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 high_tea » Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:28 pm

Xplora wrote:Hightea, this is precisely the point... MHL blocks out cycling for a significant chunk of the population, for a number of reasons, by abnormalising riding and these people won't change because their choices are taken away. How many times have you been protected by your seatbelt? Me, 2-3 times over 32 years in cars.


Maybe, but the answer still begged the question that was asked. A logical fallacy with an obscure and widely misunderstood name is still a logical fallacy.

A seatbelt really is something I can leave off, and have a good understanding of the risk involved. If you never have an accident, the seatbelt doesn't mean anything. In the same way, a helmet is so unlikely to be needed that most people don't realise that its not necessary for most casual riding. But they think to themselves "oh crap, there is a law, I must wear my helmet/seatbelt" and misunderstand that these protections are there to stop you from PERMANENT DISABLEMENT in an accident. I don't want to reduce such an injury - I don't want to have the accident in the first place. But it reveals a deeply flawed understanding of crashes for most people, that the mandated protection is going to stop you going to hospital. It doesn't.


I don't understand why you bring up seatbelts. Seatbelt efficacy is well settled, as is seatbelt law efficacy. They're not necessarily going to protect you from injury - the manic who pioneered seatbelt tests by being strapped to a rocket-powered sled earned a scary list of injuries in his career - but they're clearly way better than nothing.

And (my point) if you were afraid of going to hospital on a bike, then you SHOULD be afraid of the same result in a car. The same people who say the road is too dangerous for a bicycle are the same people who don't appreciate the severity of accidents in a car. The road is too dangerous for a car as well, and the likelihood of hospitalisation for a car accident is about the same.


That's a new one on me. Do you have a citation?

But abnormalising cycling takes away this basic logic. And as a result, a bunch of people just won't cycle because they have been indoctrinated into believing that riding is dangerous.


Huh. People believe it's dangerous to walk places too. Apparently only motorised transport is safe. Which is to say, I'm not disputing that there's a problem. I do dispute that MHL repeal is some kind of panacea. Attitudes suck, infrastructure sucks and MHL repeal won't change that. I'm not talking about dedicated cycle lanes either. I'm talking about basic things, like decently wide footpaths and lights that let pedestrians cross in less time than it takes to roll a smoke and have a cup of tea. You know, infrastructure that works for anything except a car.

Let's stipulate that MHLs are a result of car-centric thinking. Such being the case, it sounds like a symptom to me. Assuming your oft-repeated claim that you need mad sk1llz to ride in Sydney traffic to be true (and from my limited experience, it ain't a patch on Brisbane or London traffic, let alone Taiping traffic) that's another symptom. The root cause - the completely rubbish attitude to active transport - is a much harder problem. It's more productive to look at the root cause, though.

Oh, but Repeal will help these attitudes! you say. Hmmm, maybe. Certain people have made some rather grandiose analogies with various civil rights movements. I sure hope that isn't an accurate analogy, because meaningful change there took a century or more and legislative change was just part of a long, hard struggle to, guess what, change attitudes. They have made progress, but they are struggling still.

I remain unconvinced that MHL repeal is the biggest obstacle to elevating cycling to its rightful place. I could come at the claim that MHLs aren't pulling their weight like, say, DUI or seatbelt laws, but that's another matter entirely. Those on the anti-MHL side of the fence seem to have accepted that you need more than "meh, this law isn't doing much good". That's the inference I draw from the bold claims about cycling participation, the obesity epidemic, Kable, various human rights instruments, diffuse axonal injury and various other fascinating matters.

PS, I'm equally unimpressed by a lot of the pro-MHL arguments, in case I haven't made that clear in the past.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

by BNA » Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:28 pm

BNA
 

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

Postby high_tea » Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:28 pm

[quote="Xplora":!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!]
Hightea, this is precisely the point... MHL blocks out cycling for a significant chunk of the population, for a number of reasons, by abnormalising riding and these people won't change because their choices are taken away. How many times have you been protected by your seatbelt? Me, 2-3 times over 32 years in cars.
[/quote:!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!]

