Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[Xplora]

The linked article clearly showed that wealthy city folk and business people were selecting the 4WDs regardless of price. Taxes isn't the mechanism for change if your target market is not sensitive to the price.

I get your point, but carbon taxes and rego and insurance are already higher for these cars.

I also want to clarify that I have not asked for the 4WD to be banned. I am highlighting the hypocrisy of a helmet law forcing ME to do something for my own good, when there is no law forcing the 4WD owner to drive something else for MY own good.

[outnabike]

My safer weight ratio also is responsible for quicker stopping power.

BTW, just a query on this. I'd suggest that your greater weight is a negative for stopping power. Weight = greater momentum, a barrier to stopping. Your 4WD is no advantage here as you still have four tyres on the road and four brakes on the wheels, just like a much lighter Corolla which has far less momentum to pull up.

Maybe you have some other physics on this matter ??

Nope I am no good on physics. Just my interpretation that it is harder for a caravan should the breaks fail on it, to push a bigger vehicle.You are probably quite right.

[outnabike]

Well said outnabike. I've been banging on in this thread for a while now, and I have to pick new angles to make my point. We have to consider our views, because it is very very very hard to see perspective when you're in the goldfish bowl.

Human nature is overtly conservative. We dislike change. We dislike even considering a long held view might be wrong. I do not apologise for asking people to think about their views, I am as gentle as I can be. Arguably that's rough at the best of times. I don't agree that we all have to hate the same things and think the same things. You can still uphold the MHL and maintain my respect, but you better have some good arguments to support your view. Because I have been a dedicated MHL guy, and anti cyclist as well. That guy was a long way from me now.

Xplora, How did you get that I am for the MHL? I have never sad that. What I have been saying is that we should stop beating each other over the face. It just ain't friendly.

[human909]

The linked article clearly showed that wealthy city folk and business people were selecting the 4WDs regardless of price. Taxes isn't the mechanism for change if your target market is not sensitive to the price.

The majority of the market will still be sensitive to price. With the number of 4wd owners out there you won't convince me they that they are all filthy rich. Make vehicles over 2tonne pay $3000 rego, and they will have an affect!

I get your point, but carbon taxes and rego and insurance are already higher for these cars.

4WDs have long had tax concessions! This has been around since the times when major buyer of 4wd were farmers.

[human909]

My safer weight ratio also is responsible for quicker stopping power.

BTW, just a query on this. I'd suggest that your greater weight is a negative for stopping power. Weight = greater momentum, a barrier to stopping. Your 4WD is no advantage here as you still have four tyres on the road and four brakes on the wheels, just like a much lighter Corolla which has far less momentum to pull up.

Maybe you have some other physics on this matter ??

Nope I am no good on physics. Just my interpretation that it is harder for a caravan should the breaks fail on it, to push a bigger vehicle.You are probably quite right.

Well I don't want to take sides here buy I do have some other physics on the matter. Outnabike is more correct here.

A heavier vehicle with more momentum does not have greater barriers to stopping. (As long as the brakes are sized appropriately, which they are.) When it comes to stopping an unbraked caravan/trailer a heavier vehicle is clearly superior. When it comes to safe handling and control in adverse circumstances a heavier vehicle is better for towing. (Though a large RWD car would suit most towing needs about as well as a large 4wd.)

[high_tea]

The point that always seems to get overlooked is that a law needn't be ideal. It needn't be more effective than some other actual or hypothetical law. It need only be worthwhile.

The same argument justified black slavery for a very long time. What is worthwhile in your eyes is not certain to be worthwhile to me. And THAT is the problem we face. Black slaves were practical, economical, and easy to accept - as a white cotton plantation owner interested in maintaining a social position and wealth. Helmets are easy to accept as well, if you don't ride a bike and have no interest in becoming responsible for the safety of other road users. There is detriment to the cyclist when you mandate safety equipment. There is some benefit, I don't think I can win that argument. As human909 has said many times, no one would prefer to be helmetless if forced to have a head collision. But, it has also been proven that there IS detriment. Cars pass closer, society thinks differently about bikes, heads get hot and sweaty.

