Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (MHL discussion)

[il padrone]

One for H909.

No helmet needed. It's gotta be safe yeah ???

[yugyug]

Now people don't ride for lots of shallow reasons, I put helmet hair as one, being more sweaty is another. We need to make cycling easier. Get cars off the road, increase the communities exercise and reduce reliance on motor vehicles.

Don't forget that MHL (and helmet promotion in general) create a perception that cycling is dangerous. That's hardly shallow.

Though I don't think that issues like helmet hair or lack of cycle chic is shallow either, not when it impacts the take up of a transport mode that reduces pollution, congestion and death/injury and increases health and wellbeing. In truth, proper research on the affects of MHLs and helmet wearing as it concerns the aesthetics and appeal of cycling is sorely lacking. Unfortunately its up to Australia and NZ to do that research, because its redundant in other countries.

[human909]

One for H909.

Hehehehe, he's got skills doesn't he! I wish I could do that with that much ease. (The climbing itself isn't that difficult. But he has practiced it down to a routine and has the strength and skill to match.)

Here is another classic one much older:

The aerobic ability alone to ascend 120m in 4 and a half minutes is impressive! Even ascending at that rate on a bicycle is impressive! (The actual climb isn't that hard. But it would take me at least an hour and I'd have a rope!)

No helmet needed. It's gotta be safe yeah ???

Safe for him? Maybe... The thing is that if you do something often enough and develop enough skills in doing it then the risk really does become lower and possibly even negligible.

Most of us do a highly skilled and risky activity every day. Its called walking. Its a bit bizarre that we can so comfortably balance on two jointed poles. Let alone use them at both low and high speeds over variable ground. The risk of smacking our heads is quite high. We are just lucky that we all learnt when we were only a 70cm high. The risks are much greater when you are 180cm high.

Ditto with cycling. I find it quite bizarre that so many people (including) portray cycling as big risk. It really isn't, especially at low or moderate speeds.

[bychosis]

The risk of smacking our heads is quite high. We are just lucky that we all learnt when we were only a 70cm high. The risks are much greater when you are 180cm high.

And funnily (or perhaps not so funny) if you wear a hard hat, like on a construction site, you hit your head more often because of not being used to the extra height. I speak from experience wearing hard hats around a manufacturing plant. Fortunately when you hit your head while wearing a construction hard hat there is protection there - but if you weren't wearing it, would you have hit your head?

[queequeg]

The risk of smacking our heads is quite high. We are just lucky that we all learnt when we were only a 70cm high. The risks are much greater when you are 180cm high.

And funnily (or perhaps not so funny) if you wear a hard hat, like on a construction site, you hit your head more often because of not being used to the extra height. I speak from experience wearing hard hats around a manufacturing plant. Fortunately when you hit your head while wearing a construction hard hat there is protection there - but if you weren't wearing it, would you have hit your head?

I always thought that hard hats were to protect you when someone drops a spanner from 3 floors up.

[softy]

Hardhats are are different animal and only prevent small items hiting you or bangs.

Bicycle helmets are a bit better, but really not that much. The force generated from dropping is around 20km per hour. As long as it doesn't break it passes. There is a little more to it but that is the mIn impact test.

As I said before, I do believe alot of people don't ride because of helmets.
They are also a pain to carry at your destination, especially if shopping. It may seem like little things i am suggesting but human nature is that we choose the easy option and a helmet is another added inconvenience.

[human909]

Yep. Those who suggest helmets aren't an inconvenience need only look at the actions of the vast majority of helmet wearers as soon as they get the chance they remove it. Be that a cyclist stopping his ride, a worker leaving the site a skier coming in for lunch or a rock climber who finishes his/her climb.

Helmets are an annoyance. But we put up with them if the incentives for the activity and bigger than the distinctiveness. In Australia we seem ever keen to add more disincentives to cycling. Mr Gay, I'm looking at you at the moment!

[il padrone]

They are also a pain to carry at your destination, especially if shopping. It may seem like little things i am suggesting but human nature is that we choose the easy option and a helmet is another added inconvenience.

These things are the key. They may seem trivial to a cycling enthusiast (like myself), but they certainly do matter to the sort of people who mostly ride bikes in places like the Netherlands. These are ordinary people, riding bikes because it is effective transport for them, not because they are rusted-on sporting enthusiasts. We may trivialise such deterrent factors but it really does play a large factor. If the bike is made too inconvenient to use, these people will make other transport choices.