Maybe, but the answer still begged the question that was asked. A logical fallacy with an obscure and widely misunderstood name is still a logical fallacy.

[quote:!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!]
A seatbelt really is something I can leave off, and have a good understanding of the risk involved. If you never have an accident, the seatbelt doesn't mean anything. In the same way, a helmet is so unlikely to be needed that most people don't realise that its not necessary for most casual riding. But they think to themselves "oh crap, there is a law, I must wear my helmet/seatbelt" and misunderstand that these protections are there to stop you from PERMANENT DISABLEMENT in an accident. I don't want to reduce such an injury - I don't want to have the accident in the first place. But it reveals a deeply flawed understanding of crashes for most people, that the mandated protection is going to stop you going to hospital. It doesn't.
[/quote:!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!]

I don't understand why you bring up seatbelts. Seatbelt efficacy is well settled, as is seatbelt [i:!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!]law[/i:!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!] efficacy. They're not necessarily going to protect you from injury - the manic who pioneered seatbelt tests by being strapped to a rocket-powered sled earned a scary list of injuries in his career - but they're clearly way better than nothing.

[quote:!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!]
And (my point) if you were afraid of going to hospital on a bike, then you SHOULD be afraid of the same result in a car. The same people who say the road is too dangerous for a bicycle are the same people who don't appreciate the severity of accidents in a car. The road is too dangerous for a car as well, and the likelihood of hospitalisation for a car accident is about the same.
[/quote:!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!]

That's a new one on me. Do you have a citation?

[quote:!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!]
But abnormalising cycling takes away this basic logic. And as a result, a bunch of people just won't cycle because they have been indoctrinated into believing that riding is dangerous.[/quote:!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!]

Huh. People believe it's dangerous to [i:!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!]walk[/i:!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!] places too. Apparently only motorised transport is safe. Which is to say, I'm not disputing that there's a problem. I do dispute that MHL repeal is some kind of panacea. Attitudes suck, infrastructure sucks and MHL repeal won't change that. I'm not talking about dedicated cycle lanes either. I'm talking about basic things, like decently wide footpaths and lights that let pedestrians cross in less time than it takes to roll a smoke and have a cup of tea. You know, infrastructure that works for anything except a car.

Let's stipulate that MHLs are a result of car-centric thinking. Such being the case, it sounds like a symptom to me. Assuming your oft-repeated claim that you need mad sk1llz to ride in Sydney traffic to be true (and from my limited experience, it ain't a patch on Brisbane or London traffic, let alone [i:!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!]Taiping[/i:!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!] traffic) that's another symptom. The root cause - the completely rubbish attitude to active transport - is a much harder problem. It's more productive to look at the root cause, though.

Oh, but Repeal will help these attitudes! you say. Hmmm, maybe. Certain people have made some rather grandiose analogies with various civil rights movements. I sure hope that isn't an accurate analogy, because meaningful change [i:!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!]there[/i:!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!] took a century or more and legislative change was just part of a long, hard struggle to, guess what, change attitudes. They have made progress, but they are struggling still.

I remain unconvinced that MHL repeal is the biggest obstacle to elevating cycling to its rightful place. I could come at the claim that MHLs aren't pulling their weight like, say, DUI or seatbelt laws, but that's another matter entirely. Those on the anti-MHL side of the fence seem to have accepted that you need more than "meh, this law isn't doing much good". That's the inference I draw from the bold claims about cycling participation, the obesity epidemic, [i:!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!]Kable[/i:!! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !!], various human rights instruments, diffuse axonal injury and various other fascinating matters.

