Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wurtulla wabbit » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:26 pm

simonn wrote:
il padrone wrote:
simonn wrote:What would you suggest then?

Maybe have words with the government about why they keep on building more high speed roads ???

Or why they allow car ads that focus on how speedy and efficient (in reality or in 'style') various new cars are ???

I'd love to see a lot more lower speed limits in urban areas. Then maybe there'd be less of a focus on this supposed need for the MHL.


I am in full agreement. However, the question I posed was for WW's little rant about statistics and studies etc. I am always curious of what people who mistrust statistics and studies propose as an alternative.


Wait a minute mr hypocrisy , you used a set of stats then in last post, belittled a set of stats....why ? Because they didn't suit you !

As I said and its pretty simple, speed doesn't kill. Without some one making an error, they're are no consequences so as you will see, one brings about the other, speed , in the end is just a factor that relates (in part) to the severity of the outcome.
User avatar
wurtulla wabbit
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:08 pm

by BNA » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:28 am

BNA
 

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby simonn » Mon Mar 04, 2013 4:28 am

wurtulla wabbit wrote:belittled a set of stats....


Which stats would those be?
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3575
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:05 am

simonn wrote:I think the whole anti-MHL thing is a waste of time which could be spent trying to get better infrastructure in place which would actually make a difference to the number and safety of cyclists.

In fairness though, given that democracy works by way of critical mass (there is a tipping point where suddenly public opinion refuses to be silenced) then wouldn't increasing bike numbers be the best way forward? Safety comes in numbers, MHL lowers this number. The numbers would surely be padded out by the young and the vulnerable - I don't recall older people riding when I was 11, but I do recall a lot of kids - and these people would be the impetus for the changes you describe.
Better connections of cycleways, more sensible speed limits, new paths - Clover's greenways in Sydney have pretty much proven that infrastructure is extraordinarily difficult to create and maintain. Lots of people can't use them without serious inconvenience and personal risk either because the greenways aren't respected.

Speed limits are meaningless if there is no enforcement. More enforcement costs money. And willpower, which is in short supply as well.
Infrastructure is meaningless if there is no one to use it. Building it costs money. When it comes to urban sprawl, it costs an enormous amount of money to build it.
MHL is meaningless if few are prepared to ride a bike because of it. Removing it costs nothing. That's the big draw card for me. Cost is nothing. It actually reduces enforcement costs as well.

You can't create a feeling of safety while telling people they couldn't possibly consider riding their bike at 20kmh on the segregated bikeway without a helmet. :idea:

I think your proposals and efforts are great, but I think we'll struggle to get that traction if we need utility cyclists to wear helmets. If you want to be a boy racer chasing KOMs on the local descents in your team kit and suck wheels at 50kmh on the M7, a helmet is a wise choice. I AM that guy. But we have to recognise the law is an ass, and it is hurting our efforts for better passing laws, infrastructure, and legal protections like speed limits when we accept that the MHL is valid.

Would you close shave an unhelmeted 10 year old on a BMX bike at 60kmh in your local neighbourhood? That's the basic question we need to ask. If you would, sure, a helmet for that impact is needed. If you rightly think that's a crime against humanity, then perhaps we need to tell drivers that they are responsible for their cars and the humans near those cars (as we do in every other scenario), rather than telling them a helmet is more important than their humanity as a driver? :idea:
Xplora
 
Posts: 5568
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:47 am

Xplora wrote:You can't create a feeling of safety while telling people they couldn't possibly consider riding their bike at 20kmh on the segregated bikeway without a helmet. :idea:


Or when you have threads withs comments like this: :roll:

I too would love to know what other sports you partake in where you are by yourself and has higher risks than cycling?

You do read the fatalities section?



viewtopic.php?f=12&t=61999&start=50
Last edited by human909 on Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
human909
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:56 am

I would take his posts with a grain of salt... has gone back to Cycling Express several times despite being very dissatisfied with them on multiple occasions :shock:
Xplora
 
Posts: 5568
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby simonn » Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:58 am

Xplora wrote:Clover's greenways in Sydney have pretty much proven that infrastructure is extraordinarily difficult to create and maintain.


