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 Biffidus » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:01 pm

Philipthelam wrote:The answer is simple really, I don't see why you don't see it.
There is a big difference with our culture and Netherland's culture. Over there cycling is seen as someting different. This difference in culture isn't due to MHL. And yes, cycling infrastructure does have to do with it. It makes more people cycle. It makes it easier to get to places by bike so that "everyone" cycles there. This percentage of females riding has nothing to do with the fact that helmets mess up their hair. It's the fact that the culture is different
With your reasoning you could say that if MHL was introduced in the netherlands then ONLY the female cyclists will stop riding because they are scared of helmet hair. I see that as highly unlikely.

The MHL is one of many problems with cycling in Australia. Removing it won't fix cycling, but it will help.
User avatar
Biffidus
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2008 9:20 pm
Location: RADelaide

by BNA » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:16 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby damhooligan » Sun Oct 28, 2012 11:16 pm

Philipthelam wrote:The answer is simple really, I don't see why you don't see it.
There is a big difference with our culture and Netherland's culture. Over there cycling is seen as someting different. This difference in culture isn't due to MHL. And yes, cycling infrastructure does have to do with it. It makes more people cycle. It makes it easier to get to places by bike so that "everyone" cycles there. This percentage of females riding has nothing to do with the fact that helmets mess up their hair. It's the fact that the culture is different
With your reasoning you could say that if MHL was introduced in the netherlands then ONLY the female cyclists will stop riding because they are scared of helmet hair. I see that as highly unlikely.


Ok.
The dutch culture is different then here.
BUT its the same for both genders... regardles of wich culture they are in...
Infrastructures are not gender specific....

Dutch... no helmet... many woman cycle.
Australia... helmet.. low participation of cycling among females...
Its not hard to see they are linked...

And the dutch culture is very much influenced by the absence of helmets.
It plays a big part in promotion of cycling.
A big part as to who rides.
Not just gender. But also age.
The absense of helmet makes cycling accessible for everybody.
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 Comedian » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:08 am

damhooligan wrote:
Philipthelam wrote:The answer is simple really, I don't see why you don't see it.
There is a big difference with our culture and Netherland's culture. Over there cycling is seen as someting different. This difference in culture isn't due to MHL. And yes, cycling infrastructure does have to do with it. It makes more people cycle. It makes it easier to get to places by bike so that "everyone" cycles there. This percentage of females riding has nothing to do with the fact that helmets mess up their hair. It's the fact that the culture is different
With your reasoning you could say that if MHL was introduced in the netherlands then ONLY the female cyclists will stop riding because they are scared of helmet hair. I see that as highly unlikely.


Ok.
The dutch culture is different then here.
BUT its the same for both genders... regardles of wich culture they are in...
Infrastructures are not gender specific....

Dutch... no helmet... many woman cycle.
Australia... helmet.. low participation of cycling among females...
Its not hard to see they are linked...

And the dutch culture is very much influenced by the absence of helmets.
It plays a big part in promotion of cycling.
A big part as to who rides.
Not just gender. But also age.
The absense of helmet makes cycling accessible for everybody.

The other thing I find a little disturbing here is we have people that have lived in both types of cycling countries. So then we go and say that it's different here and these people don't know what they are talking about.

Well, DH I'm with you. I believe what you are saying and respect it. Funnily enough.. it's fairly consistent with what other Dutch people say. Or even people that spend some time there with their eyes open.

We are different in Australia - yeah right... we have kangaroos... :mrgreen:
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: 4413
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby Xplora » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:59 am

Phil, you've just described a classic Chicken VS Egg conundrum - dutch culture is different, but it is different because they WANT to be different to us. They actively moved away from the car model several decades ago. This kind of progressive thinking is precisely why Scandinavian countries rank highest in satisfaction ratings. It's probably smug self congratulatory masturbation, but from the way I see it, the chase after the car dream is the smug masturbation... and here is the irony. My family is two generations car/motorbike racer and professional car mechanic. I'm legally a 3rd year car mechanic apprentice. My extended family has mechanics in my generation. I was raised around cars, our wellbeing relied on cars. :idea: It is truly "fool's gold" because outside a limited number of situations (countryside commuting, commuting 50kms+ a day, moving large tools by ute/truck) the car isn't the ideal solution because the infrastructure can't keep up with car uptake in a first world economy. The dutch realised this. Australia and the USA have actively resisted the abandonment of the car.

