Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[jcjordan]

Yes exactly. He is denying the effect while in the same sentence admitting the effect.
Oh and +1. I quit for 10 years too. But apparently not cos of the helmet laws. Except that it was.

Exactly where did I saw helmets were the factor? As I pointed out they are a possible factor, one of many, and until proven otherwise that's all they will be.

Add to this we have yet to measure this possible impact against the benefits to society as a whole

[Ken Ho]

Your last paragraph concedes that people have strong feelings about these things, which shape their actions.
To deny this is folly.
Comparing MHL to seatbelt laws ignores the reliance people have on cars.
As much as I like my bikes, if I were forced to choose one, I would have to choose the car. There are tyrannies of distance, weather and obligation which make he car an essential for me and most people.

[Percrime]

jc. the last two posters have stated they had their cycling reduced by the helmet law. That in itself stops the helmet law being a 'possible factor' in a drop in cycling. To argue otherwise is clearly a logical fallacy. It only remains to determine the effect.

We have the only two cities in the world with a failed public bike scheme. And the only two citys in the world to have tried a public bike scheme with a helmet law. Nothing else unique about those cities. Or their bike schemes

There you go.. measured.

[biker jk]

jc. the last two posters have stated they had their cycling reduced by the helmet law. That in itself stops the helmet law being a 'possible factor' in a drop in cycling. To argue otherwise is clearly a logical fallacy. It only remains to determine the effect.

We have the only two cities in the world with a failed public bike scheme. And the only two citys in the world to have tried a public bike scheme with a helmet law. Nothing else unique about those cities. Or their bike schemes

There you go.. measured.

Just as we have Australia and the US, the former with MHLs but cycling take up is no higher in the latter. Measured.

[human909]

Just as we have Australia and the US, the former with MHLs but cycling take up is no higher in the latter. Measured.

Nobody has said that MHLs are the only factor that influences cycling participation. But what IS clear is that MHLs present barriers to potential cyclist in taking up cycling.

Also it is interesting to note that the US has many successful bike share schemes.

[Percrime]

So tell me why the New York City bike sharing program in a city far less friendly to bicycles than Melbourne is booming. THe schemes in Denver and Minneapolis and the District of Columbia have been successful as has a scheme in Fort Worth Texas. Oh and there are more.

Canada can be compared to Australia far more readily than the US and we discover that in spite of a much colder climate that Canada has several successful schemes

[ILMB]

The post above is interesting. It states that helmets are not a barrier to cycling, then goes on to admit that people resent the imposition.
Me, I quit riding for a decade after MHL came in.
I wear a bobby dodger now, but rather than getting used to it, I resent it more and more as time goes by.
I want to wear the hat of my choice, not a dunce cap.

Me too to all the above

[jcjordan]

jc. the last two posters have stated they had their cycling reduced by the helmet law. That in itself stops the helmet law being a 'possible factor' in a drop in cycling. To argue otherwise is clearly a logical fallacy. It only remains to determine the effect.

We have the only two cities in the world with a failed public bike scheme. And the only two citys in the world to have tried a public bike scheme with a helmet law. Nothing else unique about those cities. Or their bike schemes

There you go.. measured.

So 2 out of 26 million is now considered statistically correct for extrapolating data.

So if I go out and find two drivers who believe that bikes do not belong on the road that would be correct as well?

In regards to the 'failed' bike share schemes, I guess that we just discount poor cycling infrastructure, city's which are comparatively less dense in terms or population and drivers which are some of the most aggressive in the world (which has been proven).

As I said most of the arguments in this thread are based on emotions not science.

[human909]

So 2 out of 26 million is now considered statistically correct for extrapolating data.

Who is extrapolating? Individual anecdotes refute the crazy denial that helmets are not a barrier.

So if I go out and find two drivers who believe that bikes do not belong on the road that would be correct as well?

Well then that would be correct that two drivers believe that bikes do not belong on the road.

As I said most of the arguments in this thread are based on emotions not science.

You have got to be kidding.

[Percrime]

So 2 out of 26 million is now considered statistically correct for extrapolating data.

If I type slowly maybe you will follow.

2 people say categorically that the reason they gave up cycling for years because of the helmet law. That IS a statistic. IT entirely disproves your contention that no one had proved that helmet laws affect participation in cycling.

2 people out of 11 billion would hold the same value. It entirely and completely disproves your assertion.