But evidently and apparently infinitely easier than removing helmet laws.

Lots of people can't use them without serious inconvenience and personal risk either because the greenways aren't respected.


I dunno, we (my wife and me with 16 month old son) rode almost all the way from Woolloomoolo to close to the end of the Bourke Rd cycleway yesterday to test out a potential commute route with my wife. The sections with cycleways are about as safe as you could get for an innercity cycle route. The problem is that they are not yet joined up. The section between the two cycleways is so so - I would not ride it with my son during the week, but no problem on my own or with my wife riding it.

FWIW, cars did stop when we had right of way across intersections etc. Sure we did not appraoch the intersections at full speed, but it seemed to work.
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3575
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:07 am

simonn wrote:But evidently and apparently infinitely easier than removing helmet laws.


Which isn't helped by opposition from some cyclists who personally have no issue with wearing helmets but are too selfish to support allowing other people to be able to choose.
human909
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby simonn » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:13 am

human909 wrote:
simonn wrote:But evidently and apparently infinitely easier than removing helmet laws.


Which isn't helped by opposition from some cyclists who personally have no issue with wearing helmets but are too selfish to support allowing other people to be able to choose.


Maybe, but those people exist and have to be taken into consideration.
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3575
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:32 am

simonn wrote:Maybe, but those people exist and have to be taken into consideration.


:?: :?: In the same way that people exist that believe women should not be allowed to vote?

I don't believe that people who want to restrict the legitimate freedom of others should be taken into consideration. :evil:
human909
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby simonn » Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:43 am

human909 wrote:
simonn wrote:Maybe, but those people exist and have to be taken into consideration.


:?: :?: In the same way that people exist that believe women should not be allowed to vote?

I don't believe that people who want to restrict the legitimate freedom of others should be taken into consideration. :evil:


Not in that sense. In the sense that they exist and you are pushing against them. Better to spend that energy getting the infrastructure.
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3575
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wurtulla wabbit » Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:19 am

simonn wrote:
Xplora wrote:You need to present an alternative policy if you want to argue against a point. You are right - faster speeds do kill... but if you won't argue speeds should be lower, or changes made, how can you defend the MHL when the elephant is in the backseat?


dodgy statistics and anecdote..



Your line from a few posts back...


So, some stats suit you and some don't, you choose to agree with a set saying one thing but then say the above about others....

That's an agenda
User avatar
wurtulla wabbit
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby outnabike » Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:55 am

wurtulla wabbit wrote:
simonn wrote:
Xplora wrote:You need to present an alternative policy if you want to argue against a point. You are right - faster speeds do kill... but if you won't argue speeds should be lower, or changes made, how can you defend the MHL when the elephant is in the backseat?


dodgy statistics and anecdote..



Your line from a few posts back...


So, some stats suit you and some don't, you choose to agree with a set saying one thing but then say the above about others....

That's an agenda


WW, just what are you saying here? This is from wikipedia, what is so wrong about an agenda? The way I see it without one you are not organised. :D

Agenda may refer to:
Agenda (meeting), points to be discussed; sometimes refers to the list of topics itself
Political agenda, the set of goals of an ideological group; also used as above, the topics under discussion by a government
Lotus Agenda, a piece of Personal Information Manager software
Agenda (liturgy), a book used in Lutheran worship
The Agenda, a current affairs television program aired by TVOntario
Agenda (poetry journal), a literary periodical in the United Kingdom
Agenda (TVNZ programme), a New Zealand current events programme
Agenda (BBC Scotland programme), a BBC Scotland current affairs programme
Personal organizer, also known as an agenda
outnabike
 
Posts: 701
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:53 pm
Location: Melbourne Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 10:57 am

simonn wrote:Not in that sense. In the sense that they exist and you are pushing against them. Better to spend that energy getting the infrastructure.


And there are people not against getting infrastructure?

If advocacy stopped when there was opposition then there would be not advocacy. :!:
human909
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby simonn » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:13 pm

wurtulla wabbit wrote:
simonn wrote:
Xplora wrote:You need to present an alternative policy if you want to argue against a point. You are right - faster speeds do kill... but if you won't argue speeds should be lower, or changes made, how can you defend the MHL when the elephant is in the backseat?


dodgy statistics and anecdote..



