Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[il padrone]

Why don't you lighten up and get a sense of humour?

Really can't see the humour in your line:

Mind you, the anti MHL apparently wear helmets most of the time but don't want to be told that they have to wear helmets.

....and the joke you gave seemed pretty irrelevant.

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=61577" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Mulger bill]

Pete might laugh if something funny was posted

[il padrone]

Hehehe *ouch* <ribs>



Nah, not that bad now. I can even sneeze OK (as long as I brace myself)

[Mulger bill]

Sorry Pete, forgot about your hurts Knows what borked ribs are like.

I'll try to be more sombre for a few weeks.

Shaun

[simonn]

I gave up with you as you obviously think everyone else is wrong and you are right.

Science is right.

If speed kills, why do people fly jets and passenger airlines doing 1000kph ?

And airlines/flight are/is regulated far more as a result, are they/is it not?

Des it kill ? No, the reason people die is human error.

It can be either or both.

If they squashed someone up against a wall at 31 as opposed to 30, they'd still be hurt or killed, I do not believe that 1kph makes them a killer, their lack of judgment or error will.

Perhaps. Back to reality, the image I posted is from the survival rates of pedestrians in actual incidents. It is real. It is science. Human error can have caused the crash, but people survive because of a low{,er} speed. Therefore, speed kills.

Is it really that hard to understand?

[wurtulla wabbit]

Ah good old surveys and statistics....always good to rely on govt funded surveys.....

well if they say its true, it must be , right ?

[simonn]

Ah good old surveys and statistics....always good to rely on govt funded surveys.....

well if they say its true, it must be , right ?

What would you suggest then?

[Xplora]

Human error can have caused the crash, but people survive because of a low{,er} speed. Therefore, speed kills.

What is the appropriate response to your data, Simon? I think that is wurtalla's position in a nutshell. The roads are virtually unregulated these days, when you compare them to the airways or the workplace. The severity of human error on the road can be absolutely horrifying, yet it seems that the collective response is to ignore human costs or the threat of human cost for the sake of a slightly shorter commute.


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?

[wurtulla wabbit]

I'd suggest that people open their eyes and read a broad range of media (not just what suits their agenda) and take in what goes on around them.

I seen a Holden ute in a ditch yesterday.
Pointing wrong way, big chunks of dirt all over the shop where the clown spun out on a straight bit of road.
Giving it the boot and lost it !
Speed no factor. His bag of talent wasn't as full as he'd hoped !

Anyway, round and round we go.
Agree to disagree.

[il padrone]

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.

[simonn]

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?

I do argue that speed limits should be lower in residential areas and areas of high pedestrian areas. I also argue for lower speed limits on designated on-road cycle routes and decent infrastructure for cyclists - I have actually written to local members about it, proposed routes etc.

I also generally do not defend MHLs, I just think most of the arguments used against them are full of brown sticky stuff, opinion, and dodgy statistics and anecdote. I also do not think helmets do more than potentially reduce the severity of a head injury in an accident - there is no such thing as a Bicycle Helmet of Invulnerability. 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.

[simonn]

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.

[Kenzo]

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.

Brown sticky stuff?

[il padrone]

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.

I agree totally with you on the need for better cycling infrastructure (but there is then the question of what is going to work best..... and do we reduce motor vehicle space and/or infrastructure at the same time?)

However we need the horse and cart to move our goods.

[wurtulla wabbit]

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.

[simonn]

belittled a set of stats....

Which stats would those be?

[Xplora]

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.

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?

[human909]

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.

Or when you have threads withs comments like this:

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" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Xplora]

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

[simonn]

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.

[human909]

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.

[simonn]

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.

[human909]

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.

[simonn]

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.

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

[wurtulla wabbit]

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