Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Howzat wrote:

lturner wrote:- significant numbers of people disliked wearing seatbelts
- seatbelts laws reduced exercise and had a net negative effect on public health
- seatbelt laws were completely destroying a useful public transport option
- the safety benefits of seatlbelt laws were hotly contested such that after 20 years there is still no agreement
- 98% of the world (including those countries with better car safety records than Australia) did not have seatbelt laws

Those are assertions, not facts. To go from assertions to accepted facts, they need substantiation, and that is hard. The last people to try had to retract their paper from publication!

ok here are a few pieces of evidence to back up those assertions:

1. 45% of people who cycle would choose to ride without a helmet some or all of the time if given the choice. Among people who ride monthly or more, that figure is 67%. Source: http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/public-he ... Rissel.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2. The overall public health effect of helmet laws is likely to be negative. Source: http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/sites ... t_laws.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

3. Brisbane CityCycle and Melbourne Bike Share failures - self evident.

[quote="Xplora" I ride at 40kmh on a good day down that path and it's just not safe for a bike to do that.[/quote]

That is sig worthy, time to quote yourself again

Howzat wrote:So in the real world, the consquences are that effective advocacy will depend on the case for making cycling more attractive and more safe and improving participation by improving infrastructure. Not by getting rid of MHLs.

Maybe when we do have bike lanes that are not in the door zone, when we're not riding in the same lane as the B-doubles, when we do have wide attractive and extensive network of dedicated bike lanes that make riding a fun and practical option, then we will make cycling safer, get more people commuting, and the stats will move enough so that helmets become less necessary - and then perhaps less mandatory.

But it's going to have to happen in that order: infrastructure first, helmets-optional second.

You do realise that there are better ways to go about this? What is so wrong with having a look overseas and seeing how they do it?

Howzat wrote:I agree though we have a long way to go to improving infrastructure from the green-paint-in-the-dooring-zone level that's standard today. Cycling should be fun. Cycle infrastructure should support that.

Actually, cycling should be convenient if we want a significant increase. That's what the Danes discovered.
Here, the convenience of cycling is essentially not even considered. If Australia seriously wanted more people cycling it could be done.
All I see is actions that don't match the words and growth in cycling that is organic in line with population growth, rising oil prices and the state of the economy.

Baldy wrote:

Xplora wrote: I ride at 40kmh on a good day down that path and it's just not safe for a bike to do that.

That is sig worthy, time to quote yourself again

"sig worthy"? Taken out of context as it appears in your post, it says nothing positive.

Kenzo wrote:

Baldy wrote:

Xplora wrote: I ride at 40kmh on a good day down that path and it's just not safe for a bike to do that.

That is sig worthy, time to quote yourself again

"sig worthy"? Taken out of context as it appears in your post, it says nothing positive.

That's why...

Xplora wrote:

Howzat wrote: So in the real world, the consquences are that effective advocacy will depend on the case for making cycling more attractive and more safe and improving participation by improving infrastructure. Not by getting rid of MHLs.
But it's going to have to happen in that order: infrastructure first, helmets-optional second.

So your brilliant plan to fix the issue of vehicular cycling risk is to essentially render the bike absolute last... you'll note that there are no safe bike paths. Clover lanes in Sydney are constantly beset by peds. PSPs are set up to ensure that bikes can't go beyond 15-20kmh because peds have right of way.

There is nothing FUN about cycling infrastructure, because the people that use it tend to be oblivious to the fact that it is cycle infrastructure. I ride down the Parramatta-Meadowbank Riverwalk most days and it is NOT fun. I spend half my time trying to make sure someone doesn't run in front of me. I ride at 40kmh on a good day down that path and it's just not safe for a bike to do that.

Don't be ridiculous. The problems you describe are easily solved by riding to the conditions. Plenty of people use PSPs to commute and do just fine. I quite enjoy riding on them, not that I chase PBs for my commute or anything ("PB for my commute" verges on oxymoronic for mine). I don't have any direct experience of Dutch or Danish cycle paths but they seem to be aimed at low-speed utility cyclists rather than the Lycra-clad hubbards and rightly so.

The irony is that the people who are most likely to take up cycling because of MHL repeal aren't going to ride at anywhere near 40k, particularly not those who have thereby avoided an early death from lifestyle diseases.

If you can't ride that fast, you have a wide space for peds, rather than a space for bikes.

This is only a sane, relevant criterion for a tiny minority.

So what's the big deal with having to wear a helmet. Saw a guy crash the other day went ove the edge and dropped afew meters with head impact. Helmet probably saved his life. Hard to argue with that sort of evidence.

Howzat wrote:
So in the real world, the consquences are that effective advocacy will depend on the case for making cycling more attractive and more safe and improving participation by improving infrastructure. Not by getting rid of MHLs.

