Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[Percrime]

True. Still hard to make a compelling case that bike helmets save more than a concussion very often. But yes still true

[lturner]

https://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/helme ... yer/013638

Racing cyclists are not the enemy.

Amanda Grant is the enemy.

"If you are involved in an accident severe enough that a head injury will kill you, other parts of your body will be injured severely enough to kill you." Jim Moss

Oh well that settles the whole debate then. Everyone thank Jim

Good lord that article by Amanda Grant is terrible.

On another issue, are any MHL supporters willing to take up the case for the affirmative that this guy is doing something reckless and requires police attention?

[The 2nd Womble]

https://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/helme ... yer/013638

Racing cyclists are not the enemy.

Amanda Grant is the enemy.

"If you are involved in an accident severe enough that a head injury will kill you, other parts of your body will be injured severely enough to kill you." Jim Moss

Oh well that settles the whole debate then. Everyone thank Jim

Good lord that article by Amanda Grant is terrible.

On another issue, are any MHL supporters willing to take up the case for the affirmative that this guy is doing something reckless and requires police attention?

That's missing the point. He's riding in a country (obviously not OZ) where there is no law requiring him to wear a helmet. Nobody is arguing that not wearing a helmet in is reckless in of itself. Those like me are keen to point out that riding like this in Oz where he is breaking the law, and one which practcally every Australian over the age of 5 knows is in existance, is reckless given the message it is sending to all who now label him a law breaker.
The act of riding helmetless is not the issue for the man in the pic. If it were taken on an inner city street here the perception would be entirely different.
I'm currently required to wear a helmet by law. I won't entertain the thought of not wearing one because
1) I'll be fined if caught, and
2) The next cyclist will quite possibly be seen in the same light by the driver who takes offence regardless of whether we're wearing a helmet or not.
I have seen drivers take to abusing several cyclists along a roadway more than once. The driver's anger may be (even further) misdirected at somebody else based on his dim view of my actions. Sure, drivers get it wrong, but ask what three things they object to most with cyclists, and it's going to be red light, helmets and rego.

[human909]

I personally don't care about the "how much a helmet protects you" debate. That said don't disagree with percrime.

However, as far as I am concerned whatever the activity if I am involved in a high speed fall on hard ground I want to be wearing a helmet.

Of course like PawPaw very much likes to point out we can't predict when this will occur. What we need to do is make an assessment of the probability of an occurrence and wear a helmet on those occasions. It is ludicrous to wear a helmet wherever there is a slight risk as this realistically covers our entire life. (In fact my only concussion ever was on a Year 12 formal years ago. Wearing a helmet then would have been very beneficial! )

is reckless given the message it is sending to all who now label him a law breaker.

That is a stretch. Its a motorist not indicating reckless given the message they are sending?

2) The next cyclist will quite possibly be seen in the same light by the driver who takes offence regardless of whether we're wearing a helmet or not.
I have seen drivers take to abusing several cyclists along a roadway more than once. The driver's anger may be (even further) misdirected at somebody else based on his dim view of my actions.

If I based my actions on whether it annoys bigoted motorists or not I wouldn't be cycling on roads.

Sure, drivers get it wrong, but ask what three things they object to most with cyclists, and it's going to be red light, helmets and rego.

I've never heard I driver object to helmets. Maybe its different up where you are though because in VIC there is 98% compliance. Even if they do object though what business is it of theirs?

[The 2nd Womble]

Actually, MHL's at Yr12 formals sounds like a very practical idea. We could have used them as well with the collisions experienced after drunken deck chair races around the pool at the breakwater Casino that night. We aren't robinson Crusoe's there Human.

[ldrcycles]

On another issue, are any MHL supporters willing to take up the case for the affirmative that this guy is doing something reckless and requires police attention?

I'm not a MHL supporter, but that bloke ABSOLUTELY requires police attention. Wearing those shoes in public . My eyes!

[Xplora]

Isn't it worth noting how utterly ludicrous the caption is? It's meant to challenge. Who gives a damn about what country it was taken in... heads aren't stronger in Europe. We're the same genetic stock in Australia.

Take your nanny state and shove it. Your laws aren't enforced when they would protect me from moron motorists, so stop pretending that your interest is protecting my body.

[The 2nd Womble]

Oy yoy yoy.
The one thing that doesn't sink in with you people. We have a law here. It's the very title of the thread. That European's heads are no stronger is the point in contention with regard to my posts? Really???
Drivers hate cyclists because we take up valuable space and break the law on a minute by minute basis. Just ask one who doesn't ride a bike. Don't argue this fundamental point with me. It's them you should be talking to. We have a law, riding without a helmet is breaking it. Drivers hate it. Buff said.

