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 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
Motorists hate cyclists and cyclists hate the motorists and the pedestrians hate the bikers and everybody hates the trucks.
diggler
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:23 pm

by BNA » Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:25 pm

BNA
 

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: 26774
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: 1463
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: 26774
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: 1463
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:
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7219
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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: 9192
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: 20013
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:
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7219
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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: 5806
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: 1494
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: 20013
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby human909 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:13 am

PawPaw wrote: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.

Well done for your first aid assistance. Though I think one can conclude from this that bicycle RACING is a higher risk variety of cycling. (if one didn't already know that)

PawPaw wrote: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?

It really isn't that relevant at all to the anti-MHL discussion. Nobody here is encourage people not to wear helmets when partaking in risky activities.

PawPaw wrote:To my knowledge, they wouldn't have shown up in any of helmet studies used to support the antiMHL stance.

And for good reason, their relevance to the discussion is zero. MTB competitions show the advantages of full face helmets and body armour but does that mean such items should be worn in track cycling. :? :?:

PawPaw wrote:(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.)

Nobody to my knowledge has been arguing that helmets offer no protective advantage. Time and time again I, and others, have commented that helmets are useful in risky activities when one has a higher likelihood of impacts.

PawPaw wrote:Comedian, a tad disingenuous to use doctor recommendations for higher activity levels to support antiMHL, then ignore the AMA's stance on MHL.
Despite what AMA stance is there studies show that the benefits from increased cycling far outweigh the benefits from MHLs. AMA doesn't speak for all doctors and all doctors don't speak for the AMA. AMA sounds similar to the fat nurse who told me (based off a survey) that I should do more exercise for example park my car further from work and walk briskly for 10-20 minutes. :roll:

PawPaw wrote: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.

This is a survey of PARENTS of the potential riders! Do I need to explain the problem here? Whatsmore 20 years on and a fair bit of damage from MHLs have been done PawPaw. You are "wilfully ignoring" the effect of the last 20 years. Removing MHLs won't suddenly cause a rebound but it will a step in the right direction.
human909
 
Posts: 5806
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby il padrone » Fri Aug 24, 2012 7:51 am

......and all the head-injury fatalities in pro-cycling pre 1995??


BTW Fabio Casertelli (RIP) would most likely have still been killed, even if he wore a helmet. 50kmh+ into a concrete plinth is well beyond the design specs.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20013
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby newie » Fri Aug 24, 2012 8:39 am

While cycling in itself may not be an inherently risky activity, cycling on Australian roads is. I have lived, worked and cycled in a number of towns and cities throughout Europe (in the UK, Holland, Belgium, France, Austria, Germany). The incident I posted in the Moron Motorist thread last night would never have happened over there. The attitude and behaviour of a small but significant number of Australian motorists is disgraceful.

The anti-MHL argument suggests that if the law was repealed there would
A) be an huge increase in cyclist numbers, which
B) would lead to much safer road conditions

I would argue that the premise of A is quite weak. In my opinion, the evidence presented in this thread to support this argument is outdated and/or based on questionable data. The places I have cycled in Europe showed a great variety in cycling participation rates. All of them did not have MHL. The characteristics of towns and cities with high cycling rates were a flat terrain, not particularly large, an absence of parking in the town/city centre and highly congested arterial roads. Cycling or public transport were a necessity to get around effectively and the terrain and distances involved made cycling a practical option.

As for B. The other universal factor in Europe was the attitude of drivers. They were always patient, careful and courteous, even in the cities with low cycling rates. The subset of drivers in Australia that make cycling on the road far more dangerous than elsewhere display the same impatience and selfishness to all road users, not just cyclists. It is just as cyclists our vulnerability makes us notice the behaviour more often, and it can be directed to us on more occasions as we may be slowing them down more often (or rather, be perceived to be). I will agree that more cyclists will improve safety to some extent, as that majority of well-intentioned but oblivious motorists will become more aware. But until there is a seismic shift in attitude so that all road users acknowledge the rights of others to use the roads, I can't see our roads becoming substantially safer.

There could be a good argument for MHL only applying to riding on the road. But the illegality of riding on the footpath and the disjointed nature of most cycling infrastructure would mean that most cyclists would have to take their helmets with them regardless.
newie
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 6:51 pm

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

Postby human909 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:03 am

Newie. I sincerely applaud you and thank you for posting a rational, coherent and largely factually accurate support of MHLs without using flawed logic, exaggerated risks and relying on preconceived biases. Personally, I have found such pro MHL posts extremely rare in this forum. :D

newie wrote:While cycling in itself may not be an inherently risky activity, cycling on Australian roads is.