PS, I'm equally unimpressed by a lot of the pro-MHL arguments, in case I haven't made that clear in the past.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby Xplora » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:50 pm

I think you're coming around, tea, :mrgreen:

There is no way that MHL repeals will solve the problems. It's similar to how seatbelts didn't fix car injuries... we aren't talking about a blanket issue and resolution, we're talking about something that has serious cascade effects throughout the rest of the transport system, so to speak. It's something that has a dramatic impact by being an issue in the background. It colours our perception of "normal". The seatbelt colours my perception of the car. So does the curtain airbag (honestly, few things make me go OMGBRO than the idea of rolling a car). The helmet and leather jacket and pants definitely colours my perception of the motorbike (and I was riding them from age 3).

There are subconscious actions at play with the helmet law. It should be repealed because the Government doesn't give a crap about safety - more people will die from alcohol related violence than pushy prangs this year. No real bans on alcohol.
I bring up these parallels because they are often held up as beacons of light for the MHL. I honestly don't think people who have actually been in serious car accidents will rave about the seatbelt like they go on about the helmet.
No citations, you understand physics. A body decelerated from 50-80kmh to 0 in 2 metres is going to get hurt wearing a seatbelt. Whiplash injuries are so common in cars because of the seatbelt.

It's a shame that you think we need more than "this law isn't working" because that's all that is needed. We aren't Communist China! If rider outcomes are worse, then that's it. Get rid of the law. Focus police attention on more serious issues like Furious Riding instead :lol:
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7361
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby DavidS » Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:50 pm

human909 wrote:
ColinOldnCranky wrote:What? you are kidding. Right?

Or you are misunderstanding the term end-of-trip facilities - generally showers and some form of clothes hanging/storage. (And yes, bike storage is a lesser issue than either of those two.)


No I am not kidding at all. Showers and clothes hanging/storage is NOT important to most potential commuters making their transport choice. Nor can such facilities practically serve any more that a tiny minority of commuters arriving at any work location. Does it really need to be repeated? This is a desire of cycling enthusiasts, NOT of mainstream commuters.

jules21 wrote:what do you mean by "this"? the lycra-clad commuters? if so, i don't understand how they're holding back cycle commuting, unless they are somehow discouraging others who wouldn't want to dress in lycra.

The needs of lycra-clad commuters are significantly different from the needs of mainstream commuters. Furthermore you are totally kidding yourself if you think the Lycra clad and 10km+ cycle commuters will make up any more than a TINY minority of commuters.

jules21 wrote:if you're concerned that "ordinary" riders are underrepreseted as commuters, then by my thinking, they're letting the side down, not the carbon brigade. forgive me if that's not your point, but i've heard it before from others and it defies logic.

I'm not sure anybody is "letting the side down". But if you think that you will encourage mainstream cycling commuting by focussing on the needs of the enthusiast then you are kidding yourself.


I agree, as a utility cyclist but more of an enthusiast than the average person, I have access to showers and the like but don't use them. I don't think I'm riding fast enough to warrant this. I generally wear shorts and a T shirt although I have just bought a jersey for the hot days. In the mornings is ok and in the afternoon I'm going home so less of an issue. I change when I get to work but I am riding further than I need to and I just do it because I want to have a fresh shirt on at work and not wear a shirt on the bike. I used to commute in jeans but find shorts more comfortable. Facilities? I just need a toilet to get changed in for 5 minutes a day, or use of the office for 5 minutes. Mainstream commuters, and where I work (a university) there are a lot of mainstream commuters, just need somewhere to park the bike. Plenty of people ride in wearing their work or student clothes and don't want to change. They just want to be able to ride their bikes to work, not quick, and have somewhere to put the bike. The helmet is just a PITA and also adds (a lot) to how sweaty your head gets so it is definitely a turn off. The fact that helmets are mandatory means cycling is seen as an activity which is dangerous and it definitely abnormalises cycling as a mode of transport. Part of the problem in Aus is that cycling is seen as a sport foremost, not as a mode of transport which can also be a sport.

DS
Image

Riding: Cannondale Quick Speed 2
User avatar
DavidS
 
Posts: 1517
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:24 pm
Location: Melbourne

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

Postby human909 » Mon Nov 19, 2012 11:40 pm

high_tea wrote:I remain unconvinced that MHL repeal is the biggest obstacle to elevating cycling to its rightful place.