Your line from a few posts back...


So, some stats suit you and some don't, you choose to agree with a set saying one thing but then say the above about others....

That's an agenda


Motor vehicle speed vs pedestrian death rate is physics, not statistics. The statistics simply back this up.

The authors of this study observed... ..."it must be proven in every country that the laws of Isaac Newton are true".

http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm

Maybe this should have been "every individual"?

A lot, even most, of the statistics used for the helmet debate are more or less made up (i.e. surveying individuals, which is a poor way of collecting data). Nobody knows how often a bicycle is ridden, for how long and for what distance (like we do with registered motor vehicles). All we really know is how many cyclists turn up to hospital after a stack, but not how many people do not etc - as a result we do know of the rate of helmet vs non-helmet wearers that have a severe brain injury after reporting to hospital after an accident (non-helmet wears do not fair well - not that this alone justifies MHLs).

What we do know, and is demonstrated world wide - Amsterdam and Copenhagen being prime examples, is that given good infrastructure, more people will ride.

You have however, avoided the question of what you suggest as an alternative for using statistics/studies as the basis of forming an opinion or policy?
Last edited by simonn on Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3575
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby simonn » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:16 pm

human909 wrote:
simonn wrote:Not in that sense. In the sense that they exist and you are pushing against them. Better to spend that energy getting the infrastructure.


And there are people not against getting infrastructure?

If advocacy stopped when there was opposition then there would be not advocacy. :!:


Of course there are, but it gets built. Quite a lot in the past 5 years or so in fact.
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3575
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wizdofaus » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:25 pm

simonn wrote:Of course there are, but it gets built. Quite a lot in the past 5 years or so in fact.


And hopefully a gradual shift in public opinion on MHL will result in a more flexible attitude towards that too, even if it takes a long time before any laws are changed.

I'll eat my hat if Melbourne gets anything like 20% mode share for bicycles while the police are still wasting everybody's time fining adults for not choosing to wrap their heads with polystyrene on their daily commute.
wizdofaus
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Kensington, Melbourne, VIC

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wurtulla wabbit » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:45 pm

simonn wrote:
wurtulla wabbit wrote:
simonn wrote:[quote="Xplora"]
You need to present an alternative policy if you want to argue against a point. You are right - faster speeds do kill... but if you won't argue speeds should be lower, or changes made, how can you defend the MHL when the elephant is in the backseat?


dodgy statistics and anecdote..



Your line from a few posts back...


So, some stats suit you and some don't, you choose to agree with a set saying one thing but then say the above about others....

That's an agenda


Motor vehicle speed vs pedestrian death rate is physics, not statistics. The statistics simply back this up.

The authors of this study observed... ..."it must be proven in every country that the laws of Isaac Newton are true".

http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm

Maybe this should have been "every individual"?

A lot, even most, of the statistics used for the helmet debate are more or less made up (i.e. surveying individuals, which is a poor way of collecting data). Nobody knows how often a bicycle is ridden, for how long and for what distance (like we do with registered motor vehicles). All we really know is how many cyclists turn up to hospital after a stack, but not how many people do not etc - as a result we do know of the rate of helmet vs non-helmet wearers that have a severe brain injury after reporting to hospital after an accident (non-helmet wears do not fair well - not that this alone justifies MHLs).

What we do know, and is demonstrated world wide - Amsterdam and Copenhagen being prime examples, is that given good infrastructure, more people will ride.

You have however, avoided the question of what you suggest as an alternative for using statistics/studies as the basis of forming an opinion or policy?[/quote]

Policies are politicians vehicles for their agendas, nothing more.

Stats are good IF not linked to policies and politicians.
Therefore , these ones are IMHO bias.

Wife's a nurse in ED.
accidents and people for daily.
Why ? Human error first and foremost(where deaths aren't natural).
User avatar
wurtulla wabbit
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:03 pm

wurtulla wabbit wrote:A lot, even most, of the statistics used for the helmet debate are more or less made up (i.e. surveying individuals, which is a poor way of collecting data).

