Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thread)

Equipment and On Road Behaviour, Laws and Rules. Cycling Promotion and Advocacy

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby KenGS » Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:25 pm

So what percentage does one times less correspond to?
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1408
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

by BNA » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:11 pm

BNA
 

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby simonn » Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:11 pm

KenGS wrote:So what percentage does one times less correspond to?


:(
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3449
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:54 pm

simonn wrote:
KenGS wrote:So what percentage does one times less correspond to?


:(

Please refer to my earlier comment - the stats from that article are a NIGHTMARE. They jump between a number of different ways to explain the numbers are create a LOT of confusion in the process. Head injuries aren't brain injuries, as noted. Cyclist helmets won't protect against facial injuries but they are still head injuries. We aren't given any idea about nonlethal injuries from the article. Just saying that you are 3 times more likely to die from a head injury without a helmet misses a crucial point - you can still die! Consistency in the reporting would be useful here :idea:
Xplora
 
Posts: 4730
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby jules21 » Tue Aug 21, 2012 5:02 pm

Xplora wrote:Just saying that you are 3 times more likely to die from a head injury without a helmet misses a crucial point - you can still die!

i hadn't thought of that. we shouldn't accept anything less than what would eliminate the risk of dying altogether. all this time i've been wearing a helmet in the belief it would reduce the risk of injury - but i could still die, despite wearing it. more fool me, apparently. seriously...
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8390
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby KenGS » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:52 pm

Just 6 times less pages to go till we hit 200
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1408
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Comedian » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:26 pm

Comedian wrote:So why not Mandatory Body Armour. All the reasons for helmets to easily be extended to mandating body armour. Why not?


No one responded to this... I think if helmets are a good idea this stuff is at least as useful. I'm struggling with why it isn't mandated now.
Once you can climb hills on a bike it's all downhill. :mrgreen:

Hopefully I'll know what that's like..... one day. :shock: :lol:

Image
User avatar
Comedian
 
Posts: 4392
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:35 pm

Don't let the drivers have it though. They need the steel spike on the centre of their steering wheel :mrgreen:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17528
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Mulger bill » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:36 pm

Comedian wrote:
Comedian wrote:So why not Mandatory Body Armour. All the reasons for helmets to easily be extended to mandating body armour. Why not?


No one responded to this... I think if helmets are a good idea this stuff is at least as useful. I'm struggling with why it isn't mandated now.


'Cos it'd be bl00dy hard to police. It's easy to tell when someone doesn't have a magic mushroom attached to their scone.

Mind you, the bloke on Flemington Rd near the Kids today did a great job of Schroedingers helmet wearing. The strap was around his throat and the lid itself was firmly attached to the back of his head :?
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25277
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Tue Aug 21, 2012 10:51 pm

Hmmmm..... I wonder why the Melbourne bike share is struggling vs every other one out there?

http://media.theage.com.au/news/world-n ... om=newsbox


As a response to this I will post wise Euans post from BV forums:
The issue is that there's been over 2 decades of helmet promotion. Most people really do believe that riding without a helmet is really risky. The majority of cyclists really believe that riding without a helmet is really risky, and that a bicycle helmet is some sort of protection against traffic accidents. Even amongst cycling activists, opinion is divided.

Unfortunately science and evidence doesn't have a lot to do with political decisions, which ultimately the Mandatory Helmet Laws and any move to repeal them are. Sadly, I don't think they're going away any soon.


Which I feel is the way things are going here.... I agree with Euan, I don't think MHLs are going away anytime soon, however it is amazingly frustrating that so many cyclists here have swallowed the BS that riding without a helmet is really risky.
human909
 
Posts: 4199
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby KenGS » Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:06 pm

Mulger bill wrote: It's easy to tell when someone doesn't have a magic mushroom attached to their scone.

Here's a thought.
Take this: http://www.eta.co.uk/2011/04/01/safest- ... -built-wig
And this: http://thewheeler.com.au/first-magpie-o ... ng-season/
And encourage everyone to ride around with a wig over their helmet. It's legal, possibly safer, helps deter the maggies and could give rise to some hilarity
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1408
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Mulger bill » Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:16 pm

KenGS wrote:Here's a thought.
Take this: http://www.eta.co.uk/2011/04/01/safest- ... -built-wig

Ahh, maybe that's it. It's not me riding style or plenty of light protecting me, it's me long hair. Must annoy 'em no end when they go past and see the beard in the mirror :twisted:
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25277
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby diggler » Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:20 pm

Not sure if this has been posted yet.