Nobody is saying it is. In fact a quick look at the US, UK and plenty of other places in the world shows that no MHLs doesn't mean instant cycling nirvana. However that is irrelevant. If we do want to move towards a society with more mainstream cycling then getting rid of this barrier is very beneficial. Keeping it is not.

DavidS wrote:Part of the problem in Aus is that cycling is seen as a sport foremost, not as a mode of transport which can also be a sport.

And increasingly it can be seen that some enthusiast cyclists are part of the problem too.

Utilitarian cyclists seem happy to coexist with sporting cyclists and recognise that sporting cyclists ride differently and have different needs. Sadly many sporting cyclists fail to recognise that utilitarian cyclists have different needs and many seem unwilling to allow them the choices that they want to cycle. Many in these forums and this thread is evidence of that. Bradly Wiggins is evidence of that.

Just to be clear I, and I have believe it is safe to safe everybody here, have no issues with people choosing to be enthusiastic, sporting and Lycra clad. I too get involved in that side of thing on occasion. Cycling enthusiasts are a benefit to the wider community and in getting many interested in cycling. Though it is quite sad that so many cyclists seem so hell bent on stifling cycling of a non sporting variety.
human909
 
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby simonn » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:49 am

Xplora wrote:No real bans on alcohol.


LOLWUT...?!

Alcohol is extremely regulated. You cannot manufacture many types of alcoholic beverages without a license. You cannot sell it without a license. You need different licenses to sell it in different kinds of ways and at different times, and which may or may not stipulate how and when it may be consumed. You cannot buy it unless you are old enough and without specific forms of ID demonstrating that you are the age you say you are. It's consumption is banned in many public places etc etc etc
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby jules21 » Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:04 am

i can't keep up with this thread. sorry guys :)
Image
User avatar
jules21
 
Posts: 9247
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 high_tea » Tue Nov 20, 2012 10:14 am

Xplora wrote:
There are subconscious actions at play with the helmet law. It should be repealed because the Government doesn't give a crap about safety - more people will die from alcohol related violence than pushy prangs this year. No real bans on alcohol.
I bring up these parallels because they are often held up as beacons of light for the MHL. I honestly don't think people who have actually been in serious car accidents will rave about the seatbelt like they go on about the helmet.
No citations, you understand physics. A body decelerated from 50-80kmh to 0 in 2 metres is going to get hurt wearing a seatbelt. Whiplash injuries are so common in cars because of the seatbelt.


Not even remotely good enough. This is idle speculation. How about some data?
high_tea
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby Xplora » Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:00 pm

If you need data on basic physics in car accidents, you're beyond help. You don't need data for basic common sense. I'm not challenging common sense when I say that you will be seriously injured wearing a seat belt with a rapid stop from 50kmh.

Alcohol kills. That's public knowledge.

I wipe my backside 100% of the time when I take a dump, whether I need to or not. Do you data to back that up as well? :lol: :lol: :lol:

In other news, FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT :shock:
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7361
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby high_tea » Tue Nov 20, 2012 1:52 pm

Xplora wrote:If you need data on basic physics in car accidents, you're beyond help. You don't need data for basic common sense. I'm not challenging common sense when I say that you will be seriously injured wearing a seat belt with a rapid stop from 50kmh.

Alcohol kills. That's public knowledge.

I wipe my backside 100% of the time when I take a dump, whether I need to or not. Do you data to back that up as well? :lol: :lol: :lol:

In other news, FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT :shock:


You most certainly do need data to support the claim that "The road is too dangerous for a car as well, and the likelihood of hospitalisation for a car accident is about the same.". So far you haven't provided any.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby Baldy » Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:07 pm

human909 wrote:
high_tea wrote:I remain unconvinced that MHL repeal is the biggest obstacle to elevating cycling to its rightful place.