But we can't leave negro emancipation to plantation owners, just like we can't leave mandatory helmet law repeal to wealthy politicians and the latte set chatting about their new Cayenne.

The problem that gets overlooked the MOST, Mr High Tea, is that bad law doesn't deserve to remain in the statutes. We freed the slaves, gave women the vote, it is time to recognise that some laws are past their use by date.

The above amounts to the claim that bad laws are bad. Go back a step and make the case that MHLs are irreparably bad.

[WarbyD]

Ignoring everything else, how about we stop the "anyone with 4wd in the city is evil" rubbish? We have a 2wd Ford Territory. All the rubbish about that being due to some power trip or whatever is, frankly, insulting. We chose that vehicle because it met our needs:
- able to fit 3 car seats;
- able to carry our dogs as well as family;
- decent amount of luggage space

Several of our friends drive similar vehicles, and you know what? Their reasons for choosing them were the same. The only factor that differs is whether they also intended to go 4wd'ing, in which case they added "4wd" to their list of requirements.

Our choices were 4 door Ute (wife doesn't like them), station wagon or " large wagon" / 4wd. We liked the Territory.

Climb down off your judgemental high horse.. It's wearing very thin.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[il padrone]

A heavier vehicle with more momentum does not have greater barriers to stopping. (As long as the brakes are sized appropriately, which they are.) When it comes to stopping an unbraked caravan/trailer a heavier vehicle is clearly superior. When it comes to safe handling and control in adverse circumstances a heavier vehicle is better for towing. (Though a large RWD car would suit most towing needs about as well as a large 4wd.)

Who stuck a caravan onto my car ???

The braking comparison I was making was that of a 4WD compared to a 2WD car - what is typical for the use of a 'Mum's Taxi'. Adding a caravan and the dynamics of towing completely changes the situation

[il padrone]

The above amounts to the claim that bad laws are bad. Go back a step and make the case that MHLs are irreparably bad.

Have you managed to read much of the preceding 286 pages?


MHLs
- introduced with minimal real consideration or concern for the impacts upon cycling participation
- applied to one "dangerous" activity, but not at all to many other similarly dangerous activities (discriminatory)
- have an extremely negative impact in Australia upon activities that are globally recognized as universally accepted, normal, and in fact desirable.

Just as a starter, that sounds pretty much a bad law to me.

[human909]

I don't particularly want to argue this. But a heavier vehicle is not predisposed by physics to slower stopping times. This is what the physics says. You could get a Suzuki Alto and a fully loaded BMX X5. The BMW is 3 times heavier. But I would not expect the Suzuki to stop faster.

(Other people were talking about towing, that is why it was mentioned.)

[outnabike]

A heavier vehicle with more momentum does not have greater barriers to stopping. (As long as the brakes are sized appropriately, which they are.) When it comes to stopping an unbraked caravan/trailer a heavier vehicle is clearly superior. When it comes to safe handling and control in adverse circumstances a heavier vehicle is better for towing. (Though a large RWD car would suit most towing needs about as well as a large 4wd.)

Who stuck a caravan onto my car ???

The braking comparison I was making was that of a 4WD compared to a 2WD car - what is typical for the use of a 'Mum's Taxi'. Adding a caravan and the dynamics of towing completely changes the situation

Hi IP,
I am afraid I did, as you snipped that bit out of a post I wrote concerning towing a caravan.

(My text) I know what you mean IP, but in the old days we always said "don't tow with something that is lighter than the thing you are towing". Today's vans have better brakes and you can get away with a slightly different balance. I have to look out for my families safety as well.
If you are implying I am being uncaring of others you would be incorrect. My safer weight ratio also is responsible for quicker stopping power.( my text)

I was meaning that in context of pulling a van and that I thought it was safer to have a caravan on the back of a heavier vehicle. Human99 was obviously replying in regard to my original meaning in the post with the van attached.
To me it is a question of who took the van off my Land Cruiser?

I don't know what stopping distances a Land Cruiser has to meet under the Aussie rules, and so I have no idea of its stopping ability compared to that of a smaller car.
I can say I have had it since new in 2004 and never had a prang, and never had a problem stopping in all weather.