It doesnt have to be one or the other, it can be both.

Howzat wrote: Maybe when we do have bike lanes that are not in the door zone, when we're not riding in the same lane as the B-doubles, when we do have wide attractive and extensive network of dedicated bike lanes that make riding a fun and practical option, then we will make cycling safer, get more people commuting, and the stats will move enough so that helmets become less necessary - and then perhaps less mandatory.

But it's going to have to happen in that order: infrastructure first, helmets-optional second.

What we need to do is indeed create a safer cycling enviroment.
But this is not a priority, cause we are already 'safe', we have a mhl.
we are all safe cause we have a magic helmet, wich stops cyclists from dying...

In country's without a MHL, you see they focus is on the cycling enviroment, not the cyclist.
Therefore they create for safer cycling...

So helmets optional first, infrastructure second.

whitey wrote:So what's the big deal with having to wear a helmet. Saw a guy crash the other day went ove the edge and dropped afew meters with head impact. Helmet probably saved his life. Hard to argue with that sort of evidence.

A helmet is a pita, its a nusance, its uncomfortable.
It looks awefull, and it kills the feeling of 'just riding a bike'.

So a guy crashed...
People always crash .
People crash cars, no mhl for drivers...
people crash while walking, no mhl for pedestrians.
and so on...

Just cause there is a potentional to crash, doesnt mean its warranted to force people to wear helmets.
As the other examples clearly prove that, so why make an exception for cycling ??

If your helmets uncomfortable try getting one that fits. Would have thought that one was pretty obvious.

whitey wrote:If your helmets uncomfortable try getting one that fits. Would have thought that one was pretty obvious.

Even the one that fits is uncomfortable, not to mention the strap...
Its not the type of helmet that bothers me, i dont discriminate one specific helmet.
I dislike them all.

And FYI, I have tried all models, old new, and in between.
cheap expensive, and in between.
But no matter what the model is, or the price, at the end its stil a helmet.
An uncomfortable mandatory piece of plastic.

whitey wrote:So what's the big deal with having to wear a helmet. Saw a guy crash the other day went ove the edge and dropped afew meters with head impact. Helmet probably saved his life. Hard to argue with that sort of evidence.

I've seen dozens of people not crash for HOURS at a time. Months even. Chicken Little said the sky was falling in, better find your helmet...
Helmets are not comfortable compared to no helmet. Children don't wear them in playgrounds despite it being safer than they do. Kids DO hit their head a lot more adults Of course, I'm just thinking of the children, and not deliberately showing your comment to be facetious.

In relation to my performance on the bikepath, I recognise that my speed is excessive on some sections, I tend to slow down for those parts - but the point stands that riding is not fun for these areas because there is so much danger, caused by people who don't pay attention... who bear almost no legal responsibility and will probably be supported in the court despite that their behaviour would result in "at fault" finding on a public road. Some lads are under 25 and don't pay as much attention for kids and the like, and these are the people that the PSP laws really fail... dumb ped behaviour causes the risk, it's not like I can't control my bike at 30kmh. Seems to be fine on the bunch rides.

Xplora wrote:

whitey wrote:So what's the big deal with having to wear a helmet. Saw a guy crash the other day went ove the edge and dropped afew meters with head impact. Helmet probably saved his life. Hard to argue with that sort of evidence.

I've seen dozens of people not crash for HOURS at a time. Months even. Chicken Little said the sky was falling in, better find your helmet...
Helmets are not comfortable compared to no helmet. Children don't wear them in playgrounds despite it being safer than they do. Kids DO hit their head a lot more adults Of course, I'm just thinking of the children, and not deliberately showing your comment to be facetious.

By which reasoning, smoke detectors are a waste of time. My house hasn't burned down yet, what's the point?

In relation to my performance on the bikepath, I recognise that my speed is excessive on some sections, I tend to slow down for those parts - but the point stands that riding is not fun for these areas because there is so much danger, caused by people who don't pay attention... who bear almost no legal responsibility and will probably be supported in the court despite that their behaviour would result in "at fault" finding on a public road. Some lads are under 25 and don't pay as much attention for kids and the like, and these are the people that the PSP laws really fail... dumb ped behaviour causes the risk, it's not like I can't control my bike at 30kmh. Seems to be fine on the bunch rides.

Seems to me that what you really want is more cycle-only paths. Not building these, and not enforcing the (perfectly adequate) existing laws is an executive problem, not a legislative one. I don't see catering to the people who want to ride fast as a good way of improving cycling uptake either.

http://ipa.org.au/publications/2019/aus ... w-disaster" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

high_tea wrote: By which reasoning, smoke detectors are a waste of time. My house hasn't burned down yet, what's the point?