This is the only statement I take real issue with.

Like Europe not all Australian roads are identical. There is a great disparity between the various roads and many commuter cyclists I know ensure that they stay on the safe routes. My sister rides every day to work yet baulks at the roads that I ride on, she rides on the quiet side streets and follows bike infrastructure that bypasses main roads. In my opinion potential risk exposure her cycling is significantly is easily an order of magnitude safer than my cycling and two orders of magnitude compared to your typical road cyclist. Applying a one law fits all to cyclist whose risk exposure varies to such degrees does not make sense.

newie wrote:The anti-MHL argument suggests that if the law was repealed there would
A) be an huge increase in cyclist numbers, which
B) would lead to much safer road conditions

Speaking for myself I would not expect a huge increase no much safer road conditions in the short term if MHLs were repealed. I believe its a step in the right direction but would also need time and other cycling improvements to undo the damage that has been done.

newie wrote:But until there is a seismic shift in attitude so that all road users acknowledge the rights of others to use the roads, I can't see our roads becoming substantially safer.

Chicken and egg. That seismic shift won't happen until we get more cyclists, especially more utilitarian cyclists on the roads. People act differently towards utilitarian cyclists than a lycra warrior. Case in point was a chic lady cyclist riding in the city the other day. The crass yet good humoured remarks the tradies in the ute made about her pants were a world apart from their expected attitude toward a male in lyrca on a road bike. The chances of this young lady being shaved was no doubt less than a lycra clad roadie.
human909
 
Posts: 5806
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby PawPaw » Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:30 am

human909 wrote:Well done for your first aid assistance. Though I think one can conclude from this that bicycle RACING is a higher risk variety of cycling. (if one didn't already know that)

It really isn't that relevant at all to the anti-MHL discussion. Nobody here is encourage people not to wear helmets when partaking in risky activities.


Anti-MHL supporters have claimed on this thread helmets offer no protection, and can actually make brain trauma worse via diffuse axonal injury. My first aid experience shows this is highly spurious.

human909 wrote:And for good reason, their relevance to the discussion is zero. MTB competitions show the advantages of full face helmets and body armour but does that mean such items should be worn in track cycling. :? :?:


The relevance to the discussion, of a helmet preventing a head injury and thereby not requiring a visit to hospital, is that this is not picked up by studies that rely solely on hospital and police statistics to prove helmets make no difference to head injury incidence. No studies antiMHL'ers use in support of their argument account for head injuries prevented by helmets and thereby avoiding a hospital visit.

human909 wrote:Despite what AMA stance is there studies show that the benefits from increased cycling far outweigh the benefits from MHLs. AMA doesn't speak for all doctors and all doctors don't speak for the AMA. AMA sounds similar to the fat nurse who told me (based off a survey) that I should do more exercise for example park my car further from work and walk briskly for 10-20 minutes. :roll:


The reason I raised my first aid experience is to show MHL benefits are profoundly underestimated because helmet head injury prevention is not accounted for accurately. Further, it is poorly informed theory and conjecture that MHL is a major reason for more people/school children not cycling more often in recent years. The Heart Foundation /CPF study bears this out.

Further, the benefits of increased cycling in the absence of MHL are further loose and convenient speculation. Some think Australia will end up with similar cycling use to Holland, or even Germany, even if we don't have their cycling infrastructure, road rules, and enforcement and justice system. As I've argued before, the average energy expenditure of European utility cycling is a lot lower than most accept. Research average weekly distance traveled, and average trip length. Some argue a little bit of cycling every week will make a big difference over a year to body weight. This is further ill informed conjecture. If cycling increases social opportunity, its benefits can easily be offset by drinking one latte.

human909 wrote:This is a survey of PARENTS of the potential riders! Do I need to explain the problem here? Whatsmore 20 years on and a fair bit of damage from MHLs have been done PawPaw. You are "wilfully ignoring" the effect of the last 20 years. Removing MHLs won't suddenly cause a rebound but it will a step in the right direction.


Are you saying parents' views are insignificant? Who buys the bikes for school children and approves their usage?
Read the study. Parents pure and simple think roads and intersections are too dangerous, and there isn't enough off road cycle path infrastructure. It's pretty straight forward. Helmets weren't mentioned by parents at all as a deterrent. And it doesn't matter that kids think helmets are uncool if their parents don't permit them to ride.

Anti-MHL'ers need to provide evidence helmets are the main deterrent to riding more often in recent years. In 170 odd pages, they haven't done it.
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 PawPaw » Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:34 am

il padrone wrote:......and all the head-injury fatalities in pro-cycling pre 1995??


why do you exclude non fatal head injuries, including concussion?
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 simonn » Fri Aug 24, 2012 10:57 am

PawPaw wrote:The relevance to the discussion, of a helmet preventing a head injury and thereby not requiring a visit to hospital, is that this is not picked up by studies that rely solely on hospital and police statistics to prove helmets make no difference to head injury incidence. No studies antiMHL'ers use in support of their argument account for head injuries prevented by helmets and thereby avoiding a hospital visit.


I have presented myself to hospital four times for stacks. The first was a genuine head injury - a concussion. The other three were recorded as me having a head injury (and a broken wrist for one) because that is what I wanted to get checked out because it is a good idea after coming off your bike at ~35km or more (Dr patted me on the back for doing so, hopefully not sarcastically). I did not have any head injury at all in two of the cases. The one when I broke my wrist I also had a black/swollen eye, so that was a genuine head injury and not preventable by a normal bicycle helmet.

Read from that what you will, but according to a Sydney Uni (I think, may have been another uni in Sydney) study I took part in helmets are there to lessen the impact of head injuries as much as to try to prevent them. IOW, looking at head injury rates alone is a load of <stuff>.
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3740
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby human909 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:54 am

PawPaw you are a genius of strawman arguments. Try arguing against what MHL opponents actually put forward rather making up their arguments to suit yourself.

PawPaw wrote:Anti-MHL supporters have claimed on this thread helmets offer no protection,

I'm sorry where was this? Time and time again I and others have recognised helmets as offering a degree of protection from impacts. Many people who are in favour of repealing MHL, including myself,have stated that they'll continue wearing a helmet while cycling.

You are attacking a strawman here, even if a couple of people have claimed helmets offer zero protection it certainly is a rare and radical belief amongst those against MHLs.

PawPaw wrote:and can actually make brain trauma worse via diffuse axonal injury. My first aid experience shows this is highly spurious.

You first aid experience does not negate the existence of this. (Though in my opinion this is a rare occurance.)

human909 wrote:The relevance to the discussion, of a helmet preventing a head injury and thereby not requiring a visit to hospital, is that this is not picked up by studies that rely solely on hospital and police statistics to prove helmets make no difference to head injury incidence.

Again a strawman argument. Nobody has been arguing this.

PawPaw wrote:The reason I raised my first aid experience is to show MHL benefits are profoundly underestimated because helmet head injury prevention is not accounted for accurately. Further

You are continuing to confuse the difference between the benefits helmets offer and the benefits MHLs offer.

PawPaw wrote:it is poorly informed theory and conjecture that MHL is a major reason for more people/school children not cycling more often in recent years. The Heart Foundation /CPF study bears this out.

No it doesn't. A survey of the non participants 20 years after the introduction of MHLs has little relevance to the effects of MHLs 20 years ago and since then.

PawPaw wrote:Some think Australia will end up with similar cycling use to Holland, or even Germany, even if we don't have their cycling infrastructure, road rules, and enforcement and justice system.

Sorry who are these people? Another strawman argument PawPaw.
human909
 
Posts: 5806
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby KenGS » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:43 pm

So once again we ask the question, for the benefit of advancing the discussion further:
What are the well reasoned arguments, and evidence, that Mandatory Helmet Laws are a good law.
Personally, I exclude:
"A helmet saved my life"
"It's the law and you have to prove they are no good"
"People are stupid and need to be made to do what's good for them"
"Anti-MHL proponents are nut jobs"
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

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

Postby Percrime » Fri Aug 24, 2012 1:48 pm

And my personal favorite. "look my helmet broke. It MUST have saved my life."

Funnily enough no one has ever said that about parachutes. Or airbags.
Percrime
 
Posts: 1032
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:41 am

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

Postby jules21 » Fri Aug 24, 2012 2:22 pm

Percrime wrote:And my personal favorite. "look my helmet broke. It MUST have saved my life."

Funnily enough no one has ever said that about parachutes. Or airbags.

but they do that all the time? what's the significance of people failing to give due credit to them?
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 9192
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: deep in the pain cave

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



Popular Bike Shops
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Ebay Ebay AU
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK

“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter
“Bicycles BNA on Strava

> FREE BNA Stickers

cron