Election time voting against mandatory helmet laws.

[il padrone]

However...

A 'merit' of compulsion is that it will cause more generally law abiding people to avoid taking up cycling for occasional or even regular transport. As a consequence they won't fall off bicycles. This contributes to more cars on the roads and greater risks for all who do continue to cycle.

This is not a legitimate position for legislators to take.

[Thoglette]

3. Bike helmets, while useful, tend to explode like eskies dropped off the back of a ute.

And isnt that the main point for wearing one?
If it wasnt the HELMET that exploded the head would of.

No it's not - my motorcycle/CAMS helmet does not explode when it hits something. They have the opposite problem - which is that they can be damaged to the point of being useless without showing any obious visible damage.

As others have said whats the big deal about having to wear a helmet.Unless you are one of the fashion conscious crowd who doesnt like helmet hair?

The big deal is that compulsion drops total rider rates which is worse for cyclist safety. Re-read my original post (and the Padrones)

[jules21]

However...

A 'merit' of compulsion is that it will cause more generally law abiding people to avoid taking up cycling for occasional or even regular transport. As a consequence they won't fall off bicycles. This contributes to more cars on the roads and greater risks for all who do continue to cycle.

This is not a legitimate position for legislators to take.

i agree with your logic il padrone, but i'm not convinced of the helmets-scaring-cyclists-away theory.

[trailgumby]

I am.

It won't scare away those like us who love the activity for its own sake. However, for those for whom it is merely one transport option among many on the menu, it is just one more inconvenience that gets in the way of a decision to use a bike being made for a particular trip.

It is a disincentive to many and narrows the margins at the edge of the pool of potential bike users for short trips.

[jules21]

wearing a helmet is automatic for me. it's there, hanging off my bars ready to put on. i don't even think about it. it's hard to understand how it deters people.

[il padrone]

i agree with your logic il padrone, but i'm not convinced of the helmets-scaring-cyclists-away theory.

The only thing that comes close to data on this (realising also that 'control' groups in this sort of real world situation are not possible) is what has happened when helmets were introduced and international/inter-jurisdictional comparisons I'm not going to quote all the data again, you can find it readily.

1. Helmet compulsion introduction - surveys taken in several Australian states all showed a drop-off in bicycle use to a significant extent in the year after introduction, ranging fom 20-30% up to 50-70% for teenagers. Sweden is questioning their under 18 helmet law due the marked drop in children riding bikes.

2. International comparions between thos few countries that have applied helmet-compulsion rules show a marked difference in bicycle use,eg Australia and NZ versus most European nations, USA where there is some compulsion in some states and a wider acceptance versus Europe. Canadian provinces with helmet compulsion have a lower bicycle useage than those provinces that don't while at the same time their cyclist accident rate has been higher (interesting that in the overall Candian fatality stats show no detectable impact from the introduction of helmet laws ie. the pedestrian trend and cyclist trend in fatalities are virtually the same)

The data is clear that in fact helmet compulsion has caused this change. There is no reason to suggest that the absence of that compulsion would not (with time to overcome the fear-mongering) reverse that change.

[il padrone]

wearing a helmet is automatic for me. it's there, hanging off my bars ready to put on. i don't even think about it. it's hard to understand how it deters people.

jules21 you don't seem to get it. You are an enthusiast. Those who are going to be discouraged from riding are not. It's not rocket science.

[damhooligan]

The trouble is that it isnt just the DRIVERS what about the roads Cyclists are expected to ride on!

I just recently wrote to my local council complaining about the condition of the roads around here, they are only wide enough for one vehicle and the edges have drop offs etc which is real fun when milk tankers go whizzing past.

So in the meantime while we wait for better roads and better drivers why not put a helmet on.

It might just save your life.

cheers

it might. but it also may not.
according to the it might happen logic wearing a helemet is a form of paranoia, i am not paranoid ...

i don't want to wait and do nothing,, i wanna ride without a helmet.
riding without helemt would force drivers atitude to change quicker. then doing it the other way around.
no helemets would increase the use of cyclist an increase the need of a better cycling infrastructure.

[trailgumby]

jules21 you don't seem to get it. You are an enthusiast. Those who are going to be discouraged from riding are not.

Thanks, that puts it much more succinctly.