Bad idea of the week: an invisible bicycle helmet

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-te ... z24BcmgHKV
That's what a fool does. I'm invincible, I'm paying money ... uh ... The girl's happy, she's got no money, I got my rocks off. How good is this?
diggler
 
Posts: 433
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby damhooligan » Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:25 pm

Mulger bill wrote:
Comedian wrote:
Comedian wrote:So why not Mandatory Body Armour. All the reasons for helmets to easily be extended to mandating body armour. Why not?


No one responded to this... I think if helmets are a good idea this stuff is at least as useful. I'm struggling with why it isn't mandated now.


'Cos it'd be bl00dy hard to police. It's easy to tell when someone doesn't have a magic mushroom attached to their scone


Easy solution.

Hi-vis body armour....
The dutch have one word to describe the aussie MHL, this word is ;
SCHIJNVEILIGHEID !!
User avatar
damhooligan
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 4:16 pm
Location: melbourne

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Mulger bill » Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:31 pm

damhooligan wrote:Easy solution.

Hi-vis body armour....

That used to be all Dainese did back in the day, flouro pink and yellow IIRC. :shock:

I'll wait for somebody to come out with an electroluminescent roost guard :wink:
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25277
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby KenGS » Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:38 pm

Mulger bill wrote:
damhooligan wrote:Easy solution.

Hi-vis body armour....

That used to be all Dainese did back in the day, flouro pink and yellow IIRC. :shock:

I'll wait for somebody to come out with an electroluminescent roost guard :wink:

Talk to this guy - could be his next project
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2012/06/rmit- ... le-helmet/
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1408
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Mulger bill » Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:43 pm

:shock: Noooooo!!!1!!!!!!11!

I don't need that or any helmet to look like a dill.
...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.
London Boy 29/12/2011
User avatar
Mulger bill
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 25277
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
Location: Sunbury Vic

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby KenGS » Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:52 pm

Mulger bill wrote::shock: Noooooo!!!1!!!!!!11!

I don't need that or any helmet to look like a dill.

Don't worry. You wont be the only one if they become mandatory. No reason I can think of why they shouldn't. That and the matching roost guard.
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1408
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:13 pm

jules21 wrote:
Xplora wrote:Just saying that you are 3 times more likely to die from a head injury without a helmet misses a crucial point - you can still die!

i hadn't thought of that. we shouldn't accept anything less than what would eliminate the risk of dying altogether. all this time i've been wearing a helmet in the belief it would reduce the risk of injury - but i could still die, despite wearing it. more fool me, apparently. seriously...

The coroners report mentioned the vast majority of fatal accidents were actually done to older men in the late evening. It wasn't daylight riding that was the key issue.

If you wanted an action point from that study, helmets would not be the focus - it would actually be banning people from riding after dark, as it would save more lives than helmets. Less riders would be hit. This is the key issue with restricting freedom in the name of alleged health and safety. There are far stronger correlations than helmets and death to be investigated and policed. Why aren't THESE legislated? Could it be that bad science and bad politics is the key issue? :shock:
Xplora
 
Posts: 4730
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby jules21 » Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:37 pm

Xplora wrote:If you wanted an action point from that study, helmets would not be the focus - it would actually be banning people from riding after dark, as it would save more lives than helmets. Less riders would be hit.

banning people from riding would reduce cycling injuries - do you reckon? gee i'd never thought of that. 10/10 for thinking outside the box :roll:

this is the risk with these threads where there is a majority view on something (anti-MHLs) - people get over-confident in the belief they will have support, no matter what rubbish they come up with, as long as it's in support of the popular position. i struggle to believe you really thought that post out, it's just a frenzy of anti-MHL rhetoric where you're so sure you're right, any argument is a good argument.

the objective is to improve the safety of riding, without banning it altogether. that's the key benefit of helmets.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8390
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:12 pm

diggler wrote:Not sure if this has been posted yet.