What we do know is that there was a SIGNIFICANT decline in cycling following the introduction of MHLs. What we DO know is that it is a barrier to cycling and many people don't like helmets. What we do know is that it is a massive impediment to bike share.

wurtulla wabbit wrote:What we do know, and is demonstrated world wide - Amsterdam and Copenhagen being prime examples, is that given good infrastructure, more people will ride.

Nobody is disputed the need for better infrastructure. Also we also know from international experience that MHLs are not needed for a health and safe cycling culture!!!!

wurtulla wabbit wrote:You have however, avoided the question of what you suggest as an alternative for using statistics/studies as the basis of forming an opinion or policy?

Rational thought? Observation of how cycling works overseas? BTW I don't need a study or stats to tell me that freedom is important to me!

wurtulla wabbit wrote:Stats are good IF not linked to policies and politicians.

That is an amazingly big claim. Stats can clearly by wrong or misleading without the influence of politicians and policies.
human909
 
Posts: 4723
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wizdofaus » Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:08 pm

human909 wrote:
wurtulla wabbit wrote:What we do know, and is demonstrated world wide - Amsterdam and Copenhagen being prime examples, is that given good infrastructure, more people will ride.

Nobody is disputed the need for better infrastructure...


Just me or do the quotes seem mixed up here?
wizdofaus
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:39 am
Location: Kensington, Melbourne, VIC

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wurtulla wabbit » Mon Mar 04, 2013 3:56 pm

human909 wrote:
wurtulla wabbit wrote:A lot, even most, of the statistics used for the helmet debate are more or less made up (i.e. surveying individuals, which is a poor way of collecting data).

What we do know is that there was a SIGNIFICANT decline in cycling following the introduction of MHLs. What we DO know is that it is a barrier to cycling and many people don't like helmets. What we do know is that it is a massive impediment to bike share.

wurtulla wabbit wrote:What we do know, and is demonstrated world wide - Amsterdam and Copenhagen being prime examples, is that given good infrastructure, more people will ride.

Nobody is disputed the need for better infrastructure. Also we also know from international experience that MHLs are not needed for a health and safe cycling culture!!!!

wurtulla wabbit wrote:You have however, avoided the question of what you suggest as an alternative for using statistics/studies as the basis of forming an opinion or policy?

Rational thought? Observation of how cycling works overseas? BTW I don't need a study or stats to tell me that freedom is important to me!

wurtulla wabbit wrote:Stats are good IF not linked to policies and politicians.

That is an amazingly big claim. Stats can clearly by wrong or misleading without the influence of politicians and policies.


I use stats for my golf, not much more as I know their mine and unbias, I don't trust people using stats to aide a cause or agenda.

I too hate helmets and as I have said, raced (practiced) and done many large jumps etc without injury.

I am against the law, its a silly one.

I do however think that Australia is severely over regulated in regards to stupid stuff like this.
Maybe its because its a wealthier country and has less crime ? Not sure but I do know British cops wouldn't have time for this crap due to being busy with other more important stuff and seeing as London has almost the entire population as Australia(uk has 3x in total) , I find the law insulting to suggest that its needed.

I'll mention another thing, my mates feel a lot safer without body Armour as it seems to make them more conscious of doing stuff and attempting stuff on their dirt bikes.
I wear a dirt bike helmet as it has definitely saved my bacon a few times from tree branches, spills from falling off in rocky trails at decent speeds.

I would wear one on my mtb in the forest as I'd be inclined to do similar stuff to my dirtbike but not the pace but I would like not to wear one strolling round the lakes taking in the scenery.
Horses for courses and freedom of choice.