Seems to me that what you really want is more cycle-only paths. Not building these, and not enforcing the (perfectly adequate) existing laws is an executive problem, not a legislative one. I don't see catering to the people who want to ride fast as a good way of improving cycling uptake either.

I don't have to carry my smoke detector on my head every time I walk into the house.

I am not interested in spending enormous amounts of money on "casual fun" paths. You can ride a MTB on the grass with the family at no cost to the tax payer at all, and it won't ruin the grass. A concrete path is needed to withstand heavy traffic - and to ensure good grip for faster bikes I'm not prepared to separate legislative and executive on this issue - it's a variety of things that cause this drama. A path is good, but let's get real - there are some stupid things happening, like the Tway in Sydney only being for buses, despite the fact that bikes can EASILY use the path and get out of the way of a bus. But they double up the concrete... why? The rules are all backwards and the infrastructure is all weird to boot.

The bike is supposed to be convenient and that means quicker than walking or jogging. I'm not talking about peleton riding (maybe I am? that would be a good way to go to work) but adopting realism into the picture. We aren't all plodding along, I ride to be faster than driving in traffic.

Xplora wrote: I am not interested in spending enormous amounts of money on "casual fun" paths. You can ride a MTB on the grass with the family at no cost to the tax payer at all, and it won't ruin the grass. A concrete path is needed to withstand heavy traffic - and to ensure good grip for faster bikes I'm not prepared to separate legislative and executive on this issue - it's a variety of things that cause this drama. A path is good, but let's get real - there are some stupid things happening, like the Tway in Sydney only being for buses, despite the fact that bikes can EASILY use the path and get out of the way of a bus. But they double up the concrete... why? The rules are all backwards and the infrastructure is all weird to boot.

The bike is supposed to be convenient and that means quicker than walking or jogging. I'm not talking about peleton riding (maybe I am? that would be a good way to go to work) but adopting realism into the picture. We aren't all plodding along, I ride to be faster than driving in traffic.

What rules relating to PSPs are backwards? And why is making it easy to ride fast so important? Where are all the people sitting in their armchairs smoking and eating Bad Food because they'd have to slow for pedestrians? It sounds to me like you don't like laws that inconvenience you. Fair enough, I don't like inconvenient laws either, but inconvenient doesn't mean bad policy.

high_tea wrote:Fair enough, I don't like inconvenient laws either, but inconvenient doesn't mean bad policy.

.. and bad policy can still cause inconvenience. They are not mutually exclusive.

Whether or not it is inconvenient is not a concern for me. The effects (good/bad) of the MHL and the reasons behind its implementation have been discussed at length in this thread... and for me at least it is clear the MHL is bad policy.

whitey wrote: Saw a guy crash the other day went ove the edge and dropped afew meters with head impact. Helmet probably saved his life. Hard to argue with that sort of evidence.

Actually it's pretty easy to argue with that evidence, because it's fairly flimsy.

If you believe everyone who claims "a helmet saved my life" you'd have to accept that helmets are saving thousand of lives every year.

This is quite impossible. Before we had helmet laws (when few wore helmets) we had about 80 fatalities per year, now we have about 40. But traffic fatalities have halved for all forms of transport in this time as well.

Look at somewhere like the Netherlands. It has 160 fatalities per year with probably 10 or 20 times the amount of cycling and virtually no-one wearing helmets.

Helmets are good for preventing some kinds of injuries, especially scalp wounds and abrasions, but this notion that without helmet laws there would be dead bodies piling up everywhere is a complete fiction.

damhooligan wrote:
What we need to do is indeed create a safer cycling enviroment.
But this is not a priority, cause we are already 'safe', we have a mhl.
we are all safe cause we have a magic helmet, wich stops cyclists from dying...

In country's without a MHL, you see they focus is on the cycling enviroment, not the cyclist.
Therefore they create for safer cycling...

So helmets optional first, infrastructure second.

Exactly right. I struggle to see why some people cannot see this.

Imagine for a moment that in every story about a pedestrian being run over and killed by a car, there was a quote like "police believed the walker might have survived had he been wearing a helmet".

Or when someone is shot we say: "well he knew it was rough area, he should have been wearing his kevlar jacket. Everyone knows bulletproof jackets save lives".

It would be absurd and the community would not accept those things as a solution to those problems, yet that is what the cycling community accepts as a solution to our problem.

When we say that these things happen and it's the responsibility of the cyclist to protect themselves from it, it normalises the risk. Some people actually claim that it's normal and inevitable that anyone who rides a bike will eventually get hit by a car. What chance to do we have to improve road conditions with this belief?

lturner wrote:Some people actually claim that it's normal and inevitable that anyone who rides a bike will eventually get hit by a car.

Holy dumbass opinion, batman!