Doesn't this strike you as odd? You can say "it's different here". I would agree if you lived in the Outback and had an Audax ride to the next town. I would agree if you were a builder and needed to move tools every day (I would question how many people actually need 10 ton mobile toolsheds like my father in law, but I digress....)

The MHL is part of an active resistance to the bike as a freedom creating, democratic, people focussed transport solution. I work with people who are a 20 minute bike commute from the office (ALL PATHS!!!!) and will catch 60 minutes of PT. That's the most DUMB decision I can imagine!?!?! Why are these people choosing this? It's a lonely PT ride 95% of the time. It's a slow PT ride 100% of the time. It's a restrictive car ride 90% of the time. Bike can average the same speed as a car even on a freakin' recovery ride (I did 60 minutes last Friday, specifically trying to avoid muscle strain, my best is 48 minutes).

Let's not beat around the bush Phil... the MHL is part of a broad discrimination against the bike. Consider how many police resources are required for policing bikes without a helmet law. Now consider how many police resources are needed for cars. The car is clearly a liability to the public, why the need to increase red tape for bikes? There is definitely no epidemic of head injuries for cyclists. There was none in the 80s, or any other method. See it for what it is.... also consider how much money is invested by our governments to keep Toyota, GMH and Ford building cars in Australia :idea: How much money has the government spent subsidising the bike industry? :idea:

Even the most even handed person can see a bias. I'm OK with bias... but at least be smart about it, car people. People will simply not undertake an activity that has a high chance of head injury. A helmet isn't going to mitigate an underlying risk.
Xplora
 
Posts: 6449
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby winstonw » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:40 pm

Xplora wrote:Phil, you've just described a classic Chicken VS Egg conundrum - dutch culture is different, but it is different because they WANT to be different to us. They actively moved away from the car model several decades ago.


And each year, how many Australians migrate to Holland versus vv?
User avatar
winstonw
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:18 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby il padrone » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:43 pm

Just how is that relevant ???
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19187
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby winstonw » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:49 pm

damhooligan wrote:Dutch... no helmet... many woman cycle.
Australia... helmet.. low participation of cycling among females...
Its not hard to see they are linked...


Are you serious?

Tell us all about Autodelen and Meerijden.nu then.
User avatar
winstonw
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:18 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby il padrone » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:54 pm

Xplora wrote:Let's not beat around the bush Phil... the MHL is part of a broad discrimination against the bike.

This is pretty correct. The strongest campaigners for MHL in the late 80s (the RACS) were not concerned about promoting cycling. If cyclists were encumbered with a lump of plastic 'so be it' was their approach.

Xplora wrote:There is definitely no epidemic of head injuries for cyclists. There was none in the 80s, or any other method.

There was a higher cyclist death rate and head injury rate. Not an epedemic but higher than today (~30-40 deaths per year in Victoria, compared to 8 nowadays).

Yes, this did fall, but the real reasons for that are very much unclear. Was it MHL, or the significant drop in bicycle use, especially by the most collision-prone group, teenagers? Or was it due to the almost parallel police campaigns on drink-driving and speed via Booze-buses and the new speed/red-light cameras? Or due to the new TAC horror road safety ads? Note that there was a fall in all road death rates - drivers, passengers, pedestrians in the same time period.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19187
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby winstonw » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:04 pm

il padrone wrote:Just how is that relevant ???


You mean, as a serious cycling advocate, you have no idea of Australia vs Holland for
- net population growth rate?
- population density?
- quality of life?
And my question was all about quality of life. Now, what motivated your relevance question?
User avatar
winstonw
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:18 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby human909 » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:45 pm

winstonw wrote:
il padrone wrote:Just how is that relevant ???


You mean, as a serious cycling advocate, you have no idea of Australia vs Holland for
- net population growth rate?
- population density?
- quality of life?
And my question was all about quality of life. Now, what motivated your relevance question?


Because the relevance of your question remains unclear. It is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Likewise is reference to general 'quality of life' but if you want to go down that path then you'll unlikely to find the support you want. The Netherlands is a fantastic country to live, I personally would prefer to live in Amsterdam to Brisbane.
human909
 
Posts: 5203
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby damhooligan » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:47 pm

winstonw wrote:
damhooligan wrote:Dutch... no helmet... many woman cycle.
Australia... helmet.. low participation of cycling among females...
Its not hard to see they are linked...