Nobody is saying it is. In fact a quick look at the US, UK and plenty of other places in the world shows that no MHLs doesn't mean instant cycling nirvana. However that is irrelevant. If we do want to move towards a society with more mainstream cycling then getting rid of this barrier is very beneficial. Keeping it is not.

DavidS wrote:Part of the problem in Aus is that cycling is seen as a sport foremost, not as a mode of transport which can also be a sport.

And increasingly it can be seen that some enthusiast cyclists are part of the problem too.

Utilitarian cyclists seem happy to coexist with sporting cyclists and recognise that sporting cyclists ride differently and have different needs. Sadly many sporting cyclists fail to recognise that utilitarian cyclists have different needs and many seem unwilling to allow them the choices that they want to cycle. Many in these forums and this thread is evidence of that. Bradly Wiggins is evidence of that.

Just to be clear I, and I have believe it is safe to safe everybody here, have no issues with people choosing to be enthusiastic, sporting and Lycra clad. I too get involved in that side of thing on occasion. Cycling enthusiasts are a benefit to the wider community and in getting many interested in cycling. Though it is quite sad that so many cyclists seem so hell bent on stifling cycling of a non sporting variety.


Two questions..

Is someone who is enthusiastic about utility cycling not a cycling enthusiast? If not why?
At what point does a person become part of the "lycra clad" ? Does a woman in bike shorts and a sports top/gymwear qualify. Or the man in a plain jersey and board shorts. How about a woman with no helmet on a Dutch utility bike wearing lycra tights under a skirt and a skin tight top.

Promoting utility cycling is not the responsibility of someone who chooses to only race bikes or ride them for fitness. And of course it works the other way. This is perfectly normal.
Then there are those of us who use a bike for both, you put yourself in this group so I am sure you understand the bicycle is versatile enough to cater to each groups needs.

Promoting cycling is not the responsibility of any cyclist. It is ok to just participate, no strings attached. Anything more than that has to be by choice and there are some,like yourself, that are more than willing to promote riding a bike. You enthusiastically advocate for utility cycling and other people do the same for the sport/recreation side. I fail to see the problem, the need for helmets or helmet laws are not the biggest difference between the groups. It is a point of difference for some but in terms of boosting utility cycling numbers I think its a minor one and one of many.
Baldy
 
Posts: 1669
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:55 pm

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

Postby Comedian » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:31 pm

high_tea wrote:
Xplora wrote:
There are subconscious actions at play with the helmet law. It should be repealed because the Government doesn't give a crap about safety - more people will die from alcohol related violence than pushy prangs this year. No real bans on alcohol.
I bring up these parallels because they are often held up as beacons of light for the MHL. I honestly don't think people who have actually been in serious car accidents will rave about the seatbelt like they go on about the helmet.
No citations, you understand physics. A body decelerated from 50-80kmh to 0 in 2 metres is going to get hurt wearing a seatbelt. Whiplash injuries are so common in cars because of the seatbelt.


Not even remotely good enough. This is idle speculation. How about some data?

The big difference between helmets and seatbelts... Unrestrained passengers can fly about in cars and injure other passengers. There is no safety implication to orhers by someone wearing or not wearing a helmet.
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: 4439
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby il padrone » Tue Nov 20, 2012 5:57 pm

Baldy wrote:I fail to see the problem, the need for helmets or helmet laws are not the biggest difference between the groups. It is a point of difference for some but in terms of boosting utility cycling numbers I think its a minor one and one of many.

OK. So why is the use of bicycles for commuting 1.5% of commuters in Victoria, but it is 4.2% (almost 3 times the rate) in the hot & sweaty Northern Territory?