Heck, even I will be reluctant to ride the bike if it leaves me having to carry a helmet about for a long time like a swinging bucket. I have been unable to make use of the Melbourne Bikeshare scheme when it may have been useful to me, for just this reason.

[Thoglette]

The Australian - 2015-08-11 Bike helmet laws a turn-off JARED OWENS

Doctors have urged parliament to drop laws requiring bike helmets.

Paywalled link
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nationa ... 7477899807" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[yugyug]

That's huge if true. It was only half a year ago that RACS were still boasting of their success getting them implemented in the first place. But who are these doctors - presumably not RACS?

Can someone post the plaintext?

[yugyug]

dupe post

[yugyug]

Just realised I have university access. Its fair I quote this article for educational purposes.

Abstract (summary)

Doctors have urged parliament to dismantle laws requiring cyclists to wear helmets, saying the safety measure is dissuading unfit Australians from riding their bicycles.

Full Text

Doctors have urged parliament to dismantle laws requiring cyclists to wear helmets, saying the safety measure is dissuading unfit Australians from riding their bicycles.

The Senate's broad-ranging inquiry into "nanny state" public safety laws has received written submissions from three medical practitioners, all arguing helmets should be optional for adults.

Andreas Schwander, a dentist for more than 20 years, criticised bicycle helmet laws as "over- regulation" that has unintentionally undermined cycling.

"They have discouraged large proportions of the community from using their bicycles and probably have caused a much worse impact on our nation's health by keeping people away from this kind of exercise than they have given benefit by reducing head injuries," wrote Dr Schwander of Newcastle. "While people who take cycling as a serious sport ... wear a helmet voluntarily, it is bordering on ridiculousness to make it mandatory for a leisure ride or trip (to) the baker." Andrew Parker, a Sydney clinical pathologist and former senior lecturer at Oxford University, urged the committee to heed a Queensland review that found helmets should be optional for people aged 16 and older.

"The information from this inquiry should be heeded by the committee," Dr Parker wrote.

Sydney doctor Lisa Parker said the mandatory helmet rule "reduces population health" and should be removed. "While there is evidence of benefit to the individuals wearing helmets, there is also evidence of wider harm to population health resulting from the reduction in cycling," she wrote.

Helmet laws are the responsibility of states and territories but are modelled on National Transport Commission rules. Victoria's helmet laws, introduced in 1990, resulted in a 16 per cent reduction in head injuries. While there was a fall in bicycle use, those numbers substantially recovered within two years, according to VicRoads.

University of Sydney public health professor Simon Chapman has defended helmet laws for saving lives with only "a trivial intrusion on liberty".

The inquiry, chaired by Liberal Democrat senator David Leyonhjelm, is examining laws that restrict personal choice "for the individual's own good", including the sale and use of alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, !!! spammer !!! and violent video games.

Launching the inquiry last month, Senator Leyonhjelm argued the state should not restrict an individual's freedom unless they are threatening others."It's not a threat to other people if you don't wear a helmet; you're not going to bang your bare head into someone else," he said.

Credit: JARED OWENS

[/quote]

[yugyug]

So 2 doctors and a dentist do not make a medical organisation, and no doubt after this coverage RACS will vigorously defend their policy advice, if they hadn't already planned to and if they haven't already (I scanned the submissions a week ago, but won't again until after the 24th - I suspect the best will come in just before deadline).

On that point, I don't know what the breakdown is now, but a week ago the vast majority of submissions were regarding helmets laws, and all of them seemed to be pro-MHL repeal or relaxation. Hardly any regarding gun, alcohol, video game laws etc.

[il padrone]

OT entirely, but must be stated - riding a bike with no helmet is completely tame and non-threatening to others when compared to alcohol, cannabis, violent video games, and even tobacco, which when used to excess are of considerable harm to the wider population.

Lie'ninhell is on rather more shakey ground lamenting these as "victimless crimes" that do not cause harm to other people.

[rustguard]

I dont think it is going anywhere. but it is a start for sure. It's up to all cyclist to keep the ball rolling.

[softy]

Yes not wearing your searbelt attracts a higher fine (in WA) than running a red light.
One has the potential to injury others the other does not.