Are you serious?

Tell us all about Autodelen and Meerijden.nu then.



What are you trying to say??

So the dutch have an organised car-sharing system..
it stil does not change the fact that most cyclist are female...

Melb also has something like this called flexicar....
does this change anything ??

Nope.

dutch, no helmnets, many females ride bikes.
autralia , mhl, not many females ride bikes...

Mayby if I repeat it a few times, it wil sink in... :wink:


Image
Last edited by damhooligan on Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 damhooligan » Mon Oct 29, 2012 8:51 pm

Comedian wrote:
damhooligan wrote:
Philipthelam wrote:The answer is simple really, I don't see why you don't see it.
There is a big difference with our culture and Netherland's culture. Over there cycling is seen as someting different. This difference in culture isn't due to MHL. And yes, cycling infrastructure does have to do with it. It makes more people cycle. It makes it easier to get to places by bike so that "everyone" cycles there. This percentage of females riding has nothing to do with the fact that helmets mess up their hair. It's the fact that the culture is different
With your reasoning you could say that if MHL was introduced in the netherlands then ONLY the female cyclists will stop riding because they are scared of helmet hair. I see that as highly unlikely.


Ok.
The dutch culture is different then here.
BUT its the same for both genders... regardles of wich culture they are in...
Infrastructures are not gender specific....

Dutch... no helmet... many woman cycle.
Australia... helmet.. low participation of cycling among females...
Its not hard to see they are linked...

And the dutch culture is very much influenced by the absence of helmets.
It plays a big part in promotion of cycling.
A big part as to who rides.
Not just gender. But also age.
The absense of helmet makes cycling accessible for everybody.

The other thing I find a little disturbing here is we have people that have lived in both types of cycling countries. So then we go and say that it's different here and these people don't know what they are talking about.

Well, DH I'm with you. I believe what you are saying and respect it. Funnily enough.. it's fairly consistent with what other Dutch people say. Or even people that spend some time there with their eyes open.

We are different in Australia - yeah right... we have kangaroos... :mrgreen:



Thanks comedian.
I appreciate it. 8)

Mayby a interesting read after you use google translate is
http://www.fietsersbond.nl/node/2069

Its from the cycling union, a massifly big organisation, that fights for cyclists.
They are strong, and get things done !!.

I love this word , schijnveiligheid...
as it sums up the whole mhl in one word...
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 human909 » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:10 pm

damhooligan wrote:dutch, no helmnets, many females ride bikes.
autralia , mhl, not many females ride bikes...

Mayby if I repeat it a few times, it wil sink in... :wink:

I don't particularly want to disagree along partisan lines, but.....

I think the biggest influence on women cycling is feeling safe on the roads (this is STRONGLY supported by research) and the ability to perform daily tasks. Women are a more risk adverse bunch and are more pragmatic and practical when it comes to activities. By my observations in Melbourne's inner north and amongst my peers it seems that women riders are just as common as male riders. However this is of course the exception and not the rule in Australia. While cycling remains a fringe activity it will remain a male dominated one.

MHLs are just one of the many barriers to encouraging cycling. It just happens to be the one that had the biggest impact on youth cycling and is one of the lowest cost to change.
human909
 
Posts: 5203
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby winstonw » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:13 pm

damhooligan wrote:
dutch, no helmnets, many females ride bikes.
autralia , mhl, not many females ride bikes...

Mayby if I repeat it a few times, it wil sink in... :wink:


Repeat it all you like. It doesn't change car ownership numbers, registration costs, parking fees and accessibility, off street parking availability, geographical terrain, population density. If you've lived there, cough up the numbers.
User avatar
winstonw
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:18 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby human909 » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:25 pm

winstonw wrote:If you've lived there, cough up the numbers.

I believe it was me who said I have lived there.

winstonw wrote:Repeat it all you like. It doesn't change car ownership numbers, registration costs, parking fees and accessibility, off street parking availability, geographical terrain, population density.

I'm still unsure of your point. Nobody is suggesting that the only difference between Australia and the Netherlands is MHLs. The Netherlands is more pleasant for cycling for numerous reasons. Almost all of which Australia could follow to improve cycling.