I fully acknowledge that there are other factors that place cycle use even in NT well below the 12-15% of Germany, or the 35% in Copenhagen. But the requirement for a helmet (in the other states of Aus) is a major initial barrier.
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20168
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby high_tea » Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:34 pm

Comedian wrote:
high_tea wrote:
Xplora wrote:
There are subconscious actions at play with the helmet law. It should be repealed because the Government doesn't give a crap about safety - more people will die from alcohol related violence than pushy prangs this year. No real bans on alcohol.
I bring up these parallels because they are often held up as beacons of light for the MHL. I honestly don't think people who have actually been in serious car accidents will rave about the seatbelt like they go on about the helmet.
No citations, you understand physics. A body decelerated from 50-80kmh to 0 in 2 metres is going to get hurt wearing a seatbelt. Whiplash injuries are so common in cars because of the seatbelt.


Not even remotely good enough. This is idle speculation. How about some data?

The big difference between helmets and seatbelts... Unrestrained passengers can fly about in cars and injure other passengers. There is no safety implication to orhers by someone wearing or not wearing a helmet.

Interesting distinction, but it doesn't support Xplora's claim. Also, as I understand it the rationale for seatbelts is that a restrained passenger is better off than an unrestrained one. The risk to others is, as I understand it, a secondary consideration.
high_tea
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm

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

Postby Comedian » Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:50 pm

Airbags do not work for unbelted occupants.
Last edited by Comedian on Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: 4439
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

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

Postby Philipthelam » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:02 pm

high_tea wrote:PS, I'm equally unimpressed by a lot of the pro-MHL arguments, in case I haven't made that clear in the past.


I don't think there are many pro MHL people. There are mainly two types of people, those who don't care much about MHL and live with it, and those that just keep on whinging yet do nothing.
Philipthelam
 
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 2:10 pm

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

Postby Kenzo » Tue Nov 20, 2012 7:19 pm

Philipthelam wrote:
high_tea wrote:PS, I'm equally unimpressed by a lot of the pro-MHL arguments, in case I haven't made that clear in the past.


I don't think there are many pro MHL people. There are mainly two types of people, those who don't care much about MHL and live with it, and those that just keep on whinging yet do nothing.

and those who whinge even though they supposedly don't care.
User avatar
Kenzo
 
Posts: 1680
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 il padrone » Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:32 pm

If you really don't care....... what are you doing posting on this thread ???
Riding bikes in traffic - what seems dangerous is usually safe; what seems safe is often more dangerous.
User avatar
il padrone
 
Posts: 20168
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: Heading for home.

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

Postby Xplora » Tue Nov 20, 2012 8:53 pm

Philipthelam wrote:
high_tea wrote:PS, I'm equally unimpressed by a lot of the pro-MHL arguments, in case I haven't made that clear in the past.


I don't think there are many pro MHL people. There are mainly two types of people, those who don't care much about MHL and live with it, and those that just keep on whinging yet do nothing.

I think, as one of the biggest threads on the forum is based around it, that you really should form an opinion. Otherwise, you're just being a spineless guppy allowing the Parliament to trample on the freedoms and rights of public citizens. Do you honestly think the Chinese have no opinion about their Communist Party?
If you generally support these laws, you are allowed to disagree with some of them. You are certainly allowed to raise it and argue your case. It's not whinging. It's called intelligent democracy. :idea:
User avatar
Xplora
 
Posts: 7361
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 11:33 pm
Location: TL;DR

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

Postby damhooligan » Tue Nov 20, 2012 9:39 pm

Philipthelam wrote:I don't think .


That sounds about right.. :mrgreen:

But seriosly ;
Philipthelam wrote:I don't think there are many pro MHL people.


But you are wrong, a lot of people consider the mhl a good thing.
There have been polls, on this forum as well as via other media.
And the results are that more people favor the law, then there are people against it.
Thats why we stil have it.
If most people where against it, including politicians, the law would be gone in a heart beat.
But reality sucks.

Too many people trust that the the law is a good thing.
Without thinking, thats what this thread is for, to make people think.
And with that change peoples minds so that lesser people are pro mhl.
And that way tip the balance in favor for helmet repeal.
So actually debating against mhl , is not 'whinging' but a form taking action.
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 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 12:58 am

Baldy wrote:Two questions..