[Xplora]

No one is saying that you should obey or disobey the law. We are saying the law is stupid and should be changed.

You've been reading this thread, haven't you?

[Mulger bill]

Furphy Dave. Smokeboxers hating lidlessness has nothing to do with legal behaviour else they'd be banging on big time about the mora with phones clamped to their heads or failing to indicate. (Note that both these two examples of illegal behaviour have a much greater probability of injuring innocents.) Nude nuttedness is just one more hook they can hang their bigotry on.

Shaun

[PawPaw]

On another issue, are any MHL supporters willing to take up the case for the affirmative that this guy is doing something reckless and requires police attention?

OMGosh, where are all the cars? and what is that thing he is crossing? Do we have them in Australia? Why not? Oh that's right....we don't need them....not wearing helmets is good enough.

Shame on those Euros for misrepresenting the dangers of cycling by excluding cars in cycling promo pics.

[DavidS]

Nobody is arguing that not wearing a helmet in is reckless in of itself.

Womble, I know this does not include you, but there are a hell of a lot of people arguing just this. All those who support MHLs are arguing precisely this. In fact they are arguing it is so reckless that laws have to be passed to make sure we aren't reckless. Every Australian state parliament is arguing this by passing MHLs. I understand your position on the law Womble but the argument is not that we should flout the law, the argument is that the law should be repealed.

There were a number of problems with that article that Baldy quoted but there was one good point: why are so many supposed advocates of cycling arguing it is so dangerous? Not very conducive to getting people to take up cycling. Note, this is not directed at you Womble, it is directed at MHL advocates.

PawPaw, you're right, there are no cars in that photo. I strongly suggest that you should immediately dismount your bike when a car is within 50 metres of you. It's too dangerous. You should just drive. By the way Pawpaw, ever done any track cycling? No cars there so I assume no need for a helmet!

DS

[damhooligan]

Nobody is arguing that not wearing a helmet in is reckless in of itself.

Womble, I know this does not include you, but there are a hell of a lot of people arguing just this. All those who support MHLs are arguing precisely this. In fact they are arguing it is so reckless that laws have to be passed to make sure we aren't reckless. Every Australian state parliament is arguing this by passing MHLs. I understand your position on the law Womble but the argument is not that we should flout the law, the argument is that the law should be repealed

DS

+1

I picked that up to.... you beat me to it....
It is considered reckless to ride without a H. That's why we have the mhl...
And this thread......

[damhooligan]

On another issue, are any MHL supporters willing to take up the case for the affirmative that this guy is doing something reckless and requires police attention?

OMGosh, where are all the cars? and what is that thing he is crossing? Do we have them in Australia? Why not? Oh that's right....we don't need them....not wearing helmets is good enough.

Shame on those Euros for misrepresenting the dangers of cycling by excluding cars in cycling promo pics.

Yeah shame on those euros....
The stats clearly show its dangerous to ride a bike over there....
Mayby we should force them to wear helmets too....

[damhooligan]

On another issue, are any MHL supporters willing to take up the case for the affirmative that this guy is doing something reckless and requires police attention?

I'm not a MHL supporter, but that bloke ABSOLUTELY requires police attention. Wearing those shoes in public . My eyes!

I noticed those shoes as well..they are awesome.
I want some!!!

[lturner]

That's missing the point. He's riding in a country (obviously not OZ) where there is no law requiring him to wear a helmet. Nobody is arguing that not wearing a helmet in is reckless in of itself. Those like me are keen to point out that riding like this in Oz where he is breaking the law, and one which practcally every Australian over the age of 5 knows is in existance, is reckless given the message it is sending to all who now label him a law breaker.

Nah that is the point. 99/100 people who argue in favour of MHL do so because they believe everyone should wear helmets all the time - they are arguing that not wearing a helmet is reckless in and of itself. You are the only person I've come across whose main objection in this debate is that some people are "breaking the law", and breaking any sort of law is morally repugnant. Although I have wholly enjoyed your contributions, I don't think it's unfair to remind you at this juncture that "it's not just all about you".