Yes, shaky ground to stand on this argument.

[yugyug]

Yes not wearing your seatbelt attracts a higher fine (in WA) than running a red light.
One has the potential to injury others the other does not.

An unrestrained body in a car can injure other passengers though: seatbelts don't just protect the seatbelt user. I don't how common that is in practice. There were PSAs about it I remember.

Your point is still correct in the relative sense. Of course running a red light is more dangerous.

The problem is that too many behaviours are legislated, enforced and penalised not by actual threat, but by perceived threat (and the perception of the normality of that threat).

To an extent, that whats this nanny state enquiry is about, though it would be good to have both a broader, deeper and more rigorous discussion about the difference between perception and actuality of antisocial behaviour and how it plays out at the political level, in terms of how politicians appeal to demographics to become or remain elected. (Y'know, like what Socrates said n' stuff. )

[Xplora]

The lack of seatbelt still requires an unexpected deceleration to hurt other passengers. Doesn't justify the disparity in one bit. It's nanny state evidence of a failure in the system.

Helmets boooooo

[mikesbytes]

I'm for the notion that offenses that endanger others should have a higher penalty than those that endanger themselves

[human909]

I'm for the notion that offenses that endanger others should have a higher penalty than those that endanger themselves

Absolutely. Though the need for penalties regarding activities that only endanger the perpetrator is quite questionable in a free society. A law that punishes individuals for their choices on how they treat themselves should avoided in most part.

It seems odd that I am allowed to juggle chainsaws but I'm not allowed to ride a bicycle without a helmet.

(I'm not saying that we should never have such laws. But I believe in a free society. Not a society which dictates how it citizens must behave.)

[queequeg]

I'm for the notion that offenses that endanger others should have a higher penalty than those that endanger themselves

If I recall correctly, when Sue Abbott went to court over her non-helmet wearing crimes, she actually had to pay into the victim's compensation of crime fund!

[Bunged Knee]

I'm for the notion that offenses that endanger others should have a higher penalty than those that endanger themselves

If I recall correctly, when Sue Abbott went to court over her non-helmet wearing crimes, she actually had to pay into the victim's compensation of crime fund!

Yes and the story was in SMH. She ended up ordering to pay $67 to victim`s compensation of crime fund but didn`t and the fine grew to $213.
Sheriff came to her place to confiscate of anything in value but ended up with 2 old family bicycles.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/protest-cycli ... 26c5k.html

[fat and old]

So 2 doctors and a dentist do not make a medical organisation, and no doubt after this coverage RACS will vigorously defend their policy advice, if they hadn't already planned to and if they haven't already (I scanned the submissions a week ago, but won't again until after the 24th - I suspect the best will come in just before deadline).

Didn't take long Yug......

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/respo ... iyg7s.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bike helmet laws don't make us unhealthy.
That's the advice from Royal Australasian College of Surgeons who say there is no scientific evidence that mandatory bike helmet laws have had a "population-wide impact on health because people don't want to ride".

Chris Carpenter from Bicycle Network said the Australian Parliament should concentrate on improving bike infrastructure.
"We reiterated the call for a national bike infrastructure fund at a recent Senate inquiry in July," Mr Carpenter said.
"Bicycle Network's community and member surveys consistently show the biggest barrier to riding a bike is the lack of bike infrastructure," he said.
He said riders should also strap on a helmet.
"We are determined to see bike rider trauma reduced and recommend all bike riders in Australia wear a helmet and comply with helmet rules," Mr Carpenter said.

[il padrone]

"Stuck in a rut, going nowhere fast"

[rustguard]

Yes not wearing your searbelt attracts a higher fine (in WA) than running a red light.
One has the potential to injury others the other does not.

Yes, shaky ground to stand on this argument.

The panel show in the morning on channel 10 run a little piece on this, they keep harping on the nanny state argument and the small impingement on freedom. But concluded that helmets are proven to reduce head injury. I thought the conversation was reminiscent of herring gobels it was so scripted. I even felt one of the panellists was wanting to deviate from the script; maybe that was my wishful thinking.

Anyhow they were trying to steer people away from statistical facts about health and make it a freedom issue compared with seatbelts.

The more I see these panel shows like the project and such, I cant help but think of the state tv from 'V for Vendetta' just alot more subtle.