Which I'll happily answer.

Is someone who is enthusiastic about utility cycling not a cycling enthusiast? If not why?
Of course. I and a few others on this forum seem to be utility cyclist enthusiasts. An urban hipster with a fixie can often be a utility cyclist enthusiast. :mrgreen:

At what point does a person become part of the "lycra clad" ? Does a woman in bike shorts and a sports top/gymwear qualify. Or the man in a plain jersey and board shorts. How about a woman with no helmet on a Dutch utility bike wearing lycra tights under a skirt and a skin tight top.
Such stereotypes are exactly that. Stereotypes. No individual matches a stereotype, so answering that question in a definitive manner is neither possible nor productive. I hope you can sensibly recognise that. "Lycra clad" is still an excellent description for a significant grouping of cyclists that have markedly different needs, desires and attitudes towards cycling than "utility" cyclists.

Promoting utility cycling is not the responsibility of someone who chooses to only race bikes or ride them for fitness. And of course it works the other way. This is perfectly normal.
Then there are those of us who use a bike for both, you put yourself in this group so I am sure you understand the bicycle is versatile enough to cater to each groups needs.

I completely agree. However advocating laws that stifle one group does not seem a noble attitude.

I fail to see the problem, the need for helmets or helmet laws are not the biggest difference between the groups. It is a point of difference for some but in terms of boosting utility cycling numbers I think its a minor one and one of many.
I see a problem when one cycling group encourages and advocates a law because it doesn't affect them as they already are happily wearing helmets.
human909
 
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby twizzle » Wed Nov 21, 2012 5:13 am

il padrone wrote:Australian commuter cyclists
Image


The commuters are the ones with the backpacks. The ones in Lycra, given the size of their quads, are not casual/commuter cyclists. Comparing apples and fish again?

Sent from my iThingy...
I ride, therefore I am.
...real cyclists don't have squeaky chains...
User avatar
twizzle
 
Posts: 6384
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:45 am
Location: Taking a break.

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

Postby human909 » Wed Nov 21, 2012 9:10 am

twizzle wrote:The commuters are the ones with the backpacks. The ones in Lycra, given the size of their quads, are not casual/commuter cyclists. Comparing apples and fish again?

Say What!? I didn't know you could judge the purpose of the journey by the size of somebody's quads.

I'm not sure if you are being serious or not here. But either way your point is lost.
human909
 
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:48 am

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

Postby simonn » Wed Nov 21, 2012 10:09 am

human909 wrote:
twizzle wrote:The commuters are the ones with the backpacks. The ones in Lycra, given the size of their quads, are not casual/commuter cyclists. Comparing apples and fish again?

WT?!? I didn't know you could judge the purpose of the journey by the size of somebody's quads.

I'm not sure if you are being serious or not here. But either way your point is lost.


He is not judging the purpose of the journey, but pointing out that someone doesn't get quads that big by being a casual/commuter cyclist.

Lost on you, clearly.

In any case the casual/commuter cyclist vs lycra lout is ridiculous. Most lycra louts I know commute and transport themselves on bicycles often. On Sat I did the Daddaday Tour de Babyccino (while also picking up a couple of packets of classic plunger blend for our morning hit) - even logged in on Strava for a giggle with me mates -and on Sun I did the Son-day Tour de Swings et Slides. Both completely lycra/cycle attire-free on womans bike with a kiddie seat up front and a basket on the rear. I will commute all week on a road bike looking like a hybrid lycra lout/commuter. I will be doing a 200km brevet this Sat... what category do I fit in.

My quads and calves are pretty good though.
User avatar
simonn
 
Posts: 3748
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Sydney

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

Postby Kenzo » Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:03 am

You're of the "GQ Commuter" set.. - the Gorgeous Quads Commuters...
User avatar
Kenzo
 
Posts: 1680
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:13 am
Location: Daisy Hill / Brisbane, Southside FTW

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