[martinjs]

Those of the helmet faith, the true believers, keep coming back with these irrelevant arguments that miss the point - "show me that I can hit the ground head first without a helmet and live"..... "my friend had a stack and his helmet saved his life" ..... "if helmets save one life it's worth it"

All absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether they should be a compulsory item of clothing.

What faith? I believe your missing the point, I think it's a good idea to have mandatory helmet laws because it just might save someone's life and that has everything to do with it. Why do you seem to be against a law that might save lives? That's the only reason I keep coming back to these type of treads, perhaps in debating the issue I might help save someone from death or injury.

I'm more convinced that some anti mandatory helmet group are arguing more out of some kind misguide ideology rather than an real reasons.

Not in you case Pete, your argument has genuine merit I just don't agree with your reasoning.

Martin

[il padrone]

Those of the helmet faith, the true believers, keep coming back with these irrelevant arguments that miss the point - "show me that I can hit the ground head first without a helmet and live"..... "my friend had a stack and his helmet saved his life" ..... "if helmets save one life it's worth it"

All absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether they should be a compulsory item of clothing.

What faith? I believe your missing the point,

You did miss my point actually.

The faith that because I fell and hit my helmet, and it shows some damage, it must have saved my life.

The faith that because I fall off my bike a lot, or I'm scared of the traffic on my roads, helmet compulsion will be good for everyone else.

The faith that having helmet compulsion saves more lives than it harms.

I don't have such faith. I have taken falls and twice discarded helmets because of impacts, but am sceptical that I would have died. I used to be scared (a bit) by motorists, and frustrated and angered by traffic.That was what caused me to originally buy a helmet in 1979. Now I'm very comfortable, even on my commute on Melbourne main roads, as I've learned simple strategies to control the motorists.

I used to believe helmets were good, but was a bit sceptical of the law's impacts in 1990. Since then I've become even more convinced that helmet compulsion is a killer for urban cycling, and what should have been done in 1990 (and done now) is to restrain the drivers, restrict speed limits, enforce all traffic laws more rigorously, make driving more difficult and make cycling easier.

Far better for safety than a foolish helmet compulsion rule.

[human909]

I think it's a good idea to have mandatory helmet laws because it just might save someone's life and that has everything to do with it. Why do you seem to be against a law that might save lives? That's the only reason I keep coming back to these type of treads, perhaps in debating the issue I might help save someone from death or injury.

How many times does it need to be said! The fact that a some 'thing' could saves lives is NOT sufficient justicication for that 'thing'. Like any rational analysis the costs and benefits need to be assessed. Enforces a speed limit of 15kph will save FAR FAR more lives but similarly the benefits of this action don't outweight the costs.[/quote]

Please if you are going to put forward arguments at least make them somewhat rational.

I'm more convinced that some anti mandatory helmet group are arguing more out of some kind misguide ideology rather than an real reasons.

Nothing to do with ideology. I signed onto this forum a year ago and I didn't have an opinion on the matter. I thought helmets are sensible way to protect ones most precious feature. I still would encourage cycling helmet use just like I encourage helmet use in my other sport of rockclimbing. If I did subscribed to an ideology here it is about encouraging greater urban commuting cycling. I see our helmets laws as a significant (but not the only) impediment. Melbourne bike share would be buzzing if we didn't have our useless helmet laws.

[martinjs]

Yes Pete, but as you have pointed out to others, that's you, not the majority of cyclist who aren't as good or as confidence in traffic and lets not forget the foolish who ride in very silly ways.
In the short term all the perfect road scenarios you would like are just not going to happen, as stated in another thread we as a group just don't work together enough. Maybe in 10 or 20 years you might have a case but at this stage in our development there are simple to many risks for the unware in my humble option to try and overturn the Mandatory Helmet laws

I have no issue's personally with traffic and ride anywhere I feel like riding, mostly on highways and have quite a number of 2 truck road trains pass me everyday I ride to work. I know that helmets are going to make no difference at all if they hit me.
The only accident I've had in the last 4 years was caused by a pedestrian and the only close shaves have been all around town all would have been slow speed accidents and all had a potential of head injury's and all were the fault of the other road user. Also being in Australia, lets not forget the potential damage and possible effects of Magpie strikes. Not sure how many of those they have in the Netherlands.
Oh and I'm not joking about the potential damage from Magpie sticks as it's a real and long term issue on most Aussie roads as I'm sure you aware of.