Wear one, don't wear one , you pays ya money, ya takes ya chance !
User avatar
wurtulla wabbit
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Ross » Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:35 am

Spain considering MHL, bike rego and licencing, compulsary insurance and restrictions on the use of bicycles on some main roads.

http://www.conbici.org/joomla/index.php ... &Itemid=58

The Spanish national traffic authority (Dirección General de Tràfico) is currently floating several ideas regarding compulsory bicycle helmets in cities, licence exams for cyclists, compulsory cycle insurance, bicycle licence plates, and restrictions on the use of bicycles on some main roads.ConBici is the coordinating group for 60 cyclist organisations representing thousands of members and wishes to state the following:

First: The procedure followed by the traffic authority in announcing its aims shows a lack of faith towards the organisations representing cycling interests, as this announcement was withheld from cycling groups at previous meetings. These announcements have been made through the press and media. This approach shows contempt for the individuals and organisations involved and will only create public confusion. It seems that the aim of the traffic authority is to present cyclists as a problem – when the real problem is created by private motor traffic. We believe the traffic authority is using the media to spread false ideas and subsequently justify unfair actions.

Second: The traffic authority is presenting the newly proposed regulations as measures to protect cyclists when the effect will be the opposite. These regulations will help push cyclists off the roads and so maintain the total domination of private vehicles – to the detriment of public health, the quality of life, and road safety.

Third: The traffic authority has offered no basis for its intended actions. There is no data that shows the need to take any of the measures that the authority is proposing. None of the problems faced by road users are caused by cyclists and there are no significant statistics showing that pedestrians suffer because of cyclists, or that cyclists cause road accidents. Moreover, there is no evidence showing significant levels of head injuries or accidents without insurance coverage. We call on the traffic authority to justify its intentions with objective data. In the absence of such data, the authority’s declared aims can only be considered to be biased in favour of other interests. In a democratic society, the advantages and need for legislation must be presented and discussed before implementation.

Fourth: The measures announced would turn Spain into Europe’s cycling ghetto and deliver a severe blow to our young and expanding cycling industry. The proposals are absurdly irrelevant and it is impossible to imagine how some would be implemented. Will the government impose controls at borders and airports to regulate the flow of foreign cyclists – most of whom would be breaking the law as soon as they enter Spain.

Fifth: All of Spain’s neighbouring nations have realised the need to encourage the widest possible use of bicycles – for economic reasons, to improve public health, protect the environment, and heighten the quality of life in cities. European nations are adopting favourable tax incentives, building infrastructure, and facilitating the daily use of bicycles by giving it special status as a preferential vehicle. Spain must not become the exception in Europe by imposing barriers to cycling that do not exist elsewhere. Other European cycling organisations have already expressed their concern and offered us unconditional support. Therefore, we demand that the traffic authority shows respect for the cycling community by removing any proposed amendments to road regulations that discourage cycling. We also demand that the traffic authority makes public its draft reform so that every organisation involved can discuss the proposals. Our opposition to the authority’s announced intentions is absolute and we will campaign to prevent the introduction of such legislation – or ensure that such measures are subsequently repealed.

Image
User avatar
Ross
 
Posts: 3670
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby simonn » Tue Mar 05, 2013 9:18 am

wurtulla wabbit wrote:I use stats for my golf, not much more as I know their mine and unbias, I don't trust people using stats to aide a cause or agenda.


I think you are wise for not trusting other peoples agendas.

However, I think we need to get something straight. Statistics are statistics. Data is data. They are neutral as far as interpretation goes. It is their collection and interpretation that is the problem and should be scrutinized.

Again though, I have to ask, do you have an alternative?
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3575
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby outnabike » Tue Mar 05, 2013 3:11 pm

wurtulla wabbit wrote: Wear one, don't wear one , you pays ya money, ya takes ya chance !
Snipped

And so it is full circle WW.............. After 227 pages

Sort of like "There's a hole in the bucket dear Lisa, a hole."

This is the whole point of them opposed to the MHL. We don't at times want to wear one but have to due to the MHL. We are forced by do-gooders to not be allowed to take our chances.
We however are quite pleased to allow those that want to, or ourselves the right to wear one if they, we, like. :D
Still it is nice that you see the point at last... :D
outnabike
 
Posts: 701
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 1:53 pm
Location: Melbourne Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wurtulla wabbit » Tue Mar 05, 2013 6:27 pm

simonn wrote:
wurtulla wabbit wrote:I use stats for my golf, not much more as I know their mine and unbias, I don't trust people using stats to aide a cause or agenda.