I think we'd all accept that something negative will happen if you ride - but I've never had a tyre go on a car, never had an airbag go off - so to presume that a car will hit you is simply madness. A pox of them who holdeth this daft belief!

Xplora wrote:

lturner wrote:Some people actually claim that it's normal and inevitable that anyone who rides a bike will eventually get hit by a car.

Holy dumbass opinion, batman!

I think we'd all accept that something negative will happen if you ride - but I've never had a tyre go on a car, never had an airbag go off - so to presume that a car will hit you is simply madness. A pox of them who holdeth this daft belief!

Not that dumb...

You say we all except something negative wil happen, so.. what's more negative then getting hit by a car... ??
Do we really accept this ??

Sadly enough , a lot do !!
That one of the reasons we stil have a MHL.
cause people believe a helmet wil save their live in a collision with a car.

There is nothing wrong with the thinking something can, and to act accordingly is pefectly healty.
However , thinking something wil happens is wrong, and this is the basis of the MHL.
The MHL assumes something wil happen.

We have to stop thinking like this, we have to stop thinking it WIL happens, cause its not garanteed.
And thats also the reason I do not wish to wear a helmet.
I am not wearing one, just in case something can happen.
As to me, that chance is small.

Well it's gone cold again this week but last week we had a day where it was 31. I'm really looking forward to riding around with my head all sweaty through summer because I have a lump of foam on my head. Certainly isn't encouraging me to ride.

I agree we should improve infrastructure although I often have doubts when I say this because most of the cycling infrastructure we get is at best woeful and at worst downright dangerous. In any case bicycles are road vehicles. But I also think we can only justify more and better infrastructure if we have more people using bikes as a mode of transport and that requires the repeal of MHLs. Imagine all those blue bikes in Melbourne actually being used, that would change the roads overnight.

DS

While the discussion is veering towards safety issues, I'm intrigued at how little thread time (other than humour) was given to the UK study posted several scores of pages back about the passing distances motorists give for helmet wearers vs non-helmet wearers vs obviously female non-helmet wearers. (http://www.drianwalker.com/overtaking/o ... obrief.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

This type of research underscores for me my belief about the invalidity of societal laws that seek to place the onus for avoiding situations on the potential victim, rather than on the perpetrator. MHLs and seperated cycling infrastructure are entrenching inferior/superior, wrongful/rightous stereotypical behaviour.

Motorists are being exonerated from their bad behaviour towards cyclists even before they have enacted any bad behaviour.

Motorists have a totally different reaction and respect towards pedestrians in Australia; not because they themselves regularly have a pedestrian exeperience, but because societal attitudes ensure that a pedestrian is respected. (Try crossing a road in South Africa at a pedestrian crossing or on the pedestrian green light signal where pedestrians are not respected, and you will understand the difference in attitude. The crossing and lights may as well not be there, as one runs the risk of being agressively harrased by motorists on legally crossing.)

There are times when the law has to wield a big stick to ensure the safety of its citizens, but in a liberal democratic society, each citizen should primarily be responsible for their own safety. And parents should be teaching their kids how to be good citizens. Depending on circumstances, I modify my behaviour depending on perceived risk.

- I am guilty of wearing a sun-hat rather than my bike helmet on occasion on low-risk routes as I consider sun damage worse than my likelyhood of coming a cropper.
- I don't wear a seatbelt in the 4WD on my friend's private property. Flattish terrain, low speeds.
- An EPIRB saved my life in mid-Atlantic in the 1980s, but I wouldn't take one for a paddle around a local dam.
- Likewise, I take a directional safety beacon when I go 4WDing in the outback, but not when using hardtop roads.
- I don't swim on unpatrolled beaches
- I wash my hands or use alcohol rub after sneezing in a medical or aged-care facility

As a society we do not need our proverbial hands held by law through every decision/activity we take in life.

In the same way society was persuaded that drink-driving and smoking are no longer acceptable, societal attitudes need to be shifted towards affording cyclists the respect they deserve as legitimate road-users.

PS: Only a page and a half to 200

whitey wrote:So what's the big deal with having to wear a helmet. Saw a guy crash the other day went ove the edge and dropped afew meters with head impact. Helmet probably saved his life. Hard to argue with that sort of evidence.

Having once tested a helmet to destruction while out mountainbiking and survived, I can say that my helmet MAY have saved MY life, but I can't say it probably saved my life because I cannot recreate that particular incident without the helmet to prove a point.
Thinking about it, maybe the helmet was the cause of my crash as shortly before I lost my grip on my handlebars hitting a rock I'd taken that same hand off to wipe the sweat out of my eyes. Maybe if I hadn't been wearing the helmet I wouldn't have crashed...

It's not evidence, it's just an anecdote.