You can indeed argue that the first two people who responded to your post were the only two people in the history of humanity to actually behave in that way. It makes you look a complete jerk without the slightest grasp of probability theory. But yes you can make that argument and not completely be nuts.

You can argue that its a number that holds no statistical significance. A continuation of the theory above. Perhaps admitting to another half dozen irrational people out there who have quit cos of the helmet law. And that is indeed a somewhat defensible opinion. Dissenting evidence abounds but meh. Its the obvious response for you to make


BUT you can no longer argue that helmet laws do not affect participation in cycling. Not logically. The only thing you can argue logically is the degree of effect.

IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH?

[Percrime]

When I was last in london its cycling infrastructure was pretty poor. Cant say I have heard that Texas or NY were great. Mate seriously at least try and be credible  Texas is somewhat spread out too. And noted for agressive and armed drivers

[Ken Ho]

Jcjordan, you may well be right about how emotional the argument against MHLs are, but that is exactly my point.
It's thre emotional response to MHLs that makes them such a problem.
MHLs are are a
Ienating and divisive, creating an us and them mentality which increases danger for cyclists on the road. It also dehumanizes us, making it OK for people to treat us like road kill, typically not stopping even after hitting a cyclist, like the girl in teh UK, who joked on Facebook about how she had creamed a guy into a hedge.
She might have well been describing hitting a cane toad or a feral cat. I suspect she would have been more upset to hit a cat.

[Percrime]

I,m sure of it actually. How sad is that?

[jcjordan]

So 2 out of 26 million is now considered statistically correct for extrapolating data.

If I type slowly maybe you will follow.

2 people say categorically that the reason they gave up cycling for years because of the helmet law. That IS a statistic. IT entirely disproves your contention that no one had proved that helmet laws affect participation in cycling.

2 people out of 11 billion would hold the same value. It entirely and completely disproves your assertion.

You can indeed argue that the first two people who responded to your post were the only two people in the history of humanity to actually behave in that way. It makes you look a complete jerk without the slightest grasp of probability theory. But yes you can make that argument and not completely be nuts.

You can argue that its a number that holds no statistical significance. A continuation of the theory above. Perhaps admitting to another half dozen irrational people out there who have quit cos of the helmet law. And that is indeed a somewhat defensible opinion. Dissenting evidence abounds but meh. Its the obvious response for you to make


BUT you can no longer argue that helmet laws do not affect participation in cycling. Not logically. The only thing you can argue logically is the degree of effect.

IS THAT SIMPLE ENOUGH?

I never said that they did not have an effect but do not believe it is the most significant or even the majority factor until it has been properly proven.

If would then need to be shown that any measured detrimental effect outweighed by public good that are provided by helmets

[Percrime]

Actually thats exactly what you said. I can see you now frantically editing past posts. None the less thats exactly what you said and I know it. And so do you.

And many many people have spend many of the past few hundred posts doing their best to prove that "any measured detrimental effect (was) outweighed by public good that are provided by helmets"

Thats the point of the entire thread. But yes the reasonably defensible position for the current law is exactly that its a net positive

But the fact this discussion has gone on so long wIth if you will pardon my noticing it some really excellent and well written arguments in favor of it not being a net positive show that its not so clear cut. That its possible and even likely that the law is a net negative in terms of outcomes for the health of the population, and the safety of cyclists generally

And in fact all that should be necessary is to point out that its possible that thats the case. We surely should not be supporters of any legislation that is not absolutely to the public good. Otherwise its legislation for the sake of restriction of ones freedoms. And thats the point. If you cant prove its a good idea then legislating a freedom away is always a bad idea

[DavidH]

Me, I quit riding for a decade after MHL came in.

I quit for 10 years too.

Why? I'm not sure I would have made the same choice if I were in your position so I'm genuinely interested in hearing a few more details.

[Percrime]

Well in my case the motorists all seemed to become about a million times more agressive overnight. I had near miss after nearmiss.. on one occasion loosing the back of a glove to a car in a 100 kph zone. And suddenly I seemed to be the only cyclist on my training rides. For months. From seeing dozens of bikes around broady and glenroy I would occasionally see one. Couple that to my polystyrene crash hat having given me heat stroke off the back of a GVBR a few months before ( IIRC this was the first year of helmet laws) nah. All too hard. I bought a motorcycle, shoved the bike in the parents garage, let the race licence expire and forgot about the thing until easterbike 10 years later.

[Baldy]

http://www.bhit.org/home.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My new hero Angela Lee.

I have let a few relevant people know about her great work. With the aim of getting some funding so we can get her over here to inform our policy makers leading up to the federal election.