However if you can't see than having to wear a foam hat to get to and from your workplace or other destinations is an impediment to many then you clearly can't think outside your own experiences.
human909
 
Posts: 5203
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby damhooligan » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:32 pm

winstonw wrote:
damhooligan wrote:
dutch, no helmets, many females ride bikes.
autralia , mhl, not many females ride bikes...

Mayby if I repeat it a few times, it wil sink in... :wink:


Repeat it all you like. It doesn't change car ownership numbers, registration costs, parking fees and accessibility, off street parking availability, geographical terrain, population density. If you've lived there, cough up the numbers.


sometimes repeating things is needed..
car ownership numbers, registration costs, parking fees and accessibility, off street parking availability, geographical terrain, population density, these are all things that affect both genders...

they are different in each country, sure, but they do not explain a difference in gender participation.
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 il padrone » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:39 pm

human909 wrote:MHLs are just one of the many barriers to encouraging cycling. It just happens to be the one that had the biggest impact on youth cycling

This.

Teenagers and many younger kids dropped cycling in large numbers. Parents were faced with kids requiring transport for any distance longer than a convenient walk. Driving kids about became the norm "It's safer than putting a helmet on to ride a dangerous bike". Kids have now completely lost the cycling culture (as young kids and teens - they may often pick it up as twenty-somethings). But the long term trend was clear for teenagers - a sustained fall in cycling for transport.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19187
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby damhooligan » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:48 pm

human909 wrote:
damhooligan wrote:dutch, no helmnets, many females ride bikes.
autralia , mhl, not many females ride bikes...

Mayby if I repeat it a few times, it wil sink in... :wink:

I don't particularly want to disagree along partisan lines, but.....

I think the biggest influence on women cycling is feeling safe on the roads (this is STRONGLY supported by research) and the ability to perform daily tasks. Women are a more risk adverse bunch and are more pragmatic and practical when it comes to activities. By my observations in Melbourne's inner north and amongst my peers it seems that women riders are just as common as male riders. However this is of course the exception and not the rule in Australia. While cycling remains a fringe activity it will remain a male dominated one.

MHLs are just one of the many barriers to encouraging cycling. It just happens to be the one that had the biggest impact on youth cycling and is one of the lowest cost to change.



you are right , safety is a big factor.
But i believe that safety is strongly linked to MHL.
http://www.fietsersbond.nl/node/2069 , is a good read, after google translate.

woman are indeed practical, a helmet is not practical (imho...)
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 human909 » Mon Oct 29, 2012 9:52 pm

damhooligan wrote:you are right , safety is a big factor.
But i believe that safety is strongly linked to MHL.
http://www.fietsersbond.nl/node/2069 , is a good read, after google translate.

woman are indeed practical, a helmet is not practical (imho...)

I agree too. :D

To quote that translated link for others:
Cyclists in the emergency department after a {single vehicle} accident, found in 13% of cases a helmet worn, that is at least ten times higher than the helmet use among cyclists.

Anyone who doesn't think that there is risk compensation and rational individual choice at work when it comes to wearing a helmet is clearly a little naive.
human909
 
Posts: 5203
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby simonn » Tue Oct 30, 2012 7:29 am

il padrone wrote:
human909 wrote:MHLs are just one of the many barriers to encouraging cycling. It just happens to be the one that had the biggest impact on youth cycling

This.

Teenagers and many younger kids dropped cycling in large numbers. Parents were faced with kids requiring transport for any distance longer than a convenient walk. Driving kids about became the norm "It's safer than putting a helmet on to ride a dangerous bike". Kids have now completely lost the cycling culture (as young kids and teens - they may often pick it up as twenty-somethings). But the long term trend was clear for teenagers - a sustained fall in cycling for transport.


However, less children ride to school the UK than in the good old days too. UK does not have MHLs.

Just a quick google:
Australia: "Only one in ten children ride to school, even though 80% of parents think it would improve their kids’ health" (seems a bit high to me, but hey...)
http://btawa.org.au/campaigns/riding-bi ... to-school/

UK: "in the UK [cycling] has declined steadily since the 1970s. Now it's the main form of transport for a pathetic 2% of pupils."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... -to-school
Image
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3648
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby Xplora » Tue Oct 30, 2012 8:37 am

winstonw wrote:
Xplora wrote:Phil, you've just described a classic Chicken VS Egg conundrum - dutch culture is different, but it is different because they WANT to be different to us. They actively moved away from the car model several decades ago.


