome to read it - let me knowFreedom Cyclisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11187400454555241935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3090991993980511979.post-44661615816706839362011-12-06T15:09:57.149+11:002011-12-06T15:09:57.149+11:00One of the things that bothers me about helmets is...One of the things that bothers me about helmets is the forced exposure to increased skin cancer risk.<br /><br />I know some people wear a cap under their helmet, and some cut up a hat and stick a brim on their helmet, but the general opinion seems to be that measures like that would not comply with the as/nzs 2063:2008 standard.<br /><br />That seems to be because the standard specifies only manufacturer approved modifications (mine is labeled 'no modification'). Also, adding something to the outside of the helmet might exceed the limit for projections from the helmet (bad luck for those people with helmet mounted mirrors.)<br /><br />Wearing a cap under the helmet might interfere with the mandated 'correctly fitted' part of the law. It might also introduce projections inside the helmet which are not allowed by the standard.<br /><br />So, I recently contacted the Cancer Council (I was looking for some part of government to contact but they seem to have delegated their responsibility to the Cancer Council) to ask their position on MHL and whether a helmet provides good protection from the sun or would they advise me to wear a broad brimmed hat.<br /><br />They replied that they have no policy on MHL, a helmet provides little protection, and they sell a helmet cover from their online store.<br />http://www.cancervic.org.au/store/accessories-men-treadley-bike-helmet-hat<br /><br />It looks like a good product and I've ordered one. However, I wanted to ask them if it complied with the standard as regards adding modifications to the helmet but thought I should check the standard myself first.<br /><br />I went looking for a copy of the standard and finished up at SAI Global's online store. They want over $60 for a pdf copy. Some libraries are rumoured to have a copy. My local library checked council and state libraries. Not available in SA. I checked the Aust National Library. They have a subscription to SAI Global but it is only available from inside the library.<br /><br />It is a lousy deal for us,the public, when the government forces us to comply with a document prepared,and owned, by a private organisation which seems to have been granted a favour by the government, and the only way a member of the general public can see the document is to pay a large (in my opinion) amount of money to that private organisation.Steve Scanlannoreply@blogger.com