In fact, most people care little about breaking minor laws. I prove it to you with this example: How many people exceed the speed limit by small amounts, say 5km/hr when they drive? It would not be an exaggeration to say that probably well over 50% of drivers do this each and every single time they get in the car. And speeding by 5km/hr is a more serious offence than cycling without a helmet in the eyes of the law (eg in Qld no helmet = $100 fine, speeding = $146 fine).

[PawPaw]

Yeah shame on those euros....
The stats clearly show its dangerous to ride a bike over there....
Mayby we should force them to wear helmets too....

The stats show it is safer to ride a bike there than here, but as haters you can ignore at will....
There's less crashes, period, because according to your logic, not wearing a helmet makes it safer. hahaha. Magical thinking!!! Yep, the different infrastructure, the different motorist accountability laws, the different motorist culture, the higher density living and complications/cost of parking cars, has absolutely nothing to do with it. You guys think it is safer purely because........they don't wear helmets... hahahaa. kindergarten...

BTW, can you haters find a picture of a cyclist riding on an Amsterdam winter's day, you know, one when the av. max temp is 5C, or how about Copenhagen with a max of 2C. You see, I am interested in whether they actually put something on their head, you know, to keep it warm. Because according to you lot, soooo many people won't ride if they risk messing up their hair, with a piece of foam.... hahahaha. hey don't worry.....I found some.


a Euro chick wearing something on their head in winter....go figure....so that blows the 'not going to ride cos a helmet messes up my hair' codswallop....cos they'd be wearing the same thing on their head when walking....brouhahahaha....or do they refuse to walk in the winter too hahaha.

hey, and here's one of Copenhagen....

ahhhhhh!!!! all that hair getting messed up!!!! hahaha

[human909]

Surprise, surprise. When it is cold outside people like to keep their head and ears warm.

But I'm not sure what your point here is or how it relates to the argument. What does it matter WHAT reasons people have for not wearing a helmet? Isn't that the whole point of allowing CHOICE? How is Dutch and Danish cyclists keeping their head warm an argument for Australian MHLs?

[greyhoundtom]

ahhhhhh!!!! all that hair getting messed up!!!! hahaha

Bugger............obviously kindergarten time..........not really funny..........just kinda sad

....brouhahahaha....

[The 2nd Womble]

This thread rocks.

[PawPaw]

But I'm not sure what your point here is or how it relates to the argument. What does it matter WHAT reasons people have for not wearing a helmet?

ask your hater buddies, who have argued over 150 odd pages, Australia is more obese than it would be without MHL, because SOOOO many Australians don't want a piece of foam messing up their hair.....just more lamer logic used by MHL haters.

[Xplora]

But I'm not sure what your point here is or how it relates to the argument. What does it matter WHAT reasons people have for not wearing a helmet?

ask your hater buddies, who have argued over 150 odd pages, Australia is more obese than it would be without MHL, because SOOOO many Australians don't want a piece of foam messing up their hair.....just more lamer logic used by MHL haters.

Stats show around 16% (1 in 6) don't want to ride because of the helmet. Of these, let's say 2/3s of them are women. (don't know if this is the primary reason for avoiding riding). So maybe 10% are complaining about messing up their hair/too hot/etc.

Don't misrepresent the stats. MHL opponents rely on the stats because they support our position. That is what makes such comments hilarious. 2 million potential riders will not do it because of the helmet in Australia... Half of Sydney.

[PawPaw]

Don't misrepresent the stats. MHL opponents rely on the stats because they support our position. That is what makes such comments hilarious. 2 million potential riders will not do it because of the helmet in Australia...

hahahahaha. I'm laughing my a$$ off. The same cohort put a lot of other factors for not riding, before helmet hair....but you know that...
You know, I am even open to a trial repeal of MHL in a selected area, just to prove you guys wrong.
You can't even get a grip on why cycling rates vary dramatically across Holland and Denmark.

[damhooligan]

You can't even get a grip on why cycling rates vary dramatically across Holland and Denmark.

So true... i have no clue whatsoever...

Oh no wait i might have got it...
It because their winters are so cold they wear headgear....
Thats it yeah???

[Xplora]

Don't misrepresent the stats. MHL opponents rely on the stats because they support our position. That is what makes such comments hilarious. 2 million potential riders will not do it because of the helmet in Australia...

hahahahaha. I'm laughing my a$$ off. The same cohort put a lot of other factors for not riding, before helmet hair....but you know that...
You know, I am even open to a trial repeal of MHL in a selected area, just to prove you guys wrong.
You can't even get a grip on why cycling rates vary dramatically across Holland and Denmark.

You're embarrassing yourself.