I think you are wise for not trusting other peoples agendas.

However, I think we need to get something straight. Statistics are statistics. Data is data. They are neutral as far as interpretation goes. It is their collection and interpretation that is the problem and should be scrutinized.

Again though, I have to ask, do you have an alternative?

The way in which they are collected by the individuals have a bias one way or the other, they must have an opinion on the matter and therefore (in my view) be tainted.

Alternative ?
Self regulation.
We are after all, an autonomous race ?? Or are we not allowed to free think and make judgements ?
User avatar
wurtulla wabbit
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:08 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby wurtulla wabbit » Tue Mar 05, 2013 7:13 pm

Ross wrote:Spain considering MHL, bike rego and licencing, compulsary insurance and restrictions on the use of bicycles on some main roads.

http://www.conbici.org/joomla/index.php ... &Itemid=58

The Spanish national traffic authority (Dirección General de Tràfico) is currently floating several ideas regarding compulsory bicycle helmets in cities, licence exams for cyclists, compulsory cycle insurance, bicycle licence plates, and restrictions on the use of bicycles on some main roads.ConBici is the coordinating group for 60 cyclist organisations representing thousands of members and wishes to state the following:

First: The procedure followed by the traffic authority in announcing its aims shows a lack of faith towards the organisations representing cycling interests, as this announcement was withheld from cycling groups at previous meetings. These announcements have been made through the press and media. This approach shows contempt for the individuals and organisations involved and will only create public confusion. It seems that the aim of the traffic authority is to present cyclists as a problem – when the real problem is created by private motor traffic. We believe the traffic authority is using the media to spread false ideas and subsequently justify unfair actions.

Second: The traffic authority is presenting the newly proposed regulations as measures to protect cyclists when the effect will be the opposite. These regulations will help push cyclists off the roads and so maintain the total domination of private vehicles – to the detriment of public health, the quality of life, and road safety.

Third: The traffic authority has offered no basis for its intended actions. There is no data that shows the need to take any of the measures that the authority is proposing. None of the problems faced by road users are caused by cyclists and there are no significant statistics showing that pedestrians suffer because of cyclists, or that cyclists cause road accidents. Moreover, there is no evidence showing significant levels of head injuries or accidents without insurance coverage. We call on the traffic authority to justify its intentions with objective data. In the absence of such data, the authority’s declared aims can only be considered to be biased in favour of other interests. In a democratic society, the advantages and need for legislation must be presented and discussed before implementation.

Fourth: The measures announced would turn Spain into Europe’s cycling ghetto and deliver a severe blow to our young and expanding cycling industry. The proposals are absurdly irrelevant and it is impossible to imagine how some would be implemented. Will the government impose controls at borders and airports to regulate the flow of foreign cyclists – most of whom would be breaking the law as soon as they enter Spain.

Fifth: All of Spain’s neighbouring nations have realised the need to encourage the widest possible use of bicycles – for economic reasons, to improve public health, protect the environment, and heighten the quality of life in cities. European nations are adopting favourable tax incentives, building infrastructure, and facilitating the daily use of bicycles by giving it special status as a preferential vehicle. Spain must not become the exception in Europe by imposing barriers to cycling that do not exist elsewhere. Other European cycling organisations have already expressed their concern and offered us unconditional support. Therefore, we demand that the traffic authority shows respect for the cycling community by removing any proposed amendments to road regulations that discourage cycling. We also demand that the traffic authority makes public its draft reform so that every organisation involved can discuss the proposals. Our opposition to the authority’s announced intentions is absolute and we will campaign to prevent the introduction of such legislation – or ensure that such measures are subsequently repealed.


Spanish kids and teens etc all dodge traffic on scooters, 2 up at times wearing not much more than bikinis or boardies.
The place is full of scooters and as such, you see the benefits in moto GP etc.
Pretty sure they get killed but by driving like nutters , nothing to do with the lid.
User avatar
wurtulla wabbit
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:08 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU



InTouch with BNA
“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter