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 PawPaw » Thu Sep 27, 2012 8:47 am

DavidS wrote:PawPaw, serious question: why are you so obsessed with making us all wear helmets? Repealing MHLs doesn't stop you wearing a helmet, why do you want to force your beliefs on to the rest of us?

DS


Why do you and others let your emotive, irrational, and poor grip on the literature in this field think it is ok to insult me?

Why can't you people see that only removing MHL is not going to give us the cycling Nirvana of Amsterdam?
I've constantly said I think we need the infrastructure and motorist culture of Europe before we adjust helmet legislation.
But your side cannot see that. You rabbit on with all the bias expressed at helmetfreedom, and choose not to read studies and opinions expressed by University of NSW academics who work in the field full time. None of your side can name the top Australia researchers and academics in this debate, nor the criticisms they've levelled at each other. You just all parrot the same twisted dubious views over and over.

One of the key tenents of MHL haters is that helmets alone stop a lot of people from riding. You then fabricate that into all these people being obese and costing the health care system billions of dollars. When I point out bizarre and sloppy logic like this, I get puerile responses like "what does it matter what excuses people use not to ride" and " what's helmet hair got to do with MHL?" Why do I have to remind your side what your key tenents are?

Maybe the issue is, I've read helmet freedom exhaustively. But I've also read a lot of other stuff, presumably more than those who hate MHL, from both sides of the argument. It is very very obvious the people who have called me a nut job, troll, flamer, and otherwise insulted me have not read what I have. If you had, you' d realize like me that it is a ridiculous argument to repeal MHL BEFORE adding appropriate infrastructure and changing motorist culture. The argument to use nude nuts to change motorist behavior and encourage more people to cycling is irrational and entrenched in fantasy.

Some think I am flaming by pointing out that Euros don't have an issue wearing things on their head when the weather is cold. The reason I point this out is because MHL haters think more people would cycle if they didn't get their hair messed up. Some cannot see the logical link between Euros messing their hair up with head warming gear, and helmet wearing. Do the haters think Australian women are somehow more precious about their hair than Euro chicks? Even if Australia repealed MHL, with our harsh sunlight, it is most likely hair precious people would have to wear hats suitable for cycling = tight fitting caps that mess up hair....So this core pillar of MHL hating is just more sloppy logic and ill informed extrapolation.
User avatar
PawPaw
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 6:53 am
Location: Brisbane

by BNA » Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:08 am

BNA
 

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

Postby human909 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:08 am

PawPaw wrote:Why can't you people see that only removing MHL is not going to give us the cycling Nirvana of Amsterdam?
I've constantly said I think we need the infrastructure and motorist culture of Europe before we adjust helmet legislation.
But your side cannot see that. You rabbit on with all the bias expressed at helmetfreedom, and choose not to read studies and opinions expressed by University of NSW academics who work in the field full time. None of your side can name the top Australia researchers and academics in this debate, nor the criticisms they've levelled at each other. You just all parrot the same twisted dubious views over and over.

One of the key tenents of MHL haters is that helmets alone stop a lot of people from riding. You then fabricate that into all these people being obese and costing the health care system billions of dollars. When I point out bizarre and sloppy logic like this, I get puerile responses like "what does it matter what excuses people use not to ride" and " what's helmet hair got to do with MHL?" Why do I have to remind your side what your key tenents are?

Maybe the issue is, I've read helmet freedom exhaustively. But I've also read a lot of other stuff, presumably more than those who hate MHL, from both sides of the argument. It is very very obvious the people who have called me a nut job, troll, flamer, and otherwise insulted me have not read what I have. If you had, you' d realize like me that it is a ridiculous argument to repeal MHL BEFORE adding appropriate infrastructure and changing motorist culture. The argument to use nude nuts to change motorist behavior and encourage more people to cycling is irrational and entrenched in fantasy.

Some think I am flaming by pointing out that Euros don't have an issue wearing things on their head when the weather is cold. The reason I point this out is because MHL haters think more people would cycle if they didn't get their hair messed up. Some cannot see the logical link between Euros messing their hair up with head warming gear, and helmet wearing. Do the haters think Australian women are somehow more precious about their hair than Euro chicks? Even if Australia repealed MHL, with our harsh sunlight, it is most likely hair precious people would have to wear hats suitable for cycling = tight fitting caps that mess up hair....So this core pillar of MHL hating is just more sloppy logic and ill informed extrapolation.


As usual Paw Paw, you modus operandi when arguing is to exaggerate or fabricate a position held by those against MHLs and then rebut it.
human909
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby AUbicycles » Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:26 am

Mod Says: As previously noted, using Hater as a term for anyone who disagrees is not appropriate. We are entitled our own opinions and views, but so are others and if topics are argued in a mature and intelligent manner then is this the essence of the forum.
User avatar
AUbicycles
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby jules21 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 11:49 am

human909 wrote:So who is coming? I'll be riding and enjoying.


i went to their site and they have a photo of brad wiggins sans helmet.

Image

they are obviously unaware of wiggo's views on helmets:
Reacting to the tragedy, which occurred within hours of Wiggins' time trial victory, the Tour de France winner said he believed cyclists would be offered better protection if it was illegal to ride without one, "because ultimately, if you get knocked off and you ain't got a helmet on, then how can you kind of argue".
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8376
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: somewhere out in the melbourne rain

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

Postby damhooligan » Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:38 pm

PawPaw wrote:
Why do you and others let your emotive, irrational, and poor grip on the literature in this field think it is ok to insult me? .



:lol: :lol:

Best post ever!!!!
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 The 2nd Womble » Thu Sep 27, 2012 1:05 pm

damhooligan wrote:
PawPaw wrote:
Why do you and others let your emotive, irrational, and poor grip on the literature in this field think it is ok to insult me? .



:lol: :lol:

Best post ever!!!!

Why is it the best post ever? Yours are equally hopeless and stray from the subject half the time. This debate is sliding down a very slippery slope.
The only good Cyclist is a Bicyclist

Huge fan of booted RGers who just can't help themselves
User avatar
The 2nd Womble
 
Posts: 3058
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:21 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby lturner » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:05 pm

human909 wrote:So who is coming? I'll be riding and enjoying.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/prote ... .html#poll


I'd love to be there but can't make it down to Melbourne that weekend sadly. By the way, I am certain anyone would be welcome to join the ride whether they ride with or without a helmet. That is the whole point: choice. Even people who would prefer to ride without a helmet but do so to avoid a fine, that is perfectly understandable.
lturner
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:11 am

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

Postby jules21 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:08 pm

lturner wrote:I'd love to be there but can't make it down to Melbourne that weekend sadly. By the way, I am certain anyone would be welcome to join the ride whether they ride with or without a helmet. That is the whole point: choice. Even people who would prefer to ride without a helmet but do so to avoid a fine, that is perfectly understandable.

i'll join in briefly if you hold it at 8am and head citybound :)
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8376
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: somewhere out in the melbourne rain

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

Postby lturner » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:10 pm

jules21 wrote:
i went to their site and they have a photo of brad wiggins sans helmet.

they are obviously unaware of wiggo's views on helmets:
Reacting to the tragedy, which occurred within hours of Wiggins' time trial victory, the Tour de France winner said he believed cyclists would be offered better protection if it was illegal to ride without one, "because ultimately, if you get knocked off and you ain't got a helmet on, then how can you kind of argue".


This really just highlights the hypocrisy and stupidity of Wiggins' comments.

Perhaps he should consider whether Australian cyclists are "offered better protection" because it is illegal to ride without a helmet.

Is he sponsored by a helmet manufacturer?
lturner
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:11 am

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

Postby jules21 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:17 pm

although he later did some back-pedalling on that, i think he has a point. we (cyclists) insist on motorists showing us due care on the roads, yet they observe us taking unnecessary risks - including (but not restricted to) choosing to not wear a helmet.

a pet peeve of mine is black cycling apparel. it's very popular and research into its impact on conspicuity is conclusive - it doesn't help. i've had a motorist pull up next to my group and give friendly advice to one of them that his black gear was hard to see - this motorist wasn't having a go, he was genuinely concerned enough to stop and point it out. the prevailing attitude appears to be "the onus is on motorists to see me and i am entitled to make it as hard for them as i please". this may sound defiant on a cycling discussion forum, but i'm fairly certain it doesn't help us much out on the roads.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8376
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: somewhere out in the melbourne rain

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

Postby lturner » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:40 pm

jules21 wrote:although he later did some back-pedalling on that, i think he has a point. we (cyclists) insist on motorists showing us due care on the roads, yet they observe us taking unnecessary risks - including (but not restricted to) choosing to not wear a helmet.


I don't think he has a point at all. Have helmet laws improved the attitude of motorists here? Are motorist attitude worse in Europe where there are no helmet laws?

It's a completely specious argument which simply reflects his own personal prejudice (or perhaps financial interest).
lturner
 
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:11 am

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

Postby jules21 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:43 pm

lturner wrote:It's a completely specious argument which simply reflects his own personal prejudice (or perhaps financial interest).

most pro cyclists hate being made to wear a helmet - they fought that rule (in pro races) tooth and nail. they are all 'sponsored' by helmet makers. your suggestion they are pushing helmets on behalf of their sponsors/suppliers isn't supported by the evidence.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8376
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: somewhere out in the melbourne rain

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

Postby human909 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 2:49 pm

Welcome back Jules! We missed you! :D

jules21 wrote: i think he has a point. we (cyclists) insist on motorists showing us due care on the roads, yet they observe us taking unnecessary risks - including (but not restricted to) choosing to not wear a helmet.

This is simply blaming the victims. These sort of attitudes rear there head where there is a difference between people notion of 'normal' behaviour. Many car drivers think that cyclists being on the road at all is taking unnecessary risks. Its like blaming rape victims for wearing short skirts. Or in the case of Saudi Arabia showing any flesh at all, 'uncovered meat and all that'. It all depends on what you baseline attitude is. If you are of the attitude that the roads is dangerous and cyclists have little protection the car drivers are correct. Cyclists are taking unnecessary risks by being on the road.

Back onto helmets, we have discussed at length that helmets really do very little to mitigate risk exposure on the roads. The risks of collisions and falls are low and the probability of head strikes even lower. Motorists too choose not to wear helmets, are they taking unnecessary risks?

jules21 wrote:a pet peeve of mine is black cycling apparel. it's very popular and research into its impact on conspicuity is conclusive - it doesn't help. i've had a motorist pull up next to my group and give friendly advice to one of them that his black gear was hard to see - this motorist wasn't having a go, he was genuinely concerned enough to stop and point it out. the prevailing attitude appears to be "the onus is on motorists to see me and i am entitled to make it as hard for them as i please". this may sound defiant on a cycling discussion forum, but i'm fairly certain it doesn't help us much out on the roads.

Darker coloured cars are far less visible too. Should we ban them? No, because driving darker coloured cars and the ability to CHOOSE the colour of your car is normalised in our society. Take your attitudes over to Amsterdam and see how far you get. :wink: The more cyclists support attitudes like this the more prevalent such attitudes become. Suddenly we can no longer wear what we want on bikes, another barrier to cycling take up. :(


All this is not to say that we cannot CHOOSE to reduce our risks in whatever manner we want. I often wear a thin reflective hi-vis vest while riding at night. I like to make sure I'm damn visible to idiot motorists. To be honest this makes me feel far safer than any helmet. I'd prefer keeping my wheels pavement side down. :wink: In holland I wouldn't feel the need to wear this but for the time being I'm happily wearing it.
Last edited by human909 on Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
human909
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby damhooligan » Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:05 pm

The 2nd Womble wrote:
damhooligan wrote:
PawPaw wrote:
Why do you and others let your emotive, irrational, and poor grip on the literature in this field think it is ok to insult me? .



:lol: :lol:

Best post ever!!!!

Why is it the best post ever? Yours are equally hopeless and stray from the subject half the time. This debate is sliding down a very slippery slope.


Why??
cause he is insulting others on a daily basis...
And know he is having a sook cause he is insulted....
I havent been this amused for a while...
Hence best post ever.....
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 jules21 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:30 pm

human909 wrote: Welcome back Jules! We missed you! :D

me too, sort of. can't say the same about the thread :)

human909 wrote:This is simply blaming the victims. These sort of attitudes rear there head where there is a difference between people notion of 'normal' behaviour. Many car drivers think that cyclists being on the road at all is taking unnecessary risks. Its like blaming rape victims for wearing short skirts. Or in the case of Saudi Arabia showing any flesh at all, 'uncovered meat and all that'. It all depends on what you baseline attitude is. If you are of the attitude that the roads is dangerous and cyclists have little protection the car drivers are correct. Cyclists are taking unnecessary risks by being on the road.

there is an important difference. the definition of skimpy or suggestive clothing is subjective - as a society, we have predominantly arrived at the view that women should be free to choose what they wear without fear of reprisal or giving up their rights. that is our democratic (or really an inalienable human) right and minority dissenters are not permitted to overrule or breach those rights.

cycling is different. it is dangerous - the conflict between motorists and cyclists is a genuine issue, due in significant part to the risk posed by the former to the latter. we demand that motorists drive safely around us, to reduce that risk. but you're trying to have it both ways, on the one hand asserting cycling is not dangerous at all, while on the other (i assume) agreeing on the importance of motorists driving safely when around cyclists. you are sending conflicting messages.

you are confusing the existence of safety hazards with the condition of safety. motorised traffic is a safety hazard to cyclists. the condition of safety may exist only if road users, both motorists and cyclists, act to mitigate the risks arising from that hazard. those acts include safe driving and - in my view - helmet wearing. your view appears to be "let's project an image of cycling as safe and people will naturally start to behave safely". i highly doubt it - this is very much out of step with recognised practice in safety management - of which cycling is really no different.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8376
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: somewhere out in the melbourne rain

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

Postby Kenzo » Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm

jules21 wrote:cycling is different. it is dangerous - the conflict between motorists and cyclists is a genuine issue, due in significant part to the risk posed by the former to the latter. we demand that motorists drive safely around us, to reduce that risk. but you're trying to have it both ways, on the one hand asserting cycling is not dangerous at all, while on the other (i assume) agreeing on the importance of motorists driving safely when around cyclists. you are sending conflicting messages.

you are confusing the existence of safety hazards with the condition of safety. motorised traffic is a safety hazard to cyclists. the condition of safety may exist only if road users, both motorists and cyclists, act to mitigate the risks arising from that hazard. those acts include safe driving and - in my view - helmet wearing. your view appears to be "let's project an image of cycling as safe and people will naturally start to behave safely". i highly doubt it - this is very much out of step with recognised practice in safety management - of which cycling is really no different.


Wearing a helmet does not make it safer - it helps prevent brain injury.... note - does not even say it will prevent it... just help it.

Safety comes from attitudes and attention. Not from a helmet.
User avatar
Kenzo
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:13 am
Location: Daisy Hill / Brisbane, Southside FTW

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

Postby jules21 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:51 pm

Kenzo wrote:Wearing a helmet does not make it safer - it helps prevent brain injury.... note - does not even say it will prevent it... just help it.

Safety comes from attitudes and attention. Not from a helmet.

road safety is split into two parts - primary and secondary safety. one is about reducing the risk of collisions, the other about reducing the severity of outcome in a collision. you don't need secondary safety if you have complete primary safety, but obviously we are a long way off that. therefore, your statement "Safety comes from attitudes and attention. Not from a helmet" is incorrect.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8376
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: somewhere out in the melbourne rain

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

Postby Kenzo » Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:54 pm

It isn't incorrect...
It just doesn't reflect where we are today.
User avatar
Kenzo
 
Posts: 1679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:13 am
Location: Daisy Hill / Brisbane, Southside FTW

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

Postby human909 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:04 pm

jules21 wrote:there is an important difference.

I fail to see the important difference you are outlining. Lets slightly edit things shall we?

the definition of dangerous or risky is subjective - as a DUTCH society, we have predominantly arrived at the view that cyclists should be free to choose what they wear without fear of being hit by other vehicles or giving up their rights. that is our democratic (or really an inalienable human) right and minority dissenters are not permitted to overrule or breach those rights.

wearing skimpy clothing is different. it is totally provacative- sexual assault and rape is a genuine issue, due in significant part to the risk posed by men to the women in skimpy clothes. we demand that men a control their natural urges around women, to reduce that risk. but you're trying to have it both ways, on the one hand asserting wearing skimpy clothes is not dangerous at all, while on the other (i assume) agreeing on the importance of men control their natural urges when around women. you are sending conflicting messages.


The comparison I am drawing may seem extreme in Australia because it is the opposite of what is normal here. But if you were in Holland it isn't extreme. Nor is it extreme if a girl is wearing a bikini in a society that doesn't respect women and where women are generally covered head to toe. Its all about what is considered normal. :wink: Also it a conflicting message. Arguing against blaming the victim is quite valid, so is expecting good behaviour from other citizens, but none of that excludes making personal decisions to avoid becoming a victim.

jules21 wrote:your view appears to be "let's project an image of cycling as safe and people will naturally start to behave safely". i highly doubt it - this is very much out of step with recognised practice in safety management - of which cycling is really no different.

That is not my view. My view is that the dangers shouldn't be exaggerated, we should make cycling more accessible, the emphasis should be holding the those responsible to account and not blaming the victims.
Last edited by human909 on Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
human909
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby jules21 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:16 pm

human909 wrote:Its all about what is considered normal. :wink:

no, not for cycling safety. you can't change the laws of physics and the consequences for cyclists merely by changing perceptions. you can do that with social norms though. they're not the same.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8376
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: somewhere out in the melbourne rain

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

Postby human909 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:18 pm

jules21 wrote:
human909 wrote:Its all about what is considered normal. :wink:

no, not for cycling safety. you can't change the laws of physics and the consequences for cyclists merely by changing perceptions. you can do that with social norms though. they're not the same.

Who said anything about changing the laws of physics and consequences for cyclists merely by changing perceptions? It certainly wasn't me.

BTW, clothing worn by cyclists is a social norm. :wink:

Your attitude smacks of blaming the victims. Sure you might subtle point out that wearing hi vis and helmets keep you safer but suggesting that cyclists shouldn't wear dark clothing because they'll get hit by cars is blaming the victim. Lets make this more current event related.

(not my view)
a pet peeve of mine is women walking home alone after dark. it's very popular and research into its impact on increased danger is conclusive - it doesn't help. i've had a good samaritan pull up next to my female friends and give friendly advice to one of them that walking home alone after dark in Brunswick is dangerous - this good samaritan wasn't having a go, he was genuinely concerned enough to stop and point it out. the prevailing attitude appears to be "the onus is on criminals not to be criminals and i am entitled to make it as hard for them as i please".

It is a simple fact that Jill Meagher would have very likely made it home safely had she accepted the offer from a workmate to walk her home. But I don't blame victims. The blame lies on the perpetrators.
human909
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby jules21 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 4:47 pm

human909 wrote:It is a simple fact that Jill Meagher would have very likely made it home safely had she accepted the offer from a workmate to walk her home. But I don't blame victims. The blame lies on the perpetrators.

you're confusing blame with ensuring that others don't become victims of similar crimes. i agree 100% of the blame lies with the perpetrator. but this does not justify her actions - what she did (place herself in a vulnerable position) was foolish.

the analogy to cycling protective gear is a useful one. not wearing a helmet doesn't reduce the liability on a motorist who fails to give way and strikes a cyclist in the head. i think it's the use of percentages which are misleading. the motorist wears 100% of the blame for that action. but there are additional consequences - i.e. those arising from the severity of injury to the cyclist as influenced by helmet wearing (say, hypothetically). you can't blame the motorist for that outcome - the motorist can only be responsible for matters in his/her control. it would be unfair to say that the cyclist is to "blame" for the increased severity of injury resulting from their decision not to wear a helmet, but it was certainly determined by their decision (again, separating out the fact that the collision wouldn't have happened if the motorist was driving with due care). the term 'blame' is therefore misleading and for that reason is frequently ommitted from safety management.
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 8376
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:14 pm
Location: somewhere out in the melbourne rain

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

Postby human909 » Thu Sep 27, 2012 5:58 pm

(Jules. While my words may be harsh. I was sincere earlier when I said welcome back. We disagree a fair bit. But you posts are not rude or without thought. :D I say this again because I'm not going to hold back now. :wink: )

jules21 wrote:you're confusing blame with ensuring that others don't become victims of similar crimes. i agree 100% of the blame lies with the perpetrator. but this does not justify her actions - what she did (place herself in a vulnerable position) was foolish.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
Are. You. Kidding. Me? :|

It seems it is not just MHLs we differ on. While this is now totally off topic I feel compelled to respond. Jill Meagher was in no way foolish choosing to walk a couple blocks home. Most of my female friends walk or ride to and from parties in Brunswick or nearby suburbs. They may even walk to public transport and then walk to their house.

I find calling her foolish is appalling. :evil: I find encouraging people to feel scared walking after dark is just as detrimental as encouraging cyclists that the roads are highly dangerous. Both are totally out of touch with reality.



jules21 wrote:the analogy to cycling protective gear is a useful one. not wearing a helmet doesn't reduce the liability on a motorist who fails to give way and strikes a cyclist in the head. i think it's the use of percentages which are misleading. the motorist wears 100% of the blame for that action. but there are additional consequences - i.e. those arising from the severity of injury to the cyclist as influenced by helmet wearing (say, hypothetically). you can't blame the motorist for that outcome - the motorist can only be responsible for matters in his/her control. it would be unfair to say that the cyclist is to "blame" for the increased severity of injury resulting from their decision not to wear a helmet, but it was certainly determined by their decision (again, separating out the fact that the collision wouldn't have happened if the motorist was driving with due care).

I agree with this phrasing. As I have said individuals can choose to reduce risks and consequences with helmets and hi vis.

jules21 wrote:the term 'blame' is therefore misleading and for that reason is frequently ommitted from safety management.

Safety management isn't highly relevant here. From a safety management point of view bicycles would NEVER be allowed on the roads with cars. Notions of freedom and choice are pervasive in safety management but in a free society they are. :idea:
human909
 
Posts: 4192
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby greyhoundtom » Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:13 pm

Safety management?

Some poor cyclist gets killed by a vehicle, and the first thing someone will ask “was he/she wearing a helmet?”

If the cyclist was NOT wearing a helmet, it is felt that somehow they contributed to their own death.

That is the stage the MHL’s have bought us to!

Never mind the crushed ribs, the collapsed lungs, torn spleen, burst liver, and smashed legs.

[Edit] They should not have been on the road Your Honor he/she was not wearing a helmet.
User avatar
greyhoundtom
 
Posts: 2485
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:28 am
Location: Narre Warren, Victoria

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

Postby KenGS » Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:34 pm

human909 wrote:So who is coming? I'll be riding and enjoying.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/prote ... .html#poll

I'll be there. We'll recognise each other by our secret cyclist signs 8)
Full details on http://www.freestylecyclists.org/ - 1pm at Ceres

Come on folks - just 8 pages more for the double century
--Ken
Helmets! Bells! Rego!
User avatar
KenGS
 
Posts: 1408
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:31 pm
Location: Rosanna, Victoria

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users



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