Bad idea of the week: an invisible bicycle helmet

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-te ... z24BcmgHKV

I'm staggered that this one keeps on appearing as news lately. It's very old news..... at least 6-12 months old now. I saw reports,video and photos, probably posted on here back last year some time.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17528
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby Xplora » Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:51 pm

jules21 wrote:
Xplora wrote:Less riders would be hit.

banning people from riding would reduce cycling injuries - do you reckon?
the objective is to improve the safety of riding, without banning it altogether. that's the key benefit of helmets.

The key benefit of a helmet law appears to make cycling so unpleasant for a large chunk of the population and skew the responsibility of the rider's safety so far away from the cars around them that it wipes out any material benefit they might have enjoyed. I think you remember that the MHL didn't have any impact on cyclist deaths or inuries after introduction :lol:
Xplora
 
Posts: 4730
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby human909 » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:42 pm

jules21 wrote:the objective is to improve the safety of riding, without banning it altogether. that's the key benefit of helmets.

I'm sorry jules but this is a classic example of the logical fallacy of a FALSE DILEMMA. Banning cycling has never been an consideration. :shock: Why would anyone even consider banning it? How many times does it need to be said that cycling is not risky. There are hundreds of activities far more risky that even nanny state Australia hasn't hit with the ban stick. Sure helmets DO have a benefit of improving safety, but presenting them in the context of avoiding banning it is simply a false dilemma.

As I said helmets do have the benefit of improving bike safety, however for the MANY reasons already discussed MHLs do not have a safety benefit!

jules21 wrote:people get over-confident in the belief they will have support, no matter what rubbish they come up with, as long as it's in support of the popular position. i struggle to believe you really thought that post out, it's just a frenzy of anti-MHL rhetoric where you're so sure you're right, any argument is a good argument.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

The popular position in Australia in pro-MHL. :wink:
human909
 
Posts: 4199
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby DavidS » Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:01 pm

jules21 wrote:
the objective is to improve the safety of riding, without banning it altogether. that's the key benefit of helmets.


It's amazing, you talk as if cycling is such a dangerous activity it would need to be banned if we didn't have the government to save us by enforcing helmet laws. This is ridiculous. How do you think people rode bikes for the 100 years before helmets were mandatory? How come 180 odd countries have resisted the urge to ban cycling even though they are deprived of MHLs.

I'm amazed you have the courage to jump on a bicycle given it's so dangerous it would need to be banned without MHLs.

Nice of you to promote cycling by encouraging the view it is really dangerous.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1201
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby PawPaw » Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:12 am

Over the last 18 mths I've done first aid assistance for our local racing club. I have attended at least 25 crashed cyclists, at least 15 with decisively destroyed helmets. Only 5 of these 15 went to hospital to my knowledge, 3 due to broken collar bones and 2 due to other suspected fractures. Of the 15 with smashed helmets, none displayed signs or symptoms of traumatic brain insult. So where do the 10/15 crashed racers, who didn't go to hospital, because their helmet worked as designed to protect the head, fit in the anti-mhl schema? To my knowledge, they wouldn't have shown up in any of helmet studies used to support the antiMHL stance. (Good luck to those who argue helmets offer no protective advantage in convincing the UCI to make helmets optional for all road and track racing.)

Comedian, a tad disingenuous to use doctor recommendations for higher activity levels to support antiMHL, then ignore the AMA's stance on MHL.

Those arguing MHL is the main factor in 2012, for so few kids riding to school, willfully ignore surveys, such as the Feb 2012 Heart Foundation / Cycling Promotion Fund's, of parents that reveal 80-90% believe heavier traffic and inadequate bike paths make it too dangerous.......no mention of helmets at all by parents.

but as you were. Obviously the HF/CPF study responses were doctored by antiMHL trolls. :roll:
User avatar
PawPaw
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:53 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Mandatory Helmet Laws & stuff (Was One & ONLY Helmet Thr

Postby il padrone » Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:04 am

They race in the Netherlands too..... and they'll wear helmets. Just not when riding about town, on the commute, or a trip to Aunty Gertie.

So many head injuries with helmets in races. The fatality and serious head injury rates in racing must have been horrendous in the 80s, when helmets were hardly used for much racing.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 17528
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jaythefordman



Support BNA
Click for online shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Cycling Express Cycling Express
Ebay Ebay AU
ProBikeKit ProBikeKit UK
Evans Cycles Evans Cycles UK
JensonUSA Jenson USA
JensonUSA Competitive Cyclist