Martin

[martinjs]

How many times does it need to be said! The fact that a some 'thing' could saves lives is NOT sufficient justicication for that 'thing'. Like any rational analysis the costs and benefits need to be assessed. Enforces a speed limit of 15kph will save FAR FAR more lives but similarly the benefits of this action don't outweight the costs.

Please if you are going to put forward arguments at least make them somewhat rational.

So your saying it's not rational to want to save lives.
This is pointless cycling is increasing in leaps and bounds in recent years with the mandatory helmet laws in place.

I know it might increase even more without them but with out the other changes we need to make it safer, so will the injury's and yes maybe deaths. I've already conceded that there might be a case ONE day that might make mandatory helmet laws unnecessary, but I truly believe its not know.

To many things need to change and as we all know from this forum they are not changing very fast. We need a louder voice before sweeping changes will happen.

Martin

[human909]

How many times does it need to be said! The fact that a some 'thing' could saves lives is NOT sufficient justicication for that 'thing'. Like any rational analysis the costs and benefits need to be assessed. Enforces a speed limit of 15kph will save FAR FAR more lives but similarly the benefits of this action don't outweight the costs.

Please if you are going to put forward arguments at least make them somewhat rational.

So your saying it's not rational to want to save lives.

Where am I saying that? I am saying that when making a rational decision you need to look at the costs and benefits. If you only look at the benefits and ignore the cost the you are hardly making a rational decision.

[martinjs]

How many times does it need to be said! The fact that a some 'thing' could saves lives is NOT sufficient justicication for that 'thing'. Like any rational analysis the costs and benefits need to be assessed. Enforces a speed limit of 15kph will save FAR FAR more lives but similarly the benefits of this action don't outweight the costs.

Please if you are going to put forward arguments at least make them somewhat rational.

So your saying it's not rational to want to save lives.

Where am I saying that? I am saying that when making a rational decision you need to look at the costs and benefits. If you only look at the benefits and ignore the cost the you are hardly making a rational decision.

That's were our point of view go in different directions, I do believe it to be rational to debate mandatory helmet laws in the hope it will save lives or injury's.

As for the argument that a lot of people won't get on a bike because they won't wear a helmet, in my opinion is a weak argument and as my argument to prove my point I put forward an indecent that happened with my 3 year old about 2 weeks ago.
My wife walks my 8 year old to the bus stop most mornings and my 3 year old rides her bike, in a hurry my wife forgot to put her helmet on. They had not gone more the 20 meters when my daughter cried out in a stressed voice that she couldn't go for a ride because she didn't have her helmet on. She's already learnt that she needs to always have her helmet on.

If she can learn, everybody can learn. We continually go on on this forum about educating other road uses on how they should treat us but seem to forget how we as cyclists (and that goes for new ones as well) need to be educated as well.
I remember a lot of resistant's to seat belt laws when they came in but with ongoing education most came to except it and the same could (if people had the will) be done with the mandatory helmet laws.

I notice that doesn't seem to come up in the debate, leading me to the conclusion (yes I concede I might be wrong here) that helmets as a safety issues is not being considered seriously enough.

Martin

[damhooligan]

So your saying it's not rational to want to save lives.

Where am I saying that? I am saying that when making a rational decision you need to look at the costs and benefits. If you only look at the benefits and ignore the cost the you are hardly making a rational decision.

That's were our point of view go in different directions, I do believe it to be rational to debate mandatory helmet laws in the hope it will save lives or injury's.

As for the argument that a lot of people won't get on a bike because they won't wear a helmet, in my opinion is a weak argument and as my argument to prove my point I put forward an indecent that happened with my 3 year old about 2 weeks ago.
My wife walks my 8 year old to the bus stop most mornings and my 3 year old rides her bike, in a hurry my wife forgot to put her helmet on. They had not gone more the 20 meters when my daughter cried out in a stressed voice that she couldn't go for a ride because she didn't have her helmet on. She's already learnt that she needs to always have her helmet on.

If she can learn, everybody can learn. We continually go on on this forum about educating other road uses on how they should treat us but seem to forget how we as cyclists (and that goes for new ones as well) need to be educated as well.
I remember a lot of resistant's to seat belt laws when they came in but with ongoing education most came to except it and the same could (if people had the will) be done with the mandatory helmet laws.

I notice that doesn't seem to come up in the debate, leading me to the conclusion (yes I concede I might be wrong here) that helmets as a safety issues is not being considered seriously enough.