[high_tea]

The above amounts to the claim that bad laws are bad. Go back a step and make the case that MHLs are irreparably bad.

Have you managed to read much of the preceding 286 pages?


MHLs
- introduced with minimal real consideration or concern for the impacts upon cycling participation
- applied to one "dangerous" activity, but not at all to many other similarly dangerous activities (discriminatory)
- have an extremely negative impact in Australia upon activities that are globally recognized as universally accepted, normal, and in fact desirable.

Just as a starter, that sounds pretty much a bad law to me.

That's nice. Note my use of the word "irreparably", which your summary doesn't address.

[Xplora]

Braking is quite variable across different cars, a 4WD definitely can have far better brakes than a smaller car (heavy duty offroad use demands it!) and could conceivably brake in an emergency situation better than a small hatchback.

BUT. Not all decelerations are controlled braking. If you aren't fully in control of your vehicle (bad weather, poor surface, contact from another vehicle) then the 4WD is certainly a bigger liability than the small hatchback. 3 tons of death vs 1.1 tons of death.

I think we need the ability to make it clear we are addressing the crowd, and not the individual. I wasn't specifically directing everything I said to you, outna.

[Mulger bill]

The above amounts to the claim that bad laws are bad. Go back a step and make the case that MHLs are irreparably bad.

Have you managed to read much of the preceding 286 pages?


MHLs
- introduced with minimal real consideration or concern for the impacts upon cycling participation
- applied to one "dangerous" activity, but not at all to many other similarly dangerous activities (discriminatory)
- have an extremely negative impact in Australia upon activities that are globally recognized as universally accepted, normal, and in fact desirable.

Just as a starter, that sounds pretty much a bad law to me.

That's nice. Note my use of the word "irreparably", which your summary doesn't address.

Why should he? IP is merely pointing out that Twentymumble years back there was no proof that lid laws were even moderately necessary and didn't come with a shedload of unintended consequences.

[high_tea]

Because it doesn't follow that they should be repealed.

[il padrone]

Not entirely sure what your criterion of 'irreparably' actually consists of as regards a bad law, but in the Australian sustainable transport context and looking at the goal of achieving a significantly higher role for cycling as a serious form of transport in our urban areas, yes, with the MHL I would describe this goal as irreparably harmed.

An irreparably bad law for our urban environment.

[Mulger bill]

Because it doesn't follow that they should be repealed.

Did it ever follow that they should have been enacted?

[high_tea]

Yet relaxation worked in the NT, to name but one thing that suggests they aren't irreparably bad.

[high_tea]

Because it doesn't follow that they should be repealed.

Did it ever follow that they should have been enacted?

Moot point.

[KenGS]

Yet relaxation worked in the NT, to name but one thing that suggests they aren't irreparably bad.

I'm not clear what point you are trying to make. Any bad law can be 'repaired' by modification, repeal or non-enforcement.
Unless anyone thinks MHLs attract people to cycling then they have obstructed growth in cycling to some degree
Any damage they have done in that regard is irreparable in terms of the time opportunity lost

[softy]

That's cool,IP,
I completely understand. It is hard to fathom the trend of why people buy the things they do.
Your sig line is also applicable to motor cars as well. People think they are safe in large cars but the reverse is often the case.
I am not a hardnosed person (been busted a few times to prove it) and we all come from different walks of life. The unifying thing in this forum is the love of riding bikes; yet things sometimes get to the point where it is not enough to get you by here.
Knowingly or unknowingly pressure is put to get a line of thought or attitude to bend to certain will. Understandable in its way, yet insidious in that the members doing it don't even realise. The thread the other day on blue and white collar workers and that entire pissing contest is an example. It was just the case with the intellectuals of days gone by, that brought in the MHL and had the ear of the precious few that mattered. Now we have a law foisted upon all cyclists.

But foisting things on others can be a habit in forums and friend ships. If freedom of speech is worth fighting for, freedom to retain our identity is of equal importance.
In just the same way forum members get it in the neck if they don't agree, not to a valid point, but also even with a lifestyle concept.