And each year, how many Australians migrate to Holland versus vv?

This isn't worth discussing - who said we should mass emigrate to another country because of one law? :lol: I'm familiar with the term strawman, but prefer to not bring it up.... but I think this ualifies as a strawman. If you want to define immigration patterns, I think you'll find that proximity to war zones, refugee acceptance, welfare programs and permissive culture will rank much higher for immigration preference than MHL. :roll:

Pad, would you have said that head injuries was an epidemic? Was the lack of helmet such a serious risk to the rider that it warranted a law? Was it expected that a rider would die of a head specific injury once a week? (just looking for more indepth commentary on the vibe around head injuries). I have a feeling that there was no God Help Us, THE HEAD INJURIES vibe in the public. I'm guessing that there were 2-3 deaths within a week or two, got some press coverage and bam. Sydney buses underwent the exact same situation with 2 kids dragged and dead from the rear door closing on their foot within a week. Somehow no one had died from this injury for a VERY LONG TIME, yet two random moments required a retro fit across all buses to prevent the feet getting caught. Cameras etc as well... And I am guessing that no one who recalls these incidents has noticed that the hysteria surrounding the tragedy hasn't actually resulted in positive outcomes. How many news reports of kids getting their feet caught, and then released by the new door flaps? Interesting...

When it comes to issues of safety, risk must be weighed against benefit. Cars are more dangerous by maybe 500 times more than a bike, yet the car wasn't banned. People under 25 were not banned from driving. People over 75 were not banned from driving. Vehicles heavier than 200 kiloes were not banned. Risk was weighed against benefit. The decimation of cycling numbers simply showed that a lot of people suddenly weren't interested in riding anymore after the law change. The benefits of an active cycling population were completely ignored and things ARE getting worse as we become more sedentary. The world is different to 1990. PCs and the net, pay TV... litigious culture... the College of Surgeons would get their touted 30 minutes of exercise 3 times a week if people just rode a bike to a friend's place or down to the local restaurant instead of driving. This is precisely why I said discrimination - most commutes are well within the realms of bike distance, there is really very little motivation right now to take it up when you assume some idiot is going to cut you up... that idiot would not do that if he also rode a couple times a week. And a rights mentality towards a drivers licence, rather than seeing it as a licence to kill, doesn't help matters. There IS a drive towards cars, pardon the pun. And almost no push towards bikes... I'll be here all week, try the veal... 8)
Xplora
 
Posts: 6449
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Oct 30, 2012 11:02 pm

Xplora wrote:just looking for more indepth commentary on the vibe around head injuries). I have a feeling that there was no God Help Us, THE HEAD INJURIES vibe in the public. I'm guessing that there were 2-3 deaths within a week or two, got some press coverage and bam.

As I said, there was no real epidemic, however....

God Help Us, THE HEAD INJURIES


...was exactly the sort of thing the doctors of the RACS were bleating about frequently via their media mouthpieces. They kept dragging up cases of the kid or adult who just started cycling, fell on a bike path and were now on life support or a brain-damaged vegetable :roll: It was sad, a case of power and influence at work, and generally pretty unjustified. What was really needed was a greater degree of taming of motor vehicle drivers..... the real danger on our roads.

Hint: the very same drivers who work as surgeons :? :evil:
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19187
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby il padrone » Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:02 pm

What happened in 1991??

Image
From Charting Transport
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 19187
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.


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

Postby Philipthelam » Thu Nov 01, 2012 7:13 pm

il padrone wrote:What happened in 1991??

Image
From Charting Transport

MHL!
It's interesting to see how the MHL has affected different states. In most states the numbers went down after 1991 but it's interesting that sydney and canberra both went up. Also the one most affected by MHL (adelaide) seems to still be dropping now and was dropping before MHL was introduced. I suppose it's nice to see that (other than in adelaide) cycling journeys to work is increasing in all states. I also thought cycling was a lot more popular then. Do you think there was a bigger drop in recreational cyclists or commuters/utility cyclists?
Philipthelam
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:10 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cycling Safety and Advocacy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mick243



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

> FREE BNA Stickers
> BNA Cycling Kit