Martin

O.k. i am missing something here, how does being able to learn to use a helmet reffers to not wanting to wear one ?
not to mention that i can teach others to do stuff, doesn't mean that the stuff i am teaching is automaticly the right thing to do.

I do consider the safety issue of the helmets very seriously, but i do not think they are to be considerd safe.
I do not believe wearing a helmet increases my safety, therefor i don't see how it would improve every one elses safety.
So forcing everybody to wear one is ridicoulus, only becasue something can happen , and because it could safe someones life...one day..
if you really want to apply that logic, then pedestrians should also wear helmet, because if something would happen a helmet would save their lives as well.
you can not prevent accidents from happening , you can not prevent death. wearing a helmet does not change that.
what you can do is create a safer cycling enviroment, and teach cyclist the dangers of cycling.

[Wayfarer]

That's were our point of view go in different directions, I do believe it to be rational to debate mandatory helmet laws in the hope it will save lives or injury's.

As for the argument that a lot of people won't get on a bike because they won't wear a helmet, in my opinion is a weak argument and as my argument to prove my point I put forward an indecent that happened with my 3 year old about 2 weeks ago.
My wife walks my 8 year old to the bus stop most mornings and my 3 year old rides her bike, in a hurry my wife forgot to put her helmet on. They had not gone more the 20 meters when my daughter cried out in a stressed voice that she couldn't go for a ride because she didn't have her helmet on. She's already learnt that she needs to always have her helmet on.

If she can learn, everybody can learn. We continually go on on this forum about educating other road uses on how they should treat us but seem to forget how we as cyclists (and that goes for new ones as well) need to be educated as well.
I remember a lot of resistant's to seat belt laws when they came in but with ongoing education most came to except it and the same could (if people had the will) be done with the mandatory helmet laws.

I notice that doesn't seem to come up in the debate, leading me to the conclusion (yes I concede I might be wrong here) that helmets as a safety issues is not being considered seriously enough.

Martin

Your daughter's also learnt from a young age that smoking will negatively impact upon her health; 1/10 Australians smoke, so your well raised daughter is a poor example of human stupidity. While on the topic of smoking though, being statistical, smoking kills a higher percentile of smokers than helmetless-ness kills helmet-less morons. It would therefore be more rational to ban cigarettes, yet we're arguing against something which functions well in every other country of the world.

O.k. i am missing something here, how does being able to learn to use a helmet reffers to not wanting to wear one ?
not to mention that i can teach others to do stuff, doesn't mean that the stuff i am teaching is automaticly the right thing to do.

I do consider the safety issue of the helmets very seriously, but i do not think they are to be considerd safe.
I do not believe wearing a helmet increases my safety, therefor i don't see how it would improve every one elses safety.
So forcing everybody to wear one is ridicoulus, only becasue something can happen , and because it could safe someones life...one day..
if you really want to apply that logic, then pedestrians should also wear helmet, because if something would happen a helmet would save their lives as well.
you can not prevent accidents from happening , you can not prevent death. wearing a helmet does not change that.
what you can do is create a safer cycling enviroment, and teach cyclist the dangers of cycling.

Cool story mate. You do not believe?

Bicycle lanes and helmets may reduce the risk of death.

* Almost three-quarters of fatal crashes (74%) involved a head injury.
* Nearly all bicyclists who died (97%) were not wearing a helmet.

Three quarts?

[human909]

That's were our point of view go in different directions, I do believe it to be rational to debate mandatory helmet laws in the hope it will save lives or injury's.

As for the argument that a lot of people won't get on a bike because they won't wear a helmet, in my opinion is a weak argument and as my argument to prove my point I put forward an indecent that happened with my 3 year old about 2 weeks ago.

I agree. The argument that it would discourage the activity necessarily a strong argument in of itself. However in this case discouraging cycling and reducing cycling numbers increases the risk to all cyclists. Thus as a whole the enforcing helmet compliance does not seem to improve safety. The ideal safety scenario for an individual is for more cyclists to be on the road AND to wear a helmet. The benefits of safety in numbers is clear, very few dutch commuters feel the need for helmets.

My wife walks my 8 year old to the bus stop most mornings and my 3 year old rides her bike, in a hurry my wife forgot to put her helmet on. They had not gone more the 20 meters when my daughter cried out in a stressed voice that she couldn't go for a ride because she didn't have her helmet on. She's already learnt that she needs to always have her helmet on.