You have to hate cars, the drivers are cagers, All tradies are arsholes, as are Bmw drivers , Aldi drivers,Ute drivers, Commodore drivers, Christ don’t forget Bus drivers.
We hate gyms and any that attend them, cyclists that ride too close as we are giving them an easy ride, even if they are two lengths back, slow riders, riders faster than us, guys with bells are idiots, guys without bells are idiots. And so on.
And all this causes a fine line to be treaded, and even a small deviation gets instant attention and correction.

But I say the forum is made up these people, and some times the attention and disregard for the actual feelings of our fellow members gets lost in the wellbeing of an often senior member that can sit back and say, “well I sorted him out to my way of thinking.”......And another member bites the dust. But is the thinking, '"we are better off with out him"

Here here,
I do think we should remember we are all just expressing our opinion.

Some agree with MHL
Some don't
Lets be objective and factual, not personal.

As for towing, don't assume,
vehicles have GVM and each vehicle and it's towing capacity has already been calculated. So a specific vehicle is allowed to tow a set weight, sometimes this may be increased if brakes are fitted to the trailer. it's all in black and white.
Eg: a falcon ute can tow more than a commodore ute. I don't know why, but you have to complying to manfactures specifications. I believe it might be something to do with the chassis design.

Saying this, less weight is easier to stop due to interia. This is just the laws of Physics. But who cares, just get out your handbook and see how much you can tow. Or check before purchasing.
Disclaimer: Just because it is a 4wd doesn't mean it can tow more, check manufactures specs first.

Now lets lock heads again on MHL,
Who votes for the removal of MHL, hands up!

[softy]

I don't particularly want to argue this. But a heavier vehicle is not predisposed by physics to slower stopping times. This is what the physics says. You could get a Suzuki Alto and a fully loaded BMX X5. The BMW is 3 times heavier. But I would not expect the Suzuki to stop faster.

(Other people were talking about towing, that is why it was mentioned.)

Just a note here;
Making the statment above I believe is just guessing. Maybe the beemer may stop quicker due to bigger brakes over compensating for the weight, BUT you will/must have to disapate more heat. This could cause quicker brake fade. This may be critical if descending a big hill. It is not so simple to make such statements.
Also the manufacture will have a maximum GVM for both of these vehicles. Due to the beemer being heavier it most probably may be able to tow more. So not equal.

I reaslise this is a bit off track but somehow it got onto 4wds and towing?? So thought I may just clear it up as I once had to consider vehicle and trailer loads for work.

You will be surprised how towing capacity varies, size of vehicle or if it is a 4wd isn't a good indicator.

[Dragster1]

I don't particularly want to argue this. But a heavier vehicle is not predisposed by physics to slower stopping times. This is what the physics says. You could get a Suzuki Alto and a fully loaded BMX X5. The BMW is 3 times heavier. But I would not expect the Suzuki to stop faster.

BMX that's a bike isn't it, No serious he had a pretty good educated guess softy. The engineering on the BMW would be far superior than the Alto. The componentry and materials of the brakes are way better.

[softy]

I don't particularly want to argue this. But a heavier vehicle is not predisposed by physics to slower stopping times. This is what the physics says. You could get a Suzuki Alto and a fully loaded BMX X5. The BMW is 3 times heavier. But I would not expect the Suzuki to stop faster.

BMX that's a bike isn't it, No serious he had a pretty good educated guess softy. The engineering on the BMW would be far superior than the Alto. The componentry and materials of the brakes are way better.

Maybe, I'm not argueing, all I'm saying is the brakes would have to be so much bigger to disapate the heat to continue to stop quicker with repeated application. Maybe they are.
One thing I do know is I will not be wearing a bicycle helmet driving either of these vehicles.

[Dragster1]

As a lot of other people have said and a few articles I have read that bicycle helmets are pretty much useless for high speed impacts as in cars hitting you at 60kms and prevention brain injury. They work very well at around 20kms and lower no doubt about that.The ASNZS2063 standards for bike helmets requires a helmet dropped from 1.5m to have a and impact deceleration of less than 250gn can any of the engineers here calculate the speed at which this occurs. I don't know how much impact the human brain can take in the skull before it causes damage maybe some medical people would know.