There are people who would be very interested in talking to her and I'm just glad I can play a small part in making that happen.

[Mulger bill]

[jcjordan]

Actually thats exactly what you said. I can see you now frantically editing past posts. None the less thats exactly what you said and I know it. And so do you.

And many many people have spend many of the past few hundred posts doing their best to prove that "any measured detrimental effect (was) outweighed by public good that are provided by helmets"

Thats the point of the entire thread. But yes the reasonably defensible position for the current law is exactly that its a net positive

But the fact this discussion has gone on so long wIth if you will pardon my noticing it some really excellent and well written arguments in favor of it not being a net positive show that its not so clear cut. That its possible and even likely that the law is a net negative in terms of outcomes for the health of the population, and the safety of cyclists generally

And in fact all that should be necessary is to point out that its possible that thats the case. We surely should not be supporters of any legislation that is not absolutely to the public good. Otherwise its legislation for the sake of restriction of ones freedoms. And thats the point. If you cant prove its a good idea then legislating a freedom away is always a bad idea

I have not edited a single post once it was up and take offence to the accusation that I have.

What I have said a that we need to look at what has a impact on cycling preventing it from becoming more popular as a means of transport of which helmets are just one factor.

As for governments and regulation. We can all point out laws or controls put on the population that we have a objection to. Most are put in place based on well thought out research and consideration and other which may have been more gut level reactions.

This does not means that they are they are wrong but should be further questioned to ensure that they are worth continuing. Helmets fit in this case.

[Ken Ho]

http://www.bhit.org/home.html

My new hero Angela Lee.

I have let a few relevant people know about her great work. With the aim of getting some funding so we can get her over here to inform our policy makers leading up to the federal election.

There are people who would be very interested in talking to her and I'm just glad I can play a small part in making that happen.

In the face of a massive child obesity epidemic, she is barking up the wrong tree.

[Percrime]

"Angela Lee of the Bicycle Helmet Initiative Trust (or BHIT – a somewhat disturbing abbreviation…) who does not ride a bike (see picture below) yet ‘believes’ that cyclists should be forced to wear helmets…"

Yup cool. Bring her out. Maybe we can get her on a bike. She could use the exercise



Her organisation has an unsavoury rep for ambulance chasing.. campaigns based on "think of the children you selfish homicidal bastar$" and she is on record as disagreeing with reengineering roads to make them safer for cyclists. I found another pic that enraged me... of her with a couple of random people and an olympian who agreed with her cos he once apparently had his life saved by a helmet when he was ran over by a petrol tanker. (riiight..that happened) He was an olympian in rowing. Nuff said I think. You can put me on the other side of the debate just cos I choose the people I fight with.

[human909]

What I have said a that we need to look at what has a impact on cycling preventing it from becoming more popular as a means of transport of which helmets are just one factor.

You were denying that they were a known factor.

The fact remains that MHLs are a barrier to cycling. This is a FACT.

No it is a supported theory as there has been no peer reviewed research that identifies MHLs as a cause. They have only identified it as a potential cause

[jcjordan]

What I have said a that we need to look at what has a impact on cycling preventing it from becoming more popular as a means of transport of which helmets are just one factor.

You were denying that they were a known factor.

The fact remains that MHLs are a barrier to cycling. This is a FACT.

No it is a supported theory as there has been no peer reviewed research that identifies MHLs as a cause. They have only identified it as a potential cause

Which is true, they are not a known factor for reducing cycling across the wider population and regardless of what you may think a bunch of posters here do not make a significant statistical basis to back it up.

As I have said all along they are a possible factor, along with bunch of others, which needs to be properly researched.

We then need to weigh that research against the overall benefits to society both for and against MHLs.

[Percrime]

Nope. I,m leaving it. Its impossible to respond without mentioning a total lack of comprehension on the part of people that BNA rules dont let me name

Its like the Creationist debate I watched the other day where one side kept saying "show me the evidence" Evidence is duly produced. "Thats not evidence", more evidence is produced. "Still not evidence. " Yet more evidence is produced "Until you show me the evidence I am forced to conclude that you have none and therefore I am right and you are wrong" (and yes I paraphrase.. it was way longer and more painful than that.. but its a good paraphrase)

Made my head hurt that did. If anyone wants to watch 30 minutes of stupid on an entirely different topic... ask and I shall post. But I,m not cruel enough to do so without warning. And this particular bit of this debate is headed the same way