If she can learn, everybody can learn. We continually go on on this forum about educating other road uses on how they should treat us but seem to forget how we as cyclists (and that goes for new ones as well) need to be educated as well.
I remember a lot of resistant's to seat belt laws when they came in but with ongoing education most came to except it and the same could (if people had the will) be done with the mandatory helmet laws.

Just because a law is easier to learn and be followed doesn't make it JUST nor beneficial. I strongly believe in freedom of choice. Something that is dying in Australia as we become more and more a nanny state.

I notice that doesn't seem to come up in the debate, leading me to the conclusion (yes I concede I might be wrong here) that helmets as a safety issues is not being considered seriously enough.

Thats an odd conclusion. A more sensible conclusion is that some people are questioning the need for compulsary helmets. Those people point to the success of other countries of having safe cycling without the need for helmets.

[il padrone]

My wife walks my 8 year old to the bus stop most mornings and my 3 year old rides her bike, in a hurry my wife forgot to put her helmet on. They had not gone more the 20 meters when my daughter cried out in a stressed voice that she couldn't go for a ride because she didn't have her helmet on. She's already learnt that she needs to always have her helmet on.

Sorry but that's simply indoctrination or rote learning. There's not much real learning and rational decision making going on there. My 3 yo daughter wouldn't go out in the bike trailer without her stuffed doll. So what does that tell us about what she needed?

I remember a lot of resistant's to seat belt laws when they came in but with ongoing education most came to except it and the same could (if people had the will) be done with the mandatory helmet laws.

Please drop the continual reference to and comparison with seat belt legislation. This was and remains a completely different situation to helmet compulsion:

Seat belt compulsion has made measurable differences to motorist death rates and injuries. Helmet compulsion is far from conclusive, most evidence shows no change.

Seat belt compulsion has minimal personal impact upon users. Helmet compulsion has much more of a persoanl effect

Seat belt compulsion produced no known reduction in motor vehicle use. Helmet compulsion made clear reductions in bicycle use

Seat belts are permanently fitted and fairly unobtrusive in the vehicle. Helmets need to be remembered, carried with you off the bike and are vulnerable to damage and theft

The two are most definitely not the same.

[foo on patrol]

Seat belts become damaged to, so that argument is null and void to!

[damhooligan]

Seat belts become damaged to, so that argument is null and void to!

well al the other ones stil count....

[damhooligan]

My wife walks my 8 year old to the bus stop most mornings and my 3 year old rides her bike, in a hurry my wife forgot to put her helmet on. They had not gone more the 20 meters when my daughter cried out in a stressed voice that she couldn't go for a ride because she didn't have her helmet on. She's already learnt that she needs to always have her helmet on.

Sorry but that's simply indoctrination or rote learning. There's not much real learning and rational decision making going on there. My 3 yo daughter wouldn't go out in the bike trailer without her stuffed doll. So what does that tell us about what she needed?

does this mean we should have a mandatory 'always carry a stuffed doll law' ?

and does the doll have a helmet ?

sorry, back to serious mode now...

[il padrone]

Seat belts become damaged to, so that argument is null and void to!

While out of the car by being dropped or trodden on ?? Like helmets can and do. Hence people are wary of the possible replacement cost, as well as the fact that they're easily forgotten, a nuisance to carry about and vulnerable.

I think you misconstrued my point.

When was the last time you had to replace a seat belt in your car ? I find I replace my helmet every 3-4 years, as is recommended by manufacturers and road safety authorities.

Ah, and if helmets are so comparable to set-belts, how many people get into the auto stores and fuss over the colur and style of their seat bets? Or go and spend $300 on a new latest model seat belt?

Helmets matter to people's appearance, they market them this way. Seat belts ? Meh! Who cares, we just use the one fitted to the car.

[vitualis]

Firstly, it is highly probable that bicycle helmets reduce the rates of head injury in the event of an accident. However, as mentioned by someone further up this thread, that in itself is not justification for mandatory helmet laws.

It is highly probable that compulsory helmet laws result in reduced use of cycling for commuting. It is also a very substantial impediment to mass bicycle hire schemes. It has been estimated (at least in a British study) that although helmet laws may reduce the number of cycling deaths, the higher rates of death from cardiovascular disease from lower levels of exercise overwhelm any such advantage at a community level.

Regards.